How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Gaman]

anyone else not give a flying fuck?

Me, me!

Climate change, man made or not, dont give a fuck.

Im in the ground long before this will affect us/me. Call me egoistic, but i really wont care what happends on this planet after im dead, since I wont even know i once was here...

But Im sure evolution has a plan for the coming milleniums.

[Daelak]

Sakes alive. Total solar irradiance can be shown to account for 100% of any perceived difference in temperatures yoh think you are measuring. 100%.

1957- warmest year on record til '96. Fact. '97 to 2012- no discernible rise in temps. Fact. Many actually argue after '96, temps fall. Fact. In August of 2012, the meteorlogical Office in Great Britain released a report of the collected findings of three-thousand meteorlogical research units placed around the globe. This data shows NO temperature change over that period. Fact.

And Endus, I've read your posts, I like your style, but being in the field is a logical fallacy. But I do like how you present your arguments; I wish others on here had your decorum.

Fact: All major scientific bodies around the world, including all the national academies of science in every 1st and 2nd world nation recognizes and are aware of the implications of rising temperatures.

Fact: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" -Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Fact: 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous US.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-a...-contiguous-us

http://www.skepticalscience.com/natu...l-warming.html

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 07:41 PM ----------

AGW acolytes also use a lot of "correlation = causation" arguments. NO flooded not because of "Global Warming". It flooded because it was beneath sea level when they built it, and it has stayed there ever since. Also, it flooded because of a cascade of stupid management and politics within its own government. They didn't reinforce their levees even though they'd been given millions of dollars to reinforce them.



No - they don't. That is simply a perception that is based on a couple of faulty reports that have been repeatedly debunked. The truth is that these so-called 'consensuses' are based on very dodgy, highly questionable secondary sourcing essays which had to be compiled in very specific ways so as to eliminate all the "scientists" who disagreed. When you throw out the 100,000+ scientists who disagree with you and refuse to acknowledge them, then it's awfully easy to focus on the 9,000 scientists who you DO say are "scientists" and say that only 6% disagree with you. See how that works?

And that's where the whole "97% consensus" myth came from. The author hand-picks a bunch of (surprise!) "climatologists". Many of these guys don't have PhDs or even Masters, but are really just undergrads writing thesis, or are ancillary workers in tangental fields to the climate (IE activists) who all agree with exactly what the author wants. They throw out the bulk of other real scientists, and then claim an imaginary consensus. How convenient. At the risk of playing duelling-websites, here's an interesting paper showing exactly how the trick is achieved... Doubtless the character of the speaker will be attacked, rather than the reality and accuracy of his data, but that's what the issue has come to - sadly.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im.../consensus.pdf



I've seen the IPCC data, the NOAA data, and reports, studies, and the SAPs (stat analysis plans) of many others. The data is junk. They routinely overweight human C02 emissions in their models, while completely ignoring or underweighting other known variables - many of which are far more powerful. You know - stuff like land cover, oceanic currents, El-nino/nina events, solar radiation, cloud cover, rain, water vapor - all those insignificant factors that get swept under the carpet in a typical stats model.

As a professional statistician, it is quite annoying to see the routine abuse my profession has to suffer through because of the politicization of this subject. Whenever you put together a statistical model, you have to justify the nature of its construction. If you weight a variable strongly, there must be a valid statistical reason for doing so. In every report I've read to date, the model artificially inflates the C02 variable while artificially minimizing (or eliminating) other more potent variables. And the reason for it? Well - so far all I've been able to see is ... ??? because the model just DOES it and never bothers justifying the underlying assumption.

When an analysis does that, the resulting conclusions are junk. Period.

So you have the hubris to say that the world's brightest and most intelligent scientific bodies, are all wrong, and are pursuing this for a global carbon tax to make us all subservient to an "enviro-terrorist" doctrine?

No thanks, I will stick with the scientists.

[Endus]

In August of 2012, the meteorlogical Office in Great Britain released a report of the collected findings of three-thousand meteorlogical research units placed around the globe. This data shows NO temperature change over that period. Fact.

Not only NOT a fact, but when the Daily Mail wrote an article claiming such, the Met Office specifically responded to address that claim, and point out that it was false and misrepresented that study.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2...2012/#comments

Seriously, it would help if you actually factchecked your own sources. Since you apparently read the same Daily Mail article, and didn't catch that the Met office had responded and called it out for misleading the public as to what their report actually showed.

[Tommo]

And this is why we dont use the Daily Fail, whenever I read that garbage I cant help but shout bullshit at every 2nd paragraph. (not that their articles make it past a 2nd paragraph anyway)

[Lollis]

Seriously, it would help if you actually factchecked your own sources. Since you apparently read the same Daily Mail article, and didn't catch that the Met office had responded and called it out for misleading the public as to what their report actually showed.

It's almost as if these people are not even trying.

[chadwix]

End game for pro global warming people = $8 light bulbs bought from ge, who funds these bias studies. They restart the study if they dont get the results they were paid to find, they dont publish them.

Inc, wacko scientists who's livleyhoods depend on it being true.

[Daelak]

End game for pro global warming people = $8 light bulbs bought from ge, who funds these bias studies. They restart the study if they dont get the results they were paid to find, they dont publish them.

Inc, wacko scientists who's livleyhoods depend on it being true.

Yea all the wacko scientists in every single science academy in the world, versus your opinion. OK.

[Deadvolcanoes]

End game for pro global warming people = $8 light bulbs bought from ge, who funds these bias studies. They restart the study if they dont get the results they were paid to find, they dont publish them.

Inc, wacko scientists who's livleyhoods depend on it being true.

I'm pro global warming (whatever that means), and I don't want to see $8 light bulbs.

The truth is, results can be fabricated (picking and choosing start and stop dates), but the actual science cannot.

Remember when big oil (Koch) funded an AGW study? The science confirmed humans as a cause. Ooops.

[Decklan]

End game for pro global warming people = $8 light bulbs bought from ge, who funds these bias studies. They restart the study if they dont get the results they were paid to find, they dont publish them.

Inc, wacko scientists who's livleyhoods depend on it being true.

I bought a large pack of those energy efficient lightbulbs that are guaranteed to last 10 years 12 years ago, they're all still working and not a single one has blown out. Usually blew at least one light bulb every 2-3 months before that. I must refer back to the "what if GCC turns out to be a hoax and we make a better world for nothing" comic.

You can still buy the $1 light bulbs that last 6 months... don't see why you'd want to though when you can buy $8 light bulbs that last for 12+ years. It's just common sense economics, especially when they use less power.

[bergmann620]

I bought a large pack of those energy efficient lightbulbs that are guaranteed to last 10 years 12 years ago, they're all still working and not a single one has blown out. Usually blew at least one light bulb every 2-3 months before that. I must refer back to the "what if GCC turns out to be a hoax and we make a better world for nothing" comic.

You can still buy the $1 light bulbs that last 6 months... don't see why you'd want to though when you can buy $8 light bulbs that last for 12+ years. It's just common sense economics, especially when they use less power.

It would be, except that I've bought literally hundreds (my house, fully stocked, needs about 80 bulbs) of those bulbs, and they rarely last a even year.

I guess what we have have here is a case of conflicting anecdotes.

(Oh yea... The light from a couple 40-watt standard soft-white bulbs is soooooo much nicer than a compact fluorescent. I have CFL's throughout the house, but I have standard bulbs in my office and reading area.)

[Kurioxan]

It would be, except that I've bought literally hundreds (my house, fully stocked, needs about 80 bulbs) of those bulbs, and they rarely last a even year.

I guess what we have have here is a case of conflicting anecdotes.

(Oh yea... The light from a couple 40-watt standard soft-white bulbs is soooooo much nicer than a compact fluorescent. I have CFL's throughout the house, but I have standard bulbs in my office and reading area.)

Because like all modern technology, its made to fail.
Loads of things are made to fail, laptops, printers, cellphones, cars...
We have tech to make things last almost indefinitly but its "bad for the almighty market" so instead of persuading people to upgrade with actual developments and innovation, they force them due to made to fail fabrications.

Look at this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light
Or just noticing how you still have working cars from the 60, 70. 90s and somehow modern cars seem to start having problems after 5 years.
There are some companies that get a lot of flak for that, apple being one of the biggest (their bateries are made to die after 2 years if i recall?) and they are stupid-expensive.


There are (were?) several sites actually with how to prevent things from failing or how to fix them, one of the most hilarious examples are printers and printer ink, to the point where it had a reset button on them that you could access after mild disassembly, that would make it suddenly have a lot of ink again (it had a timer to make it notify the printer that its out of ink after a while).
Or how old printers you could print so darn much, modern seem to get out of ink real fast somehow

[Garnier Fructis]

It's almost as if these people are not even trying.

Who needs to fact-check sources when you're "right?"

[semaphore]

It's almost as if these people are not even trying.

Not trying? I'll have you know it takes me a lot of effort to ignore 90% of the articles!

It's also interesting to note that a lot of deniers, who originally denied the "conclusive date," now accept said data, and have moved the goal posts to positive feedback loops. This way they can accept that humans do cause warming, but that it won't be as bad as we think, so therefore we shouldn't act.

The evolution of Climate Change Skepticism Denialism:

1. It's not happening and we aren't causing it!
2. It's might be happening but we aren't causing it!
3. It's happening but we aren't causing it!
4. It's happening and we might be causing it, but I'm too ignorant to be sure!
5. It's happening but we only cause a little of it, so don't do anything!
6. It's happening and we are causing it, but it's not bad enough to need action!
7. It's happening and we are causing it and it's terrible, but it's too late do anything about it so fuck us

[Diurdi]

The problem with most hippies in this thread is that they want to destroy the world to save the world.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The problem with most hippies in this thread is that they want to destroy the world to save the world.

We want to destroy the world by convincing people that anthroprogenic climate change is real?

No ones even talking about solutions in this thread. We're too busy combating debunked claims.

[Grizzly Willy]

The problem with most hippies in this thread is that they want to destroy the world to save the world.

Might want to provide something more meaningful than hollow rhetoric.

[Spectral]

To the scientists, they're not. To the advocates and politicians, they might as well be.

Scientists and advocates are not mutually exclusive groups.

[Bakis]

Been a long time since I limited this issue to US<->rest of the sane world.
Sad part is we had our shot in the western world, it is hard to deny the developing world their chance to prosper by telling them NO - dont polute!

[Kasierith]

Been a long time since I limited this issue to US<->rest of the world.
Sad part is we had our shot in the western world, it is hard to deny the developing world their chance to prosper by telling them NO - dont polute!

Actually, if anything the developing countries are bigger polluters (when accounting for size and total power used) than the developed world, an effect of having energy-producing technology from the developed world without the infrastructure in place to streamline and maximize the energy gained. That and in areas where there is instability, setting up renewable energy-utilizing systems is simply unfeasible.

[Quetzl]

The evolution of Climate Change Skepticism Denialism:

1. It's not happening and we aren't causing it!
2. It's might be happening but we aren't causing it!
3. It's happening but we aren't causing it!
4. It's happening and we might be causing it, but I'm too ignorant to be sure!
5. It's happening but we only cause a little of it, so don't do anything!
6. It's happening and we are causing it, but it's not bad enough to need action!
7. It's happening and we are causing it and it's terrible, but it's too late do anything about it so fuck us

lol so true

if only everyone could realize this