patrick.net

NuttBoxer says

The measurements of the space between my testicles and the floor in relation to the outside temperature...

A human barometer

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Though the same can't be said for your comprehension skills.

they tell me that I'm not easily indoctrinated. I'm not the one with suspect comprehensions skills.

Yes, yes, you're very special. You are so special that you happily ignore the overwhelming majority of scientists in a field you know nothing about in favour of... well a handful of outliers, casual bloggers, already dead scientists from different fields (if you're CiC) etc., etc.

Out of curiosity, what other areas of scientific research with a similar overwhelming level of consensus do you also disagree with?

indigenous says

The measurements of the space between my testicles and the floor in relation to the outside temperature...

A human barometer

I've found it to be quite accurrate:

50F and below: Did my wife just Bobbitt me?
60 - 50F: If I punch myself in the stomach I think I can feel one drop.
70 - 60: Did I go through puberty yet?
77 - 70: Sweet spot.
78 and up: Man I need to start wearing jockey's

Bigsby says

Out of curiosity, what other areas of scientific research with a similar overwhelming level of consensus do you also disagree with?

Glad you asked, Keynesian economics, in this field the overwhelming majority believe that the economy can be controlled by government spending. It makes about as much sense as an elephant in a bird cage. Yet the lemmings believe just like they believe in GW or whatever the name of the day is. A certain percentage of people are just lemmings I guess...

indigenous says

Glad you asked, Keynesian economics, in this field the overwhelming majority believe that the economy can be controlled by government spending. It makes about as much sense as an elephant in a bird cage. Yet the lemmings believe just like they believe in GW or whatever the name of the day is. A certain percentage of people are just lemmings I guess...

Your counter is to peddle one branch of a social science as an equivalent? I see.

Bigsby says

Your counter is to peddle one branch of a social science as an equivalent? I see.

They are both based on consensus rather than science...

Bigsby says

What do you think the process of scientific research involves? How many thousands of scientists are working on related areas? How many have published? What level of agreement is there amongst these specialists? It's a vast body of work that here you are trying to belittle based on a handful of papers with issues or on the back of a few scientists who disagree with the prevailing theories but invariably fail to support their arguments with any actual research.

I see you can type opinions, but if you read the articles I linked to, you'll notice they also link to other articles, and cite references for their opinions, which change them to fact(or at least opinions backed by something more than their ability to type words on a keyboard). As you have no citations, fact has failed to enter your posts, and possibly your mind.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Your counter is to peddle one branch of a social science as an equivalent? I see.

They are both based on consensus rather than science...

Climate research is data driven - a vast body of data used to test and retest hypotheses across multiple disciplines, the results of which have shaped a consensus. That is not remotely equivalent to you picking ONE branch of economics, a social science, and saying 'look, it's the same.' No, it isn't.

NuttBoxer says

I see you can type opinions, but if you read the articles I linked to, you'll notice they also link to other articles, and cite references for their opinions, which change them to fact(or at least opinions backed by something more than their ability to type words on a keyboard). As you have no citations, fact has failed to enter your posts, and possibly your mind.

It's not an opinion. It is the accepted theory within the scientific community. You are the one expressing an opinion, one that is NOT supported. Presumably you would like me to cite the 97% of published papers that contradict your view. What's the point?

Bigsby says

Climate research is data driven - a vast body of data used to test and retest hypotheses across multiple disciplines, the results of which have shaped a consensus. That is not remotely equivalent to you picking ONE branch of economics, a social science, and saying 'look, it's the same.' No, it isn't.

Is it so

indigenous says

Is it so

That's your rebuttal?

landtof says

please tell me when the world will end due to climate change? do you have a year in mind?

No one says the world is going to end. NASA, what you call a cult and the rest of the world acknowledges as experts in air and space, list the consequences of climate change just for the United States as

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure, and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks, and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture, and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought, and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

The Pentagon states climate change is a national security threat

The “Report on National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate” was provided to Congress yesterday.

The report reinforces the fact that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.

The report finds that climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that are already fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges.

The report concludes the department is already observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, Middle East, Africa, Asia, and South America.

So unless you're willing to cut the defense budget by 90%, you should be concerned about climate change because of the national security threat alone. The Pentagon even states that climate change will increase terrorism.

"The impacts of climate change may increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future missions, including defense support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities," states the 64-page report, published Tuesday.

"Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating."

A warming planet will likely “exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs,” the report details, leading to devastated infrastructure and living conditions, especially in poorer regions of the world.

In addition, this fierce “resource competition” will only push the likelihood of additional terror threats, the QDR states.

"The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world,” the report continues.

"These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence."

So when another 9/11 happens due to the desperation of starving multitudes and the political instability brought on by climate change, it will be asshole climate change deniers like you who are to blame.

Bigsby says

indigenous says

Is it so

That's your rebuttal?

That's the best conservatives can do to support their lies. They can't prove or provide non-debunked evidence to support their lies, so the only thing they can do is repeat the lie ad nausea until stupid people who are easily manipulated believe them.

Bigsby says

FFS, exactly what science are you uttering? We aren't the climatologists. They are the ones doing the research, not us. You are, however, the ones that deny the research findings despite the fact you know nothing about it. But hey, you are obviously right because someone who knows nothing about such a complex area is clearly more informed than the scientists who have done the actual research.

BLAHBLAHBLAH, shit or get off the pot!

I think those that question the models, or the degree of certainty behind AGW predictions are right when they say we just don't know for sure. Although there is a lot that we (that is the scientists) do know. It's a matter of probability and risk management.

The best we can get with something as complex as this are models which predict with some (maybe significant ) margin of error what will happen under various scenarios.

There are extremists that say we are already past the tipping point of an extinction event. I certainly hope that's not the case, and don't believe it is. Then there are other relatively extreme, but not that far from mainstream climate experts that say the oceans could be up 4 or 5 inches by 2100. Now it's true for the typical American narcissist who claims to care about what the world, and the U.S. is like 100 years from now, but really doesn't, this is "who gives a fuck" kind of information.

But some of us, being more conservative about such matters would prefer to err on the side of less damage to the planet. Especially since transition to sustainable and when possible renewable energy sources is desirable anyway. Putting some serious pressure on the transition, even if it's bad for massive entrenched fossil fuel industries, is a good thing. One of the ways that such pressure is exerted is by carbon taxing/credit schemes. These make the cost advantage of fossil fuels (over developing alternatives) smaller.

How can anyone not get that ?