Do you know it was 64deg in Boston on Feb 29, 1880? Weather changes year to year. Decades, centuries, etc.
This dumb spaghetti nigger talks about context all the time and he just takes a random day from the past. What were the patterns in the area around the time and years prior? What about compared to the patterns in other locations in the world? I'm sure there have been much more outrageous weather happening in many places in history. Fuck is this? This is the dumbest kind of cherry picking from a very uneducated man.
He's smart doe guys, he remembers cereal commercial ads from the 60s!
The weather doesn't even matter in regards to global warming. The polar ice caps are melting and the sea levels are rapidly rising. This is quantifiable and doesn't rely on irrelevant temperature readings from the 19th century. I mean really how accurate were thermometers in the 1880's anyways?
Anthony is arguing with 99% of the scientific community. He should stop.
Land ice is the troubling one since it's what would affect the sea-level where as sea ice is already in the sea (and thus it melting will not significantly affect levels).
"low tide is where high tide was and high tide now"
Really? Are you that myopic? Do you really think climate change is just going to effect tides? How about severe droughts? (Do you like water shortages and paying more for fruits and vegetables?) How about disease expansion, which we are already witnessing in Florida. Check out Dengue Fever in the Florida Keys (a mosquito borne disease that was once only limited to the tropics). What about the increase in hurricane activity costing the US billions each year (Yes, a warmer ocean will increase the frequency of hurricanes). Do you like Spring & Fall? If so, say goodbye to them. We are already seeing much shortened Spring's & Fall's compared to previous decades - and they will only get shorter. Are you a fan of animal extinction? Good, because when the planet gets warmer, more animals will go extinct. Do you like fresh air and going outside? I hope not, because the air quality will significantly decrease and heat waves will become more prominent making it unbearable to be outside. These are just some things that could occur (and some are already occurring) if we don't try to mitigate our CO2 output.
You do understand that the unrest that triggered the Syrian war and the resulting refugee crisis stems mainly from a climate change induced drought? Good, because the scarcity of life-essential resources combined with the mass migration of up to 44% of the human population at the same time is probably something we should be planning for. Or not; since the massive population shifts throughout history, like the partition of India, taught us that disastrous violence will never occur because of forced migration. I imagine that when the Mississippi floods to the point of no return, all of the good folk living along the river will get along just fine with all the blacks and mexicans and Floridans who are also looking to grab the newest best spots along the basin valley.
Just a few feet of water though, please don't interrupt my sports drama.
wait until thousands of people have to relocate to your county because of sea level changes, you nitwit. In 2045 you'll be bitching and whining, forgetting how stupid you sound now.
The ice caps aren't growing as fast as they were - but not melting. But there's plenty of ice, and it's well within range to prevent the flooding that the chicken littles are predicting.
I've lived through this already, in the 70's, when it was the new Ice Age. That wasn't questioned, either, and became "fact" just because everyone repeated it. I also saw a similar campaign against eggs, which according to the news and experts, were little hand grenades of death. Now...oh, look, they're not that bad. In fact, it was the crap we sold you instead of eggs that's bad for you. Our bad. I've seen this before on a bunch of topics. Live long enough, you'll see it again, too.
For the record, I believe 100% in conservation, recycling, and a clean planet. But I'm skeptical of the media-based religion that is "global warming", or whatever it is right now - and know from people I know who work in the sciences that if you want funding these days, it has to be climate research - especially if you're willing to fudge the numbers to give the media and politicians the numbers they want - which is the dark, dirty, filthy secret of research sciences - if someone has enough money, they can get a study that says anything they want.
But, over-all, it's fine, the climate is worthy of study. But to make conclusions? We don't even really know how weather works, and able to model it reliably in a computer, let alone have for sure, factual data for what the future holds - that's pure arrogance and the "publish or die" crowd at work, along with politicians who are using it as a chicken little issue to scare everyone into voting for them.
I do believe the planet has cycles of climate, it's proven in the fossil record - and the sun has more to do with it than anything else. I love Neil Degrasse Tyson, but it disturbs me that he's on the chicken little wagon - I thought he'd be more pragmatic than that.
The best example of what's really going on is this farce called "carbon credits". It does nothing to really change anything, except make the usual suspects more wealthy using greenhouse gasses as a commodity to be bought, traded and sold. They finally managed the dream, they're making money off of AIR.
But you won't see much coverage of that on the nightly news.
Quantifiable? Depends on who you ask.
And, while the thermometers in the 1800's may be irrelevant (I guess data that doesnt work for you is bad, right?) the ones operating today are relevant, and I see endless numbers of articles from scientists who say the numbers aren't what the GW crowd claim they are, and have to redo their numbers constantly. In fact, just yesterday I saw an article about scientists who are upset because some of the researchers are only releasing select data, not all of it - and that's on top of scandal after scandal over data on the subject going back years. Hockey stick graph ring a bell? Oh, and remember those Pacific islands that were sinking? They're not. They even re-did all of their measuring equipment, and still found that the islands are not sinking. Funny that. But it wasn't a complete waste of money, because we got data for that part of the Pacific. For a while, they stopped recording sea levels there. I guess only parts of the ocean will rise - like in Democrat voting states.
Again - all for conservation, recycling, and a clean planet. Get off the oil tit. Get off the plastic tit. Put money into material sciences to push recycling further. The Republican's record for this is shit, and they need to get their act together.
But run around saying anything regarding the environment and global climate is "fact" and "quantifiable"? Nope. I'm not that dumb, and I don't listen to politicians when they say the sky is falling. I listen to scientists, and despite the claims that all of the researchers are united (they're not), I see no "quantifiable facts" at all. I see a lot of theory, a lot of research left to be done, and too many fucking chicken littles who have bought into the Global Climate religion hook line and sinker. I see a lot of disagreement and respectable scientists saying they don't know - when they're not being attacked with cute labels like "deniers".
I listen to scientists, and despite the claims that all of the researchers are united (they're not), I see no "quantifiable facts" at all.
First off, the top Climate researchers / scientists ARE in consensus. 97% or more in agreement that Climate Change is occurring and human activity is partially responsible, if not solely responsible. How is 97% not a consensus?
And, as far as YOU not seeing "quantifiable facts", who are YOU? Are you a climate scientist who has relentlessly studied the trends, the impacts and the overall effects of increased global temperature? Or, are you just an random nobody who has a slight understanding of weather? I'm assuming the latter, so why should anyone listen to your opinion regarding a subject you don't know much about?
And no, there is not a lot of disagreement within the scientific community regarding climate change, as you say. That is an outright lie.
And you said "we don't even know how the weather really works"? What the fuck does that even mean? Dude, holy shit. Yes, WE DO know how the weather works. That statement is what really disqualified you from talking about this subject.... I mean, come on, man. Wow.
I'm not a denier of climate change, nor am I all in on it and here's why:
You seem pretty confident that it's happening and that it's caused by humans. So with this knowledge, what are you doing differently in your life that you might not if there was no possibility of human-caused climate change?
Everyone likes to bash the climate change deniers while they still drive gas-powered cars, eat beef (a leading cause of methane gasses), and buy products that require the burning of endless fossil fuels to produce and ship. All while smugly shouting 97%! 97%!
The only thing they do to help is recycle their own farts by fitting their noses firmly to their own assholes.
That said, Anthony is still a raging Fox News/Drudge Report parrot.
I graduated from college with a degree in Environmental Science back in the 90's (prior to Climate Change being a concern) and now work as an analyst where I study trends / patterns within the realm of weather, biodiversity, and disease - and from my own work, coupled with the opinion of virtually 100% of the scientific community, yes, I'm confident Climate Change is occurring and human activity (particularly the burning of fossil fuels) is a contributor.
And....
The issue is not what I'm doing to curb the effects, but rather the Republican's denial of reality which serves as a roadblock for taking meaningful steps to mitigate the effects of CO2 output.
I'm not denying climate change, or human involvement. And your working in the field (and not as a shill for the oil and gas industry) makes you a contributor to curbing its effects on its own.
I'm talking about the average person who likes to point and laugh. They believe they possess some higher knowledge but use it for nothing more than to hate on the ignoramuses. They're just as unwilling to make sacrifices as the deniers, but still want to trash them. If they know that they do things that are bad for the environment, does that not make them worse than those that believe hey aren't causing a problem?
When I point and laugh, I'm laughing at the purposeful disregard people have due to their allegiance to a political party's platform. Or, people's willful ignorance regarding the facts concerning Climate Change. I believe these are the reasons people are trashing the deniers.
Currently there is a rapper, unsure of his name, who just wrote a song claiming the earth is flat, and he did it without irony. His proof? He was at a particularly high elevation (in a building or on a mountain, cant recall) and because he wasn't able to see the curvature of the earth, he dismisses the fact that the earth is not a round shaped plant but rather a flat two dimensional object.
Now, any idiot with eyes can look at images from the hubble, the ISS, or even a plane can easily conclude that the earth is round in shape. But, just because this guy, in his local environment, can't see the curvature of the earth, he is convinced the earth is flat due to his limited perspective.
Same thing with the local weather. People who deduce Climate Change isn't occurring based on their local weather are fucking ignorant idiots and deserve to be laughed at, just as that rapper does. The weather is not the climate. The weather is supposed to fluctuate.
The idea that believing in Climate Change and not actively doing something about it aren't mutually exclusive. I'm quite sure you believe, just like most of humanity, that the human slave trade is awful and should be stopped, but what are YOU doing about it?
I need to finish this but I've got a meeting......
You're right. I do believe the human slave trade is terrible and should be stopped. And you're right that I'm not doing anything to stop it. But I'm not participating in human slave trade. I don't have a 13 year old Thai girl locked in my basement. That's the difference.
Let's look at another issue so I can illustrate my point. The anti-vaccine crowd goes around spewing ignorant bullshit about mercury and mouse brains. And people point and laugh. If I bring a baby to the doctor and get the usual course of shots, then I have every right to point and laugh. But if I still blast my air conditioner all summer, buy everything from sunscreen to cheese in an aerosol can, get a new cell phone every other month, and drive my gas-powered car everywhere I go, by myself, then I don't feel right laughing at those that don't believe or don't know that they're part of the problem.
I understand your point, but again, we are laughing at the willful ignorance of individuals who claim something doesn't exist when it clearly does.
As for your scenario, we live in a world where it is almost unavoidable to escape the personal utilization of fossil fuels. Sure, we can take small steps, and collectively, it would make a difference, but until the government intervenes, or large scale manufacturers take the initiative to produce products that reduce or eliminate CO2, then not much we can do other than not purchase products - including food. For example, I'd love to rely on solar power. It's free energy! I'd love to drive a car powered by a fuel cell and only takes 4 minutes to fully recharge. I'd love to take a super fast mag-lev train when I go on vacation versus flying. But these products aren't on the market yet. Right now, if I want to live in a modern society, which I do, I don't have a choice but to purchase and partake in activities that are only offered to me.
We don't live in a society that allows us to realistically not use fossil fuels while being a productive human being. Mass acceptance of climate change would allow people and companies in the field of energy to change how everything works. It's only something that can be done with government backing and extreme organization.
The idea that we shouldn't shit on those who don't believe in it because we don't impossibly live fossil fuel free is retarded.
I'm not suggesting that we need to live free of fossil fuels to shit on those who deny climate change. What I'm saying is that in general, people do absolutely zero. I'm not advocating some faggoty hippie commune lifestyle. I'm saying there are things that can be done, but nobody is willing to give up an iota of convenience while still pretending to give a shit. It's something that we ignore completely until someone challenges it.
The thing is, even pretending to give a shit is a big plus. If everyone pretended to give a shit about climate change and believed it, larger motions would be being made right now. We also wouldn't need to give up convenience if we just had a better energy solution.
You can't just stop living in the society that you're born into. Activists who fought to end slavery probably wore clothing made from slave-picked cotton because the alternative was freeze to death in your paper-thin shack in Boston. The whole point of modern activism is to use the government to influence and gradually change those societal patterns through taxes and subsidies, because the whole human population isn't going to do it themselves. When the government makes it artificially cheaper to burn fossil fuels by taxing you and then giving the money to Exxon it's no different than taxing fresh vegetables and giving the cash to McDonalds. People are always going to eat the cheaper McDonalds food.
Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011. Renewable energy subsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.
The government is so skewed towards subsidizing the 1950's model of enterprise, god forbid one of the oligarchs has to figure out a new industry, that it's not only unrealistic to expect the average person to live by 100% of their ideals, it may be impossibly unaffordable unless change happens from the top-down.
I think that american imperialism has destroyed our global reputation; I won't be able to visit a lot of the countries that my parents were able to, while being regarded as world-saving heroes, because I'm white and we've squandered that goodwill. Certainly our own actions with killing civilians nonstop from robots 30,000 feet in the sky is a leading cause of that, but I'm not going to join fucking al Qaeda, I'm going to try to influence the government to stop those things.
I understand your point that the world we live in limits our options for making these types of lifestyle changes, but my argument is that the average person does absolutely nothing with this knowledge, while making jabs at those that they feel are ignorant.
If you knew the world was flooding, would you laugh in the face of those that didn't believe it, or would you build a boat?
Again, I don't deny that climate change is happening or that it is caused by humans. I just find it odd that so many people can laugh in the face of contrarian thought, but end their efforts at that.
Party politics just become a team sport to the plebs eventually. No different than whats happened between Sunni and Shia, Sinhalese and Tamil, Israeli and Arab, etc. It's always just about the other team being wrong and scoring a point now. There's no difference between the Sarah Palin supporting soccer moms and the #blacklivesmatter college student; both feel empowered as warriors for their tribe and they're confident that the team has somebody smart doing the thinking for them.
If the world was flooding, they'd both die deep behind enemy lines trying to sabotage the others boat; boats that never got built due to their lack of focus. I'm with ya there.
Yeah, the world may not be flooding but it's definitely turning on its head. We have Hilary Cunton against universal healthcare and Donald Trump supporting it. I'm all for crossing the aisle but this is pandering at a level I could have never imagined.
Enough about the 1970s ice age article . There's been 10,000 articles about global warming / climate change since, but that 1 article from 1970 is some sort of holy grail.
As glacial melt occurs during the daytime the fresh water spreads out over top of the more dense saltwater which stays around -2 degrees C. At night that meltwater re-freezes as a thin crust that appears to satellite imagery as normal sea ice. It eventually gets churned up enough to mix with the saltwater and stay liquid but it is a gradual, phased process. That's why some people can claim on any given day that the ice isn't receeding, it may actually be expanding.
The Maldives lost 300 feet of coastline this year. Regardless of whats right or wrong, Ant certainly isn't informed on the subject.
The ice caps aren't growing as fast as they were - but not melting. But there's plenty of ice, and it's well within range to prevent the flooding that the chicken littles are predicting.
First of all that NASA study being referenced by the IBTimes said this phenomenon spanned up to 2008. That's 8 years ago.
Second of all, the study itself disagrees with other ones and thus experts are skeptical of it:
I've lived through this already, in the 70's, when it was the new Ice Age. That wasn't questioned, either, and became "fact" just because everyone repeated it.
No, you didn't. That's a bullshit talking point that has no basis in reality. The scientific consensus was never that there was a coming ice age. That was the thought of tiny, tiny number of scientists, and was outweighed by the other scientists saying the opposite:
know from people I know who work in the sciences that if you want funding these days, it has to be climate research
As someone who works in the sciences, let me tell you that you or your "friends" (or both) are completely full of shit.
We don't even really know how weather works,
That's an awful argument. First of all, weather is far more chaotic that climate. Second of all, contrary to popular belief, predictions of weather are actually pretty damn good.
I do believe the planet has cycles of climate, it's proven in the fossil record - and the sun has more to do with it than anything else. I love Neil Degrasse Tyson, but it disturbs me that he's on the chicken little wagon - I thought he'd be more pragmatic than that.
Nobody cares about your "beliefs". We want evidence. Show us a natural cycle of climate that would explain the temperature rise we've observed for the past 100 years or so. Go ahead.
Milankovitch cycles would take tens of thousands of years to observe the same level of temperature change we've seen in just 100 years.
Why would I bother? I could spend twenty minutes debunking your shit, and at the end of that all you would do is brush it off because you'd rather not believe in climate change. It's the same reason I won't argue with holocaust deniers. They aren't interested in the overwhelming proof - they're interested in tint, miniscule outlier pieces of "evidence" that validate their agendas.
The worst thing is that he is pretty smart when it comes to science, this is just him going with whatever his right wing buddies tells him to say and act.
At least he's consistent in dismissing the root causes.
It's racial inferiority, not growing up in shithole neighborhoods with 3/4 of the male population locked up and the rest on welfare. It's not pumping millions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it's libruls.
It would probably help if we could say it in his language.
"I'm not SAYING that humans are 'genetically predisposed' to ruin their environment and behave self-destructively, but look at the numbers! The numbers don't lie! All I'm trying to do is have an open and honest conversation about statistics in human communities."
The worst thing is that he is pretty smart when it comes to science,
Kind of. When O&A had Brian Greene on, Ant tried to impress him by demonstrating his knowledge of "relativity" but was actually just describing the basic concept of frame of reference in classical physics (the velocities of objects being "relative" to the velocity of the observer). Brian Greene politely humored him.
I hear "Anthony is a smart guy" all the time on this sub, but after years of listening to him, I've never thought that. Yes he's witty, but intelligent?
It's possible to delay it long enough until humans can move to other planets. But that sort of logic and long term thinking is beyond one note conservatives.
No, not like that. The Medieval Warming Period was concentrated on certain regions (where that plot is basing itself on). Globally, however, the temperatures were far cooler than today:
The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.
That chart covers less time than the one I posted initially and conveniently stops at 1950 (which avoids 60+ years of the current trend)! So again, these were the patterns in the past hundreds of thousands of years:
[The time-scale ins kilo years BP i.e. 1000's of years before present]
Note how in the past took thousands of years in to achieve the same change in temperature that we have observed in the past 100 years. What's your explanation for this?
You tried posting the Medieval Warming Period, but were oblivious of the fact that that was only observed in certain small regions and globally the temperatures were much cooler. I can provide more evidence of that if you wish.
What point? You have none. The data clearly shows that we have achieved warming the past 100 years that had taken thousands and thousands of years to achieve in the past. To this, you have no response.
The Earth has been cooling and warming for billions of years.
And every explanation for those cooling and warming events involve processes that we can study today. Guess what? They all point to humans as the primary influence.
Do they have data from 1 million or 100 million or 1 billion years ago to prove your anecdotal evidence is correct, no.
Hard data isn't anecdotal. You asked for evidence for temperatures in the distant past and I posted data that went back to almost a million years. Now that the data debunks your argument, you insist that we need to examine data for 100 million years.
Are you conceding that you need to go back to 100,000,000 years to find a single case of climate changing as fast as it is today? If so, then you've made my case for me.
You are linking to "data" from an organization that has a vested interest in global warming existing.
Are you saying the data is false or has been tampered with? If so, please post evidence. Note how the other guy posted a chart of his own which agreed with mine...
Arguably all scientists supporting a particular theory (from relativity, to germ theory) have a "vested interest" in it. That's why there is peer-review, replication, independent reviews, etc.
Yeah, no. At best what those articles show is that the Cook et al. (2013) study miss-classified a small number of studies. That's to be expected in a study of that large scope. Errors will be made. Specially given the fact that the people claiming errors when the abstract of their study did in fact merit the classification it recieved.
What you - and the authors of those articles ("populartechnology", Hah) - are apparently oblivious to is that there are numerous different studies showing a huge consensus:
If Cook et al. (2013) had actually falsified their data, then it would disagree with the other studies that have been done on this issue. It doesn't. It agrees with them and pretty much all research done on this subject. If this was such a contentious issue with little or no consensus, that would not be the case. Are those press releases falsified too?
Haha, the authors of those articles? You didn't even read it.
Yes, the authors of the "populartechnology.net" article and the Forbes article based on it. What part of that statement did you find confusing?
They interviewed the scientists that Cook used and sourced and they called bullshit on his report because he purposely misrepresented what they claimed. Huge consensus on what exactly?
No, they interviewed a tiny fraction of the scientists. The Cook et al. paper examined 12,000 papers in total, and the articles you posted (really only one article since the Forbes article is just repeating the same claim and citing the "populartechnology" blog) could only find a tiny fraction of scientists that disagreed with how their papers were classified. Again, that's to be expected when you're examining and classifying 12,000 different papers.
The point, which you failed to address, is that that tiny error rate is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus. Furthermore, you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus. Copying and pasting the article (which you clearly don't even understand to begin with) isn't going to make these facts go away dummy.
Cook is a complete fraud. Skeptical Science is a propaganda blog site.
So you get to dismiss the evidence debunking your bullshit as propaganda, but I have to accept a site that calls itself "popular technology" to fool people into believing it's somehow similar to "popular mechanics"? Lol.
EDIT: Oh, and by they way, the Cook et al. (2013) paper also allowed thousands of authors to self-classify their studies. The consensus of the self-classification matched the the consensus based on classification done by the raters:
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own
papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).
After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not
climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received
self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of
endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated
papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed
the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a
position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as
endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored
a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the
consensus.
Andrew K from the "popular technology" blog, and James Taylor from the Forbes article. What did you think this quiz was going to achieve?
Forbes did an article on the story. They sourced and credited populartechnology because they got the scoop. That's how it works.
No shit. I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying that despite you posting two articles, the reality is that it's just one source: the popular technology blog. It's not two independent sources of information, it's one source (the blog) and another repeating the same claims (the Forbes article). That's an important distinction to make. I didn't say Forbe didn't cite their source or anything like that. You made that up.
See, you cried foul on the source like I know you would (even though they actually interviewed the scientists that Cook used) and I showed that Forbes (a more well known site) covered their findings. I'm two-steps ahead of you.
I didn't cry foul about the source. Pay attention. I pointed out your hypocrisy of wanting to dismiss my evidence as as "propaganda" while being utterly full of shit and demanding that I accept yours.
Ultimately I accepted the claims in the article as true. I then pointed out how that tiny error rate [argued in the blog you linked to] is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus, and how you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus. Copying and pasting the article (which you clearly don't even understand to begin with) isn't going to make these facts go away.
l the scientists that populartechnology interviewed said Cook purposely misrepresented their findings. The scientists had many papers examined.
False. Cook wasn't involved in the ratings. Independent raters were. Second of all, the proportion of papers they got wrong was tiny, which is why you hide behind the word "many" instead of saying exactly how many out of the 12,000. Because you know the fraction would be pathetic. Or perhaps you don't know since you've demonstrated you don't understand your own source.
The scientists who were interviewed are still having their papers sourced; accurately and inaccurately.
Huh? Sourced by who/what? What are you talking about? Why wouldn't a scientific paper not be used as a source?
So, you're saying there isn't a consensus on how much global warming is man-made only that part of it is?
What are you babbling about? There absolutely is a consensus on climate change, and how humans are involved. I already posted the evidence, which you ignored. Here it is a summary of several of their conclusions:
How was that your point when that doesn't help your case? Furthermore, why did you have a problem with my statement then?
Um, that's what you did. I only showed evidence of the data being tampered with and then you cried.
Nope, I addressed your claim by pointing out how that tiny error rate is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus. Furthermore, you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus.
Only after you tried to dismiss my sources by calling them propaganda without evidence, did I mention how full of shit you're being since I could easily dismiss yours. Now, can you respond to these points or not?
Why would someone purposely misrepresent the scientific paper? Get it?
They didn't purposefully misrepresent anything. Get it? They weren't looking at the full paper (which would take years if not decades). They were looking at the abstract. From that abstract, they tried determining which side, if any, the paper should be rated as supporting. That's not an easy task. Mistakes will be made. If you think you can rate 12,000 papers without making a mistake, you're full of shit.
There is absolutely no shred of evidence to suggest any of this was purposefully misrepresented. In fact, they would have no reason to since the self-ratings supported their criteria - a fact you've failed to address every single time now.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. At least read up on it before you open your mouth.
No, there isn't a consensus on how much is man-made.
Yes there is. An op-ed an online newspaper is not going to magically make the half a dozen or so studies showing a consensus disappear. An op-ed, by the way, that makes a slew of erroneous statements.
Huh? You had the problem with my statement, as you immediately decided to point how the Forbes wrote it's own article and cited the blog as a source... as if I hadn't said exactly that. I know what Forbe did...
I never claimed two independent sources and I made the distinction for ya. Also, made up?
And I never claimed you said two independent sources. Pay attention. I clarified as an aside. Why? Because I referred to it as two links but I wanted to make it clear - to you or anyone else that might be reading - that it's really one source.
No, you asked for evidence and I gave it. You dismissed my source and cried. Only then did I address Cook's site being shady.
False. I didn't dismiss anything. I did laugh at how it's blatantly trying to fool people into thinking it's somehow related to popular mechanics, but I didn't dismiss anything. I replied to your article accepting the truth of what it said. Speaking of which, here are all the points again, which you've STILL haven't responded to:
That tiny error rate [argued in the blog you linked to] is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus, and how you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, also known simply as the "PG", is the largest daily newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. It has won six Pulitzer Prizes since 1938. Maybe you should sue them....
I don't care how many awards the PG (not the author of that article mind you) has won. It doesn't magically do away with facts. Again, there are numerous studies - not editorial articles by journalists with no expertise on the subject - showing a consensus:
My information is from investigative journalists who interviewed scientists whose papers Cook claimed he used. But out of the 10,000 plus papers only 41 support Cook's assertion that humans have caused most of it.
That's a complete and utter bullshit. Legates allegation (from which the PG article is basing itself on... which of course you didn't know since you didn't even bother research things), is based on misrepresentation of the criteria used in the study:
Legates et al. 2013 (L13) inconsistently applies the definitions provided in C13. In
addition, L13 misrepresents C13 by fabricating a category definition (catastrophist
definition) that was not adopted in C13. L13 applies the technique of “impossible
expectation”, one of the five characteristics of science denialism (Diethelm and
McKee, 2009), to derive their argument that only 0.3% of the papers analysed in
C13 endorsed the consensus. To arrive at this value, L13 raises the standard of
endorsement of consensus to explicitly quantifying the human contribution to
more than half of global warming, ruling out thousands of abstracts that explicitly
or implicitly endorse AGW. In short, L13 derives its result by inappropriately ignoring
the 3,833 abstracts explicitly or implicitly endorsing AGW
You also ignored the fact that Cook verified his findings by having authors self-rate something you've failed at addressing for like the 5-th time now:
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own
papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).
After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not
climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received
self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of
endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated
papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed
the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a
position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as
endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored
a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the
consensus.
Hah, if you want I can show you a picture of whatever post you think it is. Of course you'll just say I undid the downvote so... Want me to actually downvote it so it can go down further?
You're the one still writing manifestos to other people in this thread. There was a message in my inbox today and I responded. Toughen up.
Yeah, I never denied I liked discussing this issue...
There was a message in my inbox today and I responded. Toughen up.
Toughen up? Lol. You literally just finished crying about how someone downvoted your post somewhere else and then you accused me...
Incredible. High school dropout and former "shock-jock" exposes the truth about climate change. It's clearly a conspiracy involving all of the most respected scientists in the world. How does he know all of this? Because it's been cold this winter...let that sink in.
Not even just high school drop-out. A man who has the judgement & commonsense to get fired because of his tweets and, given all benefit of doubt in his current case, to even be in the situation with Dani in the first place ... that's the man that we will listen to about climate change
Honestly, even though I'm 24 I'll be dead before it has any major effects (assuming I die at 65-70), so I get it. I've heard the damage is probably already done anyways, so why bother?
I'm no pussy Liberal, but what do these fuckin' gun nut, heartland types have against science? It is like admitting they fucked their sister or something.
the climate change debate is so politicised because the solutions offered by scientists would tear apart capitalism and they suspect all scientists are left leaning hippies whose end game is ultimately this, not fixing the climate.
i dunno whose correct im just a regular joe drinkin my container of coffee, let the muckity mucks sort it out you know what im saying friend?
Upvoted, you're probably right. Similarly, I used to consider myself Libertarian, but then I thought to myself: "Wait a minute: If these maniacs were allowed to operate unchecked, they'd absolutely destroy the environment." Similarly, we see what happens when they have control of medicine---> See Wu-Tang AIDS drug price gouging guy.
Maybe. Ron B's standard objection to libertarianism is we will have tainted meat without government controlled food inspection. I never think about food that much.
You should check out the work of people like Dr. Judith Curry. The idea that climate change/global warming skepticism is a bunch of rubes & isn't part of the academic debate is pure propaganda. She has lectures & Congressional testimony on YouTube to watch. Top climatologists & chairs of major universities don't have anything "against science" when they speak out against man made climate change.
And you should read what she actually says. She argues the severity of global warming and the ways we should deal with it. Completely different from denying it like these faggots do.
I read her blog daily & I've seen her speak in person. This is Grade A bullshit. There are no ways to deal with a warming planet. 10,000 years ago most of our continent was covered in ice. No one did anything to warm it, no one could have stopped it. And I'm sure Dr. Richard Lindzen who headed MIT's Meteorology department for 30 years is also a "denying faggot" when he also speaks out against climate changed and it's faked consensus. The "consensus" on climate change is a wholly contrived political tool & that's why you have celebrities like Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson & Brian Cox (not a single one of them has ever worked in the field) go on TV and sell it while completely slandering top climatologists like Lindzen as anti-science rubes.
climate changed and it's faked consensus... The "consensus" on climate change is a wholly contrived political tool
Lol, no.
There are a bunch of different studies, all investigating the issue with different methodologies, and all arriving at a large consensus. The number fluctuates depending on the type of expertise that's analyzed, and the methodology, but it's always an overwhelming majority.
Scientific consensus is what moves us forward, still talking about if humans caused it or not is a waste of time.
“There’s a saying in the scientific community, that every great truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say that it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say that they’ve known it all along.” Neil Degrasse Tyson
Climate Scientist speaks; The Manufactured Consensus 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition saying that they are falsely counted in the "X% of scientists say man made climate change is a fact" statistic. Their work has led them to the views on climate change ranging from warming is the natural pattern during our current ice age, to human impact is a factor but negligible, to there is no warming at all.
But Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a legend. Nobody has combined school teacher humor with uncle humor as flawlessly as that guy.
Holy shit. I can't say your video with 11,000 views was very convincing. Partly because the comments section revealed the type of audience this video is pandering to. The evidence supporting climate change can be easily studied, and it's been demonstrated adequately. I can't tell you how to conduct these experiments yourself, because I'm not qualified. So I choose to rely on the scientific community to make honest judgements because we know science works. Unfortunately you are married to an ideaology, and nothing I say will convince you. I would suggest looking at NASAS website, and what they have to say about global warming. The 97% figure on consensus is accurate.
It isn't. And I know I'm not going to convince anyone who is going to base a scientific evaluation from people who have dedicated their lives work to a subject on the number of YouTube views it has. But the 97% consensus has been fact checked & debunked. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 But whatever, I understand how politics go. You control the narrative, you call the other side dumb, even when it includes the top people in their field of science, and incrementally you get what you want. We'll get carbon taxes, we'll outlaw certain vehicles, the only countries that will adhere to a global government will be the wealthy ones, & the entire geological record tells us that the planet will continue to warm until the next cataclysmic catastrophe (major volcano eruption, asteroidal impact).
Do you ignore scientific consensus when it comes to medicine as well? Maybe we shouldn't vaccine our children, because a fringe minority in the scientific community believes it leads to Autism. What scientific organization do you find credible? Because the most trusted agree on climate change. If you don't think who published this video you linked is important, we disagree. Also, the rhetoric expressed in the comments section and the number of views is relevant. You can choose not to believe that if you want. Not sure I've insulted you once, simply disagreed based on reasonable evidence.
Like I said, over 31k scientists have signed a position that they were disingenuously or fraudulently including in the "consensus". No, I don't ignore scientific consensus on any issue. No they don't agree. I've referenced chairs of top universities & organizations on the field. The video is a CSPAN live feed of Congressional hearings. Attacking the source with an ad hominem is just a big nothing. Who cares who uploaded it? Are the facts presented by Dr Curry in contention? And, my bad if I'm coming across as a sperg in this. I just really love the topic. I was on the "We're all gonna die from Global Warming" side of the debate throughout college & a couple years after. So I've had years looking into this.
Stewart is referring to a survey done for the American Geophysical Union in 2009 by researchers for the University of Illinois in Chicago. Peter Doran, associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, in 2008 sent a simple survey with nine questions to more than 10,000 experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s directory of geoscience departments.
They ended up getting responses from 3,146 scientists, and then publicized the results from two questions: (1) Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? (2) Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The results? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent with the second.
So where does the 98 percent statistic come from? That’s from a subsample of the survey — climate scientists. The survey actually says the result is 97 percent, but Stewart is correct that it represented just a small group of people — 77 out of 79 people.
The 97 figure wasn't debunked. It just comes from a small sample size because, for that particular statistic, they decided to narrow their focus only to top climate scientists (with a stringent definition). When you narrow the focus with such a stringent definition, obviously the number of people goes down. However, if we go back to the original survey, with the broader scope and the large sample size, the consensus is still large. The overwhelming majority still agree with climate change. The 97% isn't false, it's just based on a smaller sub-sample. The larger sample confirms the consensus. It also makes sense since the more expertise someone has on climate change the more likely it is they will agree with AGW.
31,487 American scientists have signed a petition saying that they are falsely counted in the "X% of scientists say man made climate change is a fact" statistic.
Bullshit. The petition you're talking about is the Global Warming Petition Project. That petition did NOT say that they were falsely counted in any statistics. It's just a bunch of people signing a petition disagreeing with AGW. That doesn't mean they were "falsely counted' in anything.
The statistics showing a consensus are generally based on experts in the field that have published on climate change with graduate degrees in fields related to the topic. Those experts wouldn't be signing that ridiculous petition.
The petition you're talking about, on the other hand, counts pretty much anyone with a degree (even bachelors) in some sort of science field, even if it has nothing to do with climate. The petition isn't limited to experts while the studies showing consensus are.
In fact, that petition is such a joke that Charles Darwin, and Darth Vader "signed" that petition:
According to Robinson, the petition has over 31,000 signatories. Over 9,000 report to have a Ph.D.,[1][2][3] mostly in engineering.[5] The NIPCC (2009) Report lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with Ph.D.s.[6] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting Charles Darwin, a member of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[7]
Or even if they don't rid the world of the scourge of capitalism, they'll get to point angrily at capitalists and say they destroyed the world (or at least the coasts, which a few thousand years ago extended 50 miles more than they do now...). Pat each other on the back and say they nailed it when they claimed the right were the Bond villains of their wet dreams.
One of the greatest tricks of the 21st century was convincing right-wing Americans that they are capitalists instead of free-market ideologues. Pretty much none of us are actually capitalists, 75% live paycheck-to-paycheck and the word has lost all meaning.
that is a dumb fucking comment. the differences between race at the scientific (DNA) level is almost none. the difference between races is seen at the societal, cultural, level.
don't worry about it. you're so eager to take credit for other white people's work, innovation, or ingenuity but you forget your place.
you're a peasant. you're not going to be inventing a new rocket or curing diseases anytime soon. worry about your own accomplishments instead of taking credit for tesla or the wright brothers. fucking peon.
He, like most of you American faggots doesn't think for himself at all when it comes to politics. He picks a red or blue team and then goes shouting whatever fucking nonsense the propaganda makers for that team tell him to.
Every year since 1980 has been hotter than any previous year on record with the exception of 2001. It's literally getting hotter, every year, all over the globe. The globe, is warming.
There is no debate, this is happening. Every single year the globe gets hotter. Anthony is desperate for attention I think, he's now the ilk of Tila Tequila.
For half a century we put lead, a highly carcinogenic heavy metal, in fuel. That shit was then particulated and pumped into our air from every single running vehicle. I beat he had a cry when they introduced unleaded. Olden day peoples are the worst.
Who was he parroting when he (correctly) beat up Dani? Seemed like a pretty smart thing to do to me, but I may be a little biased against the cokewhore.
Those damn ungrateful jews! The Nazis gave them their own gated communities and ovens big enough to cook for a thousand people at a time, and they turn it into some paranoid genocide fantasy. They had access to the most advanced medical research of the age! What more could they have done for them?
Remember when Ant bragged that his gas bill was $3500 a month because he keeps his pool at 95 degrees (this is because he's part black). I bet he sits in a luke warm pool and looks at his upcoming guest list of Bob Levy, Joe Devito, Bob Levy, Frank, Big A and hates himself.
Unfortunately iq has nothing to do with ideology. If he was raised different he wouldnt deny. Hes into science and reasoned skepticism but his dad and being an emotional kid being picked on by blacks had a big effect
Anthony isn't even in the economic class that Sanders would aggressively tax anymore. I don't get why he's so against him, I guess it's hard to quit old habits
Anthony is a stupid asshole. Anyone can seem smart when sitting next to Opie for 20 years. Meanwhile he never graduated high school, in the fucking 70's no less.
Isn't a bigger problem not if it is or isn't happening but the fact that pretty much all the things that attribute to it don't really need to be here anymore? We can start to faze out gas and oil as we fine tune clean energy sources. Even if you do not believe in global warming you can look at the areas where they put in fracking operations and how it destroys the areas and causes health issues. The pipeline accidents that happen on a weekly basis now and yet they keep pushing for more. We could be self sustaining and it wouldn't kill the economy....it would just destroy some big corporations which....does not bother me one bit. I've been screwed over by a couple so fuck em. And don't get me started on all the shit being dumped in the ocean and other water ways. This kinda horseshit from ant is why I stopped stealing his show. Two episodes in a row he talked some ignorant shit about fracking being safe and then followed it up with saying Monsanto is a good company. Yuck. Fucking old Fox news ideal promoting ass clown cumia. Still makes me laugh though. Just not enough to steal his show anymore.
Yeah I understand that but it is time to change. As a species we have evolved as things changed before and we will again. Some of us might be broke for a while but hey....I've been there before. Just have to figure it out.
Thats unfortunate. Will we flood tomorrow? No Was gore an exaggerating ass who made people distrust science? Yes. But you cant dump megatons of co2 into the atmosphere and not think there wont be any effect
Was gore an exaggerating ass who made people distrust science? Yes.
Actually, despite popular belief, he didn't really exaggerate. His statements where misrepresented.
He cited two different studies for the rise in sea levels. One presenting the best estimates at the time (~15 years or so ago) and another one representing the worst-case scenario. People took the worst-case scenario and passed it off as it that was his prediction.
You are a fucking momo. Its not THAT co2 is present. Its how much. I stayed quiet until i read that. I have 3 scientists in my family, ive been into science my whole life.... and your statement about how we already have co2 disqualifies you from this. You are a moron
About 100 or 200 billion tons. Do you realize that its aggregate past the point of nominal photosynthetic use? For instance carbon monoxide in minute amounts in your blood isnt toxic, but if its still there over time it causes major respiratory and brain problems
Great you googled things to say but the problem is that stupid fucking 'aggregate' bullshit and..
..reality. Co2 rises aren't doing anything but (according to NASA) massively greening the planet.
Like.. you know how if you WANT lush warm super fruits you build a greenhouse. Cuz its awesome for life.
But in this case it can't be compared to your backyard greenhouse because what man contributes isn't even CLOSE to that level of goodness. Its insignificant.
and again, you are a fucking tard if you think saying 'billions' means anything here.
"When a volcano goes off its way more then all the industry on earth puts out in a day" is that your next fallacious arguement. Ive heard them all debunked or knew they were bs even from my lowly undetstanding of physics and chemistry. P.s. volcanos dont go off every day since 1880
wow truth must have hurt for you to make up something else, post it 'for me' so you think you could defeat it and thereby move that win to cover all other things.
You're the one breaking this into black and white. Im not a bernie sociialist... im not anti corporate... we have time to fix it without g9v butting in i just know science. Im using science to debunk you. You are repeating simplistc ad hominem attacks
Lol. Ok i guess you ran out of smart. 20 percent co2 is good. More is too much for algae and trees to use. That either stays in atmosphere and soaks up heat which convection transfers to ocean currents. Those inturn alter direction underwater which effects weather. Oooorrrrr it chemically bond to compounds like ammonia and benzene
Omg you were serious... so by your "warm is good cold is bad baby logic, the sunny side of mercury should be green. I answered why too much CO2 is bad. Your ignoring it because you are an idealogue.
Oh, then almost nothing since millions of tons of co2 would be a ridiculously tiny number compared to our atmosphere.
Why would it need to be "compared to our atmosphere"? Tiny droplets of cyanide are nothing "compared to the trillions of molecules of water in this drink", therefore cyanide doesn't do anything. Right?
What matters is how much forcing CO2 is responsible for, and the amount humans release directly or indirectly is significant.
So you just disqualified yourself. Way to go dumbfuck.
but just to shame you more. Yes actually a tiny microscopic amount of cyanide in a large glass of water that already has tiny amounts of cyanide wont make a difference.
So you just disqualified yourself. Way to go dumbfuck.
So instead of responding to the main point, you decide to go after the analogy? Again, why would it need to be "compared to our atmosphere"? It doesn't.
but just to shame you more. Yes actually a tiny microscopic amount of cyanide in a large glass of water that already has tiny amounts of cyanide wont make a difference.
Nonsense. It would absolutely make a difference. Cyanide isn't some binary level of fatality where you either die 100% of the time or die 0% of the time. The higher the dosage the more likely the dose will be fatal, thus adding more cyanide would in fact matter.
So instead of responding to the main point, you decide to go after the analogy?
No, I did both.
Listen carefully, putting aside that co2 is life-giving and protects our planet and lives and not 'small amounts of poison' I need you to understand some scientific facts:
There isn't enough Co2 being contributed by man to make any meaningful difference.
End.
You fucking did nothing and didn't even contradict anything I told you failtard.
Okay, so where was your explanation of why the CO2 would need to be compared relative to the entire atmosphere? Go ahead and quote where you explained that.
There isn't enough Co2 being contributed by man to make any meaningful difference.
Yes there is. First of all, CO2 levels are literally off the charts now. The natural (i.e. non-human) sources are in equilibrium so that that the fluctuate up and down in CO2 levels (as can be seen in the past); thus humans are to blame for bucking this trend and sending levels off the charts:
Second of all, we do observe differences. Again, not only have we sent CO2 levels off the charts (which is already a difference), but that has caused an increase in temperature.
No they are not and it doesn't matter if they were.
Yes they are, and it absolutely would matter. I literally just showed you the graph showing CO2 levels going way above the past 400k years.
Thus nobody cares because co2 levels go up and down and it doesn't have any meaningful difference to our lives on Earth.
Wrong. It won't "go up and down" like in the previous cycles precisely because the CO2 being added now does not fit within those natural cycles of CO2 which were in equilibrium. This is additional CO2 that doesn't fit that process.
Whether you care or not is another issue. Facts don't change based on whether you care about them.
It would be great if there was a tiny increase in global temperatures but there isn't.
Yes there is, and I literally just showed you this:
Yes they are, and it absolutely would matter. I literally just showed you the graph showing CO2 levels going way above the past 400k years.
Humans haven't been contributing Co2 for the last 400k years and guess what terrible things happened:
-The Ice Ages melted and now amazing trees, green grass and animals and people live in places once dead from cold.
Wrong. It won't "go up and down"
Yes it has. Its gone up and down. The natural levels go up and down too.
This is additional CO2 that doesn't fit that process.
Yes it does. It's part of the atmosphere and works just fine.
Yes there is, and I literally just showed you this:
What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
Humans haven't been contributing Co2 for the last 400k years and guess what terrible things happened:
-The Ice Ages melted and now amazing trees, green grass and animals and people live in places once dead from cold.
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
Yes it has. Its gone up and down. The natural levels go up and down too.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
Yes it does. It's part of the atmosphere and works just fine.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
So now what?
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising.
Im owning you and that's why your panic posting all that megashit.
So now let me shame you some more. sea levels are still rising. Then they slowed down. then rise. Since the ice age were told.
What will happen?
You know the largest human migration in the history of the world is happening TODAY. 500 million people migrating across a vast land to the East.
It happens in China. Today. The population of the USA moving in a decade and many or most from poverty.
Do you know know what they do?
Get on a bus. A train. a day later they have moved.
Do you know WITHOUT rising sea levels we just constantly tear down buildings and then build new ones on various sides of the city.
Over 100 years without doing anything different than we do now entire cities like New York would simple 'grow and spread' accordingly .
So now what? More of your fantasy stories about what will happen in the future just-you-wait?
Even though what you describe from your imagination isn't a problem to anyone anyways.
Yeah, no. You don't get to ignore my points and then expect me to respond to yours. Either address what I said or admit that you cannot. Then I'll move on your recent nonsense.
Humans haven't been contributing Co2 for the last 400k years and guess what terrible things happened:
-The Ice Ages melted and now amazing trees, green grass and animals and people live in places once dead from cold.
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
Yes it has. Its gone up and down. The natural levels go up and down too.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
Yes it does. It's part of the atmosphere and works just fine.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
So now what?
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
You know the largest human migration in the history of the world is happening TODAY. 500 million people migrating across a vast land to the East.
It happens in China. Today. The population of the USA moving in a decade and many or most from poverty.
Do you know know what they do? Get on a bus. A train. a day later they have moved.
Do you know WITHOUT rising sea levels we just constantly tear down buildings and then build new ones on various sides of the city. Over 100 years without doing anything different than we do now entire cities like New York would simple 'grow and spread' accordingly .
Yeah, no. You don't get to ignore my points and then expect me to respond to yours. Either address what I said or admit that you cannot. Then I'll move on your recent nonsense.
Humans haven't been contributing Co2 for the last 400k years and guess what terrible things happened:
-The Ice Ages melted and now amazing trees, green grass and animals and people live in places once dead from cold.
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
Yes it has. Its gone up and down. The natural levels go up and down too.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
Yes it does. It's part of the atmosphere and works just fine.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
So now what?
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
Yeah, no. You don't get to ignore my points and then expect me to respond to yours. Either address what I said or admit that you cannot. Then I'll move on your recent nonsense.
Humans haven't been contributing Co2 for the last 400k years and guess what terrible things happened:
-The Ice Ages melted and now amazing trees, green grass and animals and people live in places once dead from cold.
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
Yes it has. Its gone up and down. The natural levels go up and down too.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
Yes it does. It's part of the atmosphere and works just fine.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
So now what?
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
he saw the attention Kurt Metzger got from a twitter meltdown and he's jealous and thrashing about. Devito and Levy are the two guests he can get. He's old. His hair replacements look ridiculous like a wig your grandmother got from Macys clearance. He's about to rub shit in his plugs and go running down 7th avenue.
I have a question for deniers: What's the worst outcome if global warming is a big fat hoax and we go all-in on trying to stop it? Some profits lost for big corporations? What's the inverse situation look like, where the polar ice caps do melt and oceans rise and all the worst climate disasters imaginable start to increase in frequency? How many lives is some money worth.
Okay its because people usually champion global warming because (in their minds) they think its 'against religious types' and is something to help liberal-progressive 'sides'.
Then they are ignorant or rather easily fooled by smarter types and in this example are told:
Global Warming is real andthereforethesocialistsolutionsarereal but anyone who denies this is a 'denier' (remember the term holocaust denier?).
It means they deny ANY co2 (we know you feel that might be the gas that kills people and count on you to confuse it with carbon monoxide) but it means they deny ANY Co2 is doing ANY changes.
The fool accept this and even sees a juicy way to feel superior and enlightened and chortle about those who 'deny global warming' because they foolishly believe it means they 'deny ANY and ALL effects'.
And after all its called 'Climate Change' right? Wow.. they don't know that Climate CHANGES!?!?! jack jack jack jack myself because I TOTALLY KNOW CLIMATE CHANGES JACK JERK JERKKKKK!
Anyways to you mindless dumbfucks. everyone on the fucking planet agrees that:
Climate FUCKING CHANGES YOU FUCKING IDIOT
humans release Co2 as do spiders, apples, your lungs when you exhale and add more life-giving Co2 to the atmosphere even if its a tiny % of the atmosphere.
and EVERYONE ALWAYS AGREES Co2 is a 'greenhouse gas'. There might be mitigating factors etc but yes in theory its a greenhouse gas for which we thank God because we'd die without greenhouse gasses and love greenhouses.
The ONLY thing Global Warming skeptics are telling you is that any effects of AGW (mans contribution to the atmosphere) are so small, so mitigated by other much greater factors, so inconsequential or if anything beneficial that it becomes for all practical purposes nothing to bother with and nothing that will make any meaningful change in our lives or anything elses lives.
Get it yet? Because its been about a full decade since that stupid fucking Global Warming shit ought to be called 'debunked' and yet in 2016 dumbfuck fools STILL repeat the same shit about it.
Table SPM.6 does not predict a 2 meter increase by 2015. Moreover, Table SPM.6 contains many different scenarios so you would have to specify which scenario you are talking about even if it did.
In fact, if you look at Table SPM.1 you'll see the actual predictions of sea-level rise by 2090-2099 for different scenarios. None of those are even a 2m change, and that's for 2090!
There are several measurements within the table. All the measurements are around 2m. At the time it was published many took the table to say around 2m. Even the .8m rise predicted on the lower predictions is devastating. And it's not happening. Just as how I've pointed out to you that warming has stalled and from 2007 to 2015 mean temperatures had dropped, even your source indicated that.
And none of them are predictions for 2015. You made that up.
All the measurements are around 2m.
Actually only half of them contain measurements in the 2m range, and and only in the upper-end of the confidence interval. But again, that's moot since that table doesn't contain predictions for 2015. You made that up.
At the time it was published many took the table to say around 2m.
No, they didn't. You made that up.
Their actual predictions are contained in Table SPM.1 Go ahead and look at it. Read the title of the table. What does it say? "Table SPM.1. Projected global average surface warming and sea level rise at the end of the 21st century."
Those are their projections, and they are projections by the end of the century (2090 to 2099) not by 2015 as you claimed. Those predictions are for different scenarios of CO2 emissions and responses. None of those project a 2m change; not even for 2090!
Ok look at your first link, it clearly shows temps dropping after 2006/7. The rest is a prediction. That it falls into a wide range of possible predictions doesn't mean my claim was wrong.
You say sea level has risen yet none of your sources show it. If they do please point it out.
Ok look at your first link, it clearly shows temps dropping after 2006/7
And then going back up. The fact that they dropped in 2 years doesn't mean the trend of the temperatures isn't one of increase. There is variability in the temperatures, so they are expected to fluctuate but the key point is the still maintain a trend of increase:
EDIT: Changed graph to one that illustrates my point even better.
That it falls into a wide range of possible predictions doesn't mean my claim was wrong.
It absolutely does. You claimed that the consequences of the models predicted "weren't happening at all". The fact that they fall within the model predictions shows you that that claim is wrong. They are happening.
You say sea level has risen yet none of your sources show it. If they do please point it out.
I was focusing on temperatures, but you're wrong about sea-levels as well:
Mean temperature = average. It doesn't matter where it ended up. from 2007-2015 it dipped meaning mean temperature dropped.
No, it didn't. That graph didn't even have data for 2015... It stopped at 2010.
The point of that graph was to show how it matched model predictions, which you claimed weren't happening. They were. That graph shows you nicely how observations were well within the observations.
The claim that warming stopped in recent years has been thoroughly debunked.
The [Economists with expertise in analyzing trends and data] were told that the data referred to agricultural output and were asked questions about whether the agricultural output had “stopped”. In fact, the authors took exact statements from a climate contrarian, except they replaced words associated with global warming with statements associated with agricultural productivity.
In this blind test, the experts strongly rejected the agricultural “pause” conclusion. In fact, they found mention of a pause “to be misleading and ill-informed”. The experts were divided about whether the “pause” statement was also fraudulent. What is particularly convincing is that a blind test like this, which removes the effects of personal biases or preconceived opinions, is the gold standard for many research areas.
You didn't address the issue of sea level rise, so I'm assuming you concede that point. You also didn't address the issue of whether observed temperatures fell within the predictions of the models, so I'm assuming you concede that as well.
Most of them have an opinion, and that opinion is that their scientifically-inclined and educated peers are correct in their 99.99% consensus that the earth is warming and that it's due to human activity.
I shouldnt even have to respond to this but yes collectively as a organization they are beyond fucking retarded and massive liars. No one ever went to the Moon and if you believe that you might as well believe the Avengers are real also.
of course the climate changes. Mans contribution to that is negligible at best. nothing we do is going to counteract the natural cycle of things. Man Made global warming is a scam to fleece the public.
Because they are using it as an excuse to tax the shit out of people and waste money. The "science" is highly politicized as well. They've proven a correlation between carbon production and rising temperatures, but they were unable to specifically quantify just how much and at what rate human beings are able to influence climate change.
So most people think they should throw more money at the government and hope for results. If you don't believe this false logic, you must be a "Denier".
What a bunch of faggots, you bitches are. Oh-Boo-Hoo! Anthony doesn't believe Al Gore and The New Ice Age via 1970-80s...errr...Global Warming 1990s-2000s..errr.....Climate Change...errr...Todays line of horse shit form the white guilt, we hate ourselves sperm burpers.
Maybe it has something to do with the planet's temperature staying steady for the past 15 years, Al Gore saying the Ice Caps would be melted by 2013, NOAA, NASA, AND IPCC getting caught cooking their books,
The "97%" Of scientists claim is total bullshit, and of course you fucking morons eat it up.
You left wing closeted Opie fans are fucking dumb.
"Yaaaaa maaaaannn! ManBearPig is a Big Oil conspiracy maaaaannnn!
You people are like dumb little teenagers who think they fight the system by saying dumb things.
Maybe it has something to do with the planet's temperature staying steady for the past 15 years,
It hasn't stayed steady for the past 15 years. Focusing on only a small number of years like 10 or 15 you can make anything appear as if it had stopped. That's not how you examine a trend.
In fact, a recent study had economists with expertise in analyze trends in data, analyze climate data without knowing it (they were told it was for some agricultural output for some country). The economists in this blind test rejected the notion that agricultural outputs had stalled:
The experts were told that the data referred to agricultural output and were asked questions about whether the agricultural output had “stopped”. In fact, the authors took exact statements from a climate contrarian, except they replaced words associated with global warming with statements associated with agricultural productivity.
In this blind test, the experts strongly rejected the agricultural “pause” conclusion. In fact, they found mention of a pause “to be misleading and ill-informed”. The experts were divided about whether the “pause” statement was also fraudulent. What is particularly convincing is that a blind test like this, which removes the effects of personal biases or preconceived opinions, is the gold standard for many research areas.
Al Gore saying the Ice Caps would be melted by 2013
Actually, he didn't say that. First of all, he made it clear that he was talking about melted ice-caps in the summer. Ice-caps go up and down during the year, and they are at their lowest in the summer. Saying that they would be melted in the summer is different than saying they would be melted all year.
Second of all, he cited two different studies. One meant to represent an average prediction at that time (which was nearly 15 years ago back then), and then he cited a worst-case scenario. Dishonest people took the worst-case scenario and pretended that's what he endorsed. He didn't.
NOAA, NASA, AND IPCC getting caught cooking their books,
'So you can't provide a single shred of evidence for your accusation that thousands of scientists are committing fraud?"
Which scientists? Biologists? Medical researchers? Or CLIMATE CHANGE scientists, who have been CAUGHT lying, and need the manbearpig conspiracy to stay afloat to get grants and MONEY. They also get promotions for peddling the bullshit. If scientists put forth evidence debunking the climate change cult, they can get fired from their job, publicly mocked and have their career destroyed by morons like you who call them "deniers."
Your claim goes like this..."97% of child psychiatrists who promote pedophilia as not a bad thing say pedophilia is not damaging to a child."
With Climate change, not only is the statistic deceptive, but it is completely wrong. 97% of climate scientists do not agree ManBearPig is out to get everyone. You people are paranoid and afraid of your own shadow. Then when the 97% statistic get proven wrong they then proclaim..."Yeah, its actually 99%!" LIES!
Both Gore's Claims are fucking stupid, and he made both claims for a reason you idiot. And....The fucking ice caps are growing.
You people are calling it a 'huge disceptive conspiracy against gore" When Maslowski(one of the idiots who Gore gets his pseudo-science from) said the Ice Caps would be NEAR ICE FREE.
Do you know what the Climategate e-mails are? of course you don't, you only read skepticalpseudo-science.com. if a news outlet has "SCIENCE!" in it's title, you fools think it is automatically credible. It is akin to how people think Snopes is an actual authority on truth when it is run by a fat husband and wife with no investigative backgrounds, or degrees, and hire message board regulars to write articles 'debunking' things. You people are a complete laughing stock.
Al Gore said the Ice Caps would be completely melted. Your response "Nuh-uh, he said only during the summer months that ManBearPig would eat all the ice." In cult-like fashion, might I add. I am convinced you don't realize how stupid your responses are, I really am. Your brain has rotted away with paranoia, a gaia-hero complex and pseudo-science.
It appears you like the Guardian. Maybe you missed this article.
Scientists have been fear mongering this global warming horseshit for decades. It's nothing new. They always make dumb predictions based off pseudo-science meant for profit, and the claims never even come close to happening. And there is always some dumb excuse accompanied with it when the fear mongering is proven false.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
Skeptical Science has a pro-global warming agenda, and does not post the scandals surrounding the CC agenda.
It is like a religion with you people, you dont care about the facts.
Which scientists? Biologists? Medical researchers? Or CLIMATE CHANGE scientists,
What do you mean which scientists? You're the one making the accusation. You tell me!
With Climate change, not only is the statistic deceptive, but it is completely wrong. 97% of climate scientists do not agree ManBearPig is out to get everyone. You people are paranoid and afraid of your own shadow. Then when the 97% statistic get proven wrong they then proclaim..."Yeah, its actually 99%!" LIES!
I didn't ask for a rambling mess. I asked you for evidence. Do you have evidence that there is no consensus? If so, post it in a clear fashion. If not, spare me your lunacy.
Your claim goes like this..."97% of child psychiatrists who promote pedophilia as not a bad thing say pedophilia is not damaging to a child."
No, the claim is not remotely close to that. The claim is there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists that believe humans are largely responsible for the recent warming trend. There are many different studies supporting this fact.
Both Gore's Claims are fucking stupid, and he made both claims for a reason you idiot.
No, actually, he didn't. This is Al Gore's quote:
Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.2
22 years from 2007 is not 2013 or 2015 as you claimed. Like I already told you, he mentioned two studies. One representing common views at the time, and one representing a worst-case scenario. You are dishonestly focusing on the worst-case scenario which he never endorsed.
And...The fucking ice caps are growing.
No, they are not. You don't know what you're talking about:
Notice how each year the extent of the ice in the ice caps is lower and lower.
Do you know what the Climategate e-mails are?
Yes, I do. Do you know that 8 independent investigations - from different organizations and spanning multiple countries - all found the scientists innocent of any fraud?
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17] However, the reports urged the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future, and to regain public confidence following this media storm, with "more efforts than ever to make available all their supporting data - right down to the computer codes they use - to allow their findings to be properly verified". Climate scientists and organisations pledged to improve scientific research and collaboration with other researchers by improving data management and opening up access to data, and to honour any freedom of information requests that relate to climate science.[16]
I find it interesting you didn't address any of my links. And climategate is not about 'criminality, it's about scientists admitting their claims about climate change are WRONG. You are really stupid, lol. The UN is promoting climate change, why would they indict themselves? Just WOW, you are fucking stupid.
Yup, you are a cultist. WATCH OUT! MANBEARPIG IS BEHIND YOU!
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#3d02ef56988d
I find it interesting you didn't address any of my links.
I'm not going to go through a bunch of links with no indication of what's in them. Like I said, if you have evidence post it in a coherent matter. Tell me what it supposedly addresses and then quote where you believe it does. Don't just dump a bunch of links like I'm supposed to read your mind.
And climategate is not about 'criminality, it's about scientists admitting their claims about climate change are WRONG.
Except they didn't admit the claims were wrong. You made that up. Here:
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations.[17]
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#3d02ef56988d
Why should we believe "James Taylor" - who had no material knowledge of anything - over the 8 different independent investigations (formed with bi-partisan support and with access to all the evidence, unlike Taylor), all of which exonerated the scientists?
The e-mails were leaked you fucking retard. James Taylor did not make up what was in the e-mails. So the forbes article is another pesky conspiracy theory?
And yes, they did admit the claims were wrong, but this whole thing is political so the best course of action FOR THEM was to just go along with it.
And stop posting wikipedia, it shows you didnt even know what Climategate was until I brought it up. Thats always what people do when they are clueless, they run to wikipedia.
So what is written on Schumer and Metzgers wikipedia page by trolls of this subreddit is factual, because it is on wikipedia? Dude, your are a joke, just take a seat.
You keep bringing up criminality, but no one but you and your shitty wikipedia reference mentioned criminality.
How many nations said Hussein had WMD's in Iraq? Your logic is so fucking retarded. "indepdent investigation", lol. Your understanding of politics is so childish.
Some e-mails were leaked; not all of them. There is also plenty of other evidence in the form of their data, their paper correspondence, the computers they own, etc. You don't know what you're talking about.
James Taylor did not make up what was in the e-mails. So the forbes article is another pesky conspiracy theory?
What he did was take them out of context (or actually read them out of context since that's how they were released). In context, they do not support his claims as the 8 different investigations showed. Since you like editorials, lets take an editorial from Nature:
Much of the media frenzy over the e-mail release in 2009 was prompted by the high political profile of climate change at the time. Nations were preparing for the heavily hyped and ill-fated Copenhagen summit, and soon afterwards a blunder in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report about melting Himalayan glaciers added to the sense of climate science not being what it seemed. Climategate 2 came just ahead of the latest round of United Nations climate talks in Durban, South Africa, but that meeting is lower profile. It is harder to draw attention when fewer eyes are on the subject.
There is also the sense that many in the media felt cheated by the original Climategate. They were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear. Many will not make the same mistake — to write headlines first and ask questions later — again. Plus, it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context.
None of the independent investigations that followed the 2009 release found any hints of scientific misconduct. Critics won't find any in the new batch either — the animated discussions that the highlighted e-mails do include, not shy of strong personal opinions and the occasionally harsh judgement concerning the quality of this or that piece of work, never really stray from sound normal science.
And stop posting wikipedia, it shows you didnt even know what Climategate was until I brought it up. Thats always what people do when they are clueless, they run to wikipedia.
No, it shows I back up what I say with evidence and wikipedia is an excellent resource for me to link to. Ironically, you clearly didn't know about the investigations and are now scrambling to defend your position and have resorted to hastily googling any article you can find as if an editorial carried any more weight than 8 investigations.
So what is written on Schumer and Metzgers wikipedia page by trolls of this subreddit is factual, because it is on wikipedia? Dude, your are a joke, just take a seat.
No, you should believe it's true because Wikipedia cites the original sources in its references; unlike the hilarious edits done by those trolls. You don't have to believe the article, you can go down to the reference list and check for yourself. Your excuse for dismissing Wikipedia doesn't work.
You keep bringing up criminality, but no one but you and your shitty wikipedia reference mentioned criminality.
I didn't bring up criminality. You did. I said they were exonerated of any wrong doing or misconduct. Any. There were no ethical charges against them, no civil suits, no terminations, no suspensions, no nothing.
How many nations said Hussein had WMD's in Iraq? Your logic is so fucking retarded. "indepdent investigation", lol. Your understanding of politics is so childish.
Since that article was written, climate scientists have been caught dozens of times corrupting data. And you didn't even know what Climate gate was until I brought it up.
"I didn't bring up criminality. You did. "
You are retarded. I brought up climate gate and you sent a link talking about criminality from wikipedia.
"No, it shows I back up what I say with evidence and wikipedia is an excellent resource for me to link to. Ironically, you clearly didn't know about the investigations and are now scrambling to defend your position and have resorted to hastily googling any article you can find as if an editorial carried any more weight than 8 investigations."
100% pure projection and stupidity. I accused you of doing that....Then in the very next response, you accuse me of doing it? It's amazing how little shame you have. Do you have a borderline personality disorder by chance?
You must be an Amy Schumer fan.
"You should add a few more "LOL" and exclamation points!!! That will make it more convincing."
You think I should use italics instead?
"Any. There were no ethical charges against them, no civil suits, no terminations, no suspensions, no nothing."
The Mizzou professor was not fired after using a mob to physical remove a journalist who had done nothing wrong. Again, these universities, institutions, etc have a vested interest in climate change, and need the lie to keep getting the money.
Your geopolitical understanding of the real world is embarrassingly out of touch.
Since that article was written, climate scientists have been caught dozens of times corrupting data. And you didn't even know what Climate gate was until I brought it up.
Really? Show me an investigation where they were found guilty. Your track record in this discussion is abysmal, so I'm not going to take your word for it.
And you didn't even know what Climate gate was until I brought it up.
Nope. You can repeat that same nonsense all you want, it doesn't make it true. In fact, here's me discussing this very topic 9 months ago:
Notice how I'm citing the findings of several of the committees that investigated the issue. I've discussed this issue since it first became a story, but that link should be enough to show that you're wrong yet again.
You are retarded. I brought up climate gate and you sent a link talking about criminality from wikipedia.
Nope. I sent you a link to the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article discusses all aspects of that topic. You were the one who first talked about "criminality" because you wanted to make it seem as if they were found not-guilty of criminal charges but where found guilty of something else. They weren't. They were not found guilty of anything. There were no ethical charges against them, no civil suits, no terminations, no suspensions, no nothing.
The Mizzou professor was not fired after using a mob to physical remove a journalist who had done nothing wrong. Again, these universities, institutions, etc have a vested interest in climate change, and need the lie to keep getting the money.
Actually, she was charged with a crime and was suspended. You are, yet again, completely uninformed.
"Really? Show me an investigation where they were found guilty. Your track record in this discussion is abysmal, so I'm not going to take your word for it."
Skepitcalpseudoscience, has contributor that work at one of the Universities mentioned in the Climate Gate e-mails, lol. Your resources are total crap, and have a reeking conflict of interest on these topics. Same with these 'super investigators' you claim busted the case. Penn State for example would have lost large sums of money had they suspended, or did anything to their professor. Same with the 'super investigators' out of Britain.
All one has to do is look at that climate gate 'gang of eight, super investigators' too see a blatant bias, conflict of interest, and financial cause of concern for the parties affected.
And again, your go-to resource, Skepticalpseudoscience has a contributor that works at East Anglia, one of the Universities mentioned in ClimateGate.
My point about the Mizzo professor is she was not suspended immediately after the video tape was released. I am fully aware she has been arrested.. The point was, she was recorded on video, pushing someone and getting a mob to harass a journalist, and this did not get her suspended. Once charges are pressed, the school is basically forced out of procedure to suspend her, and she is not fired.
Per your wikipedia source:
"Independent reviews by FactCheck "
FactCheck is not 'independent' and has a known, bias and agenda. Just as Politifact(which got its 2012 lie of the year wrong), and the rest of those gimmicky 'fact checking' fraudulent websites.
All of your 'independent investigators' are 1. not independent 2. have a known bias 3. or have a vested financial interest in making sure innocence was found.
I sent several links several posts ago showing scientists have been caught engaging in fraud, ClimateGate was only a single talking point, and had nothing to do with all the other links I provided. You conveniently refused to respond to them.
Skepitcalpseudoscience, has contributor that work at one of the Universities mentioned in the Climate Gate e-mails, lol.
...
All one has to do is look at that climate gate 'gang of eight, super investigators' too see a blatant bias, conflict of interest, and financial cause of concern for the parties affected.
Pay attention. Everyone involved in the climate gate e-mails was shown to be innocent in 8 investigations.
My point about the Mizzo professor is she was not suspended immediately after the video tape was released.
Because universities... investigate things before they act. You said they did nothing. You were wrong, as usual. They did. Your example doesn't work.
Per your wikipedia source: "Independent reviews by FactCheck "
FactCheck is not 'independent' and has a known, bias and agenda. Just as Politifact(which got its 2012 lie of the year wrong), and the rest of those gimmicky 'fact checking' fraudulent websites.
First of all, you cut-off the sentence, the full sentence is:
Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man-made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct.
Second of all, and more importantly, those weren't the investigations I was talking about. I'm not talking about some website, I'm talking about things like this:
From the report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[89]
From the report by the Science Assessment Panel:
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."[62]
Get it? I'm not talking about FactCheck.org or the AP when I'm talking about independent investigations by committees formed to thoroughly investigate the issue. You would know this if you read the article instead of just desperately trying to search for something to discredit what I said and then embarrassing yourself.
I sent several links several posts ago... You conveniently refused to respond to them.
No, I told you I wasn't going to go looking through a half a dozen links you randomly dumped. That's not how this works. If you think those links address something, then tell me what it is and quote exactly where you think it addresses it. Then I'll respond.
Obviously you didn't even read the article and got fooled by the click-bait title like an idiot. From your own article:
But overall the Met Office said the trend would continue to be a gradual creeping upwards over a longer timespan, so the threat of climate change remains real.
A Met Office spokesman said: "There is some indication of continued cool conditions in the Southern Ocean and of relatively cool conditions in the north Atlantic.
"The latter is potentially important for climate impacts over Europe, America and Africa."
But he warned there would be slight increases in some areas, mainly in the very far northern latitudes.
He said: "Averaged over the five-year period 2016-2020, forecast patterns suggest enhanced warming over land, and at high northern latitudes.
"This forecast also suggests global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be well within, or even in the upper half, of the range of warming expected by the CMIP5 models, as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
The forecast is an average rise of between 0.28C and 0.77C above the long-term average for 1981 to 2010.
"Pay attention. Everyone involved in the climate gate e-mails was shown to be innocent in 8 investigations."
Pay attention....CON-FLICT...OF...IN-TER-EST.
"First of all, you cut-off the sentence, the full sentence is:"
So what, the rest of the sentence adds nothing. The AP was caught reporting the scandal terribly and manipulatively as well, I wanted to highlight FactCheck, seeing as they are a gimmicky shit pile no one respects but those who read Snopes. AP has respect, but only due to it's size,and in regards to climategate engaged in egregious reporting of the facts.
there is a pattern with things going over your head.
"Because universities... investigate things before they act. You said they did nothing. You were wrong, as usual. They did. Your example doesn't work."
It was recorded on video. The incident in question was not a matter of opinion or anonymous allegations. Had she been on video selling coke it would not taken as long. She was only suspended because she was arrested. Because she was helping promote an agenda, she was not immediately disciplined. It only further demonstrates my point, seeing as the president was forced to step down, for financial purposes, and for politics as usual.
When POLITICS is involved, Universities and investigators are hesitant to act, especially when large sums of money are involved.
"Get it? I'm not talking about FactCheck.org or the AP when I'm talking about independent investigations by committees formed to thoroughly investigate the issue. You would know this if you read the article instead of just desperately trying to search for something to discredit what I said and then embarrassing yourself."
I know that you fucking idiot.
"No, I told you I wasn't going to go looking through a half a dozen links you randomly dumped. That's not how this works. If you think those links address something, then tell me what it is and quote exactly where you think it addresses it. Then I'll respond."
You are an idiot. You asked for links, and I told you those links show fraud. The links you asked for showing fraud are those links, I sent them even before you asked, to demonstrate even after climategate fraud still continues.They are not 'randomly dumped.'
Obviously you didn't even read the article and got fooled by the click-bait title like an idiot. From your own article:
It flew over your head why I posted it didn't it? lol
The MET Office has a pro-global warming agenda, and EVEN THEY are having trouble promoting the AGW lie, you fucking idiot.
Do you understand or do you need it explained again? Even AGW Soothsaying Conspiracy Theorist Alarmists who promote bad science are having trouble coming up with lies, and HAVE TO ADMIT THE 'WARMING TREND' IS NOT AS BAD AS THE WARMIST COMMUNITY HAS SAID IT WAS.
EVEN WITH CORRUPTED and PSEUDO-SCIENCE THEY STILL CAN NOT HIDE THE TRUTH! YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
No, that's the accusation you trot out without a single shred of evidence. These were bi-partisan investigations across different countries. According to you we have believe that every single person involved in these investigations comitted fraud because you linked to a credible moron on the internet. Hah, no.
So what, the rest of the sentence adds nothing.
Yes it does. You pretended only FactCheck.org wrote an article debunking the accusations, when that sentences showed the AP did as well. You then tried to discredit FactCheck.org (while providing no evidence for those accusations either), thus pretending you had discredited the other side. You didn't.
AP has respect, but only due to it's size,and in regards to climategate engaged in egregious reporting of the facts.
How convenient. Do you have any evidence of that?
It was recorded on video. The incident in question was not a matter of opinion or anonymous allegations.
So? There is still a need for investigation. Why was the guy there? Was he allowed to be there? Was there something else that proceeded it? Are their legal ramifications to suspending her?, etc. Do you think courts just immediately pronounce someone guilty when there is a video? Your immense ignorance isn't an argument. The investigated the issue and took action. You were wrong.
I know that you fucking idiot.
Then why are you mentioning FactCheck.org when I never mentioned them? Why aren't you replying to what I actually mentioned, which were the 8 investigations?
You are an idiot. You asked for links, and I told you those links show fraud. The links you asked for showing fraud are those links, I sent them even before you asked, to demonstrate even after climategate fraud still continues.They are not 'randomly dumped.
Nope. I didn't ask for a random set of links. I asked for evidence. Again, if you have evidence you would like for me to look at that allegedly addresses something relevant, post the link, tell me what it supposedly addresses and then quote the specific parts you think address this.
You can't because you don't know what you're talking about and doing this would require you to read and understand the material, which is obviously way above your head. So instead just hastily google stuff and dump the links without reading them. Just like you did with that last link where you embarrassed yourself.
The MET Office has a pro-global warming agenda, and EVEN THEY are having trouble promoting the AGW lie, you fucking idiot.
Hah, now you're grasping at straws to defend your huge blunder. How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?
and HAVE TO ADMIT THE 'WARMING TREND' IS NOT AS BAD AS THE WARMIST COMMUNITY HAS SAID IT WAS.
They admitted no such thing. What part of this did you not understand?
"This forecast also suggests global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be well within, or even in the upper half, of the range of warming expected by the CMIP5 models, as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Get it? They are saying the trend is exactly as what the IPCC models are saying.
"No, that's the accusation you trot out without a single shred of evidence. "
Well the e-mails are there for anyone to read and show scientists admitting the evidence for manbearpig is not there. You idiot.
"Yes it does. You pretended only FactCheck.org"
No I didn't 'pretend' , stop making shit up.
I was highlighting factcheck, as they were posted as one of the outlets in that shitty wikipedia page. It was highlighted by wikipedia and then highlighted by me, stupid. AP's reporting was terrible as well, but not only is factchecks reporting terrible but that outlet as a whole is terrible. Do you get it or do you need it explained 7 more times?
But yeah, make some more shit up.
"Then why are you mentioning FactCheck.org when I never mentioned them? Why aren't you replying to what I actually mentioned, which were the 8 investigations?"
Because it was in the wikipedia page YOU SENT, moron.
I then went on and discussed other elements surrounding the cover up and shitty reporting, including the 'gang of 8 super investigators'
"Nope. I didn't ask for a random set of links. I asked for evidence. Again,"
They were not random sets of links, it was evidence YOU STILL WONT REVISIT. It is quite telling that this whole manbearpig conspiracy alarmism is nothing but a religion to you. ManBearPig is saturated with dogma to you.
Revisit the links I sent, they are not 'random' as I have told you this 3 times now and you keep repeating the same tired shit.
"Hah, now you're grasping at straws to defend your huge blunder. How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?"
lol, you are in such denial.
"Get it? They are saying the trend is exactly as what the IPCC models are saying."'
IPCC has been caught cooking their books. Using hypothetical models in computers with corrupted data is not 'science.' It is pseudo-science and religion.
*Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.
Well the e-mails are there for anyone to read and show scientists admitting the evidence for manbearpig is not there. You idiot.
Nope. The full e-mails show the scientists were innocent as all the investigations confirmed:
Much of the media frenzy over the e-mail release in 2009 was prompted by the high political profile of climate change at the time. Nations were preparing for the heavily hyped and ill-fated Copenhagen summit, and soon afterwards a blunder in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report about melting Himalayan glaciers added to the sense of climate science not being what it seemed. Climategate 2 came just ahead of the latest round of United Nations climate talks in Durban, South Africa, but that meeting is lower profile. It is harder to draw attention when fewer eyes are on the subject.
There is also the sense that many in the media felt cheated by the original Climategate. They were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear. Many will not make the same mistake — to write headlines first and ask questions later — again. Plus, it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context.
None of the independent investigations that followed the 2009 release found any hints of scientific misconduct. Critics won't find any in the new batch either — the animated discussions that the highlighted e-mails do include, not shy of strong personal opinions and the occasionally harsh judgement concerning the quality of this or that piece of work, never really stray from sound normal science.
"Per your wikipedia source: "Independent reviews by FactCheck"
FactCheck is not 'independent' and has a known, bias and agenda... All of your 'independent investigators' are 1. not independent 2. have a known bias 3. or have a vested financial interest in making sure innocence was found."
Thus you pretended that FactCheck was behind one (if not all) of the investigations I was talking about. They weren't. You are either a moron, a liar or a troll. Which one isn't that important, what matters is that you were wrong.
I then went on and discussed other elements surrounding the cover up and shitty reporting, including the 'gang of 8 super investigators'
No, you didn't mention a single investigation that I was talking about in specific, you talked about "investigations" in general, and provided no evidence.
They were not random sets of links, it was evidence YOU STILL WONT REVISIT. It is quite telling that this whole manbearpig conspiracy alarmism is nothing but a religion to you. ManBearPig is saturated with dogma to you.
Revisit the links I sent, they are not 'random' as I have told you this 3 times now and you keep repeating the same tired shit.
They are absolutely random to me, since I don't know what they are, what they refer to, or what they supposedly prove. I'm not going to through and read page after page of material that you yourself haven't read. Again, if you have evidence you would like for me to look at that allegedly addresses something relevant, post the link, tell me what it supposedly addresses and then quote the specific parts you think address this.
lol, you are in such denial.
Hah, now how you conveniently you didn't' answer the question... How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?
IPCC has been caught cooking their books, and using hypothetical models in computers with corrupted data is not 'science.' It is pseudo-science and religion.
Yeah, that's not true, and doesn't absolve you even it it was. You claimed the MET couldn't pretend the IPCC projections were good... and yet the article quotes them saying their own projections match the projections by the IPCC. You were wrong
Yet another link you didn't read. This article contradicts your previous source, dummy. Pay attention. At least try reading them first before you post them.
"the animated discussions that the highlighted e-mails do include, not shy of strong personal opinions and the occasionally harsh judgement concerning the quality of this or that piece of work, never really stray from sound normal science."
..........."this or that"
lol.
The e-mails showed the scientists were doubtful the claims made in support for AGW by the warmist community. Yup, exactly as I stated, and exactly what ClimateGate demonstrated.
ClimateGate showed a lack of transparency by the Warmist community, including them omitting doubts they had for AGW. That is fact, and it still continues to this day(but you refuse to read my links so you will never know that)
ClimateGate e-mails by Warmists showed their doubt that the data 'proving' manbearpig was dubious at best. Again, you keep bringing criminality and 'justice' and the 'super great gang of 8' into the Mix, when ClimateGate's theme was AGW scientists were doubting AGW due to the lack of any hard data to support it.
Way to spin the argument into a misleading direction, though.
And of course the investigations would not expose this as grant money would be affected. But the e-mails are there for all to read, and DOUBT is not criminal, but it is unethical to keep such doubt from the public while peddling the manbearpig psuedo-science.
Lack of transparency was without doubt an ethical problem with climategate and the e-mails proved this.
"Nope. The full e-mails show the scientists were innocent as all the investigations confirmed:"
The full e-mails showed they doubted AGW was real due to a lack of data.
"Thus you pretended that FactCheck was behind one (if not all) "
You are mentally ill and desperate, hence why you make shit up. Highlighting FactCheck is not me claiming they were behind 'it all.' lol. Are you really this desperate?
"Hah, now how you conveniently you didn't' answer the question... How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?"
No, it didn't. The article showed even with bad data, MET office STILL can not fear monger like they would like to. MET Offices' religious treatment of AGW is why they are being kicked to the curb.
"Yeah, that's not true, and doesn't absolve you even it it was. You claimed the MET couldn't pretend the IPCC projections were good... and yet the article quotes them saying their own projections match the projections by the IPCC. You were wrong"
No I didn't. I said even with bad data by all parties involved INCLUDING THE IPCC, they STILL can not fear monger like they would like to. The Warmist community has been making doomsday claims for decades and the data they need for these claims to be true is simply not there, EVEN WITH COOKED BOOKS, by IPCC, MET OFFICE, NOAA and NASA.
You need to better learn how to read what I am saying, you keep making shit up.
"Yet another link you didn't read. This article contradicts your previous source, dummy. Pay attention. At least try reading them first before you post them."
Yes I did, and No, I don't contradict, your AGW religion does. Learn to read.
My first link showed even with bad science(cooked books) the case for AGW being real, is not there, and my second link showed the books are cooked in regards to the data. Meaning the first link use COOKED DATA and the data STILL didn't support you warmist's doomsday manbearpig predictions, and in fact showed SOME PLACES ARE COOLING, while the second link showed THEY ARE FUCKING COOKING THE BOOKS with hypothetical computer models with temperature data that has been implemented in an unethical fashion, or..... DOWN RIGHT FRAUD, which means....The first link used COOKED DATA and even WITH the cooked data, ManBearPig predictions of doomsday are not there!
Learn to connect dots, stupid. I can't hold your hand, and stop projecting your personality pit falls on me.
THIS IS NOT ME CONTRADICTING, IT IS YOU PEOPLE CONTRADICTING ---------> NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climatereport that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.
The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.
Ya remember the last 20 ice ages in the past how the humans back then with all their fossil fuels made the ice age stop and then warmed the earth back up again and made the glaciers recede from the fucking area that would be the United States.. Oh what's that we were fucking apes back then and before that fucking gerbils. No shit. I love global warming and so does life at the equator, you should see all the god dam species down there.
you are a dumb motherfucker. the fact that the climate naturally changes doesn't matter. it's the rate of change that's the issue here. you can start smoking when you're 12 and die at 62 of lung cancer, or you can live healthy until you're 85. In your imbecile mind, the choice doesn't matter because we all die anyway.
you think a couple hundred thousand refugees from syria are a problem? Wait until there's millions of refugees from American cities that have to move inland from coastal cities before we can prepare for it. It's a disaster waiting to happen. And it's going to happen if the ice caps are melting.
We still are apes. We are a bipedal hominid (homo sapiens sapiens) and one of the five types of great apes that exist on the planet (Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Human). All of these animals are Hominidae, which makes them all apes.
You're probably confusing monkey with ape, but they are different things completely but of course, so is an old world monkey from a new world (modern) monkey, so even saying monkey would be incorrect (since our far ancestry was an old world monkey which looks more like a lemur crossed with a gibbon). We were never gerbils, they are rodents and that's a different thing completely, unless I read that wrong and you meant your ancestors liked "fucking gerbils", in which case, I can't comment.
There is no absolute proof either way and no climate scientists agreeing that in their opinion it exists so they can continue to receive funding isn't undeniable proof. It's real but is it man made, no conclusive proof either way.
climate scientists agreeing that in their opinion it exists so they can continue to receive funding isn't undeniable proof.
You get far more money by attacking climate change than you do by supporting it, not to mention that climate change isn't the only field. If climate scientists were desperate for funding, they would just study something else. Science is large. Plenty of other things to study and receive funding for.
It's real but is it man made, no conclusive proof either way.
The evidence is overwhelming that it's man made. There is as much evidence for anthropomorphic climate change than there is about plenty of other theories that you most likely accept without problem.
I'm not saying oil and other companies aren't swaying opinion at all but at the same time I'm saying its in these scientists best interest to keep this idea going so they get grants. So both sides have financial interests invested in this sure. The evidence is not overwhelming. I have seen charts that showed prehistoric and medieval era co 2 levels and climate change and there was no correlation what so ever. I'm still willing to listen to others present their case though since this could be a serious issue if real. Guaranteed you don't feel the same way about opposing views.
I'm not saying oil and other companies aren't swaying opinion at all but at the same time I'm saying its in these scientists best interest to keep this idea going so they get grants.
No, it's in their best financial interest to attack climate change and receive far more money that they do now. Again, it's FAR more lucrative to attack climate change. Scientists supporting climate are a dime a dozen. Scientists (with legitimate degrees in relevant fields) against anthropomorphic climate change are almost unheard of. It's supply and demand.
The evidence is not overwhelming. I have seen charts that showed prehistoric and medieval era co 2 levels and climate change and there was no correlation what so ever.
Guaranteed you don't feel the same way about opposing views.
You can add that to the growing list of things you're wrong about. I welcome anyone here that wants to post any evidence for their side. I listen to evidence.
Again, it's FAR more lucrative to attack climate change
I don't understand how this refutes that scientists whose well being and integrity rests on global warming (or cooling) being a thing needs to be protected at all costs. Now you are arguing something I am not. I am not arguing that big oil doesn't do this nor that one is more lucrative than the other. This is a dishonest strawman on your end.
Are you aware how old this planet is and how you are trying to pass judgement on a world wide phenomena over the span of 1000 years? I want you to take a step back and think about how ridiculous that sounds. This planet is 4.543 billions of years old and you actually think you solved a complicated climate issue using 1000 years of data. Think about that.
I don't understand how this refutes that scientists whose well being and integrity rests on global warming (or cooling) being a thing needs to be protected at all costs.
I addresses your implication that we cannot trust the consensus of scientists because "they depend on grants" when the reality is that scientists would get far more money (which they can use to fund their research or to live a wealthy lifestyle) if they attacked climate change instead.
I am not arguing that big oil doesn't do this nor that one is more lucrative than the other. This is a dishonest strawman on your end.
Nonsense. It directly addresses your implication. If you're going to say that we cannot trust the consensus because of your implications about financial incentives, it's perfectly valid to point out how there are even stronger financial incentives to buck the consensus.
Are you aware how old this planet is and how you are trying to pass judgement on a world wide phenomena over the span of 1000 years? I want you to take a step back and think about how ridiculous that sounds. This planet is 4.543 billions of years old and you actually think you solved a complicated climate issue using 1000 years of data. Think about that.
I'm trying to pass judgement based on the data, not based on what some random redditor thinks is possible or not. By your ridiculous logic science could never "pass judgement" on anything that's spans over 1000 years. A childish and embarrassing notion of what science can achieve.
Science bases itself on the data. The data overwhelmingly supports the fact that humans are contributing substantially to the increasing temperatures. Note how you originally claimed that you had seen the CO2 and temperature data and knew there was no correlation, and now you've apparently abandoned that argument after you've seen how ridiculous it is since the correlation is massive.
And I addressed your point saying it isn't just amount money it can be a scientists reputation on the line too. This may shock you but scientists aren't agnostic politically just because they are scientists and they too can be caught up in a political cause they will fight to keep alive tooth and nail. Warren Buffet very well could be even richer if he adopted right wing politics and policies but he doesn't because his politics and convictions mean more so yea you are wrong about financial aspirations being everything.
It's embarrassing and shows your woeful ignorance of statistical studies if you think an absolute conclusion can be drawn using 1000 years of data out of a total of 4.5 billion years. Like seriously if you plot the climate of this planet on a chart from day 1 to today your chart is extremely insignificant. A fart on history. It's sad how people can be this dumb and function in society. Bernie Sanders supporter correct?
And I addressed your point saying it isn't just amount money it can be a scientists reputation on the line too.
No, you didn't address my point, you conceded it by acknowledging that I was right in saying financial interests would
actually favor those against climate change. Thank you.
This may shock you but scientists aren't agnostic politically just because they are scientists and they too can be caught up in a political cause they will fight to keep alive tooth and nail.
Okay, then you'll have to provide evidence that 95% of all the relevant scientists in the world are all magically politically motivated on this issue. You don't get to dismiss their conclusions based on an accusation you pulled out of your ass.
It's embarrassing and shows your woeful ignorance of statistical studies if you think an absolution conclusion can be drawn using 1000 years of data out of a total of 4.5 billion years. Like seriously if you plot the climate of this planet on a chart from day 1 to today your chart is extremely insignificant. A fart on history. It's sad how people can be this dumb and function in society.
The only embarrassing thing here is you pretending to know more about statistics than the worlds experts on this issue. That or how you throw science under the bus whenever it doesn't align with your political views. You are the only one this conversation that has made this about politics instead of the evidence. You cannot argue the evidence so you must use fallacies after fallacies to salvage what you can. Case in point:
Bernie Sanders supporter correct?
Yet another thing to add to the large list of things you've been wrong about.
I conceded nothing at all. Financial gain is still a factor but I expanded saying blatant political bias and reputation is another. I have said this now 3 times and yet again you'll respond to this playing dumb and blowing off my point. Just watch you'll do it.
I dont have to prove anything you fedora autist. This is my opinion based on the reasons I stated and frankly I don't give a shit as much as you do about this petty debate whether you agree with me or not.
You keep making these long grandiose generic posts about science that have absolutely no content whatsoever to mask the fact that I'm right and you are wrong and your scientific knowledge goes as far as copying and pasting graphs from other subreddits. If you think only 1000 years of data can absolutely tell you about climate habits on this planet to the point where you can make a grandiose statement about historical climate change without a shadow of a doubt then grade school has failed you. I remain skeptical but open to both sides.
Must suck that Bernie didn't win Iowa with more votes huh? It's only going to get much worse from here on lol.
If your next card after this is the liberal staple of crying victim to my mean tone don't. You've been a condescending cunt since you started engaging me in this back and forth. I bet you'll still cry victim.
A factor that benefits those who deny climate change, just like I said.
I expanded saying blatant political bias and reputation is another. I have said this now 3 times and yet again you'll respond to this playing dumb and blowing off my point. Just watch you'll do it.
I'm not blowing off your point, I directly addressed in the my previous response. Pay attention. I asked you for evidence. Anyone can claim that scientists are basing their conclusions on political bias or "reputation". What matters is whether you have any evidence of this or not. You don't. Until you provide some evidence, your accusation remains baseless and unsubstantiated and thus can be dismissed.
If you want your accusation to be taken seriously, provide evidence. While you're at it, also explain why this consensus is observed across pretty much all scientists in all countries in the world, when other countries don't have the same "political bias" that the U.S. has...
You keep making these long grandiose generic posts about science that have absolutely no content whatsoever to mask the fact that I'm right and you are wrong
Generic? I'm addressing all your points. If they are generic it's because your posts are generic. Noticed how you have yet to post a single shred of evidence supporting your claims, despite the fact that you claimed to have seen "charts" that show there was "no correlation" between CO2 and temperature. All you have is rhetoric, and bad one at that.
and your scientific knowledge goes as far as copying and pasting graphs from other subreddits.
None of the graphs I've posted have come from any subreddit. Yet another thing to be added to the list of things you know nothing about.
If you think only 1000 years of data can absolutely tell you about climate habits on this planet to the point where you can make a grandiose statement about historical climate change without a shadow of a doubt then grade school has failed you. I remain skeptical but open to both sides.
We have more than 1000 years of data and nobody said it was "without a shadow of a doubt". Your argument is one giant billboard of your ignorance on this topic.
No your argument is dishonest once again and I already went through this. Plus your own argument betrays you since you agree anti climate change could pay more but you are still agreeing you can get paid to be a pro climate change shill. That's my point. Thanks!
We are having an internet debate. I gave you my opinion and backed up my opinion based on my reasons. My OPINION. One more time because you'll misquote me. MY OPINION. Stop writing a wall of empty text in a desperate attempt to make yourself sound smarter and make this bigger than it is. It isn't working.
You addressed nothing. All your responses have been empty rhetoric about how I don't get science. Just massive temper tantrums because I don't agree with you devoid of any content. You write so much but ultimately say nothing granted I have argued with many who rely on this gimmick. Boy its a sad one.
more than 1000 years of data.
Show me.
Your dismissive attitude says more than enough that you believe your point is infallible don't dishonestly backtrack now Bernie fan.
No your argument is dishonest once again and I already went through this.
How is it dishonest? I directly addressed your point. Is this yet again one of your accusations you get to make without evidence?
Plus your own argument betrays you since you agree anti climate change could pay more but you are still agreeing you can get paid to be a pro climate change shill. That's my point. Thanks
No, actually, your point was to imply that the consensus could be explained due to financial interests that climate scientists have. The fact that you concede that the is greater financial interest in the opposite shows that there consensus cannot be explained by financial interest. Thus why you trotted out the issue of "political bias". Which you know seem to have abandoned since you didn't even bother addressing my response to that point of yours.
We are having an internet debate. I gave you my opinion and backed up my opinion based on my reasons. My OPINION. One more time because you'll misquote me. MY OPINION. Stop writing a wall of empty text in a desperate attempt to make yourself sound smarter and make this bigger than it is. It isn't working.
No, you gave more than your opinion. You made claims. For instance, you claimed that CO2 and temperature were not correlated and claimed to have "charts", remember? That's not a matter of opinion. You also implied that the consensus could be explained by financial interests. Which side has more financial incentives is also not a matter of opinion. You then claimed that it could be explained by political bias, but this again, can be studied empirically.
But even if we ignore all of that, and accept that all you have is an opinion, then your argument is worthless. Nobody wants your opinion. We want evidence.
Your dismissive attitude says more than enough that you believe your point is infallible don't dishonestly backtrack now Bernie fan.
I'm dismissive because your argument deserves to be dismissed. I've given you ample time to provide evidence of your claims and you've provided none. In fact, you're now been reduced to saying it's "just your opinion". If that's all you have - your worthless opinion - then why shouldn't we dismiss your argument?
Yes I have been and your gimmick was to regurgitate overtly verbose empty walls of text over and over and over and over. Go back and read the shit you wrote. You use 1000 words and say absolutely nothing. Again I've seen liberals use this retarded gimmick to try to sound smarter than they appear.
Whether you read it or not, the outcome was the same: You provided, yet again, not a single shred of evidence to support your allegations. At least this time you spared us your worthless opinion on the matter.
My premise from the start was I am undecided you dumbass. In your hateful liberal impotent rage you seemed to miss that point . I don't know if its real or not in terms of being man made I have not seen conclusive evidence without a shadow of a doubt either way and you absolutely didn't change my mind on that with your faulty evidence.
My premise from the start was I am undecided you dumbass.
No, that's what you were pretending to be. That quickly was shown to be a facade since you immediately started making claims that showed you weren't "undecided", like claiming you had seen charts showing CO2 wasn't correlated with temperatures, and making implications about scientists - essentially accusing them of fraud - to justify why you don't agree with the consensus.
have not seen conclusive evidence without a shadow of a doubt either way
Nobody is pretending to have "conclusiive evidence without a shadow of a doubt". Science doesn't have deductive certainty. It will always be possible for a theory to be overturned if more evidence comes to light, therefore there will always be some doubt.
and you absolutely didn't change my mind on that with your faulty evidence.
How do you know my evidence faulty when you refused to even look at it?
No that's what I am. I'm not you I'm not fake posting walls of empty text to attempt and fail to sound smart.
No, that's what you pretend to be. Your statements prove otherwise. Note how you couldn't even defend your original statement ( denying a link between CO2 and temperatures) as something uttered by someone who is neutral or undecided.
You started making claims that showed you weren't "undecided", like claiming you had seen charts showing CO2 wasn't correlated with temperatures, and making implications about scientists - essentially accusing them of fraud - to justify why you don't agree with the consensus.
My main point always was I have an agnostic view on global warming. That's it. You don't like it so you accuse me of lying well I don't give a shit you are wrong. Yea I said in my opinion some scientists are biased for financial or political reason sure. How old are you where you think it's impossible for people to be biased? I also flat out agreed that oil companies too put out money there to fuck with climate change advocates I must be a terrible climate change denier for agreeing with that huh?
My main point always was I have an agnostic view on global warming. That's it. You don't like it so you accuse me of lying well I don't give a shit you are wrong.
I'm accusing you of doing what we can all literally see: You made claims that are not "agnostic", but instead attack climate change based on falsehoods. Again, you claimed that CO2 does not correlate with temperature. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
Yea I said in my opinion some scientists are biased for financial or political reason sure.
How old are you where you think it's impossible for people to be biased? I
I didn't say it was impossible for people to be biased. I said your explanation of financial bias doesn't make sense, and your usage of that argument to discredit the consensus shows that you're not "agnostic".
I made pro climate change arguments and anti climate change points. I am agreeing with you that I made arguments against it but I am telling you I also made arguments that support it. The biggest being that I agree big oil is lobbying to suppress studies and data. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
I said your explanation of financial bias doesn't make sense
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I'm sorry.
and your usage of that argument to discredit the consensus shows that you're not "agnostic".
My attempts at agreeing with arguments and points of both sides makes me agnostic. Once again a anti man made climate change person will not agree that big oil is muddling and destroying the message pro man made climate change people are making. You will ignore this of course and act like I never said it and continue to lie that I haven't made cases for both ends it's ok. You are a dishonest liberal it's what you guys do.
I made pro climate change arguments and anti climate change points...The biggest being that I agree big oil is lobbying to suppress studies and data. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
You only made that argument after I refuted your claim that the financial interests would explain the consensus. Stop pretending that somehow shows you're "agnostic". It doesn't. It shows your argument got debunked so** you conceded the point and quickly moved on to your next point (blaming the consensus on political bias)**.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I'm sorry.
I know, that's why I explained why exactly it didn't make sense since there is more financial incentive on the other side. Need me to post it here again?
My attempts at agreeing with arguments and points of both sides makes me agnostic. Once again a anti man made climate change person will not agree that big oil is muddling and destroying the message pro man made climate change people are making. You will ignore this of course and act like I never said it and continue to lie that I haven't made cases for both ends it's ok. You are a dishonest liberal it's what you guys do.
There you go again making it political when you can't address the points. Again, all you did was concede a point and moved on to the next one against climate change. That doesn't make you agnostic. You offered no pro-climate change arguments on your own. They had to be beaten out of you. You're not fooling anyone.
I only made the argument to show I agreed with you to some degree. I was actually attempting to somewhat extend an olive branch but your autism grabbed that and shoved it in your ass.
It shows your argument got debunked
Never happened.
you conceded
Never happened. Boy you like to make shit up. I'm not pretending anything I made my case showing that I am not and your defense is literally NO YOUR EXAMPLE DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE I SAY SO. How fucking old are you seriously?
there is more
and once again I made the point that it isn't all about money that a scientists legacy and research is also on the line. Just because there is more doesn't mean everyone will fucking do it. You can make more money being a doctor or carpenter but surprise some people choose to work at mcdonalds making minimum wage. Why is that?
There you go again making it political
I am calling it as I see you it you are a classic intolerant liberal prick throwing a hissy fit at me because I disagree with you. Like I have been at work all day responding when I can most of the day I was gone and not responding you have been responding sometimes in seconds most of the time almost immediately whenever I post showing me that you aren't doing much with your day at all again, tell tale lazy liberal sign.
You offered no pro-climate change arguments
But I did I said big oil fucks with scientists thus defending scientists who believe in man made climate change. Your response to that is I DISQUALIFY THAT BECAUSE I SAY I DISQUALIFY IT like a fucking child.
They had to be beaten out of you.
Holy shit you are on the spectrum. You realize we are having an internet debate right? Control your autism.
Yes it did. You conceded as much when you accepted there were stronger financial incentives from the other side. You first started saying the financial incentive of grants was in their best interest. You then said "it's not just about money, it can be about reputation too". By which you concede that the financial argument doesn't make sense so you shift the focus to "reputation".
and once again I made the point that it isn't all about money that a scientists legacy and research is also on the line.
Yes you did... As a response to the original financial argument not working.
I am calling it as I see you it you are a classic intolerant liberal prick throwing a hissy fit at me because I disagree with you. Like I have been at work all day responding when I can most of the day I was gone and not responding you have been responding sometimes in seconds most of the time almost immediately whenever I post showing me that you aren't doing much with your day at all again, tell tale lazy liberal sign.
Yeah, I didn't ask for your bullshit rationalization. Not interested. Again, you're making it political because you can't address the facts.
But I did I said big oil fucks with scientists thus defending scientists who believe in man made climate change. Your response to that is I DISQUALIFY THAT BECAUSE I SAY I DISQUALIFY IT like a fucking child.
No, my response is to show how your only said that once you noticed your financial argument was getting you nowhere. Notice how you didn't refute the fact that you had offered no pro-climate-change arguments on your own. They had to be squeezed out of you.
You clearly have no idea what that words means. This entire debate I have conceded only one thing and that is oil companies fuck with scientists that shows I am agnostic in this.
By which you concede that the financial argument doesn't make sense
Absolutely not that's rubbish. I am adding to the incentive not invalidating my point at all. You love making shit up boy don't you.
As a response to the original financial argument
Correct
not working
Nope. Lol the amount of autism you have just invaliding arguments because you deem them invalidated. Such a slimy piece of shit liberal.
Yeah, I didn't ask for your bullshit rationalization.
I don't give a shit i'm telling you. I can vanish from here for 2 days respond and you will reply within 5 minutes no matter what part of the day it is. That's autism.......and being unemployed. #FEELTHEBERN though!!!!
you noticed your financial argument was getting you nowhere
I didn't notice this at all. My point was sound. Also I still don't understand why it matters that I said it after that argument. I still said it. Boy your autism forces you to create all these magical debate rules I am not privy to that arbitrarily disqualify things I say because......BECAUSE!!
Absolutely not that's rubbish. I am adding to the incentive not invalidating my point at all. You love making shit up boy don't you.
Fine. Let's indulge your desperate bullshit. Since it's clear you're just going to keep lying, lets pretend that you never conceded that.
So now what? That means then you're arguing that:
That it's still in the best financial interest for scientists to support climate change, and therefore we shouldn't trust the consensus.
That it's still in the best interest of their reputation for scientists to support climate change, and therefore we shouldn't trust the consensus.
That you have charts showing there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperatures.
That we don't have more than 1,000 years of relevant climate-change data.
You're arguing all of that, but we should still consider you "agnostic" because, why exactly? Because after much discussion, you conceded that sometimes, oil companies may influence some scientists? Lol.
Please summarize the crap you are posting I'm tired of looking at stuff people linking to didn't even look at and just looked for in a Google search for the sake of an argument.
So you can't explain the shit you linked? Did I correctly call you out on googling shit you didn't understand for the sake of pasting something here? What a shocker!
Honestly you all sound the same to me. Empty rhetoric etc etc. I'm responding from the notifications too not the threads. Yea now explain them and where they came from.
So you can't explain the shit you linked? Did I correctly call you out on googling shit you didn't understand for the sake of pasting something here? What a shocker!
That's not me, dummy. Pay attention. That's some other guy that's amused by your failures... like that one right there.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with "reddit cred" (whatever the fuck that is). It has everything to do with you saying and doing dumb shit. If you don't mind saying and doing dumb shit, then that explains a lot.
Please summarize the crap you are posting I'm tired of looking at stuff people linking to didn't even look at and just looked for in a Google search for the sake of an argument.
So you don't know what it is, but you have no problem assuming it's crap and accusing me of not reading it?
Anyways... It's data from ice-cores which go back hundreds of thousands of years.
The first link is to the raw data itself, and it's taken from the Vostok research station in Russia.
The second link is the publication associated with that data release.
The second link is a plot of (other) ice core data taken from Volstok, to show you what the kind of data looks like.
The third plot is a combination of data from many different ice cores, which can go back millions of years.
I don't mind explaining things; just don't pretend you know what the fuck you're talking about ("I have charts that show CO2 doesn't correlate with temperatures"), when you clearly don't.
because you just plop links with no content or backstory not giving any impression that you know what they are outside of durrr I just googled something quick to plot here to make myself look smart. It's telling how butt hurt you are getting when I simply expect you to make your case.
None of that justifies you claiming it's crap without knowing what it is.
You can't complain about my lack of effort when you've made it abundantly clear that you're not even going to read what I say... You can't have it both ways dummy.
I will assume something is crap until someone says otherwise of course.
You can't complain about my lack of effort
Yes I can. You are plopping graphs with no explanation or content showing you most likely just google searched them without knowing what they are for the simple sake of attempting to shut me up and I called you out on it and was clearly right.
I will assume something is crap until someone says otherwise of course.
So then your entire posts - where you've provided not a single shred of evidence showing otherwise - are crap? Good. We agree.
Yes I can.
No, you can't. Not without being full of shit. If you're going to say that you're not going to read what I post, then I'm not going to waste my time writing things that you're not going to read. Don't like that?
You are plopping graphs with no explanation or content
I'm making the least effort possible because you said you're not reading my posts. Pay attention.
showing you most likely just google searched them without knowing what they are for the simple sake of attempting to shut me up and I called you out on it and was clearly right.
Nope. I knew what they are, which explains why I immediately called you out on your bullshit when you claimed we only had 1,000 years worth of data. You can search my posting history, I've been discussing climate change for a very long time. Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about.
I wasn't making a point, just commenting on your keyboard diarrhea, which is mostly crap tbh.
No, you can't.
Yes I can. Again you write literal walls of text that mean nothing in a sad attempt to sound smart. You use that troll gimmick where you try to act verbose and wordy and try really really hard at sounding like you know what you are talking about and hope you deceive the opposing side. It isn't working here. Sorry. If your walls of text start having content I may read them again.
when you claimed we only had 1,000 years worth of data
You are a dishonest piece of shit hurling a strawman now. You know the context I made when speaking of 1,000 years was in terms of proving global whatever is man made. Now you are attempting to change my narrative implying I meant we don't have over 1000 years of data which is total shit and a lie. God damn you liberals are dishonest pieces of shit.
I said:
If you think only 1000 years of data can absolutely tell you about climate habits on this planet to the point where you can make a grandiose statement about historical climate change without a shadow of a doubt then grade school has failed you.
You said:
We have more than 1000 years of data
and now your dishonest pierce of shit gimmick is to attempt to change the narrative to simply weather data when I clearly was talking about man made climate change. Again disgusting lying piece of shit liberal using a bullshit strawman.
I've been discussing climate change for a very long time.
"I'm an internet tough guy who discusses stuff on the internet a lot watch out"
Is this supposed to intimidate me because it's accomplishing the opposite.
Yes I can. Again you write literal walls of text that mean nothing in a sad attempt to sound smart.
So then don't complain when I don't write walls. Again, you're full of shit. You know full well how stupid it is to complain about my "walls of text" and then chastise me for not writing explanations (which weren't necessary to begin with because the links themselves contained explanations) yet you continue clinging to that point because that's all you have.
You are a dishonest piece of shit hurling a strawman now. You know the context I made when speaking of 1,000 years was in terms of proving global whatever is man made. Now you are attempting to change my narrative implying I meant we don't have over 1000 years of data which is total shit and a lie. God damn you liberals are dishonest pieces of shit.
...
and now your dishonest pierce of shit gimmick is to attempt to change the narrative to simply weather data when I clearly was talking about man made climate change. Again disgusting lying piece of shit liberal using a bullshit strawman.
What the fuck are you babbling about? This data IS part of the data that shows humans are largely responsible...
I'm not showing you random climate data, you imbecile. I'm showing you ice-core data that shows the correlation between CO2 and temperatures (you know, the one you claimed didn't exist), which is crucial to showing the greenhouse effect created by releasing greenhouse gases, which then shows how humans are largely responsible.
"I'm an internet tough guy who discusses stuff on the internet a lot watch out"
Is this supposed to intimidate me because it's accomplishing the opposite.
No, it's supposed to correct yet another one of your idiotic accusations. If you're going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, I'm going to let you know you're wrong. I do.
The guy literally sits here all day refreshing reddit waiting for us to respond. An unemployed liberal loser thinks he has some kind of intellectual high ground which is pretty amusing if you think about it.
Notice now I am responding because your posts aren't condescending overtly verbose empty rhetoric posts.
chastise me for not writing explanations
How many times do I have to say typing 1000 words that ultimately say nothing isn't an explanation. This is what you do because your shitty reddit gimmick is to write REALLY long empty posts that say really little but the point is to write alot to give the illusion of knowledge. I met a lot off retarded liberals who try this trick it's honestly sad.
yet you continue clinging to that point because that's all you have.
No I am clinging to my point because it makes my case. You are trying really hard to wish it away but it's not working.
I'm showing you ice-core data that shows the correlation between CO2 and temperatures
Wow how many posts did you have to make before you fucking said this? How is there a correlation when the CO2 levels LAG behind temperature levels where the opposite should be true according to your point? I just did a google search to see if I was crazy making that point based on your graphs sure enough I am not:
The graph built from the Vostok ice core data shows us the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Contrary to current belief today, the Vostok data shows us that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases by about 800 years. This means that CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperatures, although it might potentially play a small role.
At this point, the data should speak for itself and completely nullify any belief that global warming is induced by humans, and that CO2 is the cause. We see very clearly that CO2 lags the temperature increases and has done so many times.
Looks like you were full of shit.
If you're going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about
I don't need to accuse anything you clearly show that on your own.
Notice now I am responding because your posts aren't condescending overtly verbose empty rhetoric posts.
How many times do I have to say typing 1000 words that ultimately say nothing isn't an explanation. This is what you do because your shitty reddit gimmick is to write REALLY long empty posts that say really little but the point is to write alot to give the illusion of knowledge. I met a lot off retarded liberals who try this trick it's honestly sad.
How convenient that you get to decide when my posts are "empty" and when they are not. Hah. You're full of shit. You're not fooling anyone. You are avoiding my points, and now that you think (based on your own immense stupidity) that you have a good point to make (and you don't) you decide that my posts are worth reading.
No I am clinging to my point because it makes my case. You are trying really hard to wish it away but it's not working.
Except that "point" of yours is saying you're not going to read my posts, and then immediately chastising me for not writing something that wasn't even necessary.
Wow how many posts did you have to make before you fucking said this?
None, since you supposedly know about climate change? Please explain to me why someone who alleges to know so much about climate change that they can confidently evaluate the state of the evidence (to claim that there is no evidence either way), doesn't know about elementary concepts regarding climate change? Oh, that's right, you're full of shit.
How is there a correlation when the CO2 levels LAG behind temperature levels where the opposite should be true according to your point?
What do you mean how is there a correlation? Do you know what a correlation is? Hint: Things that "lag" each other can be highly correlated.
Temperatures don't have to lag behind CO2 increases for CO2 to amplify the effects. CO2 doesn't cause the increase in temperature, but makes the increase in temperature that much worse:
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
...
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).
No, it looks like you hastily googled an article you didn't understand, and are now pretending you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.
I don't need to accuse anything you clearly show that on your own.
Ironic coming from the imbecile that literally just proved he doesn't understand climate change.
How convenient that you get to decide when my posts are "empty"
They are empty all the time. It's that simple.
that you have a good point to make
I did. It made you incredibly butt hurt and frustrated so it did the job.
Please explain to me why someone who alleges to know so much about climate change that they can confidently evaluate the state of the evidence (to claim that there is no evidence either way), doesn't know about elementary concepts regarding climate change?
This whole block is what I am talking about. One giant paragraph with a lot of words but you said absolutely nothing. I don't even know what you are referencing here.
Things that "lag" each other can be highly correlated.
Correct but CO 2 lagging temperature goes against everything you and pro climate change people are saying. It should be the opposite. Temperature should be lagging CO 2 increases. Also you are flailing here and your argument is getting more ridiculous and thought out i'm getting to you good.
No, it looks like you hastily googled an article you didn't understand, and are now pretending you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.
So you are not going to refute anything even though I just blew your point away and attack me for trying to validate my hypothesis and give you a source explaining that. You are losing your composure, I pissed you off good.
CO2 doesn't cause the increase in temperature
Again, you claimed that CO2 does not correlate with temperature. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
Notice now I am responding because your posts aren't condescending overtly verbose empty rhetoric posts.
You are tripping over your own bullshit. Keep it together.
This whole block is what I am talking about. One giant paragraph with a lot of words but you said absolutely nothing.
How convenient.
I don't even know what you are referencing here.
I'll make it simple for you: How come you did not know what ice-core data was?
Correct but CO 2 lagging temperature goes against everything you and pro climate change people are saying. It should be the opposite. Temperature should be lagging CO 2 increases. Also you are flailing here and your argument is getting more ridiculous and thought out i'm getting to you good.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't have to be the opposite. CO2 would only need to come first if it caused the increase in temperature. It didn't. It amplifies the effect. Imagine someone throws a giant bolder into a lake. It creates waves. If I then jump in to the lake, I can amplify the original waves. The effect of me jumping into the lake will "lag" the initial oscillation since I didn't cause it. That doesn't mean my action didn't perpetuate the waves or amplify the waves already there.
So you are not going to refute anything even though I just blew your point away and attack me for trying to validate my hypothesis and give you a source explaining that. You are losing your composure, I pissed you off good.
What the fuck are you babbling about? I already refuted it. Pay attention:
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
...
To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:
Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).
Checkmate you lose. It was fun wasting time with you autist better luck next time.
Hah, no. I didn't say it caused the temperatures. I said it correlated with them and it does. Here, let NOAA educate you:
One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years.
Speaking of which what is your fucking premise posting those links. Make your case what you are showing with those links before I can attempt to refute it or not. Again you plopped links down but you didn't say what you are trying to show.
What do you mean what's my case, dumb-dumb? You claimed we only had 1,000 years of data. We have much more than that. That's it. That's the whole point of posting that data: to show you we have much more than 1,000 years and thus to show how you were talking out of your ass. You were wrong.
Oh look you are being a dishonest prick again what a shock. Also I am noticing your VERY careful wording here as you are ignoring my questioning. You attempted to show that man made climate change was a thing using 1000 years of data. I said that's extremely childish and ignorant to make that premise or assumption with that little data. You plopped these links now and are quiet about why. Are you saying that this data shows that climate change is man made? If not you are being dishonest here because you know that is what our argument is. What exactly are these links showing in the context of our debate of climate change being man made or not.
Oh look you are being a dishonest prick again what a shock. Also I am noticing your VERY careful wording here as you are ignoring my questioning.
How is it dishonest to directly address your points? How did I ignore your "questioning"? You asked me why I posted the evidence. I told you: To refute your claim that we only have 1,000 years worth of data.
You plopped these links now and are quiet about why.
What the fuck are you babbling about? I literally just explained why right there:
at's the whole point of posting that data: to show you we have much more than 1,000 years and thus to show how you were talking out of your ass.
Are you saying that this data shows that climate change is man made? If not you are being dishonest here because you know that is what our argument is. What exactly are these links showing in the context of our debate of climate change being man made or not.
I'm saying that your claim that we only have data for 1,000 years is wrong. We have data for far longer than that.
And yes, that that - along with other data - helps show how humans are responsible for the unusually quick increase in temperatures in the past 100 years or so.
What exactly are these links showing in the context of our debate of climate change being man made or not.
That you don't know the extent of the data and that you erroneously believed the data only went up to 1,000 years when in reality it extends far longer than that.
How is it dishonest to directly address your points?
You are creating strawmans left and right you dishonest liberal prick.
To refute your claim that we only have 1,000 years worth of data.
THIS WAS NEVER MY CLAIM YOU DISHONEST COCK SUCKER. We are talking about climate change man made vs not. I wasn't telling you we don't have more than 1000's years worth of weather data period. I never said this. I said 1000 years of data isn't enough to support your post. God damn you dishonest piece of shit. This is why the modern left is pants on head retarded. You have no problem flat out lying at the blink of an eye.
And yes, that that - along with other data - helps show how humans are responsible for the unusually quick increase in temperatures in the past 100 years or so.
How does this show that? Because you say so?
you erroneously believed the data only went up to 1,000 years
My argument here never was simply that all weather data went only up to 1000 years. God once again you liberals are such pieces of shit lying scumbags.
You are creating strawmans left and right you dishonest liberal prick.
I didn't create any strawman. You're just an idiot who thinks I mean that was random irrelevant weather data, when it was completely relevant climate-change data. Your immense ignorance doesn't make it a strawman. It just makes you dumb.
THIS WAS NEVER MY CLAIM YOU DISHONEST COCK SUCKER. We are talking about climate change man made vs not. I wasn't telling you we don't have more than 1000's years worth of weather data period. I never said this. I said 1000 years of data isn't enough to support your post. God damn you dishonest piece of shit. This is why the modern left is pants on head retarded. You have no problem flat out lying at the blink of an eye.
I'm not saying it's random, irrelevant weather data you silly-goose. What I posted is entirely relevant climate-change data that is part of the evidence linking humans to recent global warming.
It's hilarious how you're throwing a hissy-fit based on your own idiotic assumption. Lol.
My argument here never was simply that all weather data went only up to 1000 years. God once again you liberals are such pieces of shit lying scumbags.
Yes you did. That's literally all you are doing here and creating arbitrary rules that arbitrarily refute my words.
random irrelevant weather data
Something you haven't shown yet.
What I posted is entirely relevant climate-change data
You keep doing this. You keep claiming that what you posts proves something without actually proving anything. You like to do this over and over. It's so scummy and dishonest. It took like 20 posts after you posted those links for you to even make your point and you unironically are typing this bullshit. SMH.
It's hilarious how you're throwing a hissy-fit
Says the guy who will literally sit here refreshing reddit to wait for my response all day and will not stop until he gets the last word. You sure i'm the hissy fit guy?
Yes, I have. I already told you that it's ice-core data from the Volstok climate station in Russia. Do you need me to explain why ice-cores are relevant? Are you conceding that you don't actually know what you're talking about when it comes to climate change and need me to explain to you basic concepts?
Says the guy who will literally sit here refreshing reddit to wait for my response all day and will not stop until he gets the last word. You sure i'm the hissy fit guy?
Yes, I have. I already told you that it's ice-core data from the Volstok climate station in Russia
I actually made a reply about this you blew off.
You're replying at the same time I am, dummy...
Yup it's evening now but early today when I was at work and I checked in once or twice through the work day you responded within like 5 minutes each time. You literally spend all day here.
Yup it's evening now but early today when I was at work and I checked in once or twice through the work day you responded within like 5 minutes each time. You literally spend all day here.
You literally just admitted that you are timing my posts and you were so impatient for my posts that you accused me of blowing them off when I didn't respond instantly... Lol!
It's embarrassing and shows your woeful ignorance of statistical studies if you think an absolute conclusion can be drawn using 1000 years of data out of a total of 4.5 billion years. Like seriously if you plot the climate of this planet on a chart from day 1 to today your chart is extremely insignificant. A fart on history.
I agree. Let's just toss all science out the window.
That's literally what you and him do when you make scientific generalizations without a shadow of a doubt based on only 1000 years of data. Tossing sciencing out.
Ok at least I try to explain myself you just sit here hurl insults and downvote but again you are a liberal its what you do. Get a liberal arts degree can't find a job ITS THE REPUBLICANS FAULT IM A FAILURE NOT MINE SAVE ME BERNIE SANDERS
You're not wrong that evidence does not equal proof, but science is a system for dealing with that stuff already. We have categories of conjecture, hypothesis, theory and proof. Once you get beyond the first 2 bumps in that road, its fairly certain your idea is standing on some solid ground as it must be confirmed by large amount of empirical data (and even be able to make certain types of predictions). Remember everything we have that we have attained laws for came from the same systematic method, infact some of the first laws we have came from the very people that defined this system.
If we were to consider everything invalid that had no absolute proof, then ideas from people like Einstein, Darwin, Turing, Faraday, Feynman etc. Would all fall by the wayside. But we use them today, you are using some of them right now, and the odds of them being invalid are fairly low, how complete the model is of these ideas is unknown and when we attain laws on the model, we will know, but odds are that most of the model described is accurate.
Wow some days I forget even though this is the O&A subreddit this is still cunty intolerant liberal reddit and no opposing non liberal views are allowed without getting buried.
Nah liberals are just intolerant pricks. Notice I didn't even say it doesn't exist just that I feel there isn't enough evidence either way nope in liberal lala land you are with us or against us now you get buried. Fucking fascists.
I never said I was sunshine I am totally aware how you liberals get off on that idea. I'm just defending myself big difference. Reddit is the perfect liberal site because you can make my bad words go away with your hive mind just down vote poof now you don't have to deal with my opposing opinion and you won't be challenged. What a utopia!
just shut the fuck up. don't get all pissy you're half a retard and people smarter than you make you angry.
there is no debate here. your high-school twitter-meme climate change education is not the same as some NASA scientist. you don't have an equal voice in this made up "debate". you are an idiot.
You have showed me no "science" whatsoever. Not even a copy and pasted graph from some other subreddit. You just declare you are right I'm wrong that's it like a fucking child but then again you wouldn't be a liberal if you weren't a fucking child.
I'm a engineer. I wrote a thesis in 2005 about carbon sequestration. I don't give give a fuck about "showing you science". I'm not debating a monkey with a high school education who wants to bring politics into a science discussion. I'd rather you eat a dick and jump off a cliff. Save me time and energy.
Oh boy you are a college grad this makes you a fucking infalliable genius because that's how life works. Holy shit are you dumb. You still haven't showed me anything outside angry temper tantrums science man.
I don't need to "show you" anything for it to be real. The fact that everything you discuss is filtered through "liberal/conservative" lens tells me exactly where you're coming from, and it's not a smart place. You have strong opinions about climate change, but you haven't had any formal science education since 11th grade, and you've never read a scientific journal in your life. Just stop. Like I said, stick to race and gun topics.
That's not a bad statement, he's totally right. If it is real (which is very obviously is), then him showing you wouldn't affect the results. The fact that you don't understand that that is what he's saying shows how stupid you are. There have been plenty of people providing you with links and real evidence against your views, and you dismiss them completely because you don't know what the graphs mean or represent.
I listen to scientists, and despite the claims that all of the researchers are united (they're not), I see no "quantifiable facts" at all.
First off, the top Climate researchers / scientists ARE in consensus. 97% or more in agreement that Climate Change is occurring and human activity is partially responsible, if not solely responsible. How is 97% not a consensus?
And, as far as YOU not seeing "quantifiable facts", who are YOU? Are you a climate scientist who has relentlessly studied the trends, the impacts and the overall effects of increased global temperature? Or, are you just an random nobody who has a slight understanding of weather? I'm assuming the latter, so why should anyone listen to your opinion regarding a subject you don't know much about?
And no, there is not a lot of disagreement within the scientific community regarding climate change, as you say. That is an outright lie.
And you said "we don't even know how the weather really works"? What the fuck does that even mean? Dude, holy shit. Yes, WE DO know how the weather works. That statement is what really disqualified you from talking about this subject.... I mean, come on, man. Wow.
Like I said, over 31k scientists have signed a position that they were disingenuously or fraudulently including in the "consensus". No, I don't ignore scientific consensus on any issue. No they don't agree. I've referenced chairs of top universities & organizations on the field. The video is a CSPAN live feed of Congressional hearings. Attacking the source with an ad hominem is just a big nothing. Who cares who uploaded it? Are the facts presented by Dr Curry in contention? And, my bad if I'm coming across as a sperg in this. I just really love the topic. I was on the "We're all gonna die from Global Warming" side of the debate throughout college & a couple years after. So I've had years looking into this.
As glacial melt occurs during the daytime the fresh water spreads out over top of the more dense saltwater which stays around -2 degrees C. At night that meltwater re-freezes as a thin crust that appears to satellite imagery as normal sea ice. It eventually gets churned up enough to mix with the saltwater and stay liquid but it is a gradual, phased process. That's why some people can claim on any given day that the ice isn't receeding, it may actually be expanding.
The Maldives lost 300 feet of coastline this year. Regardless of whats right or wrong, Ant certainly isn't informed on the subject.
Enough about the 1970s ice age article . There's been 10,000 articles about global warming / climate change since, but that 1 article from 1970 is some sort of holy grail.
The ice caps aren't growing as fast as they were - but not melting. But there's plenty of ice, and it's well within range to prevent the flooding that the chicken littles are predicting.
First of all that NASA study being referenced by the IBTimes said this phenomenon spanned up to 2008. That's 8 years ago.
Second of all, the study itself disagrees with other ones and thus experts are skeptical of it:
I've lived through this already, in the 70's, when it was the new Ice Age. That wasn't questioned, either, and became "fact" just because everyone repeated it.
No, you didn't. That's a bullshit talking point that has no basis in reality. The scientific consensus was never that there was a coming ice age. That was the thought of tiny, tiny number of scientists, and was outweighed by the other scientists saying the opposite:
know from people I know who work in the sciences that if you want funding these days, it has to be climate research
As someone who works in the sciences, let me tell you that you or your "friends" (or both) are completely full of shit.
We don't even really know how weather works,
That's an awful argument. First of all, weather is far more chaotic that climate. Second of all, contrary to popular belief, predictions of weather are actually pretty damn good.
I do believe the planet has cycles of climate, it's proven in the fossil record - and the sun has more to do with it than anything else. I love Neil Degrasse Tyson, but it disturbs me that he's on the chicken little wagon - I thought he'd be more pragmatic than that.
Nobody cares about your "beliefs". We want evidence. Show us a natural cycle of climate that would explain the temperature rise we've observed for the past 100 years or so. Go ahead.
Milankovitch cycles would take tens of thousands of years to observe the same level of temperature change we've seen in just 100 years.
Land ice is the troubling one since it's what would affect the sea-level where as sea ice is already in the sea (and thus it melting will not significantly affect levels).
Huh? You had the problem with my statement, as you immediately decided to point how the Forbes wrote it's own article and cited the blog as a source... as if I hadn't said exactly that. I know what Forbe did...
I never claimed two independent sources and I made the distinction for ya. Also, made up?
And I never claimed you said two independent sources. Pay attention. I clarified as an aside. Why? Because I referred to it as two links but I wanted to make it clear - to you or anyone else that might be reading - that it's really one source.
No, you asked for evidence and I gave it. You dismissed my source and cried. Only then did I address Cook's site being shady.
False. I didn't dismiss anything. I did laugh at how it's blatantly trying to fool people into thinking it's somehow related to popular mechanics, but I didn't dismiss anything. I replied to your article accepting the truth of what it said. Speaking of which, here are all the points again, which you've STILL haven't responded to:
That tiny error rate [argued in the blog you linked to] is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus, and how you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, also known simply as the "PG", is the largest daily newspaper serving metropolitan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. It has won six Pulitzer Prizes since 1938. Maybe you should sue them....
I don't care how many awards the PG (not the author of that article mind you) has won. It doesn't magically do away with facts. Again, there are numerous studies - not editorial articles by journalists with no expertise on the subject - showing a consensus:
My information is from investigative journalists who interviewed scientists whose papers Cook claimed he used. But out of the 10,000 plus papers only 41 support Cook's assertion that humans have caused most of it.
That's a complete and utter bullshit. Legates allegation (from which the PG article is basing itself on... which of course you didn't know since you didn't even bother research things), is based on misrepresentation of the criteria used in the study:
Legates et al. 2013 (L13) inconsistently applies the definitions provided in C13. In
addition, L13 misrepresents C13 by fabricating a category definition (catastrophist
definition) that was not adopted in C13. L13 applies the technique of “impossible
expectation”, one of the five characteristics of science denialism (Diethelm and
McKee, 2009), to derive their argument that only 0.3% of the papers analysed in
C13 endorsed the consensus. To arrive at this value, L13 raises the standard of
endorsement of consensus to explicitly quantifying the human contribution to
more than half of global warming, ruling out thousands of abstracts that explicitly
or implicitly endorse AGW. In short, L13 derives its result by inappropriately ignoring
the 3,833 abstracts explicitly or implicitly endorsing AGW
You also ignored the fact that Cook verified his findings by having authors self-rate something you've failed at addressing for like the 5-th time now:
We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own
papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate).
After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not
climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received
self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of
endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated
papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed
the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a
position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as
endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored
a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the
consensus.
I made pro climate change arguments and anti climate change points. I am agreeing with you that I made arguments against it but I am telling you I also made arguments that support it. The biggest being that I agree big oil is lobbying to suppress studies and data. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
I said your explanation of financial bias doesn't make sense
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I'm sorry.
and your usage of that argument to discredit the consensus shows that you're not "agnostic".
My attempts at agreeing with arguments and points of both sides makes me agnostic. Once again a anti man made climate change person will not agree that big oil is muddling and destroying the message pro man made climate change people are making. You will ignore this of course and act like I never said it and continue to lie that I haven't made cases for both ends it's ok. You are a dishonest liberal it's what you guys do.
Great you googled things to say but the problem is that stupid fucking 'aggregate' bullshit and..
..reality. Co2 rises aren't doing anything but (according to NASA) massively greening the planet.
Like.. you know how if you WANT lush warm super fruits you build a greenhouse. Cuz its awesome for life.
But in this case it can't be compared to your backyard greenhouse because what man contributes isn't even CLOSE to that level of goodness. Its insignificant.
and again, you are a fucking tard if you think saying 'billions' means anything here.
Omg you were serious... so by your "warm is good cold is bad baby logic, the sunny side of mercury should be green. I answered why too much CO2 is bad. Your ignoring it because you are an idealogue.
457 comments
89 KennethFresno 2016-02-02
This dumb spaghetti nigger talks about context all the time and he just takes a random day from the past. What were the patterns in the area around the time and years prior? What about compared to the patterns in other locations in the world? I'm sure there have been much more outrageous weather happening in many places in history. Fuck is this? This is the dumbest kind of cherry picking from a very uneducated man.
He's smart doe guys, he remembers cereal commercial ads from the 60s!
34 TacoTrots 2016-02-02
Okay, that made me laugh.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Join the club.
-1 Bick_Bickerson 2016-02-02
I too laughed.
1 FootThingOnHerFoot 2016-02-02
Yeah, but you're a fag.
1 Bick_Bickerson 2016-02-02
Sorry
18 Z-Tay 2016-02-02
The weather doesn't even matter in regards to global warming. The polar ice caps are melting and the sea levels are rapidly rising. This is quantifiable and doesn't rely on irrelevant temperature readings from the 19th century. I mean really how accurate were thermometers in the 1880's anyways?
Anthony is arguing with 99% of the scientific community. He should stop.
3 cakehornnigga 2016-02-02
Careful, climate truthers are lurking this sub apparently.
4 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
any tips on how to stay careful here?
12 Tom_Stall 2016-02-02
Tug on your pecka.
7 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
its working
-8 MartyVanB 2016-02-02
Nope. The Antarctic ice sheet is at its absolute maximum. Try again
3 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Nope. Keyword being SEA ice. Sea ice is different than land ice:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
Sea ice is rising but land ice is falling:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F5.large.jpg
Land ice is the troubling one since it's what would affect the sea-level where as sea ice is already in the sea (and thus it melting will not significantly affect levels).
-7 MartyVanB 2016-02-02
Arctic sea ice decreasing = Doom for the planet
Antarctic sea ice increasing = Irrelevant weather pattern
got it
7 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No.
sea ice decreasing = pretty much irrelevant for sea levels.
land ice decreasing = Always significant for sea levels.
That's how it is. Don't blame your ignorance of the distinction on the scientists. It's not their fault.
4 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Thank you for trying. I appreciate learning things even when others can't.
1 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Wow, you're so smart.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
-13 SWIMsfriend 2016-02-02
yep, by 2100 the sea level will rise by half a meter, oh god the humanity.
imagine the people 80 years from now, how mad they are that low tide is where high tide was and high tide now covers the berm.
10 Individually_Placed 2016-02-02
"low tide is where high tide was and high tide now"
Really? Are you that myopic? Do you really think climate change is just going to effect tides? How about severe droughts? (Do you like water shortages and paying more for fruits and vegetables?) How about disease expansion, which we are already witnessing in Florida. Check out Dengue Fever in the Florida Keys (a mosquito borne disease that was once only limited to the tropics). What about the increase in hurricane activity costing the US billions each year (Yes, a warmer ocean will increase the frequency of hurricanes). Do you like Spring & Fall? If so, say goodbye to them. We are already seeing much shortened Spring's & Fall's compared to previous decades - and they will only get shorter. Are you a fan of animal extinction? Good, because when the planet gets warmer, more animals will go extinct. Do you like fresh air and going outside? I hope not, because the air quality will significantly decrease and heat waves will become more prominent making it unbearable to be outside. These are just some things that could occur (and some are already occurring) if we don't try to mitigate our CO2 output.
-14 SWIMsfriend 2016-02-02
you mad?
all i did was talk about the sea levels, you decided to go on this tirade for nothing
4 Individually_Placed 2016-02-02
No, not mad at all. Why?
1 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
You do understand that the unrest that triggered the Syrian war and the resulting refugee crisis stems mainly from a climate change induced drought? Good, because the scarcity of life-essential resources combined with the mass migration of up to 44% of the human population at the same time is probably something we should be planning for. Or not; since the massive population shifts throughout history, like the partition of India, taught us that disastrous violence will never occur because of forced migration. I imagine that when the Mississippi floods to the point of no return, all of the good folk living along the river will get along just fine with all the blacks and mexicans and Floridans who are also looking to grab the newest best spots along the basin valley.
Just a few feet of water though, please don't interrupt my sports drama.
2 brmlb 2016-02-02
wait until thousands of people have to relocate to your county because of sea level changes, you nitwit. In 2045 you'll be bitching and whining, forgetting how stupid you sound now.
1 Z-Tay 2016-02-02
^ Guy who has stock in oil companies.
-15 SkepticSloth 2016-02-02
Hmm.
http://www.ibtimes.com/are-polar-ice-caps-melting-new-nasa-study-shows-mass-gains-are-bigger-losses-2165062
The ice caps aren't growing as fast as they were - but not melting. But there's plenty of ice, and it's well within range to prevent the flooding that the chicken littles are predicting.
As for the sea is rising crowd,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
I've lived through this already, in the 70's, when it was the new Ice Age. That wasn't questioned, either, and became "fact" just because everyone repeated it. I also saw a similar campaign against eggs, which according to the news and experts, were little hand grenades of death. Now...oh, look, they're not that bad. In fact, it was the crap we sold you instead of eggs that's bad for you. Our bad. I've seen this before on a bunch of topics. Live long enough, you'll see it again, too.
For the record, I believe 100% in conservation, recycling, and a clean planet. But I'm skeptical of the media-based religion that is "global warming", or whatever it is right now - and know from people I know who work in the sciences that if you want funding these days, it has to be climate research - especially if you're willing to fudge the numbers to give the media and politicians the numbers they want - which is the dark, dirty, filthy secret of research sciences - if someone has enough money, they can get a study that says anything they want.
But, over-all, it's fine, the climate is worthy of study. But to make conclusions? We don't even really know how weather works, and able to model it reliably in a computer, let alone have for sure, factual data for what the future holds - that's pure arrogance and the "publish or die" crowd at work, along with politicians who are using it as a chicken little issue to scare everyone into voting for them.
I do believe the planet has cycles of climate, it's proven in the fossil record - and the sun has more to do with it than anything else. I love Neil Degrasse Tyson, but it disturbs me that he's on the chicken little wagon - I thought he'd be more pragmatic than that.
The best example of what's really going on is this farce called "carbon credits". It does nothing to really change anything, except make the usual suspects more wealthy using greenhouse gasses as a commodity to be bought, traded and sold. They finally managed the dream, they're making money off of AIR.
But you won't see much coverage of that on the nightly news.
Quantifiable? Depends on who you ask.
And, while the thermometers in the 1800's may be irrelevant (I guess data that doesnt work for you is bad, right?) the ones operating today are relevant, and I see endless numbers of articles from scientists who say the numbers aren't what the GW crowd claim they are, and have to redo their numbers constantly. In fact, just yesterday I saw an article about scientists who are upset because some of the researchers are only releasing select data, not all of it - and that's on top of scandal after scandal over data on the subject going back years. Hockey stick graph ring a bell? Oh, and remember those Pacific islands that were sinking? They're not. They even re-did all of their measuring equipment, and still found that the islands are not sinking. Funny that. But it wasn't a complete waste of money, because we got data for that part of the Pacific. For a while, they stopped recording sea levels there. I guess only parts of the ocean will rise - like in Democrat voting states.
Again - all for conservation, recycling, and a clean planet. Get off the oil tit. Get off the plastic tit. Put money into material sciences to push recycling further. The Republican's record for this is shit, and they need to get their act together.
But run around saying anything regarding the environment and global climate is "fact" and "quantifiable"? Nope. I'm not that dumb, and I don't listen to politicians when they say the sky is falling. I listen to scientists, and despite the claims that all of the researchers are united (they're not), I see no "quantifiable facts" at all. I see a lot of theory, a lot of research left to be done, and too many fucking chicken littles who have bought into the Global Climate religion hook line and sinker. I see a lot of disagreement and respectable scientists saying they don't know - when they're not being attacked with cute labels like "deniers".
13 Individually_Placed 2016-02-02
First off, the top Climate researchers / scientists ARE in consensus. 97% or more in agreement that Climate Change is occurring and human activity is partially responsible, if not solely responsible. How is 97% not a consensus?
And, as far as YOU not seeing "quantifiable facts", who are YOU? Are you a climate scientist who has relentlessly studied the trends, the impacts and the overall effects of increased global temperature? Or, are you just an random nobody who has a slight understanding of weather? I'm assuming the latter, so why should anyone listen to your opinion regarding a subject you don't know much about?
And no, there is not a lot of disagreement within the scientific community regarding climate change, as you say. That is an outright lie.
And you said "we don't even know how the weather really works"? What the fuck does that even mean? Dude, holy shit. Yes, WE DO know how the weather works. That statement is what really disqualified you from talking about this subject.... I mean, come on, man. Wow.
9 cakehornnigga 2016-02-02
I find myself actually debating climate change deniers here, holy shit.
2 Brawndo91 2016-02-02
I'm not a denier of climate change, nor am I all in on it and here's why:
You seem pretty confident that it's happening and that it's caused by humans. So with this knowledge, what are you doing differently in your life that you might not if there was no possibility of human-caused climate change?
Everyone likes to bash the climate change deniers while they still drive gas-powered cars, eat beef (a leading cause of methane gasses), and buy products that require the burning of endless fossil fuels to produce and ship. All while smugly shouting 97%! 97%!
The only thing they do to help is recycle their own farts by fitting their noses firmly to their own assholes.
That said, Anthony is still a raging Fox News/Drudge Report parrot.
9 Individually_Placed 2016-02-02
I graduated from college with a degree in Environmental Science back in the 90's (prior to Climate Change being a concern) and now work as an analyst where I study trends / patterns within the realm of weather, biodiversity, and disease - and from my own work, coupled with the opinion of virtually 100% of the scientific community, yes, I'm confident Climate Change is occurring and human activity (particularly the burning of fossil fuels) is a contributor.
And....
The issue is not what I'm doing to curb the effects, but rather the Republican's denial of reality which serves as a roadblock for taking meaningful steps to mitigate the effects of CO2 output.
1 Brawndo91 2016-02-02
I'm not denying climate change, or human involvement. And your working in the field (and not as a shill for the oil and gas industry) makes you a contributor to curbing its effects on its own.
I'm talking about the average person who likes to point and laugh. They believe they possess some higher knowledge but use it for nothing more than to hate on the ignoramuses. They're just as unwilling to make sacrifices as the deniers, but still want to trash them. If they know that they do things that are bad for the environment, does that not make them worse than those that believe hey aren't causing a problem?
1 Individually_Placed 2016-02-02
When I point and laugh, I'm laughing at the purposeful disregard people have due to their allegiance to a political party's platform. Or, people's willful ignorance regarding the facts concerning Climate Change. I believe these are the reasons people are trashing the deniers.
Currently there is a rapper, unsure of his name, who just wrote a song claiming the earth is flat, and he did it without irony. His proof? He was at a particularly high elevation (in a building or on a mountain, cant recall) and because he wasn't able to see the curvature of the earth, he dismisses the fact that the earth is not a round shaped plant but rather a flat two dimensional object.
Now, any idiot with eyes can look at images from the hubble, the ISS, or even a plane can easily conclude that the earth is round in shape. But, just because this guy, in his local environment, can't see the curvature of the earth, he is convinced the earth is flat due to his limited perspective.
Same thing with the local weather. People who deduce Climate Change isn't occurring based on their local weather are fucking ignorant idiots and deserve to be laughed at, just as that rapper does. The weather is not the climate. The weather is supposed to fluctuate.
The idea that believing in Climate Change and not actively doing something about it aren't mutually exclusive. I'm quite sure you believe, just like most of humanity, that the human slave trade is awful and should be stopped, but what are YOU doing about it?
I need to finish this but I've got a meeting......
1 Brawndo91 2016-02-02
You're right. I do believe the human slave trade is terrible and should be stopped. And you're right that I'm not doing anything to stop it. But I'm not participating in human slave trade. I don't have a 13 year old Thai girl locked in my basement. That's the difference.
Let's look at another issue so I can illustrate my point. The anti-vaccine crowd goes around spewing ignorant bullshit about mercury and mouse brains. And people point and laugh. If I bring a baby to the doctor and get the usual course of shots, then I have every right to point and laugh. But if I still blast my air conditioner all summer, buy everything from sunscreen to cheese in an aerosol can, get a new cell phone every other month, and drive my gas-powered car everywhere I go, by myself, then I don't feel right laughing at those that don't believe or don't know that they're part of the problem.
2 Individually_Placed 2016-02-02
I understand your point, but again, we are laughing at the willful ignorance of individuals who claim something doesn't exist when it clearly does.
As for your scenario, we live in a world where it is almost unavoidable to escape the personal utilization of fossil fuels. Sure, we can take small steps, and collectively, it would make a difference, but until the government intervenes, or large scale manufacturers take the initiative to produce products that reduce or eliminate CO2, then not much we can do other than not purchase products - including food. For example, I'd love to rely on solar power. It's free energy! I'd love to drive a car powered by a fuel cell and only takes 4 minutes to fully recharge. I'd love to take a super fast mag-lev train when I go on vacation versus flying. But these products aren't on the market yet. Right now, if I want to live in a modern society, which I do, I don't have a choice but to purchase and partake in activities that are only offered to me.
1 burgersass 2016-02-02
We don't live in a society that allows us to realistically not use fossil fuels while being a productive human being. Mass acceptance of climate change would allow people and companies in the field of energy to change how everything works. It's only something that can be done with government backing and extreme organization.
The idea that we shouldn't shit on those who don't believe in it because we don't impossibly live fossil fuel free is retarded.
1 Brawndo91 2016-02-02
I'm not suggesting that we need to live free of fossil fuels to shit on those who deny climate change. What I'm saying is that in general, people do absolutely zero. I'm not advocating some faggoty hippie commune lifestyle. I'm saying there are things that can be done, but nobody is willing to give up an iota of convenience while still pretending to give a shit. It's something that we ignore completely until someone challenges it.
1 burgersass 2016-02-02
The thing is, even pretending to give a shit is a big plus. If everyone pretended to give a shit about climate change and believed it, larger motions would be being made right now. We also wouldn't need to give up convenience if we just had a better energy solution.
3 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
You can't just stop living in the society that you're born into. Activists who fought to end slavery probably wore clothing made from slave-picked cotton because the alternative was freeze to death in your paper-thin shack in Boston. The whole point of modern activism is to use the government to influence and gradually change those societal patterns through taxes and subsidies, because the whole human population isn't going to do it themselves. When the government makes it artificially cheaper to burn fossil fuels by taxing you and then giving the money to Exxon it's no different than taxing fresh vegetables and giving the cash to McDonalds. People are always going to eat the cheaper McDonalds food.
The government is so skewed towards subsidizing the 1950's model of enterprise, god forbid one of the oligarchs has to figure out a new industry, that it's not only unrealistic to expect the average person to live by 100% of their ideals, it may be impossibly unaffordable unless change happens from the top-down.
I think that american imperialism has destroyed our global reputation; I won't be able to visit a lot of the countries that my parents were able to, while being regarded as world-saving heroes, because I'm white and we've squandered that goodwill. Certainly our own actions with killing civilians nonstop from robots 30,000 feet in the sky is a leading cause of that, but I'm not going to join fucking al Qaeda, I'm going to try to influence the government to stop those things.
2 Brawndo91 2016-02-02
I understand your point that the world we live in limits our options for making these types of lifestyle changes, but my argument is that the average person does absolutely nothing with this knowledge, while making jabs at those that they feel are ignorant.
If you knew the world was flooding, would you laugh in the face of those that didn't believe it, or would you build a boat?
Again, I don't deny that climate change is happening or that it is caused by humans. I just find it odd that so many people can laugh in the face of contrarian thought, but end their efforts at that.
0 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
Party politics just become a team sport to the plebs eventually. No different than whats happened between Sunni and Shia, Sinhalese and Tamil, Israeli and Arab, etc. It's always just about the other team being wrong and scoring a point now. There's no difference between the Sarah Palin supporting soccer moms and the #blacklivesmatter college student; both feel empowered as warriors for their tribe and they're confident that the team has somebody smart doing the thinking for them.
If the world was flooding, they'd both die deep behind enemy lines trying to sabotage the others boat; boats that never got built due to their lack of focus. I'm with ya there.
2 Brawndo91 2016-02-02
Yeah, the world may not be flooding but it's definitely turning on its head. We have Hilary Cunton against universal healthcare and Donald Trump supporting it. I'm all for crossing the aisle but this is pandering at a level I could have never imagined.
1 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
Just let me be this guy and I'll give up on politics. I'll live in my own world.. of warcraft.
4 brmlb 2016-02-02
Enough about the 1970s ice age article . There's been 10,000 articles about global warming / climate change since, but that 1 article from 1970 is some sort of holy grail.
3 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
As glacial melt occurs during the daytime the fresh water spreads out over top of the more dense saltwater which stays around -2 degrees C. At night that meltwater re-freezes as a thin crust that appears to satellite imagery as normal sea ice. It eventually gets churned up enough to mix with the saltwater and stay liquid but it is a gradual, phased process. That's why some people can claim on any given day that the ice isn't receeding, it may actually be expanding.
The Maldives lost 300 feet of coastline this year. Regardless of whats right or wrong, Ant certainly isn't informed on the subject.
3 rahtin 2016-02-02
Your first link is misleading. It's just some parts of Antarctica. Arctic ice levels are shrinking.
There are about 1000 articles completely debunking the relevance of that one fact.
3 mad-lab 2016-02-02
First of all that NASA study being referenced by the IBTimes said this phenomenon spanned up to 2008. That's 8 years ago. Second of all, the study itself disagrees with other ones and thus experts are skeptical of it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm
No, you didn't. That's a bullshit talking point that has no basis in reality. The scientific consensus was never that there was a coming ice age. That was the thought of tiny, tiny number of scientists, and was outweighed by the other scientists saying the opposite:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
As someone who works in the sciences, let me tell you that you or your "friends" (or both) are completely full of shit.
That's an awful argument. First of all, weather is far more chaotic that climate. Second of all, contrary to popular belief, predictions of weather are actually pretty damn good.
Nobody cares about your "beliefs". We want evidence. Show us a natural cycle of climate that would explain the temperature rise we've observed for the past 100 years or so. Go ahead.
Milankovitch cycles would take tens of thousands of years to observe the same level of temperature change we've seen in just 100 years.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
-2 SkepticSloth 2016-02-02
I see I've ruffled the feathers of a "believer". Go squawk at someone else, lol.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
So you can't address any of the points?
3 Bick_Bickerson 2016-02-02
Shut up retard
-1 SkepticSloth 2016-02-02
Compelling argument.
2 Bick_Bickerson 2016-02-02
Why would I bother? I could spend twenty minutes debunking your shit, and at the end of that all you would do is brush it off because you'd rather not believe in climate change. It's the same reason I won't argue with holocaust deniers. They aren't interested in the overwhelming proof - they're interested in tint, miniscule outlier pieces of "evidence" that validate their agendas.
So, in conclusion, shut up, retard.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
As opposed to yours?
https://www.reddit.com/r/opieandanthony/comments/43svz5/anthony_is_on_twitter_right_now_denying_climate/czl2h3n
lol
15 Anarox 2016-02-02
The worst thing is that he is pretty smart when it comes to science, this is just him going with whatever his right wing buddies tells him to say and act.
36 frostiitute 2016-02-02
He isn't smart when it comes to anything, he is just surrounded by literal retards who make him look like a genius.
18 TriangleDimes 2016-02-02
For a guy who can't shut the fuck up about crime trends he seems very quick to dismiss climate trends.
11 rahtin 2016-02-02
At least he's consistent in dismissing the root causes.
It's racial inferiority, not growing up in shithole neighborhoods with 3/4 of the male population locked up and the rest on welfare. It's not pumping millions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, it's libruls.
5 TriangleDimes 2016-02-02
It would probably help if we could say it in his language.
"I'm not SAYING that humans are 'genetically predisposed' to ruin their environment and behave self-destructively, but look at the numbers! The numbers don't lie! All I'm trying to do is have an open and honest conversation about statistics in human communities."
5 frostiitute 2016-02-02
Cognitive dissonance.
6 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
say that five times fast, am I right guys?
1 Det_Sipowicz 2016-02-02
"He knows a little bit about a lot of things."
15 panjshirlion 2016-02-02
Kind of. When O&A had Brian Greene on, Ant tried to impress him by demonstrating his knowledge of "relativity" but was actually just describing the basic concept of frame of reference in classical physics (the velocities of objects being "relative" to the velocity of the observer). Brian Greene politely humored him.
1 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
https://youtu.be/CN3yCdqaSIY?t=27s
2 axeheadroad 2016-02-02
I hear "Anthony is a smart guy" all the time on this sub, but after years of listening to him, I've never thought that. Yes he's witty, but intelligent?
9 maynardsabeast 2016-02-02
Spaghetti nigger is admittedly fucking awesome
8 Tom_Stall 2016-02-02
How could Ant forget his first Lasanga Hat day as an adult?
3 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
Did you know there was a flood in 5000 BC that covered the enire world?
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
-10 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
9 TotallyNotObsi 2016-02-02
It's not meaningless for humans.
-13 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
10 TotallyNotObsi 2016-02-02
Yes, exactly and it will likely be climate change that will be the cause of it.
-14 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
6 TotallyNotObsi 2016-02-02
No, we won't make it that far because of the climate change.
-13 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
9 TotallyNotObsi 2016-02-02
It's possible to delay it long enough until humans can move to other planets. But that sort of logic and long term thinking is beyond one note conservatives.
-6 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
2 TotallyNotObsi 2016-02-02
I think you're a regressive. Think big. Anything is possible with time.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
2 TotallyNotObsi 2016-02-02
I have to watch out for the future of the caliphate. You have to watch out for the future of the failing Anthony Cumia Network.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
4 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Which according to your logic we shouldn't stop because "human civilization will cease to exist one day anyway maaaahn!"
-9 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 panjshirlion 2016-02-02
Sure, but since all participants in this discussion are humans with a stake in humankind, that doesn't really need to be brought up.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 panjshirlion 2016-02-02
Can we all agree that we would prefer later rather than sooner?
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
6 mad-lab 2016-02-02
What were the patterns? Like this:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
[The time-scale ins kilo years BP i.e. 1000's of years before present]
Note how in the past took thousands of years in to achieve the same change in temperature that we have observed in the past 100 years.
-5 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
5 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No, not like that. The Medieval Warming Period was concentrated on certain regions (where that plot is basing itself on). Globally, however, the temperatures were far cooler than today:
Global MWP Pattern: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif
Global Recent Pattern: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg
http://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
-5 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
5 mad-lab 2016-02-02
That chart covers less time than the one I posted initially and conveniently stops at 1950 (which avoids 60+ years of the current trend)! So again, these were the patterns in the past hundreds of thousands of years:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
[The time-scale ins kilo years BP i.e. 1000's of years before present]
Note how in the past took thousands of years in to achieve the same change in temperature that we have observed in the past 100 years. What's your explanation for this?
You tried posting the Medieval Warming Period, but were oblivious of the fact that that was only observed in certain small regions and globally the temperatures were much cooler. I can provide more evidence of that if you wish.
-5 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
5 mad-lab 2016-02-02
What point? You have none. The data clearly shows that we have achieved warming the past 100 years that had taken thousands and thousands of years to achieve in the past. To this, you have no response.
And every explanation for those cooling and warming events involve processes that we can study today. Guess what? They all point to humans as the primary influence.
Hard data isn't anecdotal. You asked for evidence for temperatures in the distant past and I posted data that went back to almost a million years. Now that the data debunks your argument, you insist that we need to examine data for 100 million years.
Are you conceding that you need to go back to 100,000,000 years to find a single case of climate changing as fast as it is today? If so, then you've made my case for me.
Your awful argument.
-2 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
My thoughts exactly.
I'm glad you're conceding that you need to go back 100,000,000 years to find a single case of temperature rising as fast it has now. Thank you.
-2 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 truthie 2016-02-02
You are quite a dunce.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
-5 ellasmitherson 2016-02-02
You are linking to "data" from an organization that has a vested interest in global warming existing.
4 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Are you saying the data is false or has been tampered with? If so, please post evidence. Note how the other guy posted a chart of his own which agreed with mine...
Arguably all scientists supporting a particular theory (from relativity, to germ theory) have a "vested interest" in it. That's why there is peer-review, replication, independent reviews, etc.
-1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yeah, no. At best what those articles show is that the Cook et al. (2013) study miss-classified a small number of studies. That's to be expected in a study of that large scope. Errors will be made. Specially given the fact that the people claiming errors when the abstract of their study did in fact merit the classification it recieved.
What you - and the authors of those articles ("populartechnology", Hah) - are apparently oblivious to is that there are numerous different studies showing a huge consensus:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
If Cook et al. (2013) had actually falsified their data, then it would disagree with the other studies that have been done on this issue. It doesn't. It agrees with them and pretty much all research done on this subject. If this was such a contentious issue with little or no consensus, that would not be the case. Are those press releases falsified too?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yes, the authors of the "populartechnology.net" article and the Forbes article based on it. What part of that statement did you find confusing?
No, they interviewed a tiny fraction of the scientists. The Cook et al. paper examined 12,000 papers in total, and the articles you posted (really only one article since the Forbes article is just repeating the same claim and citing the "populartechnology" blog) could only find a tiny fraction of scientists that disagreed with how their papers were classified. Again, that's to be expected when you're examining and classifying 12,000 different papers.
The point, which you failed to address, is that that tiny error rate is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus. Furthermore, you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus. Copying and pasting the article (which you clearly don't even understand to begin with) isn't going to make these facts go away dummy.
So you get to dismiss the evidence debunking your bullshit as propaganda, but I have to accept a site that calls itself "popular technology" to fool people into believing it's somehow similar to "popular mechanics"? Lol.
EDIT: Oh, and by they way, the Cook et al. (2013) paper also allowed thousands of authors to self-classify their studies. The consensus of the self-classification matched the the consensus based on classification done by the raters:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf;jsessionid=61D0F67F843FF1F2A3DF8D7C64FFB7FC.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Andrew K from the "popular technology" blog, and James Taylor from the Forbes article. What did you think this quiz was going to achieve?
No shit. I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying that despite you posting two articles, the reality is that it's just one source: the popular technology blog. It's not two independent sources of information, it's one source (the blog) and another repeating the same claims (the Forbes article). That's an important distinction to make. I didn't say Forbe didn't cite their source or anything like that. You made that up.
I didn't cry foul about the source. Pay attention. I pointed out your hypocrisy of wanting to dismiss my evidence as as "propaganda" while being utterly full of shit and demanding that I accept yours.
Ultimately I accepted the claims in the article as true. I then pointed out how that tiny error rate [argued in the blog you linked to] is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus, and how you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus. Copying and pasting the article (which you clearly don't even understand to begin with) isn't going to make these facts go away.
False. Cook wasn't involved in the ratings. Independent raters were. Second of all, the proportion of papers they got wrong was tiny, which is why you hide behind the word "many" instead of saying exactly how many out of the 12,000. Because you know the fraction would be pathetic. Or perhaps you don't know since you've demonstrated you don't understand your own source.
Huh? Sourced by who/what? What are you talking about? Why wouldn't a scientific paper not be used as a source?
What are you babbling about? There absolutely is a consensus on climate change, and how humans are involved. I already posted the evidence, which you ignored. Here it is a summary of several of their conclusions:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
I can provide these papers (or others) if you wish.
Yes, it's ironic how I had to explain your own article to you.
No, just replying the same way you do to me. I'm glad you don't deny that you can't address the facts, though.
P.S. Can you respond to the fact that Cook et al. allowed thousands of scientists to self-rate, and their findings matched or not?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
How was that your point when that doesn't help your case? Furthermore, why did you have a problem with my statement then?
Nope, I addressed your claim by pointing out how that tiny error rate is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus. Furthermore, you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus.
Only after you tried to dismiss my sources by calling them propaganda without evidence, did I mention how full of shit you're being since I could easily dismiss yours. Now, can you respond to these points or not?
They didn't purposefully misrepresent anything. Get it? They weren't looking at the full paper (which would take years if not decades). They were looking at the abstract. From that abstract, they tried determining which side, if any, the paper should be rated as supporting. That's not an easy task. Mistakes will be made. If you think you can rate 12,000 papers without making a mistake, you're full of shit.
There is absolutely no shred of evidence to suggest any of this was purposefully misrepresented. In fact, they would have no reason to since the self-ratings supported their criteria - a fact you've failed to address every single time now.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. At least read up on it before you open your mouth.
Yes there is. An op-ed an online newspaper is not going to magically make the half a dozen or so studies showing a consensus disappear. An op-ed, by the way, that makes a slew of erroneous statements.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Huh? You had the problem with my statement, as you immediately decided to point how the Forbes wrote it's own article and cited the blog as a source... as if I hadn't said exactly that. I know what Forbe did...
And I never claimed you said two independent sources. Pay attention. I clarified as an aside. Why? Because I referred to it as two links but I wanted to make it clear - to you or anyone else that might be reading - that it's really one source.
False. I didn't dismiss anything. I did laugh at how it's blatantly trying to fool people into thinking it's somehow related to popular mechanics, but I didn't dismiss anything. I replied to your article accepting the truth of what it said. Speaking of which, here are all the points again, which you've STILL haven't responded to:
That tiny error rate [argued in the blog you linked to] is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus, and how you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus.
I don't care how many awards the PG (not the author of that article mind you) has won. It doesn't magically do away with facts. Again, there are numerous studies - not editorial articles by journalists with no expertise on the subject - showing a consensus:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
That's a complete and utter bullshit. Legates allegation (from which the PG article is basing itself on... which of course you didn't know since you didn't even bother research things), is based on misrepresentation of the criteria used in the study:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/24_errors.pdf
You also ignored the fact that Cook verified his findings by having authors self-rate something you've failed at addressing for like the 5-th time now:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf;jsessionid=61D0F67F843FF1F2A3DF8D7C64FFB7FC.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Sure.
/u/Opieisgod ignores evidence.
/u/mad-lab points it out.
/u/Opieisgod can't respond.
The end.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
2 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
He does that to you too? HA! I'm not the only one that called him out on that shit haha.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
That's the 10th time you've pretended you're trolling me when you couldn't respond to the facts.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Really, then why are you leaving?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
That's fine, you can come back later. You were having so much fun, after all, right?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Why did you delete your posts? You were having so much fun!
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yeah, that wasn't me. You, however, were so salty you came back and replied to this thread a day later... and downvoted it. Lol.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Hah, if you want I can show you a picture of whatever post you think it is. Of course you'll just say I undid the downvote so... Want me to actually downvote it so it can go down further?
Yeah, I never denied I liked discussing this issue...
Toughen up? Lol. You literally just finished crying about how someone downvoted your post somewhere else and then you accused me...
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Lol. How would serve to "mock" me when I didn't even know what post you were talking about?
Hey /u/Opieisgod you are so salty you did something you didn't even know happened!
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
How exactly do two sentences qualify as "ramblings"? Lol.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Try coming up with a better excuse.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
So you're having fun like last time then? Good! Why are you trying to convince me to stop then?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
How are you convincing me to take the bait by saying you're trolling me?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Okay, How are you convincing me to take the bait by saying I'm your puppet?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
How am I confusing the two?
-4 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
0/10
-1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
61 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
Noted climatologist, Dr. Anthony Cumia strikes again. Just like the time he predicted Hurricane Sandy wouldn't make that left turn.
20 kgt5003 2016-02-02
Careful with the language you use.. "Anthony Cumia strikes again" is liable to give poor Dani a traumatic event flashback.
5 jtreezy 2016-02-02
Trigger-Warning: rape joke, rape joke.
2 sanfrancisco69er 2016-02-02
I know Ant's likability is at an all time low but is getting the weather wrong really even worth noting?
0 MartyVanB 2016-02-02
You seem to enjoy discussing O&A a lot. Are you a noted podcaster/radio host?
5 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
Yes, they call me Dr. 3steps.
52 cakehornnigga 2016-02-02
Incredible. High school dropout and former "shock-jock" exposes the truth about climate change. It's clearly a conspiracy involving all of the most respected scientists in the world. How does he know all of this? Because it's been cold this winter...let that sink in.
13 xxmikekxx 2016-02-02
Not even just high school drop-out. A man who has the judgement & commonsense to get fired because of his tweets and, given all benefit of doubt in his current case, to even be in the situation with Dani in the first place ... that's the man that we will listen to about climate change
10 Phantas_Magorical 2016-02-02
Doesn't know the difference between weather and climate, true genius.
3 ballpitpredator 2016-02-02
Anthony is truly proof that money cannot buy class, respect, or intelligence.
2 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
So is Donald Trump.
2 RockCoatMon 2016-02-02
Alex Jones won
0 Rufiux 2016-02-02
and is Bill Hicks.
4 Phantas_Magorical 2016-02-02
THERMITE HICKS
1 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
not a bad theory, i believe it till my death now
1 Brocktoon_in_a_jar 2016-02-02
and J.T. Walsh
0 xyniphis 2016-02-02
In new york, im in canada and it rained yesterday.
1 I_Hate_Knickers 2016-02-02
Eh
37 Psych555 2016-02-02
No one else will talk to him?
16 Jackthejew 2016-02-02
Oh
22 TriangleDimes 2016-02-02
well it's just awfully sad when it's written out like that
3 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
Jim's just busy with all of his hollywood leading roles at the moment.
37 ckb614 2016-02-02
He'll be dead in 10 years so what does he care?
5 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
Look at that man's liver. I give him a solid 3, maybe 4 years, at best.
2 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
cut him in half, COUNT HIS RINGS!
-21 [deleted] 2016-02-02
Honestly, even though I'm 24 I'll be dead before it has any major effects (assuming I die at 65-70), so I get it. I've heard the damage is probably already done anyways, so why bother?
16 rottengymshorts 2016-02-02
If you're going to die anyways, why not just eat a bunch of pills tonight?
-11 [deleted] 2016-02-02
So you're inferring that I don't enjoy living because I choose not to worry about things of which are out of my control?
12 Nulltor 2016-02-02
Implying, not inferring.
-15 [deleted] 2016-02-02
in·fer
inˈfər/Submit
verb
deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
They both mean very similar things.
13 Nulltor 2016-02-02
Nah man, you infer, he implies.
3 CCRed95 2016-02-02
Potato potahtoe you give me a container of coffee Mr. Fancy Pants grammer man im workin
2 Nulltor 2016-02-02
Implyin', inferrin', all I know is the job is behind schedule and the boss ain't happy
1 ckb614 2016-02-02
He's making an implication based on his inference.
3 hkpp 2016-02-02
Quiet, you.
1 anonimescu 2016-02-02
didn't read your comment but upvoted username. Is the v4 the one with the individually placed follicles?
32 F_H_Rileys_MaitreD 2016-02-02
I'm no pussy Liberal, but what do these fuckin' gun nut, heartland types have against science? It is like admitting they fucked their sister or something.
37 Rustin__Cole 2016-02-02
the climate change debate is so politicised because the solutions offered by scientists would tear apart capitalism and they suspect all scientists are left leaning hippies whose end game is ultimately this, not fixing the climate.
i dunno whose correct im just a regular joe drinkin my container of coffee, let the muckity mucks sort it out you know what im saying friend?
6 F_H_Rileys_MaitreD 2016-02-02
Upvoted, you're probably right. Similarly, I used to consider myself Libertarian, but then I thought to myself: "Wait a minute: If these maniacs were allowed to operate unchecked, they'd absolutely destroy the environment." Similarly, we see what happens when they have control of medicine---> See Wu-Tang AIDS drug price gouging guy.
1 slongbinh 2016-02-02
Maybe. Ron B's standard objection to libertarianism is we will have tainted meat without government controlled food inspection. I never think about food that much.
-7 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
You should check out the work of people like Dr. Judith Curry. The idea that climate change/global warming skepticism is a bunch of rubes & isn't part of the academic debate is pure propaganda. She has lectures & Congressional testimony on YouTube to watch. Top climatologists & chairs of major universities don't have anything "against science" when they speak out against man made climate change.
4 iamheatingup 2016-02-02
And you should read what she actually says. She argues the severity of global warming and the ways we should deal with it. Completely different from denying it like these faggots do.
-9 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
I read her blog daily & I've seen her speak in person. This is Grade A bullshit. There are no ways to deal with a warming planet. 10,000 years ago most of our continent was covered in ice. No one did anything to warm it, no one could have stopped it. And I'm sure Dr. Richard Lindzen who headed MIT's Meteorology department for 30 years is also a "denying faggot" when he also speaks out against climate changed and it's faked consensus. The "consensus" on climate change is a wholly contrived political tool & that's why you have celebrities like Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson & Brian Cox (not a single one of them has ever worked in the field) go on TV and sell it while completely slandering top climatologists like Lindzen as anti-science rubes.
3 iamheatingup 2016-02-02
And what about the jews? Tell me about the jews.
4 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
I just referenced a couple of Jews in the post you responded to.
3 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
I'm sure his ExxonMobil checks make him feel better about this slander.
1 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
lol exactly
3 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Lol, no.
There are a bunch of different studies, all investigating the issue with different methodologies, and all arriving at a large consensus. The number fluctuates depending on the type of expertise that's analyzed, and the methodology, but it's always an overwhelming majority.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
2 cakehornnigga 2016-02-02
Scientific consensus is what moves us forward, still talking about if humans caused it or not is a waste of time.
“There’s a saying in the scientific community, that every great truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say that it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say that they’ve known it all along.” Neil Degrasse Tyson
-7 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
Climate Scientist speaks; The Manufactured Consensus 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition saying that they are falsely counted in the "X% of scientists say man made climate change is a fact" statistic. Their work has led them to the views on climate change ranging from warming is the natural pattern during our current ice age, to human impact is a factor but negligible, to there is no warming at all.
But Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a legend. Nobody has combined school teacher humor with uncle humor as flawlessly as that guy.
6 cakehornnigga 2016-02-02
Holy shit. I can't say your video with 11,000 views was very convincing. Partly because the comments section revealed the type of audience this video is pandering to. The evidence supporting climate change can be easily studied, and it's been demonstrated adequately. I can't tell you how to conduct these experiments yourself, because I'm not qualified. So I choose to rely on the scientific community to make honest judgements because we know science works. Unfortunately you are married to an ideaology, and nothing I say will convince you. I would suggest looking at NASAS website, and what they have to say about global warming. The 97% figure on consensus is accurate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
-8 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
It isn't. And I know I'm not going to convince anyone who is going to base a scientific evaluation from people who have dedicated their lives work to a subject on the number of YouTube views it has. But the 97% consensus has been fact checked & debunked. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 But whatever, I understand how politics go. You control the narrative, you call the other side dumb, even when it includes the top people in their field of science, and incrementally you get what you want. We'll get carbon taxes, we'll outlaw certain vehicles, the only countries that will adhere to a global government will be the wealthy ones, & the entire geological record tells us that the planet will continue to warm until the next cataclysmic catastrophe (major volcano eruption, asteroidal impact).
9 cakehornnigga 2016-02-02
Do you ignore scientific consensus when it comes to medicine as well? Maybe we shouldn't vaccine our children, because a fringe minority in the scientific community believes it leads to Autism. What scientific organization do you find credible? Because the most trusted agree on climate change. If you don't think who published this video you linked is important, we disagree. Also, the rhetoric expressed in the comments section and the number of views is relevant. You can choose not to believe that if you want. Not sure I've insulted you once, simply disagreed based on reasonable evidence.
-1 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
Like I said, over 31k scientists have signed a position that they were disingenuously or fraudulently including in the "consensus". No, I don't ignore scientific consensus on any issue. No they don't agree. I've referenced chairs of top universities & organizations on the field. The video is a CSPAN live feed of Congressional hearings. Attacking the source with an ad hominem is just a big nothing. Who cares who uploaded it? Are the facts presented by Dr Curry in contention? And, my bad if I'm coming across as a sperg in this. I just really love the topic. I was on the "We're all gonna die from Global Warming" side of the debate throughout college & a couple years after. So I've had years looking into this.
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Not really.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/cherry-picking-one-survey-to-discredit-a-survey-of-scientists-on-climate-change/2013/05/07/e69607d2-b77b-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_blog.html
The 97 figure wasn't debunked. It just comes from a small sample size because, for that particular statistic, they decided to narrow their focus only to top climate scientists (with a stringent definition). When you narrow the focus with such a stringent definition, obviously the number of people goes down. However, if we go back to the original survey, with the broader scope and the large sample size, the consensus is still large. The overwhelming majority still agree with climate change. The 97% isn't false, it's just based on a smaller sub-sample. The larger sample confirms the consensus. It also makes sense since the more expertise someone has on climate change the more likely it is they will agree with AGW.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Bullshit. The petition you're talking about is the Global Warming Petition Project. That petition did NOT say that they were falsely counted in any statistics. It's just a bunch of people signing a petition disagreeing with AGW. That doesn't mean they were "falsely counted' in anything.
The statistics showing a consensus are generally based on experts in the field that have published on climate change with graduate degrees in fields related to the topic. Those experts wouldn't be signing that ridiculous petition.
The petition you're talking about, on the other hand, counts pretty much anyone with a degree (even bachelors) in some sort of science field, even if it has nothing to do with climate. The petition isn't limited to experts while the studies showing consensus are.
In fact, that petition is such a joke that Charles Darwin, and Darth Vader "signed" that petition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
3 Azrael_ 2016-02-02
Let the russians figure it out
3 brmlb 2016-02-02
Carbon credits and international banking plans (could be) opportunists looking to take advantage of a crisis. Don't confuse that with the science.
0 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Its not capitalisms fault. Thats like saying holding up a bank is capitalisms fault
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
last time i checked north korea and china dont give 2 fucks about pollution. At least with capitalism you can incentivise better cleaner tech.
-1 packitchofsositch 2016-02-02
Or even if they don't rid the world of the scourge of capitalism, they'll get to point angrily at capitalists and say they destroyed the world (or at least the coasts, which a few thousand years ago extended 50 miles more than they do now...). Pat each other on the back and say they nailed it when they claimed the right were the Bond villains of their wet dreams.
3 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
One of the greatest tricks of the 21st century was convincing right-wing Americans that they are capitalists instead of free-market ideologues. Pretty much none of us are actually capitalists, 75% live paycheck-to-paycheck and the word has lost all meaning.
1 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
It's got something to do with their fake faggot god and his rapebaby, Jesus.
-4 ApeNia 2016-02-02
Yeah...it's like the only time liberals deny science is if race is involved. Weird...
5 brmlb 2016-02-02
that is a dumb fucking comment. the differences between race at the scientific (DNA) level is almost none. the difference between races is seen at the societal, cultural, level.
1 ApeNia 2016-02-02
Bone structure is cultural.
1 brmlb 2016-02-02
look up when I said almost. google the definition. quit being retarded.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 brmlb 2016-02-02
let's go back to original comment and half at the retard talking about "liberals denying science".
you haven't read a science book since 11th grade. just admit you're stupid, pretending to be smart.
1 ApeNia 2016-02-02
So if bone structure is different, is it possible that mental capacity is as well? If not, then why?
1 brmlb 2016-02-02
don't worry about it. you're so eager to take credit for other white people's work, innovation, or ingenuity but you forget your place.
you're a peasant. you're not going to be inventing a new rocket or curing diseases anytime soon. worry about your own accomplishments instead of taking credit for tesla or the wright brothers. fucking peon.
1 ApeNia 2016-02-02
When did I take credit for anything? I asked a simple "science" question and now you're getting emotional.
27 evadcobra1 2016-02-02
I always get my information from a drunk, high school dropout
9 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
I am fluent in over 6 million forms of retardation, and can readily...
Splendid! We have been without a shockjock since our master got angry with our last preteen droid and disintegrated her.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
Underrated genius post.
25 packitchofsositch 2016-02-02
Twitter is fucking unreadable. "There's snow in Arizona! ARIZONA!!!"
Flagstaff gets over 100 inches in an average year.
42 ApeNia 2016-02-02
So does your mom.
13 satsamsit 2016-02-02
Ah-gooojh! Oh!
24 Leeham721 2016-02-02
Of course one of his tweets is about how things were in the past
OF COURSE
7 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
"Women didn't used to savagely beat up men like me at night on the streets."
23 rottengymshorts 2016-02-02
ITS THE HAARP SYSTEM. WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE TALKING ABOUT IT?
22 SayntJ 2016-02-02
Forget Aristotle, and fuck Socrates... Here comes Professor Anthony.
5 AliasHandler 2016-02-02
ANTHONY CUMIA - CLIMATE DIVA!
19 iamheatingup 2016-02-02
Because it's the party line.
He, like most of you American faggots doesn't think for himself at all when it comes to politics. He picks a red or blue team and then goes shouting whatever fucking nonsense the propaganda makers for that team tell him to.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 sanfrancisco69er 2016-02-02
Someone saw Horace and Pete's.
1 iamheatingup 2016-02-02
Oh totally. This viewpoint is so new and groundbreaking only such genius as Louis cuCK could come up with it.
1 sanfrancisco69er 2016-02-02
lol
15 truthie 2016-02-02
Ant isn't a smart man.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
13 RockCoatMon 2016-02-02
Every year since 1980 has been hotter than any previous year on record with the exception of 2001. It's literally getting hotter, every year, all over the globe. The globe, is warming.
There is no debate, this is happening. Every single year the globe gets hotter. Anthony is desperate for attention I think, he's now the ilk of Tila Tequila.
-8 grocery_man 2016-02-02
Who cares you'll be dead soon anyway.
11 Nulltor 2016-02-02
For half a century we put lead, a highly carcinogenic heavy metal, in fuel. That shit was then particulated and pumped into our air from every single running vehicle. I beat he had a cry when they introduced unleaded. Olden day peoples are the worst.
10 LightBulbExpert 2016-02-02
He just parrots things he hears smart conservatives say. Anthony Cumia is a moron ladies and gentlemen.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Smart conservatives?
1 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
Who was he parroting when he (correctly) beat up Dani? Seemed like a pretty smart thing to do to me, but I may be a little biased against the cokewhore.
1 LightBulbExpert 2016-02-02
Stomping on young girls hands and breaking their ribs isn't the same as half assed political posturing
2 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
jokes
10 clucker220 2016-02-02
Someone ask him about the "holocaust", please.
4 rahtin 2016-02-02
Those damn ungrateful jews! The Nazis gave them their own gated communities and ovens big enough to cook for a thousand people at a time, and they turn it into some paranoid genocide fantasy. They had access to the most advanced medical research of the age! What more could they have done for them?
3 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
You mean the FAUXlocaust?!
2 Brocktoon_in_a_jar 2016-02-02
well we'll begin at the advent of the Model T...
9 cabaretcabaret 2016-02-02
He only likes some statistics it seems
9 thissiteruinedme 2016-02-02
Eh, climate change, what do I know? You turn the heat on, you turn the heat off, grab your lunch pail and get back to work. That's what I say.
4 kevin121312 2016-02-02
Remember when Ant bragged that his gas bill was $3500 a month because he keeps his pool at 95 degrees (this is because he's part black). I bet he sits in a luke warm pool and looks at his upcoming guest list of Bob Levy, Joe Devito, Bob Levy, Frank, Big A and hates himself.
2 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
Someone should compile a running list of guests he's talking to today, compared to guests he was talking to on this exact date 2 years ago.
1 MeteorBlitzkieg 2016-02-02
The SadAnt Project.
9 ohaikek 2016-02-02
Why is he going against his favorite room of white people, NASA?
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
We gave this guy way too much fucking credit on O&A. He's a fucktard
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Unfortunately iq has nothing to do with ideology. If he was raised different he wouldnt deny. Hes into science and reasoned skepticism but his dad and being an emotional kid being picked on by blacks had a big effect
8 jfral 2016-02-02
It's about time we have a real, raw, open, honest dialogue about weather.
7 Nulltor 2016-02-02
Old man cumia off on a rant. Like that uncle at Christmas who won't shut up
7 frostiitute 2016-02-02
He is an old fool.
7 maynardsabeast 2016-02-02
Anthony isn't even in the economic class that Sanders would aggressively tax anymore. I don't get why he's so against him, I guess it's hard to quit old habits
7 pitstained 2016-02-02
Anthony is a stupid asshole. Anyone can seem smart when sitting next to Opie for 20 years. Meanwhile he never graduated high school, in the fucking 70's no less.
5 Really_Big_Dummy 2016-02-02
Jealous of Kurt
5 cheddarrooster 2016-02-02
Isn't a bigger problem not if it is or isn't happening but the fact that pretty much all the things that attribute to it don't really need to be here anymore? We can start to faze out gas and oil as we fine tune clean energy sources. Even if you do not believe in global warming you can look at the areas where they put in fracking operations and how it destroys the areas and causes health issues. The pipeline accidents that happen on a weekly basis now and yet they keep pushing for more. We could be self sustaining and it wouldn't kill the economy....it would just destroy some big corporations which....does not bother me one bit. I've been screwed over by a couple so fuck em. And don't get me started on all the shit being dumped in the ocean and other water ways. This kinda horseshit from ant is why I stopped stealing his show. Two episodes in a row he talked some ignorant shit about fracking being safe and then followed it up with saying Monsanto is a good company. Yuck. Fucking old Fox news ideal promoting ass clown cumia. Still makes me laugh though. Just not enough to steal his show anymore.
3 rahtin 2016-02-02
You hit on another political note, fracking. Science doesn't matter, politics do. The right supports it, therefore it will be defended to the end.
I'm more concerned about fracking because it's driving oil prices down and as an Albertan, our economy relies on decent oil prices.
1 cheddarrooster 2016-02-02
Yeah I understand that but it is time to change. As a species we have evolved as things changed before and we will again. Some of us might be broke for a while but hey....I've been there before. Just have to figure it out.
3 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
No man, the Saudi's do really good things with our money. Praise Wahhab.
4 rsdj 2016-02-02
Wouldn't he be FOR sea level rising, you know, because the you-know-who cant swim?
4 Jayboca 2016-02-02
I thought Ant revered the opinions of white NASA scientists?
3 Zenaesthetic 2016-02-02
Anthony "Regular Joe" Cumia
1 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
EYYYY IT GETS HOT IT GETS COLD LEMME TELL YA 'BOUT MY LUNCH
3 jsmill1 2016-02-02
he's only educated about dumb things.
3 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Thats unfortunate. Will we flood tomorrow? No Was gore an exaggerating ass who made people distrust science? Yes. But you cant dump megatons of co2 into the atmosphere and not think there wont be any effect
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Actually, despite popular belief, he didn't really exaggerate. His statements where misrepresented.
He cited two different studies for the rise in sea levels. One presenting the best estimates at the time (~15 years or so ago) and another one representing the worst-case scenario. People took the worst-case scenario and passed it off as it that was his prediction.
-2 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
manmade Co2 is a teensy tiny part of the megatons and by 'have any effect' what is that supposed to mean?
Do you think 'denying climate change' is people who believe there is absolutely zero effect of any kind?
2 biobotX1 2016-02-02
No. Man dumps millions of tons of co2 more 5han the natural amount
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Oh, then almost nothing since millions of tons of co2 would be a ridiculously tiny number compared to our atmosphere.
Hey, about how much of our atmosphere is made of Co2.. don't look it up and just guess?
You looked it up. Surprised the shlt out of you didn't it?
2 biobotX1 2016-02-02
You are a fucking momo. Its not THAT co2 is present. Its how much. I stayed quiet until i read that. I have 3 scientists in my family, ive been into science my whole life.... and your statement about how we already have co2 disqualifies you from this. You are a moron
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Nobody told you otherwise dr.science.
Read what? That human emit co2. Add co2. As i told you.
Hey whats the natural variations every year (minus man-made) dr.science?
2 biobotX1 2016-02-02
About 100 or 200 billion tons. Do you realize that its aggregate past the point of nominal photosynthetic use? For instance carbon monoxide in minute amounts in your blood isnt toxic, but if its still there over time it causes major respiratory and brain problems
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Great you googled things to say but the problem is that stupid fucking 'aggregate' bullshit and..
..reality. Co2 rises aren't doing anything but (according to NASA) massively greening the planet.
Like.. you know how if you WANT lush warm super fruits you build a greenhouse. Cuz its awesome for life.
But in this case it can't be compared to your backyard greenhouse because what man contributes isn't even CLOSE to that level of goodness. Its insignificant.
and again, you are a fucking tard if you think saying 'billions' means anything here.
2 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Are you going yo use the dumbfuck argument, " We breathe out co2... it isnt poisonous"????
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
It isn't poisonous.
The global warming people count on the fact that the average person doesn't really remember which was co2 and the one that people die from in garages.
They count on that and dumbfucks like you to think its poison gas
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Lol hey buddy... you ever see Apollo 13? They almost dies from co2 poisoning. Hehehe. Next...
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
HAR HARR HEY PAL.. you ever see a lake? You can DROWN in water. heheheheheheh gotchaaaaaa kissssss kiss ta taaa
2 biobotX1 2016-02-02
"When a volcano goes off its way more then all the industry on earth puts out in a day" is that your next fallacious arguement. Ive heard them all debunked or knew they were bs even from my lowly undetstanding of physics and chemistry. P.s. volcanos dont go off every day since 1880
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
wow truth must have hurt for you to make up something else, post it 'for me' so you think you could defeat it and thereby move that win to cover all other things.
Weak. So weak
2 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Oh you gave up? Mabye you should go test your "co2 isnt poisonous" hypothesis by taping a bag over your dumb head.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
You can do the same by putting your head into the toilet and drowning.
Meanwhile, adding 1% more water vapor to that MASSIVE GREENHOUSE of water vapor in our atmosphere won't make any significant difference.
I win. Anthony wins. Climatazis lose.
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Wheres the other horseshit "truth" you got? Ill keep it from being ad hominem arguements if you can
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Its in your face and you are not handling it well at all
at this point you cannot be so stupid to actually believe global warming requires Bernie Sanders increased regulations or we are in big trouble.
It can only be lying at this point. Liar.
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
You're the one breaking this into black and white. Im not a bernie sociialist... im not anti corporate... we have time to fix it without g9v butting in i just know science. Im using science to debunk you. You are repeating simplistc ad hominem attacks
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
A .5 percent chang in co2 ammount traps heat in our oceans convection cycle... uou know what that is Cooter?
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
wow does it!
So what? More trees and yummy things to eat? Less dead animals at the end of winters?
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
We like oxygen. You can get oxygen poisoning. It has to be the correct amount. Next...
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
What is the correct amount of Co2 for our atmosphere.
Yes, you like water. You can drown in H2o. DERP!
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Lol. Ok i guess you ran out of smart. 20 percent co2 is good. More is too much for algae and trees to use. That either stays in atmosphere and soaks up heat which convection transfers to ocean currents. Those inturn alter direction underwater which effects weather. Oooorrrrr it chemically bond to compounds like ammonia and benzene
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
You get one reply not the faggot thing of writing 25 timewasting posts and you failed because...
None of it is happening.
and nobody challenged you whether 'too much co2' is bad.
so now what faggot?
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Omg you were serious... so by your "warm is good cold is bad baby logic, the sunny side of mercury should be green. I answered why too much CO2 is bad. Your ignoring it because you are an idealogue.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Why would I care? Did you do that because you wanted to flail your girly fists at something else besides me?
You weren't told any amount of Co2 is good or wouldn't be a problem.
Nobody told you otherwise.
So now what? Explain yourself?
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
"You looked it up" i know what the air i breathe contains. I have more than a 90 iq like you.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
You didn't.
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
What else you got Cooter?
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
You can't handle the cooter
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Give up huh? Light is a BS disinfectant. I love science
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Give up owning you? Need for attention is something you love more than good science. Clearly.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Why would it need to be "compared to our atmosphere"? Tiny droplets of cyanide are nothing "compared to the trillions of molecules of water in this drink", therefore cyanide doesn't do anything. Right?
What matters is how much forcing CO2 is responsible for, and the amount humans release directly or indirectly is significant.
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
So you just disqualified yourself. Way to go dumbfuck.
but just to shame you more. Yes actually a tiny microscopic amount of cyanide in a large glass of water that already has tiny amounts of cyanide wont make a difference.
'cyanide' for fucks sakes just fuckin WOW
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
So instead of responding to the main point, you decide to go after the analogy? Again, why would it need to be "compared to our atmosphere"? It doesn't.
Nonsense. It would absolutely make a difference. Cyanide isn't some binary level of fatality where you either die 100% of the time or die 0% of the time. The higher the dosage the more likely the dose will be fatal, thus adding more cyanide would in fact matter.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
No, I did both.
Listen carefully, putting aside that co2 is life-giving and protects our planet and lives and not 'small amounts of poison' I need you to understand some scientific facts:
There isn't enough Co2 being contributed by man to make any meaningful difference.
End.
You fucking did nothing and didn't even contradict anything I told you failtard.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Okay, so where was your explanation of why the CO2 would need to be compared relative to the entire atmosphere? Go ahead and quote where you explained that.
Yes there is. First of all, CO2 levels are literally off the charts now. The natural (i.e. non-human) sources are in equilibrium so that that the fluctuate up and down in CO2 levels (as can be seen in the past); thus humans are to blame for bucking this trend and sending levels off the charts:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_history_500.jpg
Second of all, we do observe differences. Again, not only have we sent CO2 levels off the charts (which is already a difference), but that has caused an increase in temperature.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Various_Temp_500.jpg
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
No they are not and it doesn't matter if they were.
Thus nobody cares because co2 levels go up and down and it doesn't have any meaningful difference to our lives on Earth.
It would be great if there was a tiny increase in global temperatures but there isn't.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yes they are, and it absolutely would matter. I literally just showed you the graph showing CO2 levels going way above the past 400k years.
Wrong. It won't "go up and down" like in the previous cycles precisely because the CO2 being added now does not fit within those natural cycles of CO2 which were in equilibrium. This is additional CO2 that doesn't fit that process.
Whether you care or not is another issue. Facts don't change based on whether you care about them.
Yes there is, and I literally just showed you this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Various_Temp_500.jpg
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Humans haven't been contributing Co2 for the last 400k years and guess what terrible things happened:
-The Ice Ages melted and now amazing trees, green grass and animals and people live in places once dead from cold.
Yes it has. Its gone up and down. The natural levels go up and down too.
Yes it does. It's part of the atmosphere and works just fine.
What temperature is the Earth supposed to be?
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
So now what?
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Im owning you and that's why your panic posting all that megashit.
So now let me shame you some more. sea levels are still rising. Then they slowed down. then rise. Since the ice age were told.
What will happen?
You know the largest human migration in the history of the world is happening TODAY. 500 million people migrating across a vast land to the East.
It happens in China. Today. The population of the USA moving in a decade and many or most from poverty.
Do you know know what they do? Get on a bus. A train. a day later they have moved.
Do you know WITHOUT rising sea levels we just constantly tear down buildings and then build new ones on various sides of the city. Over 100 years without doing anything different than we do now entire cities like New York would simple 'grow and spread' accordingly .
So now what? More of your fantasy stories about what will happen in the future just-you-wait?
Even though what you describe from your imagination isn't a problem to anyone anyways.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yeah, no. You don't get to ignore my points and then expect me to respond to yours. Either address what I said or admit that you cannot. Then I'll move on your recent nonsense.
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
You know the largest human migration in the history of the world is happening TODAY. 500 million people migrating across a vast land to the East. It happens in China. Today. The population of the USA moving in a decade and many or most from poverty. Do you know know what they do? Get on a bus. A train. a day later they have moved.
Do you know WITHOUT rising sea levels we just constantly tear down buildings and then build new ones on various sides of the city. Over 100 years without doing anything different than we do now entire cities like New York would simple 'grow and spread' accordingly .
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yeah, no. You don't get to ignore my points and then expect me to respond to yours. Either address what I said or admit that you cannot. Then I'll move on your recent nonsense.
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Anyways, timewaster, there is nothing bad or signifcant happening from your fag religion 'global warming'. Thats the facts. More good than harm if anything.
Now fuck off for a while
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yeah, no. You don't get to ignore my points and then expect me to respond to yours. Either address what I said or admit that you cannot. Then I'll move on your recent nonsense.
Except that those cycles cannot explain our current observations because those cycles take tens of thousands of years to take place where as we are observing these changes take place in 100 years!
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
So yes, Ice ages come and go. But it takes thousands and thousands of years. When we see something like this take place in 100 years, something different must be going on. To this, you have no response.
The natural levels do, but the human levels do not unless we do something about it.
It being part of the atmosphere doesn't mean it play a role in temperatures, nor does it mean that the additional CO2 we've added will be removed by the natural processes.
It's not about what temperature it's supposed to be, it's about what temperature humans can thrive in given the way we've setup society. For instance, displacing millions of people from the coasts and into cities which are already densely populated, is a a huge problem. If humans didn't have so highly populated areas near coasts, then maybe we wouldn't care about that problem so much. But we do.
Wrong again. There are already numerous changes due to global warming. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising. We've observed the migration patterns of animals been affected. We've observed the population of animals dwindle.
I imagine you continue making shit up and providing not a single shred of evidence.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
stop spamming the threads crybaby
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
I fucking DARE you to try more BS with me
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Warmth is life. The warmest part of Earth have the most, the biggest and the most variations of life.
Cold is death. the coldest parts of our planet well.. are dead. Have very little.
Now what tuffy boy? Little big boy? Gonna spit in my face while you back away and say "I fucking FOUGHT YOU SEE!".
Now come on, earn your right to challenge me?
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Lol ok you got me. Good trolling. You had me. Edit: looking back it should have been obvious but you are a master troll. Kudos
3 ghukas 2016-02-02
Da earth is flat yo
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
I know. I dont see it curve when i look at the horizon. Right?
2 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
2 TedsEmporiumEmporium 2016-02-02
Because he's a fucking retard.
2 telemecanique 2016-02-02
.
2 imcrapyall 2016-02-02
Ant we can't make out your Jesse Ventura impressions over text.
2 [deleted] 2016-02-02
he saw the attention Kurt Metzger got from a twitter meltdown and he's jealous and thrashing about. Devito and Levy are the two guests he can get. He's old. His hair replacements look ridiculous like a wig your grandmother got from Macys clearance. He's about to rub shit in his plugs and go running down 7th avenue.
2 Stealyphil1905 2016-02-02
God damn what an old crusty fuck.
2 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
I have a question for deniers: What's the worst outcome if global warming is a big fat hoax and we go all-in on trying to stop it? Some profits lost for big corporations? What's the inverse situation look like, where the polar ice caps do melt and oceans rise and all the worst climate disasters imaginable start to increase in frequency? How many lives is some money worth.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 herpacin 2016-02-02
Yes what this place needed was more a douchey r/politics vibe because there wasn't enough stupid.
5 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Bashing the dumbness of O&A&J is what this place is supposed to be about. Do you, somehow, not recognize scientific consensus as accurate?
-1 herpacin 2016-02-02
No its about being funny first, did you not notice?
1 MartyVanB 2016-02-02
I don't even know what "climate change" even means anymore so there is no reason to discuss it.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 lostnotforlong 2016-02-02
MINDDDDDD CONTROL. DID YOU SERVE IN THE SERVICE???
1 chicken-named-mike 2016-02-02
Yada yada thermite paint.
1 Tom_Stall 2016-02-02
Look at pictures of NASA control rooms, do you see any science deniers there? NO!
Anthony fits in more with this person and this person
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 Xx9mmParabellumxX 2016-02-02
Whatever. If you're worried about dubious climate change claims, buy a prius and shut up.
-1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Okay its because people usually champion global warming because (in their minds) they think its 'against religious types' and is something to help liberal-progressive 'sides'.
Then they are ignorant or rather easily fooled by smarter types and in this example are told:
Global Warming is real andthereforethesocialistsolutionsarereal but anyone who denies this is a 'denier' (remember the term holocaust denier?).
It means they deny ANY co2 (we know you feel that might be the gas that kills people and count on you to confuse it with carbon monoxide) but it means they deny ANY Co2 is doing ANY changes.
The fool accept this and even sees a juicy way to feel superior and enlightened and chortle about those who 'deny global warming' because they foolishly believe it means they 'deny ANY and ALL effects'.
And after all its called 'Climate Change' right? Wow.. they don't know that Climate CHANGES!?!?! jack jack jack jack myself because I TOTALLY KNOW CLIMATE CHANGES JACK JERK JERKKKKK!
Anyways to you mindless dumbfucks. everyone on the fucking planet agrees that:
Climate FUCKING CHANGES YOU FUCKING IDIOT
humans release Co2 as do spiders, apples, your lungs when you exhale and add more life-giving Co2 to the atmosphere even if its a tiny % of the atmosphere.
and EVERYONE ALWAYS AGREES Co2 is a 'greenhouse gas'. There might be mitigating factors etc but yes in theory its a greenhouse gas for which we thank God because we'd die without greenhouse gasses and love greenhouses.
The ONLY thing Global Warming skeptics are telling you is that any effects of AGW (mans contribution to the atmosphere) are so small, so mitigated by other much greater factors, so inconsequential or if anything beneficial that it becomes for all practical purposes nothing to bother with and nothing that will make any meaningful change in our lives or anything elses lives.
Get it yet? Because its been about a full decade since that stupid fucking Global Warming shit ought to be called 'debunked' and yet in 2016 dumbfuck fools STILL repeat the same shit about it.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
2 brmlb 2016-02-02
shhhhhh. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
1 DeafandMutePenguin 2016-02-02
According to the 2007 IPCC report by 2015 the oceans would rise by 2m and the average temperature would be 1.8C higher.
Neither came true.
2 mad-lab 2016-02-02
2 meters by 2015? Please, by all means find me where in the 2007 IPCC report it said that it would rise that much by 2015. Go ahead.
While you're at it, explain to me why this projection from the 2007 IPCC report doesn't even come close to predicting 2 meters by 2015:
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html
1 DeafandMutePenguin 2016-02-02
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Here you go! Table SPM.6
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Table SPM.6 does not predict a 2 meter increase by 2015. Moreover, Table SPM.6 contains many different scenarios so you would have to specify which scenario you are talking about even if it did.
In fact, if you look at Table SPM.1 you'll see the actual predictions of sea-level rise by 2090-2099 for different scenarios. None of those are even a 2m change, and that's for 2090!
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
So again, where in the 2007 IPCC report does it project a 2 meter rise in sea levels.
The fact You are way off base. The 2007 IPCC report never predicted such a thing. You are making things up:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
0 DeafandMutePenguin 2016-02-02
There are several measurements within the table. All the measurements are around 2m. At the time it was published many took the table to say around 2m. Even the .8m rise predicted on the lower predictions is devastating. And it's not happening. Just as how I've pointed out to you that warming has stalled and from 2007 to 2015 mean temperatures had dropped, even your source indicated that.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
And none of them are predictions for 2015. You made that up.
Actually only half of them contain measurements in the 2m range, and and only in the upper-end of the confidence interval. But again, that's moot since that table doesn't contain predictions for 2015. You made that up.
No, they didn't. You made that up.
Their actual predictions are contained in Table SPM.1 Go ahead and look at it. Read the title of the table. What does it say? "Table SPM.1. Projected global average surface warming and sea level rise at the end of the 21st century."
Those are their projections, and they are projections by the end of the century (2090 to 2099) not by 2015 as you claimed. Those predictions are for different scenarios of CO2 emissions and responses. None of those project a 2m change; not even for 2090!
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
They didn't predict a .8 rise by 2015 either. You keep making things up. And their projections are indeed happening:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif
Notice how the scale of their projections is in centimeters, not meters.
No, my source didn't indicate anything of the sort. My source didn't even have temperatures for 2015! You keep making things up....
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Thats the other problem. The consequences simply aren't happening as models predicted.
1 DeafandMutePenguin 2016-02-02
They aren't happening at all. Mean temperature has gone down and the sea level has not risen due to artic ice melts.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Not even close to true. Temperature has not gone down, and sea level has in fact risen.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/sm_IPCC-A2-06-2010.jpg
The IPCC projections for temperature have been well within model predictions:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/tamino_rates.jpg
http://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming-intermediate.htm
1 DeafandMutePenguin 2016-02-02
Ok look at your first link, it clearly shows temps dropping after 2006/7. The rest is a prediction. That it falls into a wide range of possible predictions doesn't mean my claim was wrong.
You say sea level has risen yet none of your sources show it. If they do please point it out.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
And then going back up. The fact that they dropped in 2 years doesn't mean the trend of the temperatures isn't one of increase. There is variability in the temperatures, so they are expected to fluctuate but the key point is the still maintain a trend of increase:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
EDIT: Changed graph to one that illustrates my point even better.
It absolutely does. You claimed that the consequences of the models predicted "weren't happening at all". The fact that they fall within the model predictions shows you that that claim is wrong. They are happening.
I was focusing on temperatures, but you're wrong about sea-levels as well:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Sea-Level-1.gif
1 DeafandMutePenguin 2016-02-02
Mean temperature = average. It doesn't matter where it ended up. from 2007-2015 it dipped meaning mean temperature dropped.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No, it didn't. That graph didn't even have data for 2015... It stopped at 2010.
The point of that graph was to show how it matched model predictions, which you claimed weren't happening. They were. That graph shows you nicely how observations were well within the observations.
The claim that warming stopped in recent years has been thoroughly debunked.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/18/in-a-blind-test-economists-reject-the-notion-of-a-global-warming-pause
EDIT: You are focused on the fluctuations of a small number of years and ignoring the overall trend. That's not the right way to look at it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
You didn't address the issue of sea level rise, so I'm assuming you concede that point. You also didn't address the issue of whether observed temperatures fell within the predictions of the models, so I'm assuming you concede that as well.
-2 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
2 TweetsInCommentsBot 2016-02-02
@AnthonyCumia
This message was created by a bot
[Contact creator][Source code]
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
-3 NASAtard 2016-02-02
Anyone who believes climate change is manmade is a fucking retard.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
I guess everyone at NASA is a fucking retard, then.
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
More liars than retards in that case.
5 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
What kinda fucking faggot of a child even believes in the moon, anyway
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
NASA believes the world is greening. This means a lot of Co2 is getting sucked up by new green growth.
NASA yay.
Anyways, 'everyone at NASA' was a faggy thing to say. As if most of them even have any opinion or would be 'climatologists' anyways.
2 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Most of them have an opinion, and that opinion is that their scientifically-inclined and educated peers are correct in their 99.99% consensus that the earth is warming and that it's due to human activity.
0 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
no, the opinon is that scientifically speaking, in theory, man would be contributing to it.
every global warming skeptic totally agrees with that.
so what then? you've just said absolutely nothing.
0 NASAtard 2016-02-02
I shouldnt even have to respond to this but yes collectively as a organization they are beyond fucking retarded and massive liars. No one ever went to the Moon and if you believe that you might as well believe the Avengers are real also.
-5 placermutka 2016-02-02
of course the climate changes. Mans contribution to that is negligible at best. nothing we do is going to counteract the natural cycle of things. Man Made global warming is a scam to fleece the public.
6 brmlb 2016-02-02
cancer and heart disease are also a natural cycle. you'll die anyway, so smoke up, drink up.
-1 placermutka 2016-02-02
and if you don't drink or smoke, you'll die of something.
-6 arbgeist 2016-02-02
Because they are using it as an excuse to tax the shit out of people and waste money. The "science" is highly politicized as well. They've proven a correlation between carbon production and rising temperatures, but they were unable to specifically quantify just how much and at what rate human beings are able to influence climate change.
So most people think they should throw more money at the government and hope for results. If you don't believe this false logic, you must be a "Denier".
4 brmlb 2016-02-02
just shut the fuck up. using words like "correlation" doesn't make you a scientist. it makes you an asshole with a keyboard.
-6 damselnoir 2016-02-02
What a bunch of faggots, you bitches are. Oh-Boo-Hoo! Anthony doesn't believe Al Gore and The New Ice Age via 1970-80s...errr...Global Warming 1990s-2000s..errr.....Climate Change...errr...Todays line of horse shit form the white guilt, we hate ourselves sperm burpers.
3 FlukemansCloaca 2016-02-02
The Earth isn't a nigger, where is the white guilt? Cum guzzler.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
You aren't very bright.
-7 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
Maybe it has something to do with the planet's temperature staying steady for the past 15 years, Al Gore saying the Ice Caps would be melted by 2013, NOAA, NASA, AND IPCC getting caught cooking their books,
The "97%" Of scientists claim is total bullshit, and of course you fucking morons eat it up.
You left wing closeted Opie fans are fucking dumb.
"Yaaaaa maaaaannn! ManBearPig is a Big Oil conspiracy maaaaannnn!
You people are like dumb little teenagers who think they fight the system by saying dumb things.
2 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Yes, 97% IS bullshit. It's 99.99%
-2 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
No, it isn't.
The statistic is not only a flat out lie, but deceptive.
You fucking liberals are so dumb you think when it rains it is some kind of conspiracy theory. ManBearPig is not real.
If your spooky manbearpig monster was real, NASA, NOAA, and IPCC, would not get caught cooking their books.
Many of the 'pro-global warming' scientists are going forward and saying the whole thing is bullshit.
But yeah, keep listening to the guy who said he invented the internet you tin foil hat nut ball.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
You... are going to be so downvoted by everyone who isn't retarded.
1 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
I don't care about downvotes you faggot, shut up with the downvoting comments.
No one but fat losers who metzger is out-trolling cares about 'downvotes.'
Grow the fuck up.
1 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
You should care, they're indicative of something horribly wrong about your brain.
2 burgersass 2016-02-02
I actually can't tell if you're being serious right now or not.
1 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
He is, that's what's sad about it.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
It hasn't stayed steady for the past 15 years. Focusing on only a small number of years like 10 or 15 you can make anything appear as if it had stopped. That's not how you examine a trend.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
In fact, a recent study had economists with expertise in analyze trends in data, analyze climate data without knowing it (they were told it was for some agricultural output for some country). The economists in this blind test rejected the notion that agricultural outputs had stalled:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/18/in-a-blind-test-economists-reject-the-notion-of-a-global-warming-pause
Actually, he didn't say that. First of all, he made it clear that he was talking about melted ice-caps in the summer. Ice-caps go up and down during the year, and they are at their lowest in the summer. Saying that they would be melted in the summer is different than saying they would be melted all year.
Second of all, he cited two different studies. One meant to represent an average prediction at that time (which was nearly 15 years ago back then), and then he cited a worst-case scenario. Dishonest people took the worst-case scenario and pretended that's what he endorsed. He didn't.
Yeah, that's complete and utter nonsense.
1 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
Skeptical science is not a credible source of information. it's about as credible as Cracked.com
And yes, Al Gore did say that.
"Yeah, that's complete and utter nonsense."
You read skeptical science. It is typical you'd say that, global warming is a religious to you zealots.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Why not? Do you have ANY evidence that the facts presented their are false? If so, post it.
Okay, then please show me where. Go ahead.
So you can't provide a single shred of evidence for your accusation that thousands of scientists are committing fraud?
0 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
'So you can't provide a single shred of evidence for your accusation that thousands of scientists are committing fraud?"
Which scientists? Biologists? Medical researchers? Or CLIMATE CHANGE scientists, who have been CAUGHT lying, and need the manbearpig conspiracy to stay afloat to get grants and MONEY. They also get promotions for peddling the bullshit. If scientists put forth evidence debunking the climate change cult, they can get fired from their job, publicly mocked and have their career destroyed by morons like you who call them "deniers."
Your claim goes like this..."97% of child psychiatrists who promote pedophilia as not a bad thing say pedophilia is not damaging to a child."
With Climate change, not only is the statistic deceptive, but it is completely wrong. 97% of climate scientists do not agree ManBearPig is out to get everyone. You people are paranoid and afraid of your own shadow. Then when the 97% statistic get proven wrong they then proclaim..."Yeah, its actually 99%!" LIES!
Both Gore's Claims are fucking stupid, and he made both claims for a reason you idiot. And....The fucking ice caps are growing.
You people are calling it a 'huge disceptive conspiracy against gore" When Maslowski(one of the idiots who Gore gets his pseudo-science from) said the Ice Caps would be NEAR ICE FREE.
Do you know what the Climategate e-mails are? of course you don't, you only read skepticalpseudo-science.com. if a news outlet has "SCIENCE!" in it's title, you fools think it is automatically credible. It is akin to how people think Snopes is an actual authority on truth when it is run by a fat husband and wife with no investigative backgrounds, or degrees, and hire message board regulars to write articles 'debunking' things. You people are a complete laughing stock.
Al Gore said the Ice Caps would be completely melted. Your response "Nuh-uh, he said only during the summer months that ManBearPig would eat all the ice." In cult-like fashion, might I add. I am convinced you don't realize how stupid your responses are, I really am. Your brain has rotted away with paranoia, a gaia-hero complex and pseudo-science.
It appears you like the Guardian. Maybe you missed this article.
James Lovelock: environmentalism has become a religion http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion
Scientists have been fear mongering this global warming horseshit for decades. It's nothing new. They always make dumb predictions based off pseudo-science meant for profit, and the claims never even come close to happening. And there is always some dumb excuse accompanied with it when the fear mongering is proven false. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/
Skeptical Science has a pro-global warming agenda, and does not post the scandals surrounding the CC agenda.
It is like a religion with you people, you dont care about the facts.
"His investigation reveals that many surface measurements originally recorded in NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) have been replaced with temperatures “fabricated” from theoretical computer models. - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/02/19/record-keepers-cooked-global-temperature-books/#sthash.h57Oteyy.dpuf
Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa.html
Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#1d756ade3750
Throwback Thursday #2 – Al Gore’s Arctic Facepalm Forecast http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/throwback-thursday-2-al-gores-arctic-facepalm-forecast/
Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
What do you mean which scientists? You're the one making the accusation. You tell me!
I didn't ask for a rambling mess. I asked you for evidence. Do you have evidence that there is no consensus? If so, post it in a clear fashion. If not, spare me your lunacy.
No, the claim is not remotely close to that. The claim is there is an overwhelming consensus of scientists that believe humans are largely responsible for the recent warming trend. There are many different studies supporting this fact.
No, actually, he didn't. This is Al Gore's quote:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013
22 years from 2007 is not 2013 or 2015 as you claimed. Like I already told you, he mentioned two studies. One representing common views at the time, and one representing a worst-case scenario. You are dishonestly focusing on the worst-case scenario which he never endorsed.
No, they are not. You don't know what you're talking about:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/09/N_20120916_stddev_timeseries2.png
Notice how each year the extent of the ice in the ice caps is lower and lower.
Yes, I do. Do you know that 8 independent investigations - from different organizations and spanning multiple countries - all found the scientists innocent of any fraud?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
0 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
I find it interesting you didn't address any of my links. And climategate is not about 'criminality, it's about scientists admitting their claims about climate change are WRONG. You are really stupid, lol. The UN is promoting climate change, why would they indict themselves? Just WOW, you are fucking stupid.
Yup, you are a cultist. WATCH OUT! MANBEARPIG IS BEHIND YOU!
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#3d02ef56988d
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
I'm not going to go through a bunch of links with no indication of what's in them. Like I said, if you have evidence post it in a coherent matter. Tell me what it supposedly addresses and then quote where you believe it does. Don't just dump a bunch of links like I'm supposed to read your mind.
Except they didn't admit the claims were wrong. You made that up. Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Why should we believe "James Taylor" - who had no material knowledge of anything - over the 8 different independent investigations (formed with bi-partisan support and with access to all the evidence, unlike Taylor), all of which exonerated the scientists?
-1 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
The e-mails were leaked you fucking retard. James Taylor did not make up what was in the e-mails. So the forbes article is another pesky conspiracy theory?
And yes, they did admit the claims were wrong, but this whole thing is political so the best course of action FOR THEM was to just go along with it.
And stop posting wikipedia, it shows you didnt even know what Climategate was until I brought it up. Thats always what people do when they are clueless, they run to wikipedia.
So what is written on Schumer and Metzgers wikipedia page by trolls of this subreddit is factual, because it is on wikipedia? Dude, your are a joke, just take a seat.
You keep bringing up criminality, but no one but you and your shitty wikipedia reference mentioned criminality.
How many nations said Hussein had WMD's in Iraq? Your logic is so fucking retarded. "indepdent investigation", lol. Your understanding of politics is so childish.
"bipartisan" "independent" LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Some e-mails were leaked; not all of them. There is also plenty of other evidence in the form of their data, their paper correspondence, the computers they own, etc. You don't know what you're talking about.
What he did was take them out of context (or actually read them out of context since that's how they were released). In context, they do not support his claims as the 8 different investigations showed. Since you like editorials, lets take an editorial from Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/480006a.html
No, it shows I back up what I say with evidence and wikipedia is an excellent resource for me to link to. Ironically, you clearly didn't know about the investigations and are now scrambling to defend your position and have resorted to hastily googling any article you can find as if an editorial carried any more weight than 8 investigations.
No, you should believe it's true because Wikipedia cites the original sources in its references; unlike the hilarious edits done by those trolls. You don't have to believe the article, you can go down to the reference list and check for yourself. Your excuse for dismissing Wikipedia doesn't work.
I didn't bring up criminality. You did. I said they were exonerated of any wrong doing or misconduct. Any. There were no ethical charges against them, no civil suits, no terminations, no suspensions, no nothing.
You should add a few more "LOL" and exclamation points!!! That will make it more convincing.
-1 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
Since that article was written, climate scientists have been caught dozens of times corrupting data. And you didn't even know what Climate gate was until I brought it up.
"I didn't bring up criminality. You did. "
You are retarded. I brought up climate gate and you sent a link talking about criminality from wikipedia.
"No, it shows I back up what I say with evidence and wikipedia is an excellent resource for me to link to. Ironically, you clearly didn't know about the investigations and are now scrambling to defend your position and have resorted to hastily googling any article you can find as if an editorial carried any more weight than 8 investigations."
100% pure projection and stupidity. I accused you of doing that....Then in the very next response, you accuse me of doing it? It's amazing how little shame you have. Do you have a borderline personality disorder by chance?
You must be an Amy Schumer fan.
"You should add a few more "LOL" and exclamation points!!! That will make it more convincing."
You think I should use italics instead?
"Any. There were no ethical charges against them, no civil suits, no terminations, no suspensions, no nothing."
The Mizzou professor was not fired after using a mob to physical remove a journalist who had done nothing wrong. Again, these universities, institutions, etc have a vested interest in climate change, and need the lie to keep getting the money.
Your geopolitical understanding of the real world is embarrassingly out of touch.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Really? Show me an investigation where they were found guilty. Your track record in this discussion is abysmal, so I'm not going to take your word for it.
Nope. You can repeat that same nonsense all you want, it doesn't make it true. In fact, here's me discussing this very topic 9 months ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TACSdiscussion/comments/33jsht/neil_degrasse_tyson_on_climate_change_deniers/cqm0e7c
Notice how I'm citing the findings of several of the committees that investigated the issue. I've discussed this issue since it first became a story, but that link should be enough to show that you're wrong yet again.
Nope. I sent you a link to the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article discusses all aspects of that topic. You were the one who first talked about "criminality" because you wanted to make it seem as if they were found not-guilty of criminal charges but where found guilty of something else. They weren't. They were not found guilty of anything. There were no ethical charges against them, no civil suits, no terminations, no suspensions, no nothing.
Actually, she was charged with a crime and was suspended. You are, yet again, completely uninformed.
Charged with a crime: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/25/university-missouri-professor-charged-with-assault-in-fracas-with-journalist.html
Suspended: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/28/university-missouri-professor-suspended-in-wake-assault-charge.html
0 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
"Really? Show me an investigation where they were found guilty. Your track record in this discussion is abysmal, so I'm not going to take your word for it."
Skepitcalpseudoscience, has contributor that work at one of the Universities mentioned in the Climate Gate e-mails, lol. Your resources are total crap, and have a reeking conflict of interest on these topics. Same with these 'super investigators' you claim busted the case. Penn State for example would have lost large sums of money had they suspended, or did anything to their professor. Same with the 'super investigators' out of Britain.
All one has to do is look at that climate gate 'gang of eight, super investigators' too see a blatant bias, conflict of interest, and financial cause of concern for the parties affected.
And again, your go-to resource, Skepticalpseudoscience has a contributor that works at East Anglia, one of the Universities mentioned in ClimateGate.
My point about the Mizzo professor is she was not suspended immediately after the video tape was released. I am fully aware she has been arrested.. The point was, she was recorded on video, pushing someone and getting a mob to harass a journalist, and this did not get her suspended. Once charges are pressed, the school is basically forced out of procedure to suspend her, and she is not fired.
Per your wikipedia source: "Independent reviews by FactCheck "
FactCheck is not 'independent' and has a known, bias and agenda. Just as Politifact(which got its 2012 lie of the year wrong), and the rest of those gimmicky 'fact checking' fraudulent websites.
All of your 'independent investigators' are 1. not independent 2. have a known bias 3. or have a vested financial interest in making sure innocence was found.
I sent several links several posts ago showing scientists have been caught engaging in fraud, ClimateGate was only a single talking point, and had nothing to do with all the other links I provided. You conveniently refused to respond to them.
And no, The planet is not warming. What global warming? Large parts of Earth expected to COOL over next five years http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/640519/What-global-warming-Large-parts-of-Earth-expected-to-COOL-over-next-five-years
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Pay attention. Everyone involved in the climate gate e-mails was shown to be innocent in 8 investigations.
Because universities... investigate things before they act. You said they did nothing. You were wrong, as usual. They did. Your example doesn't work.
First of all, you cut-off the sentence, the full sentence is:
Second of all, and more importantly, those weren't the investigations I was talking about. I'm not talking about some website, I'm talking about things like this:
From the report by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee:
From the report by the Science Assessment Panel:
Get it? I'm not talking about FactCheck.org or the AP when I'm talking about independent investigations by committees formed to thoroughly investigate the issue. You would know this if you read the article instead of just desperately trying to search for something to discredit what I said and then embarrassing yourself.
No, I told you I wasn't going to go looking through a half a dozen links you randomly dumped. That's not how this works. If you think those links address something, then tell me what it is and quote exactly where you think it addresses it. Then I'll respond.
Obviously you didn't even read the article and got fooled by the click-bait title like an idiot. From your own article:
Lol.
0 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
"Pay attention. Everyone involved in the climate gate e-mails was shown to be innocent in 8 investigations."
Pay attention....CON-FLICT...OF...IN-TER-EST.
"First of all, you cut-off the sentence, the full sentence is:"
So what, the rest of the sentence adds nothing. The AP was caught reporting the scandal terribly and manipulatively as well, I wanted to highlight FactCheck, seeing as they are a gimmicky shit pile no one respects but those who read Snopes. AP has respect, but only due to it's size,and in regards to climategate engaged in egregious reporting of the facts.
there is a pattern with things going over your head.
"Because universities... investigate things before they act. You said they did nothing. You were wrong, as usual. They did. Your example doesn't work."
It was recorded on video. The incident in question was not a matter of opinion or anonymous allegations. Had she been on video selling coke it would not taken as long. She was only suspended because she was arrested. Because she was helping promote an agenda, she was not immediately disciplined. It only further demonstrates my point, seeing as the president was forced to step down, for financial purposes, and for politics as usual.
When POLITICS is involved, Universities and investigators are hesitant to act, especially when large sums of money are involved.
"Get it? I'm not talking about FactCheck.org or the AP when I'm talking about independent investigations by committees formed to thoroughly investigate the issue. You would know this if you read the article instead of just desperately trying to search for something to discredit what I said and then embarrassing yourself."
I know that you fucking idiot.
"No, I told you I wasn't going to go looking through a half a dozen links you randomly dumped. That's not how this works. If you think those links address something, then tell me what it is and quote exactly where you think it addresses it. Then I'll respond."
You are an idiot. You asked for links, and I told you those links show fraud. The links you asked for showing fraud are those links, I sent them even before you asked, to demonstrate even after climategate fraud still continues.They are not 'randomly dumped.'
Obviously you didn't even read the article and got fooled by the click-bait title like an idiot. From your own article:
It flew over your head why I posted it didn't it? lol
The MET Office has a pro-global warming agenda, and EVEN THEY are having trouble promoting the AGW lie, you fucking idiot.
Do you understand or do you need it explained again? Even AGW Soothsaying Conspiracy Theorist Alarmists who promote bad science are having trouble coming up with lies, and HAVE TO ADMIT THE 'WARMING TREND' IS NOT AS BAD AS THE WARMIST COMMUNITY HAS SAID IT WAS.
EVEN WITH CORRUPTED and PSEUDO-SCIENCE THEY STILL CAN NOT HIDE THE TRUTH! YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Now, my favorite part.....I get to post this. Can you read the headline below? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 'BBC Pulls Plug On Met Office http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/bbc-pulls-plug-on-met-office.html
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No, that's the accusation you trot out without a single shred of evidence. These were bi-partisan investigations across different countries. According to you we have believe that every single person involved in these investigations comitted fraud because you linked to a credible moron on the internet. Hah, no.
Yes it does. You pretended only FactCheck.org wrote an article debunking the accusations, when that sentences showed the AP did as well. You then tried to discredit FactCheck.org (while providing no evidence for those accusations either), thus pretending you had discredited the other side. You didn't.
How convenient. Do you have any evidence of that?
So? There is still a need for investigation. Why was the guy there? Was he allowed to be there? Was there something else that proceeded it? Are their legal ramifications to suspending her?, etc. Do you think courts just immediately pronounce someone guilty when there is a video? Your immense ignorance isn't an argument. The investigated the issue and took action. You were wrong.
Then why are you mentioning FactCheck.org when I never mentioned them? Why aren't you replying to what I actually mentioned, which were the 8 investigations?
Nope. I didn't ask for a random set of links. I asked for evidence. Again, if you have evidence you would like for me to look at that allegedly addresses something relevant, post the link, tell me what it supposedly addresses and then quote the specific parts you think address this.
You can't because you don't know what you're talking about and doing this would require you to read and understand the material, which is obviously way above your head. So instead just hastily google stuff and dump the links without reading them. Just like you did with that last link where you embarrassed yourself.
Hah, now you're grasping at straws to defend your huge blunder. How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?
They admitted no such thing. What part of this did you not understand?
Get it? They are saying the trend is exactly as what the IPCC models are saying.
1 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
"No, that's the accusation you trot out without a single shred of evidence. "
Well the e-mails are there for anyone to read and show scientists admitting the evidence for manbearpig is not there. You idiot.
"Yes it does. You pretended only FactCheck.org"
No I didn't 'pretend' , stop making shit up.
I was highlighting factcheck, as they were posted as one of the outlets in that shitty wikipedia page. It was highlighted by wikipedia and then highlighted by me, stupid. AP's reporting was terrible as well, but not only is factchecks reporting terrible but that outlet as a whole is terrible. Do you get it or do you need it explained 7 more times?
But yeah, make some more shit up.
"Then why are you mentioning FactCheck.org when I never mentioned them? Why aren't you replying to what I actually mentioned, which were the 8 investigations?"
Because it was in the wikipedia page YOU SENT, moron.
I then went on and discussed other elements surrounding the cover up and shitty reporting, including the 'gang of 8 super investigators'
"Nope. I didn't ask for a random set of links. I asked for evidence. Again,"
They were not random sets of links, it was evidence YOU STILL WONT REVISIT. It is quite telling that this whole manbearpig conspiracy alarmism is nothing but a religion to you. ManBearPig is saturated with dogma to you.
Revisit the links I sent, they are not 'random' as I have told you this 3 times now and you keep repeating the same tired shit.
"Hah, now you're grasping at straws to defend your huge blunder. How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?"
lol, you are in such denial.
"Get it? They are saying the trend is exactly as what the IPCC models are saying."'
IPCC has been caught cooking their books. Using hypothetical models in computers with corrupted data is not 'science.' It is pseudo-science and religion.
*Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Nope. The full e-mails show the scientists were innocent as all the investigations confirmed:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/full/480006a.html
Yes you did. You said:
Thus you pretended that FactCheck was behind one (if not all) of the investigations I was talking about. They weren't. You are either a moron, a liar or a troll. Which one isn't that important, what matters is that you were wrong.
No, you didn't mention a single investigation that I was talking about in specific, you talked about "investigations" in general, and provided no evidence.
They are absolutely random to me, since I don't know what they are, what they refer to, or what they supposedly prove. I'm not going to through and read page after page of material that you yourself haven't read. Again, if you have evidence you would like for me to look at that allegedly addresses something relevant, post the link, tell me what it supposedly addresses and then quote the specific parts you think address this.
Hah, now how you conveniently you didn't' answer the question... How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?
Yeah, that's not true, and doesn't absolve you even it it was. You claimed the MET couldn't pretend the IPCC projections were good... and yet the article quotes them saying their own projections match the projections by the IPCC. You were wrong
Yet another link you didn't read. This article contradicts your previous source, dummy. Pay attention. At least try reading them first before you post them.
0 LK3000and1 2016-02-02
"the animated discussions that the highlighted e-mails do include, not shy of strong personal opinions and the occasionally harsh judgement concerning the quality of this or that piece of work, never really stray from sound normal science."
..........."this or that" lol.
The e-mails showed the scientists were doubtful the claims made in support for AGW by the warmist community. Yup, exactly as I stated, and exactly what ClimateGate demonstrated.
ClimateGate showed a lack of transparency by the Warmist community, including them omitting doubts they had for AGW. That is fact, and it still continues to this day(but you refuse to read my links so you will never know that)
ClimateGate e-mails by Warmists showed their doubt that the data 'proving' manbearpig was dubious at best. Again, you keep bringing criminality and 'justice' and the 'super great gang of 8' into the Mix, when ClimateGate's theme was AGW scientists were doubting AGW due to the lack of any hard data to support it.
Way to spin the argument into a misleading direction, though.
And of course the investigations would not expose this as grant money would be affected. But the e-mails are there for all to read, and DOUBT is not criminal, but it is unethical to keep such doubt from the public while peddling the manbearpig psuedo-science.
Lack of transparency was without doubt an ethical problem with climategate and the e-mails proved this.
"Nope. The full e-mails show the scientists were innocent as all the investigations confirmed:"
The full e-mails showed they doubted AGW was real due to a lack of data.
"Thus you pretended that FactCheck was behind one (if not all) "
You are mentally ill and desperate, hence why you make shit up. Highlighting FactCheck is not me claiming they were behind 'it all.' lol. Are you really this desperate?
"Hah, now how you conveniently you didn't' answer the question... How do they have trouble promoting AGW when the article you linked to admits that AGW is a reality?"
No, it didn't. The article showed even with bad data, MET office STILL can not fear monger like they would like to. MET Offices' religious treatment of AGW is why they are being kicked to the curb.
"Yeah, that's not true, and doesn't absolve you even it it was. You claimed the MET couldn't pretend the IPCC projections were good... and yet the article quotes them saying their own projections match the projections by the IPCC. You were wrong"
No I didn't. I said even with bad data by all parties involved INCLUDING THE IPCC, they STILL can not fear monger like they would like to. The Warmist community has been making doomsday claims for decades and the data they need for these claims to be true is simply not there, EVEN WITH COOKED BOOKS, by IPCC, MET OFFICE, NOAA and NASA.
You need to better learn how to read what I am saying, you keep making shit up.
"Yet another link you didn't read. This article contradicts your previous source, dummy. Pay attention. At least try reading them first before you post them."
Yes I did, and No, I don't contradict, your AGW religion does. Learn to read.
My first link showed even with bad science(cooked books) the case for AGW being real, is not there, and my second link showed the books are cooked in regards to the data. Meaning the first link use COOKED DATA and the data STILL didn't support you warmist's doomsday manbearpig predictions, and in fact showed SOME PLACES ARE COOLING, while the second link showed THEY ARE FUCKING COOKING THE BOOKS with hypothetical computer models with temperature data that has been implemented in an unethical fashion, or..... DOWN RIGHT FRAUD, which means....The first link used COOKED DATA and even WITH the cooked data, ManBearPig predictions of doomsday are not there!
Learn to connect dots, stupid. I can't hold your hand, and stop projecting your personality pit falls on me.
THIS IS NOT ME CONTRADICTING, IT IS YOU PEOPLE CONTRADICTING ---------> NOAA, in a very rare fit of honesty, admitted in its 2008 State of the Climatereport that 15 years or more without global warming would demonstrate a discrepancy between prediction and observation.
The Pause – politically useful though it may be to all who wish that the “official” scientific community would remember its duty of skepticism – is far less important than the growing discrepancy between the predictions of the general-circulation models and observed reality.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/
-13 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
13 NicNacAttack 2016-02-02
You're confusing climate with weather, dumbo.
-14 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
4 NicNacAttack 2016-02-02
Regardless, I do appreciate the meticulous record keeping.
-1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
-18 wizardnug 2016-02-02
Ya remember the last 20 ice ages in the past how the humans back then with all their fossil fuels made the ice age stop and then warmed the earth back up again and made the glaciers recede from the fucking area that would be the United States.. Oh what's that we were fucking apes back then and before that fucking gerbils. No shit. I love global warming and so does life at the equator, you should see all the god dam species down there.
4 brmlb 2016-02-02
you are a dumb motherfucker. the fact that the climate naturally changes doesn't matter. it's the rate of change that's the issue here. you can start smoking when you're 12 and die at 62 of lung cancer, or you can live healthy until you're 85. In your imbecile mind, the choice doesn't matter because we all die anyway.
you think a couple hundred thousand refugees from syria are a problem? Wait until there's millions of refugees from American cities that have to move inland from coastal cities before we can prepare for it. It's a disaster waiting to happen. And it's going to happen if the ice caps are melting.
1 cuntbuckets 2016-02-02
We still are apes. We are a bipedal hominid (homo sapiens sapiens) and one of the five types of great apes that exist on the planet (Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Bonobo and Human). All of these animals are Hominidae, which makes them all apes.
You're probably confusing monkey with ape, but they are different things completely but of course, so is an old world monkey from a new world (modern) monkey, so even saying monkey would be incorrect (since our far ancestry was an old world monkey which looks more like a lemur crossed with a gibbon). We were never gerbils, they are rodents and that's a different thing completely, unless I read that wrong and you meant your ancestors liked "fucking gerbils", in which case, I can't comment.
-24 muhdikyo 2016-02-02
wait. people think climate change is real and not a global ponzi scheme?
-26 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
There is no absolute proof either way and no climate scientists agreeing that in their opinion it exists so they can continue to receive funding isn't undeniable proof. It's real but is it man made, no conclusive proof either way.
12 mad-lab 2016-02-02
You get far more money by attacking climate change than you do by supporting it, not to mention that climate change isn't the only field. If climate scientists were desperate for funding, they would just study something else. Science is large. Plenty of other things to study and receive funding for.
The evidence is overwhelming that it's man made. There is as much evidence for anthropomorphic climate change than there is about plenty of other theories that you most likely accept without problem.
-8 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I'm not saying oil and other companies aren't swaying opinion at all but at the same time I'm saying its in these scientists best interest to keep this idea going so they get grants. So both sides have financial interests invested in this sure. The evidence is not overwhelming. I have seen charts that showed prehistoric and medieval era co 2 levels and climate change and there was no correlation what so ever. I'm still willing to listen to others present their case though since this could be a serious issue if real. Guaranteed you don't feel the same way about opposing views.
10 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No, it's in their best financial interest to attack climate change and receive far more money that they do now. Again, it's FAR more lucrative to attack climate change. Scientists supporting climate are a dime a dozen. Scientists (with legitimate degrees in relevant fields) against anthropomorphic climate change are almost unheard of. It's supply and demand.
No correlation? What do you call this?
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/images_research_sep_09/EPICA_with_current.PNG
You can add that to the growing list of things you're wrong about. I welcome anyone here that wants to post any evidence for their side. I listen to evidence.
-5 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I don't understand how this refutes that scientists whose well being and integrity rests on global warming (or cooling) being a thing needs to be protected at all costs. Now you are arguing something I am not. I am not arguing that big oil doesn't do this nor that one is more lucrative than the other. This is a dishonest strawman on your end.
Are you aware how old this planet is and how you are trying to pass judgement on a world wide phenomena over the span of 1000 years? I want you to take a step back and think about how ridiculous that sounds. This planet is 4.543 billions of years old and you actually think you solved a complicated climate issue using 1000 years of data. Think about that.
6 mad-lab 2016-02-02
I addresses your implication that we cannot trust the consensus of scientists because "they depend on grants" when the reality is that scientists would get far more money (which they can use to fund their research or to live a wealthy lifestyle) if they attacked climate change instead.
Nonsense. It directly addresses your implication. If you're going to say that we cannot trust the consensus because of your implications about financial incentives, it's perfectly valid to point out how there are even stronger financial incentives to buck the consensus.
I'm trying to pass judgement based on the data, not based on what some random redditor thinks is possible or not. By your ridiculous logic science could never "pass judgement" on anything that's spans over 1000 years. A childish and embarrassing notion of what science can achieve.
Science bases itself on the data. The data overwhelmingly supports the fact that humans are contributing substantially to the increasing temperatures. Note how you originally claimed that you had seen the CO2 and temperature data and knew there was no correlation, and now you've apparently abandoned that argument after you've seen how ridiculous it is since the correlation is massive.
-9 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
And I addressed your point saying it isn't just amount money it can be a scientists reputation on the line too. This may shock you but scientists aren't agnostic politically just because they are scientists and they too can be caught up in a political cause they will fight to keep alive tooth and nail. Warren Buffet very well could be even richer if he adopted right wing politics and policies but he doesn't because his politics and convictions mean more so yea you are wrong about financial aspirations being everything.
It's embarrassing and shows your woeful ignorance of statistical studies if you think an absolute conclusion can be drawn using 1000 years of data out of a total of 4.5 billion years. Like seriously if you plot the climate of this planet on a chart from day 1 to today your chart is extremely insignificant. A fart on history. It's sad how people can be this dumb and function in society. Bernie Sanders supporter correct?
9 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No, you didn't address my point, you conceded it by acknowledging that I was right in saying financial interests would actually favor those against climate change. Thank you.
Okay, then you'll have to provide evidence that 95% of all the relevant scientists in the world are all magically politically motivated on this issue. You don't get to dismiss their conclusions based on an accusation you pulled out of your ass.
The only embarrassing thing here is you pretending to know more about statistics than the worlds experts on this issue. That or how you throw science under the bus whenever it doesn't align with your political views. You are the only one this conversation that has made this about politics instead of the evidence. You cannot argue the evidence so you must use fallacies after fallacies to salvage what you can. Case in point:
Yet another thing to add to the large list of things you've been wrong about.
-2 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I conceded nothing at all. Financial gain is still a factor but I expanded saying blatant political bias and reputation is another. I have said this now 3 times and yet again you'll respond to this playing dumb and blowing off my point. Just watch you'll do it.
I dont have to prove anything you fedora autist. This is my opinion based on the reasons I stated and frankly I don't give a shit as much as you do about this petty debate whether you agree with me or not.
You keep making these long grandiose generic posts about science that have absolutely no content whatsoever to mask the fact that I'm right and you are wrong and your scientific knowledge goes as far as copying and pasting graphs from other subreddits. If you think only 1000 years of data can absolutely tell you about climate habits on this planet to the point where you can make a grandiose statement about historical climate change without a shadow of a doubt then grade school has failed you. I remain skeptical but open to both sides.
Must suck that Bernie didn't win Iowa with more votes huh? It's only going to get much worse from here on lol.
If your next card after this is the liberal staple of crying victim to my mean tone don't. You've been a condescending cunt since you started engaging me in this back and forth. I bet you'll still cry victim.
3 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Then you continue to be wrong.
A factor that benefits those who deny climate change, just like I said.
I'm not blowing off your point, I directly addressed in the my previous response. Pay attention. I asked you for evidence. Anyone can claim that scientists are basing their conclusions on political bias or "reputation". What matters is whether you have any evidence of this or not. You don't. Until you provide some evidence, your accusation remains baseless and unsubstantiated and thus can be dismissed.
If you want your accusation to be taken seriously, provide evidence. While you're at it, also explain why this consensus is observed across pretty much all scientists in all countries in the world, when other countries don't have the same "political bias" that the U.S. has...
Generic? I'm addressing all your points. If they are generic it's because your posts are generic. Noticed how you have yet to post a single shred of evidence supporting your claims, despite the fact that you claimed to have seen "charts" that show there was "no correlation" between CO2 and temperature. All you have is rhetoric, and bad one at that.
None of the graphs I've posted have come from any subreddit. Yet another thing to be added to the list of things you know nothing about.
We have more than 1000 years of data and nobody said it was "without a shadow of a doubt". Your argument is one giant billboard of your ignorance on this topic.
-1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
No your argument is dishonest once again and I already went through this. Plus your own argument betrays you since you agree anti climate change could pay more but you are still agreeing you can get paid to be a pro climate change shill. That's my point. Thanks!
We are having an internet debate. I gave you my opinion and backed up my opinion based on my reasons. My OPINION. One more time because you'll misquote me. MY OPINION. Stop writing a wall of empty text in a desperate attempt to make yourself sound smarter and make this bigger than it is. It isn't working.
You addressed nothing. All your responses have been empty rhetoric about how I don't get science. Just massive temper tantrums because I don't agree with you devoid of any content. You write so much but ultimately say nothing granted I have argued with many who rely on this gimmick. Boy its a sad one.
Show me.
Your dismissive attitude says more than enough that you believe your point is infallible don't dishonestly backtrack now Bernie fan.
2 mad-lab 2016-02-02
How is it dishonest? I directly addressed your point. Is this yet again one of your accusations you get to make without evidence?
No, actually, your point was to imply that the consensus could be explained due to financial interests that climate scientists have. The fact that you concede that the is greater financial interest in the opposite shows that there consensus cannot be explained by financial interest. Thus why you trotted out the issue of "political bias". Which you know seem to have abandoned since you didn't even bother addressing my response to that point of yours.
No, you gave more than your opinion. You made claims. For instance, you claimed that CO2 and temperature were not correlated and claimed to have "charts", remember? That's not a matter of opinion. You also implied that the consensus could be explained by financial interests. Which side has more financial incentives is also not a matter of opinion. You then claimed that it could be explained by political bias, but this again, can be studied empirically.
But even if we ignore all of that, and accept that all you have is an opinion, then your argument is worthless. Nobody wants your opinion. We want evidence.
I'm dismissive because your argument deserves to be dismissed. I've given you ample time to provide evidence of your claims and you've provided none. In fact, you're now been reduced to saying it's "just your opinion". If that's all you have - your worthless opinion - then why shouldn't we dismiss your argument?
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I honestly didn't read your wall of text because I assumed is was overtly verbose empty rhetoric yet again.
2 burgersass 2016-02-02
Nigga you haven't been reading it since the beginning.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Yes I have been and your gimmick was to regurgitate overtly verbose empty walls of text over and over and over and over. Go back and read the shit you wrote. You use 1000 words and say absolutely nothing. Again I've seen liberals use this retarded gimmick to try to sound smarter than they appear.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Whether you read it or not, the outcome was the same: You provided, yet again, not a single shred of evidence to support your allegations. At least this time you spared us your worthless opinion on the matter.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
My premise from the start was I am undecided you dumbass. In your hateful liberal impotent rage you seemed to miss that point . I don't know if its real or not in terms of being man made I have not seen conclusive evidence without a shadow of a doubt either way and you absolutely didn't change my mind on that with your faulty evidence.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No, that's what you were pretending to be. That quickly was shown to be a facade since you immediately started making claims that showed you weren't "undecided", like claiming you had seen charts showing CO2 wasn't correlated with temperatures, and making implications about scientists - essentially accusing them of fraud - to justify why you don't agree with the consensus.
Nobody is pretending to have "conclusiive evidence without a shadow of a doubt". Science doesn't have deductive certainty. It will always be possible for a theory to be overturned if more evidence comes to light, therefore there will always be some doubt.
How do you know my evidence faulty when you refused to even look at it?
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
No that's what I am. I'm not you I'm not fake posting walls of empty text to attempt and fail to sound smart.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No, that's what you pretend to be. Your statements prove otherwise. Note how you couldn't even defend your original statement ( denying a link between CO2 and temperatures) as something uttered by someone who is neutral or undecided.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
How so?
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
I already explained how so. Pay attention.
You started making claims that showed you weren't "undecided", like claiming you had seen charts showing CO2 wasn't correlated with temperatures, and making implications about scientists - essentially accusing them of fraud - to justify why you don't agree with the consensus.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
My main point always was I have an agnostic view on global warming. That's it. You don't like it so you accuse me of lying well I don't give a shit you are wrong. Yea I said in my opinion some scientists are biased for financial or political reason sure. How old are you where you think it's impossible for people to be biased? I also flat out agreed that oil companies too put out money there to fuck with climate change advocates I must be a terrible climate change denier for agreeing with that huh?
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
I'm accusing you of doing what we can all literally see: You made claims that are not "agnostic", but instead attack climate change based on falsehoods. Again, you claimed that CO2 does not correlate with temperature. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
I didn't say it was impossible for people to be biased. I said your explanation of financial bias doesn't make sense, and your usage of that argument to discredit the consensus shows that you're not "agnostic".
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I made pro climate change arguments and anti climate change points. I am agreeing with you that I made arguments against it but I am telling you I also made arguments that support it. The biggest being that I agree big oil is lobbying to suppress studies and data. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I'm sorry.
My attempts at agreeing with arguments and points of both sides makes me agnostic. Once again a anti man made climate change person will not agree that big oil is muddling and destroying the message pro man made climate change people are making. You will ignore this of course and act like I never said it and continue to lie that I haven't made cases for both ends it's ok. You are a dishonest liberal it's what you guys do.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
You only made that argument after I refuted your claim that the financial interests would explain the consensus. Stop pretending that somehow shows you're "agnostic". It doesn't. It shows your argument got debunked so** you conceded the point and quickly moved on to your next point (blaming the consensus on political bias)**.
I know, that's why I explained why exactly it didn't make sense since there is more financial incentive on the other side. Need me to post it here again?
There you go again making it political when you can't address the points. Again, all you did was concede a point and moved on to the next one against climate change. That doesn't make you agnostic. You offered no pro-climate change arguments on your own. They had to be beaten out of you. You're not fooling anyone.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I only made the argument to show I agreed with you to some degree. I was actually attempting to somewhat extend an olive branch but your autism grabbed that and shoved it in your ass.
Never happened.
Never happened. Boy you like to make shit up. I'm not pretending anything I made my case showing that I am not and your defense is literally NO YOUR EXAMPLE DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE I SAY SO. How fucking old are you seriously?
and once again I made the point that it isn't all about money that a scientists legacy and research is also on the line. Just because there is more doesn't mean everyone will fucking do it. You can make more money being a doctor or carpenter but surprise some people choose to work at mcdonalds making minimum wage. Why is that?
I am calling it as I see you it you are a classic intolerant liberal prick throwing a hissy fit at me because I disagree with you. Like I have been at work all day responding when I can most of the day I was gone and not responding you have been responding sometimes in seconds most of the time almost immediately whenever I post showing me that you aren't doing much with your day at all again, tell tale lazy liberal sign.
But I did I said big oil fucks with scientists thus defending scientists who believe in man made climate change. Your response to that is I DISQUALIFY THAT BECAUSE I SAY I DISQUALIFY IT like a fucking child.
Holy shit you are on the spectrum. You realize we are having an internet debate right? Control your autism.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yes it did. You conceded as much when you accepted there were stronger financial incentives from the other side. You first started saying the financial incentive of grants was in their best interest. You then said "it's not just about money, it can be about reputation too". By which you concede that the financial argument doesn't make sense so you shift the focus to "reputation".
Yes you did... As a response to the original financial argument not working.
Yeah, I didn't ask for your bullshit rationalization. Not interested. Again, you're making it political because you can't address the facts.
No, my response is to show how your only said that once you noticed your financial argument was getting you nowhere. Notice how you didn't refute the fact that you had offered no pro-climate-change arguments on your own. They had to be squeezed out of you.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You clearly have no idea what that words means. This entire debate I have conceded only one thing and that is oil companies fuck with scientists that shows I am agnostic in this.
Absolutely not that's rubbish. I am adding to the incentive not invalidating my point at all. You love making shit up boy don't you.
Correct
Nope. Lol the amount of autism you have just invaliding arguments because you deem them invalidated. Such a slimy piece of shit liberal.
I don't give a shit i'm telling you. I can vanish from here for 2 days respond and you will reply within 5 minutes no matter what part of the day it is. That's autism.......and being unemployed. #FEELTHEBERN though!!!!
I didn't notice this at all. My point was sound. Also I still don't understand why it matters that I said it after that argument. I still said it. Boy your autism forces you to create all these magical debate rules I am not privy to that arbitrarily disqualify things I say because......BECAUSE!!
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Fine. Let's indulge your desperate bullshit. Since it's clear you're just going to keep lying, lets pretend that you never conceded that.
So now what? That means then you're arguing that:
That it's still in the best financial interest for scientists to support climate change, and therefore we shouldn't trust the consensus.
That it's still in the best interest of their reputation for scientists to support climate change, and therefore we shouldn't trust the consensus.
That you have charts showing there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperatures.
That we don't have more than 1,000 years of relevant climate-change data.
You're arguing all of that, but we should still consider you "agnostic" because, why exactly? Because after much discussion, you conceded that sometimes, oil companies may influence some scientists? Lol.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Why did you skip a post of mine?
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Huh?
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You seemed to have blown off this reply I made. Why:
https://www.reddit.com/r/opieandanthony/comments/43svz5/anthony_is_on_twitter_right_now_denying_climate/czlps1p
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Nope. It's there silly goose. You're just so desperate for my responses that you can't wait a few minutes.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Sure thing.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg/1024px-Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg.png
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Please summarize the crap you are posting I'm tired of looking at stuff people linking to didn't even look at and just looked for in a Google search for the sake of an argument.
2 burgersass 2016-02-02
Hahahahaha this is just embarrassing dude. Take a look at what he provided. It's exactly what you're looking for.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
So you can't explain the shit you linked? Did I correctly call you out on googling shit you didn't understand for the sake of pasting something here? What a shocker!
2 burgersass 2016-02-02
Take a look at the usernames genius. Did you even check the links out?
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Honestly you all sound the same to me. Empty rhetoric etc etc. I'm responding from the notifications too not the threads. Yea now explain them and where they came from.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
That's not me, dummy. Pay attention. That's some other guy that's amused by your failures... like that one right there.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
What failures? Not agreeing with you? That's not a failure that's success.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
You mean aside from making a fool out of youself by attacking someone who wasn't me?
How about your failure to provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim that CO2 isn't correlated with temperature? Or,
How about the failure of your argument regarding financial interests of climate scientists?
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You must be such a loser to care what your reddit cred is. Lol I don't give a shit what you loser liberals think of me.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yeah, it has nothing to do with "reddit cred" (whatever the fuck that is). It has everything to do with you saying and doing dumb shit. If you don't mind saying and doing dumb shit, then that explains a lot.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You said I am making a fool out of myself implying I give an absolute shit what you and other liberal cucks here think of me. That's just sad.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
So you don't know what it is, but you have no problem assuming it's crap and accusing me of not reading it?
Anyways... It's data from ice-cores which go back hundreds of thousands of years.
The first link is to the raw data itself, and it's taken from the Vostok research station in Russia.
The second link is the publication associated with that data release.
The second link is a plot of (other) ice core data taken from Volstok, to show you what the kind of data looks like.
The third plot is a combination of data from many different ice cores, which can go back millions of years.
I don't mind explaining things; just don't pretend you know what the fuck you're talking about ("I have charts that show CO2 doesn't correlate with temperatures"), when you clearly don't.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You shared the links dumbass. It's your sources not me. Holy shit.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
No shit. The point being how can you say it's crap if you didn't even look at it?
I know I posted it. I know what each of those links contain. I explained it to you above. Pay attention.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
because you just plop links with no content or backstory not giving any impression that you know what they are outside of durrr I just googled something quick to plot here to make myself look smart. It's telling how butt hurt you are getting when I simply expect you to make your case.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
None of that justifies you claiming it's crap without knowing what it is.
You can't complain about my lack of effort when you've made it abundantly clear that you're not even going to read what I say... You can't have it both ways dummy.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I will assume something is crap until someone says otherwise of course.
Yes I can. You are plopping graphs with no explanation or content showing you most likely just google searched them without knowing what they are for the simple sake of attempting to shut me up and I called you out on it and was clearly right.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
So then your entire posts - where you've provided not a single shred of evidence showing otherwise - are crap? Good. We agree.
No, you can't. Not without being full of shit. If you're going to say that you're not going to read what I post, then I'm not going to waste my time writing things that you're not going to read. Don't like that?
I'm making the least effort possible because you said you're not reading my posts. Pay attention.
Nope. I knew what they are, which explains why I immediately called you out on your bullshit when you claimed we only had 1,000 years worth of data. You can search my posting history, I've been discussing climate change for a very long time. Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I wasn't making a point, just commenting on your keyboard diarrhea, which is mostly crap tbh.
Yes I can. Again you write literal walls of text that mean nothing in a sad attempt to sound smart. You use that troll gimmick where you try to act verbose and wordy and try really really hard at sounding like you know what you are talking about and hope you deceive the opposing side. It isn't working here. Sorry. If your walls of text start having content I may read them again.
You are a dishonest piece of shit hurling a strawman now. You know the context I made when speaking of 1,000 years was in terms of proving global whatever is man made. Now you are attempting to change my narrative implying I meant we don't have over 1000 years of data which is total shit and a lie. God damn you liberals are dishonest pieces of shit.
I said:
If you think only 1000 years of data can absolutely tell you about climate habits on this planet to the point where you can make a grandiose statement about historical climate change without a shadow of a doubt then grade school has failed you.
You said:
We have more than 1000 years of data
and now your dishonest pierce of shit gimmick is to attempt to change the narrative to simply weather data when I clearly was talking about man made climate change. Again disgusting lying piece of shit liberal using a bullshit strawman.
"I'm an internet tough guy who discusses stuff on the internet a lot watch out"
Is this supposed to intimidate me because it's accomplishing the opposite.
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
So then don't complain when I don't write walls. Again, you're full of shit. You know full well how stupid it is to complain about my "walls of text" and then chastise me for not writing explanations (which weren't necessary to begin with because the links themselves contained explanations) yet you continue clinging to that point because that's all you have.
What the fuck are you babbling about? This data IS part of the data that shows humans are largely responsible...
I'm not showing you random climate data, you imbecile. I'm showing you ice-core data that shows the correlation between CO2 and temperatures (you know, the one you claimed didn't exist), which is crucial to showing the greenhouse effect created by releasing greenhouse gases, which then shows how humans are largely responsible.
No, it's supposed to correct yet another one of your idiotic accusations. If you're going to accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about, I'm going to let you know you're wrong. I do.
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
The guy literally sits here all day refreshing reddit waiting for us to respond. An unemployed liberal loser thinks he has some kind of intellectual high ground which is pretty amusing if you think about it.
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Now you're following me around? Lol.
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Notice now I am responding because your posts aren't condescending overtly verbose empty rhetoric posts.
How many times do I have to say typing 1000 words that ultimately say nothing isn't an explanation. This is what you do because your shitty reddit gimmick is to write REALLY long empty posts that say really little but the point is to write alot to give the illusion of knowledge. I met a lot off retarded liberals who try this trick it's honestly sad.
No I am clinging to my point because it makes my case. You are trying really hard to wish it away but it's not working.
Wow how many posts did you have to make before you fucking said this? How is there a correlation when the CO2 levels LAG behind temperature levels where the opposite should be true according to your point? I just did a google search to see if I was crazy making that point based on your graphs sure enough I am not:
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/08/420000-years-of-data-suggestss-global-warming-is-not-man-made/
Looks like you were full of shit.
I don't need to accuse anything you clearly show that on your own.
2 mad-lab 2016-02-02
How convenient that you get to decide when my posts are "empty" and when they are not. Hah. You're full of shit. You're not fooling anyone. You are avoiding my points, and now that you think (based on your own immense stupidity) that you have a good point to make (and you don't) you decide that my posts are worth reading.
Except that "point" of yours is saying you're not going to read my posts, and then immediately chastising me for not writing something that wasn't even necessary.
None, since you supposedly know about climate change? Please explain to me why someone who alleges to know so much about climate change that they can confidently evaluate the state of the evidence (to claim that there is no evidence either way), doesn't know about elementary concepts regarding climate change? Oh, that's right, you're full of shit.
What do you mean how is there a correlation? Do you know what a correlation is? Hint: Things that "lag" each other can be highly correlated.
Temperatures don't have to lag behind CO2 increases for CO2 to amplify the effects. CO2 doesn't cause the increase in temperature, but makes the increase in temperature that much worse:
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
No, it looks like you hastily googled an article you didn't understand, and are now pretending you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.
Ironic coming from the imbecile that literally just proved he doesn't understand climate change.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
They are empty all the time. It's that simple.
I did. It made you incredibly butt hurt and frustrated so it did the job.
This whole block is what I am talking about. One giant paragraph with a lot of words but you said absolutely nothing. I don't even know what you are referencing here.
Correct but CO 2 lagging temperature goes against everything you and pro climate change people are saying. It should be the opposite. Temperature should be lagging CO 2 increases. Also you are flailing here and your argument is getting more ridiculous and thought out i'm getting to you good.
So you are not going to refute anything even though I just blew your point away and attack me for trying to validate my hypothesis and give you a source explaining that. You are losing your composure, I pissed you off good.
https://www.reddit.com/r/opieandanthony/comments/43svz5/anthony_is_on_twitter_right_now_denying_climate/czlo4t1
Checkmate you lose. It was fun wasting time with you autist better luck next time.
2 mad-lab 2016-02-02
And yet you said:
You are tripping over your own bullshit. Keep it together.
How convenient.
I'll make it simple for you: How come you did not know what ice-core data was?
No, it doesn't. It doesn't have to be the opposite. CO2 would only need to come first if it caused the increase in temperature. It didn't. It amplifies the effect. Imagine someone throws a giant bolder into a lake. It creates waves. If I then jump in to the lake, I can amplify the original waves. The effect of me jumping into the lake will "lag" the initial oscillation since I didn't cause it. That doesn't mean my action didn't perpetuate the waves or amplify the waves already there.
What the fuck are you babbling about? I already refuted it. Pay attention:
http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Hah, no. I didn't say it caused the temperatures. I said it correlated with them and it does. Here, let NOAA educate you:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Speaking of which what is your fucking premise posting those links. Make your case what you are showing with those links before I can attempt to refute it or not. Again you plopped links down but you didn't say what you are trying to show.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
What do you mean what's my case, dumb-dumb? You claimed we only had 1,000 years of data. We have much more than that. That's it. That's the whole point of posting that data: to show you we have much more than 1,000 years and thus to show how you were talking out of your ass. You were wrong.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Oh look you are being a dishonest prick again what a shock. Also I am noticing your VERY careful wording here as you are ignoring my questioning. You attempted to show that man made climate change was a thing using 1000 years of data. I said that's extremely childish and ignorant to make that premise or assumption with that little data. You plopped these links now and are quiet about why. Are you saying that this data shows that climate change is man made? If not you are being dishonest here because you know that is what our argument is. What exactly are these links showing in the context of our debate of climate change being man made or not.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
How is it dishonest to directly address your points? How did I ignore your "questioning"? You asked me why I posted the evidence. I told you: To refute your claim that we only have 1,000 years worth of data.
What the fuck are you babbling about? I literally just explained why right there:
at's the whole point of posting that data: to show you we have much more than 1,000 years and thus to show how you were talking out of your ass.
I'm saying that your claim that we only have data for 1,000 years is wrong. We have data for far longer than that.
And yes, that that - along with other data - helps show how humans are responsible for the unusually quick increase in temperatures in the past 100 years or so.
That you don't know the extent of the data and that you erroneously believed the data only went up to 1,000 years when in reality it extends far longer than that.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You are creating strawmans left and right you dishonest liberal prick.
THIS WAS NEVER MY CLAIM YOU DISHONEST COCK SUCKER. We are talking about climate change man made vs not. I wasn't telling you we don't have more than 1000's years worth of weather data period. I never said this. I said 1000 years of data isn't enough to support your post. God damn you dishonest piece of shit. This is why the modern left is pants on head retarded. You have no problem flat out lying at the blink of an eye.
How does this show that? Because you say so?
My argument here never was simply that all weather data went only up to 1000 years. God once again you liberals are such pieces of shit lying scumbags.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
I didn't create any strawman. You're just an idiot who thinks I mean that was random irrelevant weather data, when it was completely relevant climate-change data. Your immense ignorance doesn't make it a strawman. It just makes you dumb.
I'm not saying it's random, irrelevant weather data you silly-goose. What I posted is entirely relevant climate-change data that is part of the evidence linking humans to recent global warming.
It's hilarious how you're throwing a hissy-fit based on your own idiotic assumption. Lol.
See above. You're an idiot.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Yes you did. That's literally all you are doing here and creating arbitrary rules that arbitrarily refute my words.
Something you haven't shown yet.
You keep doing this. You keep claiming that what you posts proves something without actually proving anything. You like to do this over and over. It's so scummy and dishonest. It took like 20 posts after you posted those links for you to even make your point and you unironically are typing this bullshit. SMH.
Says the guy who will literally sit here refreshing reddit to wait for my response all day and will not stop until he gets the last word. You sure i'm the hissy fit guy?
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Yes, I have. I already told you that it's ice-core data from the Volstok climate station in Russia. Do you need me to explain why ice-cores are relevant? Are you conceding that you don't actually know what you're talking about when it comes to climate change and need me to explain to you basic concepts?
You're replying at the same time I am, dummy...
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I actually made a reply about this you blew off.
Yup it's evening now but early today when I was at work and I checked in once or twice through the work day you responded within like 5 minutes each time. You literally spend all day here.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
I didn't blow anything off. You're an idiot who thinks that because I didn't respond in X amount of time, I couldn't have possibly responded later...
https://www.reddit.com/r/opieandanthony/comments/43svz5/anthony_is_on_twitter_right_now_denying_climate/czlps1p
Which is ironic given your next sentence.
You literally just admitted that you are timing my posts and you were so impatient for my posts that you accused me of blowing them off when I didn't respond instantly... Lol!
5 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
I agree. Let's just toss all science out the window.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
That's literally what you and him do when you make scientific generalizations without a shadow of a doubt based on only 1000 years of data. Tossing sciencing out.
2 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
You're an impossibly and frustratingly stupid individual.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Ok at least I try to explain myself you just sit here hurl insults and downvote but again you are a liberal its what you do. Get a liberal arts degree can't find a job ITS THE REPUBLICANS FAULT IM A FAILURE NOT MINE SAVE ME BERNIE SANDERS
1 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
I read this in a Hank Hill voice.
edit: and for the record, MISTER, I haven't downvoted you.
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Sure you haven't. Hank Hill or not it's not conservatives fault you decided to major in woman's studies and your job sucks.
1 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
with an awful response like that, I'm officially downvoting you.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Ok I have an adult job so I'm not going to sit here all day going back and forth fighting for the last word. We all don't have that luxury.
2 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
I'll let you get back to your truck.
1 cuntbuckets 2016-02-02
You're not wrong that evidence does not equal proof, but science is a system for dealing with that stuff already. We have categories of conjecture, hypothesis, theory and proof. Once you get beyond the first 2 bumps in that road, its fairly certain your idea is standing on some solid ground as it must be confirmed by large amount of empirical data (and even be able to make certain types of predictions). Remember everything we have that we have attained laws for came from the same systematic method, infact some of the first laws we have came from the very people that defined this system.
If we were to consider everything invalid that had no absolute proof, then ideas from people like Einstein, Darwin, Turing, Faraday, Feynman etc. Would all fall by the wayside. But we use them today, you are using some of them right now, and the odds of them being invalid are fairly low, how complete the model is of these ideas is unknown and when we attain laws on the model, we will know, but odds are that most of the model described is accurate.
-12 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Wow some days I forget even though this is the O&A subreddit this is still cunty intolerant liberal reddit and no opposing non liberal views are allowed without getting buried.
11 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
Nah, you're just fucking retarded.
-13 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Nah liberals are just intolerant pricks. Notice I didn't even say it doesn't exist just that I feel there isn't enough evidence either way nope in liberal lala land you are with us or against us now you get buried. Fucking fascists.
9 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
What a victim you are.
-13 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I never said I was sunshine I am totally aware how you liberals get off on that idea. I'm just defending myself big difference. Reddit is the perfect liberal site because you can make my bad words go away with your hive mind just down vote poof now you don't have to deal with my opposing opinion and you won't be challenged. What a utopia!
6 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
Well, okay then.
5 TotallyNotObsi 2016-02-02
Downvoted.
2 brmlb 2016-02-02
"liberals liberals liberals" blah blah blah.
just shut the fuck up. don't get all pissy you're half a retard and people smarter than you make you angry.
there is no debate here. your high-school twitter-meme climate change education is not the same as some NASA scientist. you don't have an equal voice in this made up "debate". you are an idiot.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
"Shut the fuck up I'm right because I say I'm right".
Liberals everyone.
2 brmlb 2016-02-02
It's not about what I say or my opinions - it's science, not politics. You're out of your league here, just stick to guns and race.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You have showed me no "science" whatsoever. Not even a copy and pasted graph from some other subreddit. You just declare you are right I'm wrong that's it like a fucking child but then again you wouldn't be a liberal if you weren't a fucking child.
1 brmlb 2016-02-02
I'm a engineer. I wrote a thesis in 2005 about carbon sequestration. I don't give give a fuck about "showing you science". I'm not debating a monkey with a high school education who wants to bring politics into a science discussion. I'd rather you eat a dick and jump off a cliff. Save me time and energy.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Oh boy you are a college grad this makes you a fucking infalliable genius because that's how life works. Holy shit are you dumb. You still haven't showed me anything outside angry temper tantrums science man.
3 brmlb 2016-02-02
I don't need to "show you" anything for it to be real. The fact that everything you discuss is filtered through "liberal/conservative" lens tells me exactly where you're coming from, and it's not a smart place. You have strong opinions about climate change, but you haven't had any formal science education since 11th grade, and you've never read a scientific journal in your life. Just stop. Like I said, stick to race and gun topics.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
Liberals everyone.
1 burgersass 2016-02-02
That's not a bad statement, he's totally right. If it is real (which is very obviously is), then him showing you wouldn't affect the results. The fact that you don't understand that that is what he's saying shows how stupid you are. There have been plenty of people providing you with links and real evidence against your views, and you dismiss them completely because you don't know what the graphs mean or represent.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
"Shut the fuck up I'm right because I say I'm right".
Liberals everyone.
-2 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
-11 [deleted] 2016-02-02
So you're inferring that I don't enjoy living because I choose not to worry about things of which are out of my control?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
13 Individually_Placed 2016-02-02
First off, the top Climate researchers / scientists ARE in consensus. 97% or more in agreement that Climate Change is occurring and human activity is partially responsible, if not solely responsible. How is 97% not a consensus?
And, as far as YOU not seeing "quantifiable facts", who are YOU? Are you a climate scientist who has relentlessly studied the trends, the impacts and the overall effects of increased global temperature? Or, are you just an random nobody who has a slight understanding of weather? I'm assuming the latter, so why should anyone listen to your opinion regarding a subject you don't know much about?
And no, there is not a lot of disagreement within the scientific community regarding climate change, as you say. That is an outright lie.
And you said "we don't even know how the weather really works"? What the fuck does that even mean? Dude, holy shit. Yes, WE DO know how the weather works. That statement is what really disqualified you from talking about this subject.... I mean, come on, man. Wow.
-1 TheAmazingPearl 2016-02-02
Like I said, over 31k scientists have signed a position that they were disingenuously or fraudulently including in the "consensus". No, I don't ignore scientific consensus on any issue. No they don't agree. I've referenced chairs of top universities & organizations on the field. The video is a CSPAN live feed of Congressional hearings. Attacking the source with an ad hominem is just a big nothing. Who cares who uploaded it? Are the facts presented by Dr Curry in contention? And, my bad if I'm coming across as a sperg in this. I just really love the topic. I was on the "We're all gonna die from Global Warming" side of the debate throughout college & a couple years after. So I've had years looking into this.
3 whydontUlovemeLyndsi 2016-02-02
As glacial melt occurs during the daytime the fresh water spreads out over top of the more dense saltwater which stays around -2 degrees C. At night that meltwater re-freezes as a thin crust that appears to satellite imagery as normal sea ice. It eventually gets churned up enough to mix with the saltwater and stay liquid but it is a gradual, phased process. That's why some people can claim on any given day that the ice isn't receeding, it may actually be expanding.
The Maldives lost 300 feet of coastline this year. Regardless of whats right or wrong, Ant certainly isn't informed on the subject.
3 rahtin 2016-02-02
Your first link is misleading. It's just some parts of Antarctica. Arctic ice levels are shrinking.
There are about 1000 articles completely debunking the relevance of that one fact.
4 brmlb 2016-02-02
Enough about the 1970s ice age article . There's been 10,000 articles about global warming / climate change since, but that 1 article from 1970 is some sort of holy grail.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
"Shut the fuck up I'm right because I say I'm right".
Liberals everyone.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
"Shut the fuck up I'm right because I say I'm right".
Liberals everyone.
5 3stepsbackward 2016-02-02
Yes, they call me Dr. 3steps.
3 mad-lab 2016-02-02
First of all that NASA study being referenced by the IBTimes said this phenomenon spanned up to 2008. That's 8 years ago. Second of all, the study itself disagrees with other ones and thus experts are skeptical of it:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-intermediate.htm
No, you didn't. That's a bullshit talking point that has no basis in reality. The scientific consensus was never that there was a coming ice age. That was the thought of tiny, tiny number of scientists, and was outweighed by the other scientists saying the opposite:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
As someone who works in the sciences, let me tell you that you or your "friends" (or both) are completely full of shit.
That's an awful argument. First of all, weather is far more chaotic that climate. Second of all, contrary to popular belief, predictions of weather are actually pretty damn good.
Nobody cares about your "beliefs". We want evidence. Show us a natural cycle of climate that would explain the temperature rise we've observed for the past 100 years or so. Go ahead.
Milankovitch cycles would take tens of thousands of years to observe the same level of temperature change we've seen in just 100 years.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/natural-cycle/Forcing-Temp_1.9wm2.png
-1 Bick_Bickerson 2016-02-02
I too laughed.
3 Bick_Bickerson 2016-02-02
Shut up retard
3 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Nope. Keyword being SEA ice. Sea ice is different than land ice:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
Sea ice is rising but land ice is falling:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F5.large.jpg
Land ice is the troubling one since it's what would affect the sea-level where as sea ice is already in the sea (and thus it melting will not significantly affect levels).
-7 MartyVanB 2016-02-02
Arctic sea ice decreasing = Doom for the planet
Antarctic sea ice increasing = Irrelevant weather pattern
got it
3 CCRed95 2016-02-02
Potato potahtoe you give me a container of coffee Mr. Fancy Pants grammer man im workin
1 ckb614 2016-02-02
He's making an implication based on his inference.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Join the club.
3 Clibanarius 2016-02-02
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You shared the links dumbass. It's your sources not me. Holy shit.
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
You said I am making a fool out of myself implying I give an absolute shit what you and other liberal cucks here think of me. That's just sad.
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Huh? You had the problem with my statement, as you immediately decided to point how the Forbes wrote it's own article and cited the blog as a source... as if I hadn't said exactly that. I know what Forbe did...
And I never claimed you said two independent sources. Pay attention. I clarified as an aside. Why? Because I referred to it as two links but I wanted to make it clear - to you or anyone else that might be reading - that it's really one source.
False. I didn't dismiss anything. I did laugh at how it's blatantly trying to fool people into thinking it's somehow related to popular mechanics, but I didn't dismiss anything. I replied to your article accepting the truth of what it said. Speaking of which, here are all the points again, which you've STILL haven't responded to:
That tiny error rate [argued in the blog you linked to] is nowhere near enough to invalidate the fact of a large consensus, and how you completely avoided the fact that there are many other papers, all using different methodologies, and all finding a large consensus.
I don't care how many awards the PG (not the author of that article mind you) has won. It doesn't magically do away with facts. Again, there are numerous studies - not editorial articles by journalists with no expertise on the subject - showing a consensus:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png
That's a complete and utter bullshit. Legates allegation (from which the PG article is basing itself on... which of course you didn't know since you didn't even bother research things), is based on misrepresentation of the criteria used in the study:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/24_errors.pdf
You also ignored the fact that Cook verified his findings by having authors self-rate something you've failed at addressing for like the 5-th time now:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf;jsessionid=61D0F67F843FF1F2A3DF8D7C64FFB7FC.c4.iopscience.cld.iop.org
1 JohnnyCashFan69 2016-02-02
I made pro climate change arguments and anti climate change points. I am agreeing with you that I made arguments against it but I am telling you I also made arguments that support it. The biggest being that I agree big oil is lobbying to suppress studies and data. Pretending that didn't happen isn't going to magically make it go away.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. I'm sorry.
My attempts at agreeing with arguments and points of both sides makes me agnostic. Once again a anti man made climate change person will not agree that big oil is muddling and destroying the message pro man made climate change people are making. You will ignore this of course and act like I never said it and continue to lie that I haven't made cases for both ends it's ok. You are a dishonest liberal it's what you guys do.
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Lol hey buddy... you ever see Apollo 13? They almost dies from co2 poisoning. Hehehe. Next...
1 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
1 brmlb 2016-02-02
let's go back to original comment and half at the retard talking about "liberals denying science".
you haven't read a science book since 11th grade. just admit you're stupid, pretending to be smart.
1 JuiceBusters 2016-02-02
Great you googled things to say but the problem is that stupid fucking 'aggregate' bullshit and..
..reality. Co2 rises aren't doing anything but (according to NASA) massively greening the planet.
Like.. you know how if you WANT lush warm super fruits you build a greenhouse. Cuz its awesome for life.
But in this case it can't be compared to your backyard greenhouse because what man contributes isn't even CLOSE to that level of goodness. Its insignificant.
and again, you are a fucking tard if you think saying 'billions' means anything here.
1 biobotX1 2016-02-02
Omg you were serious... so by your "warm is good cold is bad baby logic, the sunny side of mercury should be green. I answered why too much CO2 is bad. Your ignoring it because you are an idealogue.
1 mad-lab 2016-02-02
Why not? Do you have ANY evidence that the facts presented their are false? If so, post it.
Okay, then please show me where. Go ahead.
So you can't provide a single shred of evidence for your accusation that thousands of scientists are committing fraud?
0 [deleted] 2016-02-02
[deleted]
0 mad-lab 2016-02-02
So you're having fun like last time then? Good! Why are you trying to convince me to stop then?