Still confused about climate change...

Post Reply New Topic

^^^^^^

But this warming still causes cancer according to the same paper!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1336810/Climate-change-cancer-UN-report-warns-deadly-pollutants-glaciers.html

What should we do?

Donate all your spare cash to me!
Then let me come up with something.

The "Daily mail"??! !
A tabloid! They did do a great job about Elvis being spotted tho!
Please primary sources!

Ummm, scroll back. OK, your intuition is superior to EVERY scientific organization in the world. Please, at least give some evidence for your sillyness. Oh yeah, there is none.

2014 looks like the hottest year on record. If the El Nino kicks in.

That is the little beast that drives our hurricane season.

Florida and the Gulf Coast have not had a major hit in years. We are due.

That puts a lot more water vapor than normal into the potential for snow.

It has been getting overall hotter since 1998, but the lows are getting lower.

2015 looks like a new record.

From the cover of, The Whole Earth Catalog,

"The flow of energy through a system tends to act to organize that system."

Expect big data events.

There is just as much evidence that (in the past) climate change influence CO2 production. Now most of the CO2 load in the atmosphere is man made. It is a good time to pave north America from coast to coast with breeder reactors and stop burning hydrocarbons so much.

ruveyn

I am partial to windmills.

repeat post

That blue line clearly shows global warming! Your red line is a lie that you just inserted.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that I simply rely on climatologists to make the appropriate measurements and render their opinions based on several decades of dedicated study. It is not a guarantee of being right, but they are an appropriate authority.

Furthermore, I think that it's perfectly rational for me to invest more trust in a politician who uses appropriate scientific authority in policy-making, regardless of his personal views. I find it a lot easier to believe that such a person actually has the best interests of his constituents in mind.

Do I really need to respond to someone who cites the Daily Mail? DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT THIS IS A TABLOID???

In response to the chart pointing out the Eemian warm period, it doesn't make a difference, really. The Eemian warm period had consequences for life on this planet, just as did the following glacial period. And no, these are not predictable cycles. To the naked eye, they may at first look to be, but when you look more closely, you can see that peak-to-peak and peak-to-valley differences are greatly variable, as are their shapes.

Each of these climatic events had causes of one kind or another, be they volcanic events, continental drift, speciation events leading to a vast proliferation of some carbon-gobbling weed/algae, and so on. It is true that we live in a perilous cosmos where bad things CAN happen to us and very suddenly.

However, although we cannot control everything, carbon emissions from human industry is something that we do have control over, and just as we may not be able to stop ourselves from eventually dying of SOMETHING but CAN eliminate a carcinogenic tumor today, buying us a little more time, we are also capable of controlling our carbon emissions and our bladders. If you're not pissing yourself just because you can, then you can rein in your carbon emissions.

Just because a tornado might hit your house tomorrow doesn't mean you have to live in squalor and filth today. Clean up your room, child. If we can avert disaster for the present, then we might actually build up our technology sufficiently that we can figure out how to offset or avert the next super-volcono eruption, which could happen at any instant.

To be clear, whoever created that graphic cut off most of the left-hand side of the 2000 peak and then drew a fake "trend-line" from the highest peak to the lowest valley. The line actually does represent a valid statistical function, but someone lacking much education might mistake it for a trend-line, which was, of course, the idea.

Another deceptive part of that graphic is that whoever created it tried to make it look like the real trend-line, which is the blue one, represents the x-axis, which thereby makes it look superficially like there was really no apparent increase. Once you have seen through this optical illusion, it's easy enough to tell that there is basically an increasing trend.

Basically, all else I would have to say to someone who not only lies to me but attempts to deceive me is "Go to Hell, punk," and that's that. Unfortunately, some people are actually uneducated enough that they are actually likely to be deceived by this scum.

Here is a better graph.

HA HA HA HA
So he proves that he is legit by faking another graph with his red line! And from dubious sources also! See the thread "Is Inhofe correct?"

Humanaut: give it up.

http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/09/04/the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/

The criteria for being part of the consensus is flexible enough to include myself. Now, we've seen the short-term cooling trend illustrated. Let's have a look at how the planet's cooling interior affects climate over geological time scales. As you all can see we are heading for disaster, and there is nothing we can do about it unless we find a way to heat up the core. Any ideas on how this could be accomplished would be appreciated.

You are an unabashedly dishonest scumbag trying to sell us doctored-up statistical charts. You are about on the same level as those freaks who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real. You are lying to yourself, and you are lying to everyone else because you're too morally defective to handle the cognitive dissonance associated with the realization that you are wrong.

From this point on, in the conversation, I will only cite digital object identifiers.