[Atomic Rooster]

[nonhuman]

That picture does not involve a cat.

You lose.

[tutelary]

The amount of ignorance in this thread is generally mind numbing. It is also why I won't return here. You people are 6 flavors of pathetic, and only a few posts in this entire thread are from people who 'get it'.

You would rather cite Penn and Teller than side with the majority of the worlds climatologists. Amazing.

[driven]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Nothing can disprove global warming...

Hot temperatures: global warming
Cold temperatures: global warming
Lots o' hurricanes: global warming
No hurricanes: global warming
Melting glaciers: global warming
Growing glaciers: global warming

Mars getting warmer: Carbon emissions on Earth. Obviously.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Doesn't matter though, the article is completely illegitimate because it goes against the "consensus", and apparently, in modern science consensus is what REALLY matters.

In ALL science, consensus is what REALLY matters, dumbass!
That's how science works. If you announce a discovery, it has to confirmable by other scientists. Your data must be confirmed. Your experiments must be duplicatable by others. That's why we don't have cold fusion up and running (anybody remember that?).
If somebody came along with a CONFIRMABLE proof that humans are not contributing significantly to global warming, then AND ONLY THEN would the scientific consensus on global warming change.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

In ALL science, consensus is what REALLY matters, dumbass!
That's how science works. If you announce a discovery, it has to confirmable by other scientists. Your data must be confirmed. Your experiments must be duplicatable by others. That's why we don't have cold fusion up and running (anybody remember that?).
If somebody came along with a CONFIRMABLE proof that humans are not contributing significantly to global warming, then AND ONLY THEN would the scientific consensus on global warming change.

<Stephen Colbert>
... something about my gut feeling being superior
</Stephen Colbert>

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

In ALL science, consensus is what REALLY matters, dumbass!

Real nice Captain Maturity. Keep up the good work!

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Why we don't let some ice melt occur and carve out large canals and rivers into desert regions where people are desperate for water I don't know.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost 

Why we don't let some ice melt occur and carve out large canals and rivers into desert regions where people are desperate for water I don't know.

Characteristic for your intellect or just your geographical ignorance?

[Obi Wan's Ghost]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Characteristic for your intellect or just your geographical ignorance?

Watch your mouth if you don't know who you're talking to.

The Himalayas, for example, is experiencing glacial retreat and is surrounded by arid regions where there is a need for fresh water.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by bgmark13 

graphs are good proof of global warming...

Please don't quote FSM if you're completely oblivious to the irony of your statement.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

If somebody came along with a CONFIRMABLE proof that humans are not contributing significantly to global warming, then AND ONLY THEN would the scientific consensus on global warming change.

You really think at this point someone suggesting a difference of opinion to the global climate change stake would be taken seriously? There are far too much politics in the scientific world for this to be the case, IMO.

[olePigeon]

Global Warming is a misnomer, it should be referenced as Global Climate Change as changes will incur more extreme temperatures on both ends during seasons, even if the average mean temperature is rising. Isolated climate zones will react differently than the entire climate as a whole.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Global Warming is a misnomer, it should be referenced as Global Climate Change as changes will incur more extreme temperatures on both ends during seasons, even if the average mean temperature is rising. Isolated climate zones will react differently than the entire climate as a whole.

Bingo, those who discard Global Warming by saying "well it's getting cooler here, nyah!!" don't understand climate change any more than a two year old.

Pumping CO2 into our atmosphere will result in a huge gamut of different outcomes. Ice will retreat from certain areas of the globe and form in others. The only problem is that this will most certainly change the weather as we know it. The thing is that it's impossible to accurately predict what EXACTLY will happen but the fact remains that the world's scientists agree we are changing our world.

Those who disagree with this overall sentiment of us doing harm against our precious environment need to actually understand science before badmouthing it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

You really think at this point someone suggesting a difference of opinion to the global climate change stake would be taken seriously? There are far too much politics in the scientific world for this to be the case, IMO.

Nobody who makes outlandish claims without any evidence is taken seriously. Why should they be?

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I think the thing about our climate changing is that we don't know what might happen as a result.

"What if?" was enough of a justification to spend billions on the Iraq war. The potential dangers presented by global warming, human-caused or natural, are greater than the actual danger we now know Iraq presented prior to the invasion.

Agreed. The supposed terror threat posed by Iraq, told to us by a few people in our government apparently had more credibility than the vast majority of the entire world's scientists on the effects of Global Warming.

I'm actually at a point where I just don't care anymore. I feel like if we're too stupid to see our own demise right in front of our faces, we deserve the consequences. And maybe that's the real problem. Humankind has yet to suffer any "real" consequences from the misuse of our natural resources. We just don't understand what will happen, so we dismiss it.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

You really think at this point someone suggesting a difference of opinion to the global climate change stake would be taken seriously? There are far too much politics in the scientific world for this to be the case, IMO.

No, not opinion. Verifiable FACTS would be taken seriously.
The idea that the "scientific world" (whatever that is) is ruled by politics is one of the BS lies that the Bushies try to spread. Remember, they are the clowns who fill government positions (including science-related ones) based on political loyalty rather than ability or knowledge.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

No, not opinion. Verifiable FACTS would be taken seriously.
The idea that the "scientific world" (whatever that is) is ruled by politics is one of the BS lies that the Bushies try to spread. Remember, they are the clowns who fill government positions (including science-related ones) based on political loyalty rather than ability or knowledge.

I don't mean that the scientific world is ruled by governmental politics, I mean that it is largely political. Scientists, much like everyone else, tend to cling to their own philosophies about how things work. They have pet hypothesis which they've built themselves on. On top of that, they work for companies that want to make money, or Universities that want exposure and more students. If a scientist's findings go against the trend of their workplace or the beliefs of the guy who writes the paycheck, I tend to believe that their findings don't make it into the published journals or popular parlance.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Nothing can disprove global warming...

Hot temperatures: global warming
Cold temperatures: global warming
Lots o' hurricanes: global warming
No hurricanes: global warming
Melting glaciers: global warming
Growing glaciers: global warming

You've noticed that too?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy 

Oh man, you're stuck in 2005.

The name has been updated to "Climate Change"

(since the globe stopped warming)

I remember when it was called "Global Cooling" But that bit them on the ass. You'd have thought they would have named it "Climate Change" sooner.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Global Climate Change or "Global Warming" means that the heat extremes and cold extremes get a wider range. So one winter its extremely cold and the next summer its extemely hot (like this summer )

But our winter was mild, and so far this summer isn't any hotter...

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Funny because that describes YOU pretty well.

.
I was thinking THE SAME THING when I read his post!

Originally Posted by tutelary 

The amount of ignorance in this thread is generally mind numbing. It is also why I won't return here. You people are 6 flavors of pathetic, and only a few posts in this entire thread are from people who 'get it'.

You would rather cite Penn and Teller than side with the majority of the worlds climatologists. Amazing.

I stay at MacNN for the pretentious and condescending posts.

Thanks for making my MacNN experience a nicer one.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Global Warming is a misnomer, it should be referenced as Global Climate Change as changes will incur more extreme temperatures on both ends during seasons, even if the average mean temperature is rising. Isolated climate zones will react differently than the entire climate as a whole.

Just like the Bible says it will....

 

That was a derail folks, lets get at it!

[besson3c]

Why is it that this issue seems to be drawn across retarded partisan lines? Why is it so bloody predictable that Johnny Republican is going to be against the theory of Global Warming without knowing a damn about science, while Jack Democrat is going to be inclined to believe in these theories in good faith?

Look, UN representatives from around the world have come to the collective conclusion that global warming is happening and that we're contributing to it. This is probably the closest we'll come to a global consensus, and therefore for those who don't know a damn about science, logically this should be a little more persuasive than simply gut feelings.

If scientific consensus is the basis of facts, that means that there is an established reality, and it is up to us whether we want to jump aboard the reality train. Unfortunately, being able to pull up some articles of some people on the internet that refute the theory of Global Warming does not change these facts as we now know them.

It seems that the most scientifically grounded counter to GW is the sun flare theory. Regardless of what the cause of the climate change is, does it not seem logical that pollution is the cause of phenomenon such as smog and haze? Isn't smog poisonous gas that has been trapped? Is this not undesirable? So, aren't there other benefits to limiting the amount of pollution we let off into the air regardless of whether carbon emissions or sun flares are causing this climate change?

[Kevin]

I don't disbelieve/beleive besson. I simply say it doesn't matter.

Screw the earth. Save the people.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I don't mean that the scientific world is ruled by governmental politics, I mean that it is largely political. Scientists, much like everyone else, tend to cling to their own philosophies about how things work. They have pet hypothesis which they've built themselves on. On top of that, they work for companies that want to make money, or Universities that want exposure and more students. If a scientist's findings go against the trend of their workplace or the beliefs of the guy who writes the paycheck, I tend to believe that their findings don't make it into the published journals or popular parlance.

You are mostly wrong. "Pet" hypotheses go NOWHERE unless they can be verified by observation or experiment.
And guess what. Companies that try to use inaccurate science create products that don't work, and therefore they don't make money. Universities that promote inaccurate science get BAD publicity (except among some religious fundamentalists).
Beliefs are largely irrelevant to the scientific process.
There are a few examples of "dueling hypotheses" in areas of science that are extremely arcane, such as the debate between advocates of String Theory and M Theory as to whether space-time has 10 or 11 dimensions. Climate change does NOT fall into this category.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Screw the earth. Save the people.

By doing the first, you make the second impossible.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

There are a few examples of "dueling hypotheses" in areas of science that are extremely arcane, such as the debate between advocates of String Theory and M Theory as to whether space-time has 10 or 11 dimensions. Climate change does NOT fall into this category.

"Global Warming" is big business however.

Originally Posted by malvolio 

By doing the first, you make the second impossible.

Not at all

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not at all

Ladies and gentlemen, people all over the world, please listen!!
Kevin has the solution!

[Kevin]

Naw, I said something that a few people didn't understand. Not that it's above their thinking. It's not.

Not the first time I've said it in here either.

The earth is doomed. Save the people.

[Y3a]

There was a concensus that the world was flat, based on observable data. They were wrong when they TESTED the theory.

The predictions of mass distruction by GW don't work. The climate models, when actual historical data is plugged in don't match the current weather. The Theories ARE being tested NOW, but no real conclusions are out yet. The Solar Astronomers have a good case that the SUN is to blame, and the numerous cycles it goes through. The climate models didn't take into account the changing positions of the continentsover the last 1500 years either.

GW is sloppy science, or "Pop Science" take your pick.

[Doofy]

Listen folks, it's real easy.

They invented/hyped up the terrorist threat to scare the right-leaning masses into accepting more government control (in the name of fighting terrorism).

They invented/hyped up climate change to scare the left-leaning masses into accepting more government control (in the name of environmental protection).

Now, I'm trying to cook some kind of scenario up which will threaten us all with global destruction if all hot 18-40 year old women don't walk around topless all the time. I'm stumped. Any ideas?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Y3a 

There was a concensus that the world was flat, based on observable data. They were wrong when they TESTED the theory.

Are you under the impression that Columbus discovered that the earth was round? You're wrong. There was never a concensus that the earth was flat.

The Solar Astronomers have a good case that the SUN is to blame

Wrong again...

The climate models didn't take into account the changing positions of the continentsover the last 1500 years either.

Where are you getting this stuff?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Any ideas?

Shirts cause breast cancer. And wrinkles. And make you fat.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Screw the earth. Save the people.

And how are you going to do this? Is there a giant ultra-lightspeed spaceship under construction that I haven't heard of yet?

[Dakarʒ]

I'm sure it was some type of religious statement.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The earth is doomed. Save the people.

I packed my stuff and am ready to enter Battlestar Galactica - when do we start?

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Now, I'm trying to cook some kind of scenario up which will threaten us all with global destruction if all hot 18-40 year old women don't walk around topless all the time. I'm stumped. Any ideas?

Well, since more and more people become gay these days, that's the most powerful weapon women have against this trend -> more naked breasts, less gayness, no downfall of humanity!!

 

^that's humor, obviously!!!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Well, since more and more people become gay these days, that's the most powerful weapon women have against this trend -> more naked breasts, less gayness, no downfall of humanity!!

Wait, I think you might be on to something...

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Where are you getting this stuff?

NASA

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

And how are you going to do this? Is there a giant ultra-lightspeed spaceship under construction that I haven't heard of yet?

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I'm sure it was some type of religious statement.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Wait, I think you might be on to something...