Climate Change "Controversy"

I'm going to beat a dead horse with a new thread. Deal with it.


If climate change is "hotly debated", where, exactly, is the debate occurring?


Not in peer-reviewed science journals, apparently.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...al_papers.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...ic_papers.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15...-one-pie-chart

I like graphs:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta...-Pie-Chart.png

You can go through his methodology here:

http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

So my question is, if it's as people say and climate change is so controversial in the scientific community... where's the controversy?

It's a fundamental misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of science and peer review with some confirmation bias thrown in.

The "controversy" exists in every place that the Koch brothers pay for it to exist. It's not a hard sell, given that the people targeted are already distrustful of scientists, the UN and other government organizations, "the liberal media," universities and empricism in general. Sociological research shows that often, trying to correct people's misinformation often leads to an even more entrenched belief in the misinformation--and it's super easy to politicize an issue when one party blatantly rejects reality in favor of fantasy, and ties it in to various tribal mentalities.

Evangelical Christians often reject climate science because they delusionally believe the world is going to end within their lifetimes anyway and it doesn't matter, or that the planet is somehow immune to humanity's influence because--who knows?--God's creation must be perfect and immune to damage. Responsibility to protect "God's creation"? Oh, hells naw.

Mainstream Republicans love to see monied interests in the green energy sector, which is only viable because of government investment--which they revile whenever public funds are spent on something that isn't one of their priorities. Mainstream Republicans *love* to fixate on Al Gore, and whatever money he's made for himself by investing in green energy, to the tune of about $100 million total dollars, claiming that any advocacy he does now is purely self-interest, while simultaneously ignoring the multi-trillion dollar a year oil industry, and its total special-interest dominance of our congress.

Fox and conservative radio virtually never report on IGCC, NASA, NOAA or EPA reports, addressing them only when unavoidable--with absolute skepticism, scientific denialism and sometimes outright conspiracy theories.

There's really no fixing the issue until the problem becomes so apparent to even the total layperson, that conservative efforts to hand-waive them away are seen for what they are (similar to what's now happening with income inequality). One can only hope that that point isn't where China has totally destroyed their own environment, and the planet continues to warm beyond our ability to repair.

Well, I think you need to add "Man Made" to that.

But still. Doing an internet search and then saying, "Look, Proof that nearly all scientists agree that there IS Global Climate Change/Global Warming" ranks right up there with giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize his first year in office as all time stupidest things to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Well, I think you need to add "Man Made" to that.

But still. Doing an internet search and then saying, "Look, Proof that nearly all scientists agree that there IS Global Climate Change/Global Warming" ranks right up there with giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize his first year in office as all time stupidest things to do.

---

Ok, so show me peer-reviewed dissent. I'm not finding much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

It's a fundamental misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of science and peer review with some confirmation bias thrown in.

---

Flatlanders used the same argument. "What do you mean the world is round? I can see that it's flat. Your science is bullshit."

Are these articles playing the semantic games like in the other thread?

Quote:

---

Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!

One. Yes, one.

---

I can't help but notice this isn't phrased "How many say global warming is due to human activity" and then answer with 2,257, instead it says "How many explicitly reject human-driven global warming."

Quote:

---

Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.

---

So articles that claimed to have found some reason for doubt against man made global warming didn't count as outright "rejecting" global warming.

I guess I can buy that. Problem is when you phrase things this way you make it sound like every other article clearly endorses man made global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

So articles that claimed to have found some reason for doubt against man made global warming didn't count as outright "rejecting" global warming.

I guess I can buy that. Problem is when you phrase things this way you make it sound like every other article clearly endorses man made global warming.

---

Here he explains why he puts it that way:

"When a new scientific theory is first proposed, scientists often go out of their way to state explicitly that they reject it, or that they accept it. This was the case with continental drift in the 1920s, with plate tectonics in the 1960s, and with the Alvarez theory of dinosaur extinction in the 1980s. One reading the literature in these fields can usually tell from the title of an article alone whether an author rejects the new theory. But after a theory achieves maturity and becomes the ruling paradigm, scientists no longer see any point in stating explicitly that they accept the now-no-longer-new theory. They take it as a given, often as an observational fact—like the measured movement of tectonic plates and the measured global temperature rise. To explicitly endorse the ruling theory would have the counter-effect of suggesting that the theory is in doubt. It is obvious that global warming has achieved the status of the ruling paradigm of climate science. Thus it is reasonable to assume that publishing scientists who today reject human-caused global warming would make it clear that they do so, while publishing scientists who accept the theory would not feel the need to say so explicitly. As a practical matter, virtually all of the global warming papers that Oreskes and I separately reviewed can be classified as about effects, mitigation, adaptation, methods of detecting, climate modeling, and paleoclimatology. Authors of these papers would hardly be likely to deny the existence of the very thing they are writing about. It is theoretically possible that a paper on paleoclimatology could be the exception, dealing with the lack of evidence for CO2-driven global warming in the geologic past, say, leading the author to question the seriousness of modern, human-caused global warming. I did not find such papers. What we know for a fact is that among the authors of peer-reviewed articles, only a tiny fraction, which I estimate as about 1 author in 1,000, rejects human-caused global warming. In my opinion, based on my understanding of the history of science, it is reasonable to conclude that nearly all publishing climate scientists accept that human activities are causing the Earth to warm. Polls of scientists reinforce this conclusion, but polls are no substitute for the primary, peer-reviewed literature, the ground truth of science. "

http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChartII/piechartII.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

Here he explains why he puts it that way:

"When a new scientific theory is first proposed, scientists often go out of their way to state explicitly that they reject it, or that they accept it. This was the case with continental drift in the 1920s, with plate tectonics in the 1960s, and with the Alvarez theory of dinosaur extinction in the 1980s. One reading the literature in these fields can usually tell from the title of an article alone whether an author rejects the new theory. But after a theory achieves maturity and becomes the ruling paradigm, scientists no longer see any point in stating explicitly that they accept the now-no-longer-new theory. They take it as a given, often as an observational fact—like the measured movement of tectonic plates and the measured global temperature rise. To explicitly endorse the ruling theory would have the counter-effect of suggesting that the theory is in doubt. It is obvious that global warming has achieved the status of the ruling paradigm of climate science. Thus it is reasonable to assume that publishing scientists who today reject human-caused global warming would make it clear that they do so, while publishing scientists who accept the theory would not feel the need to say so explicitly. As a practical matter, virtually all of the global warming papers that Oreskes and I separately reviewed can be classified as about effects, mitigation, adaptation, methods of detecting, climate modeling, and paleoclimatology. Authors of these papers would hardly be likely to deny the existence of the very thing they are writing about. It is theoretically possible that a paper on paleoclimatology could be the exception, dealing with the lack of evidence for CO2-driven global warming in the geologic past, say, leading the author to question the seriousness of modern, human-caused global warming. I did not find such papers. What we know for a fact is that among the authors of peer-reviewed articles, only a tiny fraction, which I estimate as about 1 author in 1,000, rejects human-caused global warming. In my opinion, based on my understanding of the history of science, it is reasonable to conclude that nearly all publishing climate scientists accept that human activities are causing the Earth to warm. Polls of scientists reinforce this conclusion, but polls are no substitute for the primary, peer-reviewed literature, the ground truth of science. "

http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChartII/piechartII.html

---

There are an awfully lot of "oftens", "usuallys", and "assumes" in that paragraph.

I'll bite. Careful not to read into that graph more than it actually states. First, no one vaguely intelligent is arguing that man is not impacting the climate at all. It's inconceivable that 7 billion people aren't impacting the climate in some manner. What's being debated is the degree of change, and if it's "bad" or not.

That not so clever graph merely points out that a bunch of studies concluded some degree of change. It lumps the studies that predict a .5% change which impacts no one in any meaningful manner in with the studies that predict a 900% change and we're all going to die. When you lump such wildly varying studies under a single umbrella, you lose point of the purpose of the studies.

Science is awesome, but stop abusing statistics to make your political points. That goes for everyone on both sides of the aisle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

Science is awesome, but stop abusing statistics to make your political points. That goes for everyone on both sides of the aisle.

---

You'll never catch a Republican doing this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

The "controversy" exists in every place that the Koch brothers pay for it to exist. It's not a hard sell, given that the people targeted are already distrustful of scientists, the UN and other government organizations, "the liberal media," universities and empricism in general. Sociological research shows that often, trying to correct people's misinformation often leads to an even more entrenched belief in the misinformation--and it's super easy to politicize an issue when one party blatantly rejects reality in favor of fantasy, and ties it in to various tribal mentalities.

Evangelical Christians often reject climate science because they delusionally believe the world is going to end within their lifetimes anyway and it doesn't matter, or that the planet is somehow immune to humanity's influence because--who knows?--God's creation must be perfect and immune to damage. Responsibility to protect "God's creation"? Oh, hells naw.

Mainstream Republicans love to see monied interests in the green energy sector, which is only viable because of government investment--which they revile whenever public funds are spent on something that isn't one of their priorities. Mainstream Republicans *love* to fixate on Al Gore, and whatever money he's made for himself by investing in green energy, to the tune of about $100 million total dollars, claiming that any advocacy he does now is purely self-interest, while simultaneously ignoring the multi-trillion dollar a year oil industry, and its total special-interest dominance of our congress.

Fox and conservative radio virtually never report on IGCC, NASA, NOAA or EPA reports, addressing them only when unavoidable--with absolute skepticism, scientific denialism and sometimes outright conspiracy theories.

There's really no fixing the issue until the problem becomes so apparent to even the total layperson, that conservative efforts to hand-waive them away are seen for what they are (similar to what's now happening with income inequality). One can only hope that that point isn't where China has totally destroyed their own environment, and the planet continues to warm beyond our ability to repair.

---

You are bat shit crazy.

If you want to take the most extreme, ridiculous and exceptionally liberal view of opinion not in line with your own, I think your dissertation above covers it.

So Evangelical Christians all think they are perfect and or the world will end in their lifetime? Yeah, that's not an exaggeration or intentional misinterpretation of their beliefs.

Mainstream Republicans are opposed to green energy, revile Al Gore and his hypocrisy, ignore the oil industry and simultaneously (while ignoring them) allow their special interest groups to dominate congress. Not only do you contradict yourself at the end there, it's exactly what people who vote partisan and not issues/candidates would say.

I suppose by using "virtually" you can pretty much state anything you want. Virtually all liberal media ignores anything to do with Obama and what could be considered a scandal, blunder or outright lie.

So all ills of our country can be attributed to conservative efforts to hand-waive them away. Got it. Then you throw in something we really have limited influence on, China's environmental programs. Got it.

Could you summarize neatly for me, like you did in your original post, how if we did everything in the liberal agenda, what exactly would be accomplished? Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

I'll bite. Careful not to read into that graph more than it actually states. First, no one vaguely intelligent is arguing that man is not impacting the climate at all. It's inconceivable that 7 billion people aren't impacting the climate in some manner. What's being debated is the degree of change, and if it's "bad" or not.

That not so clever graph merely points out that a bunch of studies concluded some degree of change. It lumps the studies that predict a .5% change which impacts no one in any meaningful manner in with the studies that predict a 900% change and we're all going to die. When you lump such wildly varying studies under a single umbrella, you lose point of the purpose of the studies.

Science is awesome, but stop abusing statistics to make your political points. That goes for everyone on both sides of the aisle.

---

This search he did was to answer a simple question: is there controversy about the reality of ACC? If there is, we'll find papers about it. The specifics/extent are beyond the scope of the question. You say no one vaguely intelligent argues this... I see people arguing this all the time. Am I to assume that those people are all idiots?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

There are an awfully lot of "oftens", "usuallys", and "assumes" in that paragraph.

---

That's the point. If he's right and the vast majority of science involved in this research now start with a BASELINE assumption that yes, ACC is a reality, and it seems he is, then we can bury the question and move on to concerning ourselves with the specifics and extent of the problem and what to do about it.

My point is, ACC isn't a "hotly debated" topic in the scientific community.

I often catch Republican's, Democrats, Libertarians, Pastafarians, Communists, Fascists doing this. Let's end it there, and just state unequivocally, that if you abuse statistics, you're like a fascist. Book burning Nazi cows!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

This search he did was to answer a simple question: is there controversy about the reality of ACC? If there is, we'll find papers about it. The specifics/extent are beyond the scope of the question. You say no one vaguely intelligent argues this... I see people arguing this all the time. Am I to assume that those people are all idiots?

---

His search was simplistic. That may have been what he was "hoping" to answer, but he did no such thing. When you see people arguing this all the time, I'll suggest you read more carefully into what they are actually arguing. Are they denying wholesale, or are they denying only it's impact on needed political/functional aspects of their life? There's a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

His search was simplistic. That may have been what he was "hoping" to answer, but he did no such thing. When you see people arguing this all the time, I'll suggest you read more carefully into what they are actually arguing. Are they denying wholesale, or are they denying only it's impact on needed political/functional aspects of their life? There's a big difference.

---

Fair enough. I'm more interested in the "wholesale deniers" category. The specifics are debatable, the impact is debatable, the reality of ACC doesn't seem to be. And yes, I see this ALL THE TIME, and it's baffling.

Have scientists ever given any solutions? I mean besides scientists like Al Gore who insist the only way to solve global warming is to get rich in the process?

But seriously, all I ever hear is how the Earth is heating up because of human activity, are solutions ever given other than "More green!"?

Has anyone done the research and decided what the magic number is? Reduce global greenhouse gases by 10%? 20%? 99%?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Have scientists ever given any solutions? I mean besides scientists like Al Gore who insist the only way to solve global warming is to get rich in the process?

But seriously, all I ever hear is how the Earth is heating up because of human activity, are solutions ever given other than "More green!"?

Has anyone done the research and decided what the magic number is? Reduce global greenhouse gases by 10%? 20%? 99%?

---

We could nuke China, I imagine that would help a whole lot... What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Have scientists ever given any solutions? I mean besides scientists like Al Gore who insist the only way to solve global warming is to get rich in the process?

But seriously, all I ever hear is how the Earth is heating up because of human activity, are solutions ever given other than "More green!"?

Has anyone done the research and decided what the magic number is? Reduce global greenhouse gases by 10%? 20%? 99%?

---

This is the debate we SHOULD be having.

Very few people believe in a fixed climate which is what this study looked for. Anthropogenic global warming is what some dispute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Have scientists ever given any solutions? I mean besides scientists like Al Gore who insist the only way to solve global warming is to get rich in the process?

But seriously, all I ever hear is how the Earth is heating up because of human activity, are solutions ever given other than "More green!"?

Has anyone done the research and decided what the magic number is? Reduce global greenhouse gases by 10%? 20%? 99%?

---

We can't even get to that part of the discussion while people don't fundamentally believe it's an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whirlin

We can't even get to that part of the discussion while people don't fundamentally believe it's an issue.

---

I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought we would never land a man on the moon yet we did it.

Well if you believe the footage NASA faked anyways.

Wait, you mean buying carbon offsets won't fix climate change? GODDAMNIT! I always invest in the wrong things!

I bet all the global warming people in this thread have at least one light on in another room that they're not using. And probably some other thing(s) that are wastefully drawing power.

WAY TO BE A HYPOCRITE AND KILL THE PLANET OMG!!!!!!!!1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Wait, you mean buying carbon offsets won't fix climate change? GODDAMNIT! I always invest in the wrong things!

---

I have a bunch of slightly used indulgences from the church, want to buy them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

I bet all the global warming people in this thread have at least one light on in another room that they're not using. And probably some other thing(s) that are wastefully drawing power.

WAY TO BE A HYPOCRITE AND KILL THE PLANET OMG!!!!!!!!1

---

I'm using the clothes dryer right now, instead of line drying my towels. Burn bitches!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ker_Thwap

I'm using the clothes dryer right now, instead of line drying my towels. Burn bitches!

---

Why do you hate the planet?

Brb calling the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Methais

Why do you hate the planet?

Brb calling the government.

---

Gooooooood liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

You are bat shit crazy.

If you want to take the most extreme, ridiculous and exceptionally liberal view of opinion not in line with your own, I think your dissertation above covers it.

---

You claim that my overview of contemporary Republican opposition to climate science is an "extreme, ridiculous, exceptionally liberal view" of their opinions. Okay? I can cite specific examples of what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

1) So Evangelical Christians all think they are perfect and or the world will end in their lifetime? Yeah, that's not an exaggeration or intentional misinterpretation of their beliefs.

---

I never implied that all Evangelical Christians think, or vote the same way. I said they often reject climate science, based on the reasons I listed. They do. It's not an "exaggeration" or "intentional misrepresentation" of their beliefs, buddy. The 2012 GOP primary season was a circus clown cavalcade of climate change deniers, often with purported Evangelical reasoning, like with Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Santorum, etc.

Then there's the Cornwall Alliance, James Inhofe--you know, the GOP senator from Oklahoma continuously trying to tie fabricated scandals to the Obama administration?--spouting such gems as:

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

There's Ken Cuccinelli, recently failed governor candidate for Virginia and totally insane evangelical Christian (he was Virginia's Attorney General) and his attempts to use his office to run a patently political witchhunt into the University of Virginia's work with climate scientists, before he was smacked down by Virginia's Supreme Court.

There are *bunches* more examples of this. So please tell me how many more examples I need to provide before I'm simply making an "extreme, ridiculous, exceptionally liberal view" of their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Mainstream Republicans are opposed to green energy, revile Al Gore and his hypocrisy, ignore the oil industry and simultaneously (while ignoring them) allow their special interest groups to dominate congress. Not only do you contradict yourself at the end there, it's exactly what people who vote partisan and not issues/candidates would say.

---

I highlighted the hypocrisy in Republican views on Al Gore--he's villified because he started advocating for green policies, invested his own money in green companies, documentaries and books, and made money off of his investments. Now that he's made money from them, any advocacy on his part (and on many other people's parts) is reduced to "self-serving money making," at the cost of the state, while Republicans seemingly have no problem with the Koch brothers and the oil industry's army of lobbyists that blatantly fund groups funding climate denial, and have the entire GOP house in their pocket--as evidenced by their total obsession with the Keystone XL pipeline, and the GOP's 2008 platform obsession with increased expansion to drilling, under the patriotic idea of "energy independence" (which is totally nonsensical, as oil drilled here is sold on the global market, and even heavy expansions in U.S. drilling would hardly counteract the ever-increasing demand for oil).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

I suppose by using "virtually" you can pretty much state anything you want. Virtually all liberal media ignores anything to do with Obama and what could be considered a scandal, blunder or outright lie.

So all ills of our country can be attributed to conservative efforts to hand-waive them away. Got it. Then you throw in something we really have limited influence on, China's environmental programs. Got it.

Could you summarize neatly for me, like you did in your original post, how if we did everything in the liberal agenda, what exactly would be accomplished? Thanks!

---

Again, I can provide examples.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...-coverage.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/foxne...science-2012-9
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121503181.html

Fox and the Wall-Street Journal grossly over-represent climate deniers and "skeptics," heavily promote articles that are skeptical, in any way, and--I wonder what their biggest story was for weeks, when the so-called "Climategate scandal" occurred (which turned out to have almost completely absolved the scientists in question of wrongdoing), leading Nature to summarize: "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."

Republicans make no secret of their "business knows best," anti-regulation philosophy. There's an obvious profit motive for oil companies in maintaining the status quo, and their broad influence among lawmakers and conservative politicians is readily apparent to even the most slightly objective observer. China is simply the example of the future we have awaiting us, if Republicans get their wish to eliminate the EPA, expand oil production everywhere, and deregulate the industry.

"I think the EPA has gotten completely out of control for a very simple reason. It is a tool in the hands of the president to crush the private enterprise system, to crush our ability to have energy, whether it's oil, gas, coal, nuclear... there's a real effort on the part of some in the president's party that don't like the American enterprise system and are trying to find a way to do everything they can to impede the growth of our economy and our energy independence." -Romney

Like I said, bat shit crazy.

There are multitudes of views, opinions and actions which exist within your extremes you seem to want to apply to every person on the globe. In your world, people are either liberals doing everything to save the planet (via uncontested scientific "fact"), wash out corruption and unify the world in peace, or a conservative doing everything possible to destroy the planet, get into big business money to keep the poor man down and go to war to take what they want and destroy anything in their path.

Reality is there are bat shit crazy people of all types at both extremes - to use them as outstanding examples of a population of people who make up half the country is retarded, in either camp. Anyone who really wants to make a change understands this and doesn't inflame people who may or may not agree with them by classifying anyone not 100% in their camp as earth destroying, religious zealots, corrupt with greed and power hungry for more of the same.

If you really believe that, you cannot possibly think there is any hope to actually make a change and should just hang yourself.

You're right. Quoting prominent Republican leaders verbatim is bat-shit crazy, and is extremist "liberalism" at work. You're jumping to end-conclusions I never stated. If you see those conclusions, based on the indisputable actions of Republicans, your problem is with yourself, or them--not me.

Neg rep:

"If you don't believe in man made global warming, then you must believe the earth is flat! You've already failed the debate, retard."


My point is that in the scientific world, there IS no more debate.

You can fondle your brain with your crackpot conspiracy theories all you want, but it doesn't change the fact, flatlander.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

You're right. Quoting prominent Republican leaders verbatim is bat-shit crazy, and is extremist "liberalism" at work. You're jumping to end-conclusions I never stated. If you see those conclusions, based on the indisputable actions of Republicans, your problem is with yourself, or them--not me.

---

I have no issue with you at all. I just think your worldview is so decidedly skewed you are bat shit crazy and closed to any rational discussion about it. You can quote the extremists all you want to me, it doesn't mean a whole party follows that mindset.

That'd be like me quoting a democrat saying too many people on an island can cause it to capsize means all democrats believe that. Or because a republican says a woman's body can reject rape means all republicans believe it to be so. Anthony Weiner was a prominent democrat, do you believe everything he says? What about Carlos Danger?

Anywho, good luck with that perspective.

I wasn't aware that Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee for the presidency, was considered by his party to be an "extremist."

Replace my sentence of "You can quote the extremists all you want to me," with "You can quote anyone all you want to me,"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

My point is that in the scientific world, there IS no more debate.

---

I'm not sure you understand the scientific world.


At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Replace my sentence of "You can quote the extremists all you want to me," with "You can quote anyone all you want to me,"

---

You forget. They like to pick out the nutjobs, and say "Hey look, they all think this way"

Then when people do it with their people, they say.. 'well, he is just an extremist, we aren't all like that".

And there is no point in having any discussion with Cat Boy. He is beyond bat shit crazy. He makes Back look rational, and that is REALLY something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarvan

Then when people do it with their people, they say.. 'well, he is just an extremist, we aren't all like that".

---

Isn't this exactly what shm did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

I'm not sure you understand the scientific world.


At all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waywardgs

My point is that in the scientific world I believe in and follows my views, there IS no more debate.

---

There PB, fixed it so you can understand what he means.

So point me in the right direction. Fox News doesn't count.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah! Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah? Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.

Quote:

---

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

---

Blah blah blah blah? Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Back

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah! Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah, blah blah. Blah? Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.



Blah blah blah blah? Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah!

---

That's the most sense I've ever seen Back make.

It would have been better if your reason for edit was "blah blah"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

I have no issue with you at all. I just think your worldview is so decidedly skewed you are bat shit crazy and closed to any rational discussion about it. You can quote the extremists all you want to me, it doesn't mean a whole party follows that mindset.

That'd be like me quoting a democrat saying too many people on an island can cause it to capsize means all democrats believe that. Or because a republican says a woman's body can reject rape means all republicans believe it to be so. Anthony Weiner was a prominent democrat, do you believe everything he says? What about Carlos Danger?

Anywho, good luck with that perspective.

---

Yeah, same to you. Good luck with characterizing all the mainstream Republicans who did well in the nomination process as "the extremists." Although, that is correct, I suppose, in the sense that Republicans are more extremist than ever. Like I said, those are your party's prominent leaders. And crazy they are, indeed.

Funny, I don't remember Weiner being a major contender for a Democratic national primary, unlike 90% of the Republican candidates, which are (and remain) totally batshit insane, and remain GOP governors and senators. And it's not just them--They weren't outliers. They supported the policies that the entire party is working towards. And Inhofe is not an ostracized pariah of the GOP--he's a celebrated, tenured figurehead of the party that's been serving in both the Senate and House for the GOP since the 1980's.

Your entire "argument" has consisted of "Nuh uh, what you're describing would be extremist! Therefore, you must be incorrect, and an extremist yourself!" Yeah, no. Your party is composed almost entirely of climate-change deniers, almost all of whom claimed in the last election that global warming is "a hoax," and there readily available quotes of each candidate (and dozens of GOP lawmakers) saying precisely that.

Don't like your party? Again, your problem is with your party. Not some stranger on an Internet forum.

Bachmann: " ... carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas." "[Global warming is] “voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax."
Santorum: "Who is he [Gingrich] or who's Governor Romney to be able to go after President Obama? I've never supported even the hoax of global warming."
Perry: "A substantial number of scientists [have] manipulated data to keep the money rolling in." "I do believe the issue of global warming has been politicized." "Yes, our climate has changed. It has been changing ever since the Earth was formed. But I do not buy into a group of scientists who have, in some cases, have been found to be manipulating data."
Trump: This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice
Cain: "Manmade global warming is poppycock." "Look, if people look at the real data, the climate had varied ever since we’ve known that the planet is here."
Romney: "My view is that we don't know what's causing climate change on this planet." Of course, in true Romney fashion, he flip-flopped on climate change several times.

Want to keep going? Because there are clips of almost every major GOP player saying equally ignorant horseshit. These aren't "Anthony Wieners of the Republican party," your delusional and ignorant mischaracterization aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

Funny, I don't remember Weiner being a major contender for a Democratic national primary

---

Mayor of NYC is kind of a big deal and for a while he was polling the highest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Mayor of NYC is kind of a big deal.

---

:lol: What is the point of this post? Are you really comparing him to the totally batshit insane Republican candidates your party seriously considered last election?

Weiner was a one-term House member, and put in an unsuccessful candidacy for Democratic nominee for NYC mayor, who lost out miserably to de Blasio, the candidate and eventual Democratic winner. The only reason he's known at all are for his asinine sexual escapades--he never had any particularly interesting political positions.

And again, these aren't outlier positions. Nearly all the major players--Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, hold the very same opinions.

Boehner: "... the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.."

McConnell: As recently as 30-35 years ago we were worried about the globe getting too cold,” McConnell said. “I suppose over decades and maybe centuries weíll figure this out."

Cantor: "If there’s been any constant in human history, it’s been climate change. The real question is the severity of that and the involvement of human causes in all of that."

There's either scientific denialism or embrace of pseudo-scientific (or even religious) statements on record for almost every contemporary Republican. Again, these aren't outlier positions of a few isolated whack-jobs. They're almost all whackjobs. There's no false equivalency here. One party is clearly anti-science, anti-empiricism, on the issue of global warming, and it's very clearly due to the corrupting influence of the oil industry lobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashliana

:lol: What is the point of this post? Are you really comparing him to the totally batshit insane Republican candidates your party seriously considered last election?

---

Not comparing anything. You tried to make the claim that Weiner wasn't prominent even though he ran for mayor of NYC and for a while he was polling quite well. In fact it wasn't until the Carlos Danger thing came out that his poll numbers started taking a dive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Not comparing anything. You tried to make the claim that Weiner wasn't prominent even though he ran for mayor of NYC and for a while he was polling quite well. In fact it wasn't until the Carlos Danger thing came out that his poll numbers started taking a dive.

---

SHM brought him up as a strawman, but true to form, the comparison makes absolutely no sense. Weiner was only a pariah because of his sexual escapades--not his crazy policy positions, he was never popular on the national stage (the only national news he got was because of his sexting exploits, and later continuation of them). Weiner never had any particularly note-worthy policy positions.

The Republicans on the other hand, all share equally insane policy positions when it comes to climate change. They're not pariahs--the GOP Speaker of the House, Majority Whip, Senate Minority leader, GOP platform, every Fox pundit, all share the same, totally insane, anti-scientific positions on climate change. Almost entirely without fail.

SMH wants to pretend I'm taking an extremist, out of context, and portraying the entire party with the same brush, which is absurd on its face. The entire party, including the last GOP presidential nominee, holds the very same positions.

Here's a cursory list of international organization that hold the crazy position that climate change is real and has been caused by human actions:


Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Biology, UK
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


If you're interested, here are some more American scientific organizations, I'm sure all of whom are in the pocket of... um.. Big Green...

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2
AAAS emblem

American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
ACS emblem

American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
AGU emblem

American Geophysical Union

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
AMA emblem

American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
AMS emblem

American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
APS emblem

American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
GSA emblem

The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
USNAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11



U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12



INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.



Now because I'm sure all of these organizations are to the last man trying to snow us all, can anyone provide me with a list of noted academics and scientists who are staunchly against the notion of ACC? I'd love to see something like that.

Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Well that invalidates the whole list then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Well that invalidates the whole list then.

---

Given recent developments I'd assume it would add credibility for you.

http://io9.com/nazi-aliens-rule-the-...ncy-1501805623

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warriorbird

Given recent developments I'd assume it would add credibility for you.

http://io9.com/nazi-aliens-rule-the-...ncy-1501805623

---

Well heck I stand correct. Iran knows what they're talking about.

Obama does kind of look like E.T.

Mary Landrieu
Dan Boren
Ben Nelson
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Nick Rahall
Jon Huntsman
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Chris Smith
Tim Pawlenty
Collin Peterson

That's a list of democrats and republicans. Which camp do you think each falls in regards climate change?

Attachment 6106

83% of Democrats believe God guided or created humans versus 92% of Republicans.

Interesting stuff.

There is one and only one reason why climate change and global warming are controversial. That's also why it's a partisan issue with the right on one side and the left on the other. Someone posted a pie chart which showed a very thin slice of climate change deniers. Honestly even it were 50/50 it shouldn't be controversial. We're talking about an extinction level event so it behooves us to take it seriously.

The reason that the right is still fighting it is, of course, $. Once people admit that there is a possibility of human caused global warming then we have to start spending shitloads of cash to change things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

83% of Democrats believe God guided or created humans versus 92% of Republicans.

---

I thought the democrat number would be way lower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwolff

We're talking about an extinction level event so it behooves us to take it seriously.

---

What? Even if all the polar ice melted it's not an extinction level event. Not to mention that if we started to see real significant earth altering ice melt we have the capability to engineer solutions on a planet wide scale that could cool the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

What? Even if all the polar ice melted it's not an extinction level event. Not to mention that if we started to see real significant earth altering ice melt we have the capability to engineer solutions on a planet wide scale that could cool the planet.

---

You're assuming Human survival is independent of other creatures. A couple degrees to kill off insects or other relatively inconsequential critters would be enough to cause a catastrophic impact when you consider their impact to plant flower's fertilization process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whirlin

You're assuming Human survival is independent of other creatures. A couple degrees to kill off insects or other relatively inconsequential critters would be enough to cause a catastrophic impact when you consider their impact to plant flower's fertilization process.

---

You should be more constant with your statements, I still get what you meant and I think most others would too though. And obviously it is going to take a change of more then a couple of degrees to kill anything off. You'll also notice that most of those insects do better in warmer weather then cold. While we obviously have an effect on the environment, anyone with any brains can easily tell that we only know enough to know just how ignorant we are on the subject when it comes to climate change.

On a side note, did you cape or cap on 1/142014?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whirlin

You're assuming Human survival is independent of other creatures. A couple degrees to kill off insects or other relatively inconsequential critters would be enough to cause a catastrophic impact when you consider their impact to plant flower's fertilization process.

---

lol wut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

lol wut?

---

He means like if all the bees suddenly died out and they weren't there a lot of plants wouldn't be producing their fruit/seeds, mostly the parts of them that we eat. And it would hit us twice because it would also affect the animals we use for food too. While something like that isn't going to kill us off, a very large percent of our population would likely die from starvation.

It's not necessarily the disruption to the food chain itself from a temperature change of only a few degrees--warmer temperatures reduce crop yields quickly, which in turn affects meat prices as grain-fed animals become much more expensive. Major increases in the price of food won't necessarily cripple America, but have the potential to cause devastating mass starvation in the third world.

http://www.economist.com/node/18386161
http://phys.org/news/2013-02-climate...orn-crops.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeril

He means like if all the bees suddenly died out and they weren't there a lot of plants wouldn't be producing their fruit/seeds, mostly the parts of them that we eat. And it would hit us twice because it would also affect the animals we use for food too. While something like that isn't going to kill us off, a very large percent of our population would likely die from starvation.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeril

And obviously it is going to take a change of more then a couple of degrees to kill anything off.

---

Not a whole hell of a lot more. The most catastrophic mass extinction in earth history occurred with a change of only 8º.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Not a whole hell of a lot more. The most catastrophic mass extinction in earth history occurred with a change of only 8º.

---

but on the bright side if we did wipe ourselves out we would only have to wait another 80 million years for a pre-cambrian style renaissance, where my money is on telepathic squids exploring the galaxy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Not a whole hell of a lot more. The most catastrophic mass extinction in earth history occurred with a change of only 8º.

---

On what scale?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

On what scale?

---

Kelvin/Celsius, which corresponds to 18ºF. In either case, changes on the order of degrees are no joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Not a whole hell of a lot more. The most catastrophic mass extinction in earth history occurred with a change of only 8º.

---

You will excuse me if I would like some sort of verification of that statement. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I want something in the area of proof. A few links should suffice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Kelvin/Celsius, which corresponds to 18ºF. In either case, changes on the order of degrees are no joke.

---

"Only" 18 degrees this guy says. "Experts" are predicting only an increase of 6 degrees by the end of this century. We'll all be dead by then. Who cares?

USA! USA! USA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

"Only" 18 degrees this guy says. "Experts" are predicting only an increase of 6 degrees by the end of this century. We'll all be dead by then. Who cares?

USA! USA! USA!

---

Ohh, ohh, I found a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Candor

You will excuse me if I would like some sort of verification of that statement. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but I want something in the area of proof. A few links should suffice.

---

Well, for the most catastrophic mass extinction consider this graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._intensity.svg
The bar bigger than all the other bars is the Permian-Triassic. The lowball estimate on how many species were eradicated is 90%.

As to the temperate part, look to the left of this graph (linking because it's really big) at the border between P and Tr (Permian and Triassic), based on research from a paleobotanist and another PhD in something and a 4.5 / 5 score on doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou RatemyProfessors.com.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

"Only" 18 degrees this guy says. "Experts" are predicting only an increase of 6 degrees by the end of this century. We'll all be dead by then. Who cares?

USA! USA! USA!

---

It should be 14, I did 9/4 instead of 9/5 for some reason (Obama?). And I agree that is unlikely we will cause the most devastating extinction event the world has seen in 5 billion years, but that's setting the bar a little low, isn't it? It would be like murdering 3000 people and pointing out that 99.999% of the United States population survived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whirlin

Ohh, ohh, I found a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI

---

All I heard was that only the Bay Area in California and parts of NY have reason to worry. I don't live in those areas so it's all good.

USA! (Minus CA and NY) USA! (Minus CA and NY) USA! (Minus CA and NY)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

It should be 14, I did 9/4 instead of 9/5 for some reason (Obama?). And I agree that is unlikely we will cause the most devastating extinction event the world has seen in 5 billion years, but that's setting the bar a little low, isn't it? It would be like murdering 3000 people and pointing out that 99.999% of the United States population survived.

---

Have you always been a communist? Liberal, God hating heathens like you laughed at and mocked Jesus because he wanted to build an ark to save the animals. Who's laughing now? Moses that's who! Because he had the right idea! Build a (space) ark, load up two of every animal and all 7 billion humans and find the next planet to destroy.

Here's a Bible. Read it. Memorize it. It could save your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

All I heard was that only the Bay Area in California and parts of NY have reason to worry. I don't live in those areas so it's all good.

USA! (Minus CA and NY) USA! (Minus CA and NY) USA! (Minus CA and NY)



Have you always been a communist? Liberal, God hating heathens like you laughed at and mocked Jesus because he wanted to build an ark to save the animals. Who's laughing now? Moses that's who! Because he had the right idea! Build a (space) ark, load up two of every animal and all 7 billion humans and find the next planet to destroy.

Here's a Bible. Read it. Memorize it. It could save your life.

---

Dude, Jesus can't build an Ark! He couldn't even make it as a carpenter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

And I agree that is unlikely we will cause the most devastating extinction event the world has seen in 5 billion years, but that's setting the bar a little low, isn't it?

---

Those humans with their SUV's in the Permian-Triassic era were real assholes. I'd like to think we're more evolved than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Those humans with their SUV's in the Permian-Triassic era were real assholes. I'd like to think we're more evolved than that.

---

I don't agree that every evolved human should support a ban on SUVs, but it's your right to say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thondalar

Those humans with their SUV's in the Permian-Triassic era were real assholes. I'd like to think we're more evolved than that.

---

Wait, wait, wait... are you suggesting that the climate changed multiple times in the past and it had nothing to do with man?

FLAT EARTHER ALERT LEVEL 3!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Wait, wait, wait... are you suggesting that the climate changed multiple times in the past and it had nothing to do with man?

FLAT EARTHER ALERT LEVEL 3!

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent