According to this, you are currently in Stage 2: "We don't know"
(on the page each line is a link to the rebuttal information)
We don’t know why it’s happening
Models don’t work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can’t be sure
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
You may have heard of him. He now heads the Senate committee overseeing climate science.
He has gone on record as saying that "it's not happening". Most recently just a couple months ago when he brought a snowball to the Senate floor as his proof.
His other variation on the theme is to say it's happening, but God's doing it, not humans: "Man can’t change climate. [...] 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."
That's sea ice. Not land ice. The land ice is melting.
Know what's causing the extra sea ice? Answer: the melting land ice.
You see, the land ice is fresh water. It flows into the ocean, which is salt water. It changes the local salinity of the sea water, lowering it, which has the effect of raising the temperate it is capable of freezing at.
Thus, MORE SEA ICE. Amazing how that works.
And, it is a wholly expected and predicted part of climate science in the southern hemisphere.
Not that any of this matters, since you're just here to troll anyway.
he pointed out that your dont seem to understand that the land ice doesnt expand in area, and in measured in volume typically. this would be because land masses dont physically expand.
hence the sea ice (re: icebergs) is what expanded in area.
Skepticism is all about critical examination, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and the use of reason in examining controversial claims. Those who flatly deny the results of climate science do not partake in any of the above. They base their conclusions on a priori convictions. Theirs is an ideological conviction—the opposite of skepticism.
After hearing that the individuals in question did not accept the conclusions of climate change modelers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other academic bodies, I asked them the simple question: “OK, what do your models predict?”
As you might expect, the response was silence.
If those who decry the claims of climate scientists cannot provide some sound empirical basis for their critiques of these claims and the data and models they are based on, then their denialism should be treated on the same footing as those who deny the results of evolutionary biology simply because they do not want to accept evolution.
To put climate deniers on the same footing as scientists, for whom skepticism is a central facet of their life work, is to do a great disservice to science, knowledge, and progress.
Ah the troll is back to say "lets be reasonable"...while presenting only two extreme scenarios (hint: its not a given that curbing global warming requires tanking the economy. the notion is a myth, a scaretactic of its own).
plus, if your only choices are "fuck up the environment" and "fuck up the economy", then you're doing it wrong.
Like you, who missed the part about the land ice melting far quicker than the sea ice is forming.
Bonus question: know what's causing the extra sea ice? Answer: the melting land ice.
You see, the land ice is fresh water. It flows into the ocean, which is salt water. It changes the local salinity of the sea water, lowering it, which has the effect of raising the temperate it is capable of freezing at.
Thus, MORE SEA ICE.
It is a wholly expected and predicted part of climate science. So before you put words in peoples mouths, you'd do well to learn what they actually said.
Ignoring the somewhat incoherence of your post, but responding to the parts were intelligible:
No where did i say the words "force people to not eat/sell beef". The solution to livestock's tremendous environmental impact doesn't automatically slide all the way to "no livestock ever". There is still plenty of room for better practices and better technology to reduce that impact.
Already there are pig farmers who work to capture the released methane, with varying levels of success. But they are working at it. Some sell it, as well as biofuel converted from their manure, for energy production. Others use it on site reducing their own carbon footprint to almost neutral.
But the idea that mankind MUST burn old dead things is foolish.
Again: The amount of energy from the sun that strikes the earth in ONE HOUR is more than all of humanity in all of our activities utilizes in an entire year. Capturing only a small fraction of that is enough to free the entire world of fossil fuels forever.
And it doesn't mean relegating third world countries to that status forever, either.
Some of the biggest and fastest adopters of solar, wind and other green power are the small and poor nations of the world that lack the infrastructure for a completely oil/gasoline powered economy. They are powering schools, connecting them to internet with it, providing educations their children never access to before. Powering hospitals providing higher levels of care than existed before. And so on.
Impossible you say? Only if you lack the imagination and the intestinal fortitude to make it happen. Because make no mistake: it IS happening, right now, around the world.
If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing. The entire statements are...
Myth:
CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)
The myth is not just stating that other things can be factor. It is stating that CO2 is not a factor. The myth is stating that CO2 doesn't influence temperatures. It claims as proof that because CO2 was higher before, and because there was an ice age, that it couldn't have been CO2. It's a classic straw man. The myth is wrongly implying that the scientific theory is that only CO2 is a factor. It then "disproves" its faulty assumption, instead of the actual science.
Science:
During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
So really the science does not state that other things (like the sun) cannot be factors. Rather, it not only agrees that other things can be, but BECAUSE they can be, it alters the expected behavior and relationship and outcomes of the various factors. If solar output were comparable to today's, then YES the higher CO2 would have resulted in warmer temperatures in the LOP. But because solar output was lower the CO2 concentration required to achieve an outcome similar to today's would have been much higher, higher than the concentration was in the LOP, which is why glaciation was possible and occurred.
you are confusing attempted suicide rates, successful suicide rates. one is a subset of the other. and even in japan the number of attempts is far larger than the number of successes.
as for available statistics, that's EXACTLY what i was quoting.
If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing. The entire statements are...
Myth:
CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2
concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been
exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth
temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)
The myth is not just stating that other things can be factor. It is stating that CO2 is not a factor. The myth is stating that CO2
doesn't influence temperatures. It claims as proof that because CO2 was higher before, and because there was an ice age, that it
couldn't have been CO2. It's a classic straw man. The myth is wrongly implying that the scientific theory is that only CO2 is a factor. It then
"disproves" its faulty assumption, instead of the actua
you think being "watched" means they actually had eyes on him?
it means he's flagged in various databases if he buys plane ticket, particularly to leave the country, or purchases items that are also being "watched".
come on. the real world is like the Blacklist with unlimited agents and unlimited resources. It's a cool show. James Spader is awesome in it.
But it's fantasy, just like your conception of what "watched" means.
Slashdot Mirror
do they not teach about hemispheres in AC school?
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
According to this, you are currently in Stage 2: "We don't know"
(on the page each line is a link to the rebuttal information)
We don’t know why it’s happening
Models don’t work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don’t have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can’t even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can’t be sure
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can’t understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren’t even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
I don't know of any climate change so called "deniers" that deny the fact the climate changes.
Now they deny even being deniers.
Meet Senator James Inhofe: http://www.newrepublic.com/art...
You may have heard of him. He now heads the Senate committee overseeing climate science.
He has gone on record as saying that "it's not happening". Most recently just a couple months ago when he brought a snowball to the Senate floor as his proof.
His other variation on the theme is to say it's happening, but God's doing it, not humans: "Man can’t change climate. [...] 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."
portion in the western hemishpere
That's sea ice.
Not land ice.
The land ice is melting.
Know what's causing the extra sea ice?
Answer: the melting land ice.
You see, the land ice is fresh water.
It flows into the ocean, which is salt water.
It changes the local salinity of the sea water, lowering it, which has the effect of raising the temperate it is capable of freezing at.
Thus, MORE SEA ICE.
Amazing how that works.
And, it is a wholly expected and predicted part of climate science in the southern hemisphere.
Not that any of this matters, since you're just here to troll anyway.
he pointed out that your dont seem to understand that the land ice doesnt expand in area, and in measured in volume typically.
this would be because land masses dont physically expand.
hence the sea ice (re: icebergs) is what expanded in area.
Oh for fuck sake.
the name of the fucking file is "http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/ant-sea-ice_fig.JPG"
its antarctic SEA ICE extent.
JFC you're an idiot.
no, you get by on bullshit and ignorance.
does that change the fact that Watts receives funding from the oil industry and their front groups from true to false?
and why you people seem to think that if you can challenge the challengers, everything is even, and cancels out.
you dont get to ignore that watts is a paid shill because the group pointing out his bias has a bias of their own.
if one volcano is to blame for all of west antarctica, why is no one talking about the ginormous volcano the size of a continent?
oh right: wattsupwiththat is a dedicated spewer of bullshit.
whats the going rate on these shills posts?
cant be much, considering how many you have to write each day.
wrong.
they are not skeptical.
that's the point:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
Skepticism is all about critical examination, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and the use of reason in examining controversial claims. Those who flatly deny the results of climate science do not partake in any of the above. They base their conclusions on a priori convictions. Theirs is an ideological conviction—the opposite of skepticism.
After hearing that the individuals in question did not accept the conclusions of climate change modelers at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other academic bodies, I asked them the simple question: “OK, what do your models predict?”
As you might expect, the response was silence.
If those who decry the claims of climate scientists cannot provide some sound empirical basis for their critiques of these claims and the data and models they are based on, then their denialism should be treated on the same footing as those who deny the results of evolutionary biology simply because they do not want to accept evolution.
To put climate deniers on the same footing as scientists, for whom skepticism is a central facet of their life work, is to do a great disservice to science, knowledge, and progress.
Ah the troll is back to say "lets be reasonable"...while presenting only two extreme scenarios (hint: its not a given that curbing global warming requires tanking the economy. the notion is a myth, a scaretactic of its own).
plus, if your only choices are "fuck up the environment" and "fuck up the economy", then you're doing it wrong.
"some people never learn"
Like you, who missed the part about the land ice melting far quicker than the sea ice is forming.
Bonus question: know what's causing the extra sea ice?
Answer: the melting land ice.
You see, the land ice is fresh water.
It flows into the ocean, which is salt water.
It changes the local salinity of the sea water, lowering it, which has the effect of raising the temperate it is capable of freezing at.
Thus, MORE SEA ICE.
It is a wholly expected and predicted part of climate science.
So before you put words in peoples mouths, you'd do well to learn what they actually said.
you got two choices: listening to experts who say the the science is THIS, or listening to non experts who say its not.
you're claiming that they are equally valid.
since that is your position, i suggest you see your mechanic next time you need medical attention, and bring your car to your doctor.
since after all, expert opinion isnt relevant, and they are both equally valid.
Ignoring the somewhat incoherence of your post, but responding to the parts were intelligible:
No where did i say the words "force people to not eat/sell beef". The solution to livestock's tremendous environmental impact doesn't automatically slide all the way to "no livestock ever". There is still plenty of room for better practices and better technology to reduce that impact.
Already there are pig farmers who work to capture the released methane, with varying levels of success. But they are working at it. Some sell it, as well as biofuel converted from their manure, for energy production. Others use it on site reducing their own carbon footprint to almost neutral.
But the idea that mankind MUST burn old dead things is foolish.
Again: The amount of energy from the sun that strikes the earth in ONE HOUR is more than all of humanity in all of our activities utilizes in an entire year. Capturing only a small fraction of that is enough to free the entire world of fossil fuels forever.
And it doesn't mean relegating third world countries to that status forever, either.
Some of the biggest and fastest adopters of solar, wind and other green power are the small and poor nations of the world that lack the infrastructure for a completely oil/gasoline powered economy. They are powering schools, connecting them to internet with it, providing educations their children never access to before. Powering hospitals providing higher levels of care than existed before. And so on.
Impossible you say? Only if you lack the imagination and the intestinal fortitude to make it happen. Because make no mistake: it IS happening, right now, around the world.
bah. stupid puter disconnected during post
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing. The entire statements are...
Myth:
CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)
The myth is not just stating that other things can be factor. It is stating that CO2 is not a factor. The myth is stating that CO2 doesn't influence temperatures. It claims as proof that because CO2 was higher before, and because there was an ice age, that it couldn't have been CO2. It's a classic straw man. The myth is wrongly implying that the scientific theory is that only CO2 is a factor. It then "disproves" its faulty assumption, instead of the actual science.
Science:
During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.
So really the science does not state that other things (like the sun) cannot be factors. Rather, it not only agrees that other things can be, but BECAUSE they can be, it alters the expected behavior and relationship and outcomes of the various factors. If solar output were comparable to today's, then YES the higher CO2 would have resulted in warmer temperatures in the LOP. But because solar output was lower the CO2 concentration required to achieve an outcome similar to today's would have been much higher, higher than the concentration was in the LOP, which is why glaciation was possible and occurred.
you are confusing attempted suicide rates, successful suicide rates.
one is a subset of the other.
and even in japan the number of attempts is far larger than the number of successes.
as for available statistics, that's EXACTLY what i was quoting.
no, and that's a moronic thing to say.
everyone who attempts suicide is serious about it, and crying for attention.
If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing. The entire statements are...
Myth:
CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2
concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been
exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth
temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)
The myth is not just stating that other things can be factor. It is stating that CO2 is not a factor. The myth is stating that CO2
doesn't influence temperatures. It claims as proof that because CO2 was higher before, and because there was an ice age, that it
couldn't have been CO2. It's a classic straw man. The myth is wrongly implying that the scientific theory is that only CO2 is a factor. It then
"disproves" its faulty assumption, instead of the actua
21x to be exact
you think being "watched" means they actually had eyes on him?
it means he's flagged in various databases if he buys plane ticket, particularly to leave the country, or purchases items that are also being "watched".
come on. the real world is like the Blacklist with unlimited agents and unlimited resources.
It's a cool show. James Spader is awesome in it.
But it's fantasy, just like your conception of what "watched" means.
Which is its the most common form of government in the world and no country has ever said "this aint working" and replaced it.
This stinks of shill.