"Nye is about as much a scientist as I am", says Sarah Palin

[Endus]

That's a bold claim, considering that we have the data from the past showing huge leaps up and down without any humans involved.

All of which are explained by changes in those same natural cycles. Changes which do not exist, today. And the rates of change of those ancient events weren't anywhere close to the current shift.

Same factors that caused it in the past. Sun cycles, seismic activity, glacier movements, to much life on the planet, possible unknown factors - we still don't know everything about this planet, not even 10%.

Unless you have a particular natural factor that you can demonstrate is driving this change, you don't have an argument. We've tracked all the above, and they are not factors in this warming trend. Conclusively. We've known that for decades, now.

I was referring to humans, humans fart you know and there are billions of us. And only in context of human contribution we CANNOT control.

We know how much methane's in the atmosphere, and how much of a greenhouse effect methane has. It isn't methane. We know this.

Farts are natural, duh. Don't remove humans and domestic animals from the natural plane, biological we and them are part of nature. And we can do nothing about it.

That's a nonsense argument that ignores what words mean.

[Elim Garak]

All of which are explained by changes in those same natural cycles. Changes which do not exist, today.

You cannot spot those changes in a day, they take thousands of years. The only reason we know about them is because we have a very LONG record post factum, we wouldn't have noticed anything if we were alive back then either.

And the rates of change of those ancient events weren't anywhere close to the current shift.

Duh, because humans, I thought we were over this.

Unless you have a particular natural factor that you can demonstrate is driving this change, you don't have an argument. We've tracked all the above, and they are not factors in this warming trend. Conclusively. We've known that for decades, now.

You've tracked nothing, there's not enough time to track it. And again with the trend, you made it quite clear that the trend doesn't account for natural causes, so no wonder they are not factors in the trend, duh. Do you even realize the wordplay you employ? Or are you that confused by your own dramatization?

We know how much methane's in the atmosphere, and how much of a greenhouse effect methane has. It isn't methane. We know this.

I didn't say methane is the culprit. Do you read?

That's a nonsense argument that ignores what words mean.

I agree your argument is exactly that

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

"He's a kids' show actor, he's not a scientist."

They're not mutually exclusive, Sarah. You can be both. Kind of like how you're both a former governor and a nincompoop.

Where's that "like" button when you need it?

[Endus]

You cannot spot those changes in a day, they take thousands of years. The only reason we know about them is because we have a very LONG record post factum, we wouldn't have noticed anything if we were alive back then either.

Except that we can identify them, now, within the last century. Because of how rapidly (compared to that natural cycle) these things are shifting. Sea levels have already appreciably risen over the last century. This isn't a prediction for the future, it's observed reality.

You've tracked nothing, there's not enough time to track it. And again with the trend, you made it quite clear that the trend doesn't account for natural causes, so no wonder they are not factors in the trend, duh. Do you even realize the wordplay you employ? Or are you that confused by your own dramatization?

I have no idea what you're even trying to say, here.

Human activity is what is responsible for the shift in our climate. This isn't a potential future shift (though it will continue to change), we've observed that shift today. The climate today is not the same as it was 50 years ago. Yes, normally that takes thousands of years. We've seen it in 50. Because of the effect of human industry.

[Torgent]

I've met enlisted men in the Navy who know more about nuclear power than someone with a mere bachelor's degree. These men-without-degrees can test reactor coolant in the nucleonics lab onboard a submarine, which is something a B.S. can't do. I've also met people with financial degrees who are astronomy enthusiasts and know more than Astronomy graduates when it comes to that field. I agree with Palin's general point that Bill Nye isn't what people often want to make him out to be.

You are so terribly confused on what knowledge is. These men you speak of received very specific training and education. People with even a Bachelor's degree in science receive a broad spectrum of the sciences. Then Nye continued that with his Mech Eng degree, continuing his study of the sciences. I know people who have doctorates in X, but I know how this one specific thing works better than they do, so that negates their degree. That's your argument lol

[nextormento]

fwiw, I find the man-made thing difficult to unpack when explaining stuff.
Particularly because CO2 is naturally in the atmosphere, so folks question how much we've pumped, how it compares to the exiting quantity, what fraction is responsible...
At the end of the day knowing who did it is largely irrelevant to the exchange as it pertains to policy. So far as humans are involved, I find it more interesting to stress that we can do something about it.

[Garnier Fructis]

"But we're part of nature too."

Jesus, the semantics bullshit train continues.

[Thunderball]

Except that we can identify them, now, within the last century. Because of how rapidly (compared to that natural cycle) these things are shifting. Sea levels have already appreciably risen over the last century. This isn't a prediction for the future, it's observed reality.

Nothing rapid about it. Take mammoths for example. When ice age began last time some of them ended up being stuck in a glacier, stomack filled with remains of the species that live thousand kilometers to the south right now. Mammoths were huge mammals that were used to migrate seasonally for food but ended up going extinct because of how fast the glacier set in.

There is a lot of stuff that can influence the climate WAY more than any human activity, namely: volcanic activity (not even talking about supervolcanoes her, jeez), magnetic field change (still not talking about some catasrophic scenarios like magnetic polus shift or magnetic pause), sun activity (it's fairly cyclic and predictable but coupled with event on Earth can be a huge influence), tectonic activity or meteorites.

People who are saying that human influence is not a factor are mistaken, that's a given, but people who are saying that human influence is a dominant factor in climate change are delusional at best. It's obviously really hard to look objective when you see the measurements and it's "worst ever". But you have to take into account that those measurements are being done for at most 150 years, and 150 years is nothing in Earth's time scale.

[Endus]

Nothing rapid about it. Take mammoths for example. When ice age began last time some of them ended up being stuck in a glacier, stomack filled with remains of the species that live thousand kilometers to the south right now. Mammoths were huge mammals that were used to migrate seasonally for food but ended up going extinct because of how fast the glacier set in.

That has no relevance whatsoever, because the climate shifts there took thousands of years. The ice age was tens of thousands of years back. That the plants only exist thousands of miles away now doesn't say that they went extinct in that range in a short time period.

There is a lot of stuff that can influence the climate WAY more than any human activity, namely: volcanic activity (not even talking about supervolcanoes her, jeez), magnetic field change (still not talking about some catasrophic scenarios like magnetic polus shift or magnetic pause), sun activity (it's fairly cyclic and predictable but coupled with event on Earth can be a huge influence), tectonic activity or meteorites.

Some of that stuff can. Normal volcanic activity, however, is about 100 times less than human emissions. You'd need a supervolcano eruption to even come close. And then, it's a short event, and then it's over, not ongoing like human activity. Sun activity has been trending down, and has never varied so much it could cause this rapid a shift. The only kind of meteor that could approach this is an extinction-level event.

And so forth. You're raising things that are vanishingly rare and catastrophic as alternatives, when those things aren't happening right now, and the damage we're causing is very real in the here-and-now.

People who are saying that human influence is not a factor are mistaken, that's a given, but people who are saying that human influence is a dominant factor in climate change are delusional at best. It's obviously really hard to look objective when you see the measurements and it's "worst ever". But you have to take into account that those measurements are being done for at most 150 years, and 150 years is nothing in Earth's time scale.

Climate records are pretty solid going back 150,000 years at least. So no.

[Aehl]

I don't care what Palin says ... she can go watch Russia from her house.

Fact check time

Can Russia be seen from Alaska?

Yes

The narrowest distance between mainland Russia and mainland Alaska is approximately 55 miles. However in the body of water between Alaska and Russia, known as the Bering Strait, there lies two small islands known as Big Diomede and Little Diomede.

Bases in Alaska

Eilsen
Clear Air Foirce
Elmendorf
Fort Greely
Fort Richardson
Fort Wright

Location of failsafe point for Strategic Air Command: Alaska: reason, distance to Soviet Union.

While the United States celebrated Independence Day, two pairs of Russian bombers flew off the coast of California and Alaska -- forcing the Air Force to scramble fighter jets to intercept both flights, two senior defense officials tell Fox News.

Its funny how I am talking to people who werent even ALIVE during the Cold War. Who dont ever remember living in a time when SAC ran profile flights nonstop 24/7 with nuclear armed bombers overhead. Who dont remember the number of times we edged to the abyss.

Who dont remember that Alaska would have been one of the very first targets for ICBM attacks.

Who dont remember seeing nuclear armed bombers virtually every single day.

[Luxxor]

That's a nonsense argument that ignores what words mean.

OMG favorite Endus comment EVAR.

[Garnier Fructis]

OMG favorite Endus comment EVAR.

He's not wrong. The distinction between natural and man-made is only meaningful if people don't go the silly route of noting that everything came from nature. It's technically true but wrong in the sense that it's purposely missing the distinction.

[Luxxor]

He's not wrong. The distinction between natural and man-made is only meaningful if people don't go the silly route of noting that everything came from nature. It's technically true but wrong in the sense that it's purposely missing the distinction.

The context didnt really matter.

[Elim Garak]

Except that we can identify them, now, within the last century. Because of how rapidly (compared to that natural cycle) these things are shifting. Sea levels have already appreciably risen over the last century. This isn't a prediction for the future, it's observed reality.

We were talking about the natural causes, not the temperature, duh. You cannot see the natural causes in action because they take thousands years to happen and we observe them all for how long? Less than century? We lack the information.

I have no idea what you're even trying to say, here.

Because you are confused by your own dramatization. You wont see natural causes in the trend because you have excluded them from the trend.
Also it's hard to watch for natural causes because they take thousands of years.

To give you a plausible example:
Let's say a day, just a single day before we humans began monitoring Sun activity in adequate details, Sun got hotter because of some cycle we are unaware of because it's effect was hidden behind other natural causes or because it's a new thing entirely. We missed that, when we looked at the sun we saw the Sun after that event and decided that's what the Sun is in its current cycle. But since then that increase in hotness was hitting up the planet and we are here now.
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just demonstrating how hard it is to spot the natural cause.
So can you please stop dismissing them right away - that's unscientific.

[Kuntantee]

There is only way to be a scientist; research and publish, the topic -- be it history or physics -- is irrelevant. As far as I know, he ain't doing that, which means he's not a scientist.

[Ratyrel]

We were talking about the natural causes, not the temperature, duh. You cannot see the natural causes in action because they take thousands years to happen and we observe them all for how long? Less than century? We lack the information.


Because you are confused by your own dramatization. You wont see natural causes in the trend because you have excluded them from the trend.
Also it's hard to watch for natural causes because they take thousands of years.

To give you a plausible example:
Let's say a day, just a single day before we humans began monitoring Sun activity in adequate details, Sun got hotter because of some cycle we are unaware of because it's effect was hidden behind other natural causes or because it's a new thing entirely. We missed that, when we looked at the sun we saw the Sun after that event and decided that's what the Sun is in its current cycle. But since then that increase in hotness was hitting up the planet and we are here now.
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just demonstrating how hard it is to spot the natural cause.
So can you please stop dismissing them right away - that's unscientific.

How does this even matter? It's not as though you can kindly ask those natural causes to kindly stop messing stuff up, even if they did factor in. This squabble just misses the big picture imo.

I also wish Palin would just keep her drivel to herself. Attacking the few, but incredibly important popularizers of science only serves to highlight her narrow-mindedness.

[Elim Garak]

How does this even matter? It's not as though you can kindly ask those natural causes to kindly stop messing stuff up, even if they did factor in. This squabble just misses the big picture imo.

The bigger picture is to come up with a contingency plan for humanity, but to come up with the correct plan you have to figure out what the fuck happens. If you ignore natural causes and focus only on human contribution, the plan might be not that effective, be a waste of resources or a complete failure. Perhaps instead of worrying about the emissions we should stop wasting time and resources and start worrying about surviving the inevitable hot. Perhaps not.

[Endus]

We were talking about the natural causes, not the temperature, duh. You cannot see the natural causes in action because they take thousands years to happen and we observe them all for how long? Less than century? We lack the information.


Because you are confused by your own dramatization. You wont see natural causes in the trend because you have excluded them from the trend.
Also it's hard to watch for natural causes because they take thousands of years.

To give you a plausible example:
Let's say a day, just a single day before we humans began monitoring Sun activity in adequate details, Sun got hotter because of some cycle we are unaware of because it's effect was hidden behind other natural causes or because it's a new thing entirely. We missed that, when we looked at the sun we saw the Sun after that event and decided that's what the Sun is in its current cycle. But since then that increase in hotness was hitting up the planet and we are here now.
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just demonstrating how hard it is to spot the natural cause.
So can you please stop dismissing them right away - that's unscientific.

Unless you have evidence, actual data, to back up your claim of such an influence, then yes, it's absolutely scientific to dismiss it. Science does not deal in fantasy. And that's what you're arguing, here. Fantasy.

[Elim Garak]

Unless you have evidence, actual data, to back up your claim of such an influence, then yes, it's absolutely scientific to dismiss it. Science does not deal in fantasy. And that's what you're arguing, here. Fantasy.

absolutely scientific you say? absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. also "absolutely"? science doesn't deal in absolutes.

[Endus]

absolutely scientific you say? absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. also "absolutely"? science doesn't deal in absolutes.

And now you're playing semantic word games.

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but if you want me to believe you have a wish-granting unicorn, I'm gonna require that you show me some evidence first.

I'd only be making the "evidence of absence" argument if I said such a creature couldn't exist. I'm not. I'm just saying I won't believe you without evidence that it does. My mind is open to that possibility, if you have actual evidence. Minus any evidence? I'm going to assume it isn't true for the same reason I assume that Middle Earth isn't a real place and Gollum isn't hiding behind me.