Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crankster
Trad climber
South Lake Tahoe, CA
|
|
Global warming skeptics are blathering idiots says Rep. DeFazio. I think that's accurate.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
I think the pink brings out his eyes
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
how about you show yours, Chef?
you seem to be focused on everyone's asses... it's kind of creepy.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Catching up on reading that has piled up in my mailbox over the holidays ... this quote from the 24 Dec issue of Eos (24 Dec). It's Howard Epstein of UVA, in connection with the 2013 Arctic Report Card.
The Arctic is not like Vegas. What happens in the Arctic doesn't stay in the Arctic.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
And speaking of pithy quotes, Bad Astronomer Phil Plait offers this viral tweet from Justine @nerdyjewishgirl:
Re: global warming and the cold weather
"Liberals keep telling me the Titanic is sinking but my side of the ship is 500 feet in the air."
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
And while I'm collecting cool stuff ... upthread Ed mentioned sensitivity, challenging others who have been tossing that term around to define it. Of course they can't if they're parroting blogs.
If you are more scientifically literate but secretly not sure if you could define it either, or you just want to read a decent summary of what is and isn't agreed in recent sensitivity research, I can recommend this 2 Jan post by Mann & Schmidt at Realclimate. An excerpt:
Implications
Last year, the IPCC assessment dropped the lower bound on the expected range of climate sensitivity slightly, going from 2-4.5ºC in AR4 to 1.5-4.5ºC in AR5. One of us (Mike), mildly criticized this at the time.
Other estimates that have come in since AR5 (such as Schurer et al.) support ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] values similar to the CMIP5 mid-range, i.e. ~3ºC, and it has always been hard to reconcile a sensitivity of only 1.5ºC with the paleo-evidence (as we discussed years ago).
However, it remains true that we do not have a precise number for the ECS. Sherwood et al’s results give weight to higher values than some other recent estimates based on transient estimates (e.g. Otto et al. (2013)), but it should be kept in mind that there is a great asymmetry in risk between the high and low end estimates. Uncertainty cuts both ways and is not our friend. If the climate indeed turns out to have the higher-end climate sensitivity suggested by here, the impacts of unmitigated climate change are likely to be considerably greater than suggested by current best estimates.
 See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/a-bit-more-sensitive/#sthash.TqvsVa7X.dpuf
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Suck on that, Chief Running Mouth.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Chiole's record-cold-proves-global-warming is a good illustration of why most of the public has decided the alarmists are about as credible as a Three-Card Monte dealer.
The dealers and the alarmists are both actually pretty good at what they do and it's not easy to trace all their tricks. But sooner or later, most people perceive that the game is rigged, then they get bored, then they move on.
Global warming is already seeming kind of 90s and 00s.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chiole's record-cold-proves-global-warming
Did you read that with blahblahvision? I don't know of any scientist who has claimed that this record cold "proves" global warming, that's not how science works (as Ed tirelessly points out) and it's certainly not true. It sounds more like someone's cartoony vision of science, though.
I have seen a number of discussions noting, quite sensibly, that the record cold does not somehow disprove global warming, or even argue against it. Don't think I've made any claims to know causes of the cold spell myself, and there are interesting discussions going on (e.g., Francis v. Trenberth) about details -- for instance, whether Arctic change is a cause or effect.
why most of the public has decided the alarmists are about as credible as a Three-Card Monte dealer. More blahblahvision. Over than half the US public believes that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. And more than half think that most scientists agree on this point. That's way short of the consensus strength among scientists, but way far from the blahblahvision that "most of the public" holds some negative view of the great majority of scientists, who in blahblahvision are "alarmists."
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
More blahblahvision. More than half the US public believes that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. And more than half think that most scientists agree on this point. That's way short of the consensus strength among scientists, but way far from the blahblahvision "most of the public" holds some negative view of scientists, or "alarmists" as scientists appear in blahblahvision.
More than half the country says they believe in angels too!
My sense is that very few politicians push for actual policy changes that may affect human-caused climate change, as opposed to giving lip service to it, in the same way that politicians say "God bless America."
If politicians believed that a significant percentage of the electorate wanted things like carbon taxes or even just an adjustment to the gas tax to take into account inflation, we'd have them, or least serious debate about them.
It's pretty hard to dispute that the low federal gas tax shows how much politicians and voters really care about GW--almost zilch.
Anyway, it's not just my perception that the public is decreasingly interested in GW, that's what the surveys show, at least as far as I can tell in my 1 minute of Googling I've allocated to this. See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/02/polls-suggest-publics-interest-in-climate-change-is-waning/
(I didn't cherry pick the story, but if there's contrary evidence that public interest in GW is in fact increasing, what can I say, I'm just reporting my perception backed up with quick fact checking that appears to support that.)
And I think I've got you on the gas tax!
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
I fixed your link!
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
Hey
I want to see Fort Mental's spouse!
Have to see what I'm up against, yes?
;)
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
Or, are you just making a vein trolling attempt at getting some attention, again.
that's my BF, dummy.
I am curious to see Fort Mental's spouse cuz I have a crush on him. DUH.
this is a better pic, btw...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 9, 2014 - 11:03am PT
|
Posting opinions from.... MSNBC TV now?
The Liberals version of FOXNEWS.
The difference, The Chief, is that Fox News has been shown to distort facts, create "facts," and hit the top of the charts of the Pants-on-Fire awards for lying.
If you had a match on which network told the most untruths, MSNBC wouldn't rank, as Fox News skyrocketed on the chart.
Go ahead, try to prove otherwise.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
In yet another DK moment, blahblah confidently makes a false statement,
most of the public has decided the alarmists are about as credible as a Three-Card Monte dealer. Since it really is false he can't back that up but goes off on tangents, the first being
More than half the country says they believe in angels too! Here blahblah kicks an own goal. There is a core overlap between folks who believe in angels, and who don't believe scientists about climate change. I haven't seen data to test that climate/angels overlap myself, somebody must have it, but here's one I can vouch for that's not too far away: 67% of those who believe climate change is not happening also believe that humans were created by God within the past 10,000 years. And 42% of those who believe climate is changing mainly for natural reasons (compared with 23% of those who believe it is changing mainly because of human activities) also hold that 10,000-year belief.
the public is decreasingly interested in GW I think it's roughly stable with some variation tied particularly in economic conditions; in hard times of course folks have more immediate priorities (Brulle et al. 2012). But "decreasingly interested" is not what you actually said in that silly declaration about card dealers, which I called.
And I think I've got you on the gas tax! blahblahvision strikes again. Where do you imagine you saw me say something about public approval of the gas tax? If were to comment on this I might say that more than 80% oppose the idea of, say, a $.50/gallon tax to fight global warming. And I could back that up.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Talk about an over education and detachment from reality, you really take the cake with your response to Blah Blah Larry. You really should get out of your cave, away from false intellectual reinforcement by your fellow jihadists, and talk to some real folks rather than writing about their lack of understanding due to lack of education. You and your fellows are the joke of the nation and you are truly living in la la land if you think other wise.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!