Poll of the Day > Climate Change Deniers confused now that facts show a 140% increase in change

Topic List
Page List: 1
Lokarin
07/03/17 12:28:58 AM
#1:


... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys
07/03/17 1:16:48 AM
#2:


... Copied to Clipboard!
Smarkil
07/03/17 2:48:13 AM
#3:


checkmate flat earthers
---
If my daughter was in it, Id have to be the co-star - Deoxxys on porn
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
07/03/17 2:48:54 AM
#4:


I deny all climate
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead
"I'm Mary Poppins ya'll!"
... Copied to Clipboard!
EclairReturns
07/03/17 2:49:04 AM
#5:


Lokarin posted...
Obama


He's not President anymore.
---
Number XII: Larxene.
The Organization's Savage Nymph.
... Copied to Clipboard!
shadowsword87
07/03/17 2:53:41 AM
#6:


I mean, their argument isn't that the earth is getting warmer, but that it's not humans fault because the sun has more sunspots.
Like, disagree with them all you want for being wrong, and they are wrong, just get their arguments straight.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
07/03/17 2:54:56 AM
#7:


The sun is just Chinese propaganda
---
"Salt cures Everything!"
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos
... Copied to Clipboard!
OneTimeBen
07/03/17 3:20:23 AM
#8:


A week ago in Iowa it got down in the 50s at night.
---
Still waters run deep
... Copied to Clipboard!
argonautweakend
07/03/17 3:24:16 AM
#9:


OneTimeBen posted...
A week ago in Iowa it got down in the 50s at night. And have yet to get a 90 plus day.


both normal for iowa though
... Copied to Clipboard!
OneTimeBen
07/03/17 3:26:18 AM
#10:


argonautweakend posted...
OneTimeBen posted...
A week ago in Iowa it got down in the 50s at night. And have yet to get a 90 plus day.


both normal for iowa though

I retract the 90s comment, we did get a few of those. But on July 4 I expect high 80s with humidity that you can't stop sweating in shade. Currently 69% in eastern Iowa
---
Still waters run deep
... Copied to Clipboard!
sveksii
07/03/17 4:19:29 AM
#11:


OneTimeBen posted...
argonautweakend posted...
OneTimeBen posted...
A week ago in Iowa it got down in the 50s at night. And have yet to get a 90 plus day.


both normal for iowa though

I retract the 90s comment, we did get a few of those. But on July 4 I expect high 80s with humidity that you can't stop sweating in shade. Currently 69% in eastern Iowa
Your point? Weather isn't climate.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkKirby2500
07/03/17 4:30:55 AM
#12:


People are dealing with climate change all wrong.

In Mega Man Battle Network they just installed weather manipulation technology over every major country to make the environment everywhere ideal instead of fixing their busted environment.
---
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. They're all complacent sheeple. Passion fights, but reason wins.
... Copied to Clipboard!
WingedRegent
07/03/17 4:33:10 AM
#13:


shadowsword87 posted...
I mean, their argument isn't that the earth is getting warmer, but that it's not humans fault because the sun has more sunspots.
Like, disagree with them all you want for being wrong, and they are wrong, just get their arguments straight.


You'd be surprised at how many people also believe that the planet is not getting warmer as well. I've seen both arguments attempt to be made.
---
http://card.psnprofiles.com/1/Seraphim_Dragon.png
You're casual if you like anything. Real hardcore gamers hate everything.-CyhortI82
... Copied to Clipboard!
Miroku_of_Nite1
07/03/17 4:44:52 AM
#14:


Doesn't matter the universe is a hologram.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
OneTimeBen
07/03/17 4:52:12 AM
#15:


sveksii posted...
OneTimeBen posted...
argonautweakend posted...
OneTimeBen posted...
A week ago in Iowa it got down in the 50s at night. And have yet to get a 90 plus day.


both normal for iowa though

I retract the 90s comment, we did get a few of those. But on July 4 I expect high 80s with humidity that you can't stop sweating in shade. Currently 69% in eastern Iowa
Your point? Weather isn't climate.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
No point. Just not much warming here. Where I live, seems the opposite.
---
Still waters run deep
... Copied to Clipboard!
sveksii
07/03/17 5:24:14 AM
#16:


OneTimeBen posted...
sveksii posted...
OneTimeBen posted...
argonautweakend posted...
OneTimeBen posted...
A week ago in Iowa it got down in the 50s at night. And have yet to get a 90 plus day.


both normal for iowa though

I retract the 90s comment, we did get a few of those. But on July 4 I expect high 80s with humidity that you can't stop sweating in shade. Currently 69% in eastern Iowa
Your point? Weather isn't climate.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html
No point. Just not much warming here. Where I live, seems the opposite.
You're discussing weather, which isn't relevant to a discussion on climate change.

Also, on a side note, global warming can cause regional cooling.
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
07/03/17 5:30:18 AM
#17:


Anyone who doesn't believe in man-made climate change at this point isn't really interested in evidence. Throwing more evidence at them isn't going to make them change their mind.
---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Veedrock-
07/03/17 5:50:15 AM
#18:


Alternative facts.
---
My friends call me Vee.
I'm not your friend, buddy.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ForteEXE3850
07/03/17 11:41:29 AM
#19:


Why would climate change deniers be confused if they believe the "facts" about climate change are wrong?
---
Mwahahahaha.
... Copied to Clipboard!
TreGooda
07/03/17 11:54:37 AM
#20:


Sorry climate change alarmists, the facts aren't on your side

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
---
"Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives."
... Copied to Clipboard!
deoxxys
07/03/17 11:55:46 AM
#21:


^what the hell does this mean??
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
TreGooda
07/03/17 11:56:27 AM
#22:


deoxxys posted...
^what the hell does this mean??


No warming in 2 decades. They extrapolated data from incorrect models created in 2000.
---
"Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives."
... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx
07/03/17 12:48:51 PM
#23:


TreGooda posted...
deoxxys posted...
^what the hell does this mean??


No warming in 2 decades. They extrapolated data from incorrect models created in 2000.

That's not it at all. Interpretation of data was incorrect for a period of time. Those that had been interpreting the data were using it to support an agenda that dismisses anthropogenic climate change. Using 1998 as the starting date, (an unusually hot year due to El Nino) the difference in the last 20 years can seem small. When you look further back and do not use the outlier 1998 as a baseline the changes are much more apparent.

Re interpretation of the data from scientists that understand climate science shows the increase in temperature is much greater than previous reports. As more data for 2014 - present day becomes interpreted and included in the reports the changes will be more apparent and drastic. 1998 doesn't even touch the last several years of global temperatures.

(your link is also 6 months older than the original post article which explains the recently reinterpreted data)
---
Never write off the Doctor!
... Copied to Clipboard!
jsb0714
07/03/17 12:54:10 PM
#24:


I just don't care. We weren't meant to live forever.
---
Spliiiish! Ka-Boom!!!
... Copied to Clipboard!
TreGooda
07/03/17 12:55:41 PM
#25:


Doctor Foxx posted...
TreGooda posted...
deoxxys posted...
^what the hell does this mean??


No warming in 2 decades. They extrapolated data from incorrect models created in 2000.

That's not it at all. Interpretation of data was incorrect for a period of time. Those that had been interpreting the data were using it to support an agenda that dismisses anthropogenic climate change. Using 1998 as the starting date, (an unusually hot year due to El Nino) the difference in the last 20 years can seem small. When you look further back and do not use the outlier 1998 as a baseline the changes are much more apparent.

Re interpretation of the data from scientists that understand climate science shows the increase in temperature is much greater than previous reports. As more data for 2014 - present day becomes interpreted and included in the reports the changes will be more apparent and drastic. 1998 doesn't even touch the last several years of global temperatures.


Read the paper. According to the science your religion is falling apart. I really don't have a dog in this fight but read some of these end of the world predictions that have failed to come true.

Climate change is more politics than science. Keep eating it up if you want but if you're actually interested you could actually read the peer reviewed research, look at the data and the models. There's not a whole lot going on.
---
"Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives."
... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow
07/03/17 1:05:28 PM
#26:


You know England, you could say we botched your words, but you could also say we revised them to make more sense.

"sceptics"

Is that pronounced like "septic tank"
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy
07/03/17 1:10:44 PM
#27:


First it was "global warming", now it's "climate change" and then it's "climate catastrophe".

Can these lib mouthpieces please get their arguments straight.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx
07/03/17 1:10:50 PM
#28:


TreGooda posted...
Read the paper. According to the science your religion is falling apart. I really don't have a dog in this fight but read some of these end of the world predictions that have failed to come true.

Your paper predates the new articles and doesn't apply at this point.

TreGooda posted...
Climate change is more politics than science. Keep eating it up if you want but if you're actually interested you could actually read the peer reviewed research, look at the data and the models. There's not a whole lot going on.

Yeah the geoscientists I know would disagree, and they're the ones with degrees relevant to the matter.
---
Never write off the Doctor!
... Copied to Clipboard!
faramir77
07/03/17 1:33:27 PM
#29:


To be fair it's going to be 39C in my town in southern Alberta later this week. I've never seen temperatures that high.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiCtAUrZbUk
-- Defeating the Running Man of Ocarina of Time in a race since 01/17/2009. --
... Copied to Clipboard!
Dikitain
07/03/17 1:58:50 PM
#30:


At this point I kind of want to speed up global warming so that humanity can fuck off and die already.

Anybody want to help be burn off some coal mines?
---
I am a senior software engineer. If you see me post here, I am tired of writing TPS reports.
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
07/03/17 6:46:20 PM
#31:


darkknight109 posted...
Anyone who doesn't believe in man-made climate change at this point isn't really interested in evidence. Throwing more evidence at them isn't going to make them change their mind.

And right on cue TreGooda and Blighboy prove my point.
---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus
07/03/17 6:59:54 PM
#32:


shadowsword87 posted...
I mean, their argument isn't that the earth is getting warmer, but that it's not humans fault because the sun has more sunspots.
Like, disagree with them all you want for being wrong, and they are wrong, just get their arguments straight.


This, more or less.
---
(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
07/03/17 7:04:38 PM
#33:


I've said this before, and I will say it again (and I will keep saying it until people actually understand it):

The real problem with the climate change argument isn't whether or not people admit it's a thing, it's that people deliberately blur the line between "natural climate change" and "man-made climate change", and use data that supports or contradicts one to argue for/against the other. The end result being that most of the dialogue becomes meaningless and both sides wind up thinking the other side is entirely comprised of idiots and assholes, and even attempting to talk about it becomes a massive waste of everyone's time.

We need new operational definitions. "Climate Change" is pretty much ruined as a term by this point.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy
07/03/17 7:08:09 PM
#34:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
I've said this before, and I will say it again (and I will keep saying it until people actually understand it):

The real problem with the climate change argument isn't whether or not people admit it's a thing, it's that people deliberately blur the line between "natural climate change" and "man-made climate change", and use data that supports or contradicts one to argue for/against the other. The end result being that most of the dialogue becomes meaningless and both sides wind up thinking the other side is entirely comprised of idiots and assholes, and even attempting to talk about it becomes a massive waste of everyone's time.

We need new operational definitions. "Climate Change" is pretty much ruined as a term by this point.


Except we already did that when we changed from Global Warming to Climate Change because people didn't understand what a global average temperature was, and it didn't help.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Blaqthourne
07/03/17 7:25:19 PM
#35:


Wait, so they've already dropped the "climate chaos" term?
---
Montreal Expos (1969-2004)
http://www.backloggery.com/Blaqthourne Now playing: -- Banjo-Kazooie (N64) started 6/6/2017
... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy
07/03/17 7:26:04 PM
#36:


Climategate seems like the topical term to go with.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
ParanoidObsessive
07/03/17 7:38:59 PM
#37:


Blighboy posted...
Except we already did that when we changed from Global Warming to Climate Change because people didn't understand what a global average temperature was, and it didn't help.

They changed from "global warming" to "climate change" because there was a very real need to distinguish the fact that a major climate shift didn't necessarily mean an increase in temperature (especially when there is evidence to suggest melting ice-caps and a subsequently deeper ocean may actually turn overall temperatures colder), and that there are climate factors other than temperature that need to be considered (like desertification of areas, or even more complex factors like conflicting day/night temperature cycles).

But now there's absolutely a need to change from "climate change" (which is currently used to mean two distinctly different concepts) to something less ambiguous, because the issue as a whole is too damned politicized, and people on both sides of the argument have deliberately distorted data by misinterpreting which meaning of the term applies in a given case, and waffling back and forth on which interpretation they're using based on which one supports their argument more (regardless of whether or not it actually reflects the truth).

If people actually want to SOLVE the argument rather than keeping it the rhetorical dick-waving contest it currently is, it desperately NEEDS better (and unambiguous) operational definitions that clearly convey meaning even to laypeople. Because otherwise, the entire issue is basically going to remain a metaphorical roomful of idiots screaming at each other in different languages, with no one listening to or understanding anyone else.

And yes, I know people (especially on the Internet) love just pointing at anyone who doesn't agree with them and assuming they're an idiot and dismissing them out of hand, but if no one even makes the attempt to understand the position of the opposition and rationally discuss things rather than turn everything into a rhetoric contest, then that kind of makes YOU the asshole.

It doesn't even have to be that major of a change. Just breaking the term down into something like "natural climate shift" and "human-driven climate change" would draw a line between the two and make it harder to ignore or deliberately misinterpret data. Especially if climatologists are careful to avoid drawing conclusions on the one hand if the data actually seems to support the other.

It would also make things a bit clearer statistically, because it would allow for a better distinction between just how MUCH climate change seems to be a natural phenomenon and the degree to which human intervention has contributed. Which in turn would better help less qualified people (ie, the average stupid politician) to actually pass meaningful legislation.


---
"Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76
"POwned again." --- blight family
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
07/03/17 8:12:58 PM
#38:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
It doesn't even have to be that major of a change. Just breaking the term down into something like "natural climate shift" and "human-driven climate change" would draw a line between the two and make it harder to ignore or deliberately misinterpret data. Especially if climatologists are careful to avoid drawing conclusions on the one hand if the data actually seems to support the other.

People already do this, though.

Naturally occurring climate change is just called... well, Natural Climate Change. Climate change caused by humans is either called Manmade Climate Change or Anthropogenic Climate Change, depending on how much of a hard-on for Greek you have. Their sum total is Climate Change.

I also challenge your assertion that everyone who acknowledges that climate change is real assumes it's entirely a manmade problem; for what it's worth, I've never heard anyone deny that a portion of climate change is caused by natural events.
---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin
07/03/17 8:14:35 PM
#39:


Technically speaking, and lots of people ignore this, we actually are still in an Ice Age and that Ice Age is almost over.

We'll have another Ice Age in, idk, 25k years or so?
---
"Salt cures Everything!"
My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos
... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy
07/03/17 8:20:20 PM
#40:


ParanoidObsessive posted...
They changed from "global warming" to "climate change" because there was a very real need to distinguish the fact that a major climate shift didn't necessarily mean an increase in temperature (especially when there is evidence to suggest melting ice-caps and a subsequently deeper ocean may actually turn overall temperatures colder), and that there are climate factors other than temperature that need to be considered (like desertification of areas, or even more complex factors like conflicting day/night temperature cycles).

I don't think this is really the case, I've certainly never read it as described that way. It is common for climate scientists or papers to refer to global warming. The direct result of carbon dioxide concentrations is an increase in global temperatures, therefore the terminology is accurate. Other issues stem from that, and there are certainly other factors that come into play like releases of natural methane that can exacerbate human contributions, but it's in no way inaccurate to discuss it in terms of global warming. The IPCC still uses a two degree temperature increase as their threshold for what we should avoid, and average global temperatures are still the primary means of measuring the impact of climate change. The term itself is not flawed, though it does not imply the full extent of climate changes unless you are already familiar with the effects of global temperatures.

The existing term to refer to man made climate change is anthropogenic climate change or global warming. It's in wide use within the scientific community.

In terms of numbers about how much of the warming is man made, that's difficult to specify, because again, human influence affects natural processes. If you look at a chart of projected warming, there's always a high degree of uncertainty. But the 2013 IPCC report gave a 95%+ chance that more than half of all warming was caused by human activity.
---
... Copied to Clipboard!
TreGooda
07/03/17 9:55:24 PM
#41:


darkknight109 posted...
darkknight109 posted...
Anyone who doesn't believe in man-made climate change at this point isn't really interested in evidence. Throwing more evidence at them isn't going to make them change their mind.

And right on cue TreGooda and Blighboy prove my point.


By posting a peer reviewed paper from a climate scientist who used to share your view?
---
"Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives."
... Copied to Clipboard!
TreGooda
07/03/17 9:57:09 PM
#42:


Doctor Foxx posted...
TreGooda posted...
Read the paper. According to the science your religion is falling apart. I really don't have a dog in this fight but read some of these end of the world predictions that have failed to come true.

Your paper predates the new articles and doesn't apply at this point.

TreGooda posted...
Climate change is more politics than science. Keep eating it up if you want but if you're actually interested you could actually read the peer reviewed research, look at the data and the models. There's not a whole lot going on.

Yeah the geoscientists I know would disagree, and they're the ones with degrees relevant to the matter.


You're obviously not well informed nor intelligent enough to review the data yourself. It's ok, the world needs useful idiots.
---
"Get a life! What? I'm a gamer, I have tons of lives."
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
07/03/17 11:34:03 PM
#43:


TreGooda posted...
You're obviously not well informed nor intelligent enough to review the data yourself.

Hey, did someone say "Dunning-Kruger"? Could have sworn I heard it coming from this topic...
---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx
07/03/17 11:56:14 PM
#44:


I wonder what use he serves
---
Never write off the Doctor!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Melon_Master
07/04/17 12:08:43 AM
#45:


Doctor Foxx posted...
I wonder what use he serves

He embarrasses himself here to keep the mood lighthearted for everyone? :/
---
http://i.imgur.com/linui.png http://i.imgur.com/FiYI1.jpg
PotDs UnOfficial President and Official Sheldon Cooper
... Copied to Clipboard!
Doctor Foxx
07/04/17 12:30:17 AM
#46:


A related article

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/28/climate-scientists-just-debunked-deniers-favorite-argument

Interesting enough it explains in great detail why this earlier posted study

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html

does support climate change
---
Never write off the Doctor!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1