Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Bingbong]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8400905.stm

Ohey.

Wait, wut?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

[Leif]

Again, as this thread continues to show, you have no concept of what "proof" is.

Stories from the BBC and Global Warming advocacy sites as well as Newsweek opinion pieces do not count as research, proof, or anything but conjecture.

To repeat:
THAT IS NOT PROOF


For starters, proof would be actual data produced by the people that actually collected the data and do not have massive information leaks that reveal they were conspiring to break the law and corrupt the reputations associated with their professions.

I just startd reading BBC and am already finding it far more fair and balanced than any major American news outlet. I'm going to check out al-Jazeera next.

While I understand your view of "fair and balanced" means airing terrorist videos, kidnapping randsoms, and execution videos as much as they talk about how Obama is so great, it isn't exactly the most credible news outlet available considering there is a decent chance its producers are in regular contact with Al Quada.

[Mizango]

Conservatives > Biologists.

[Leif]

Conservatives > Biologists.

Last time I checked, the only beef some conservatives have with biologists is when they conflict over the myth of evolution.

[Mizango]

myth of evolution.

lolgod.

[Leif]

Before we start debating even more make-believe science, let's stick to the one that is actually trying to quash economic prosperity.

[Leif]

Sir, you can't even do decent research. You don't get to insult the beliefs of many of my fellow conservatives while constantly proving that you are a talentless half-brain, incapable of finding objective information.

[Mizango]

Before we start debating even more make-believe..

Hey man, you're the one that brought god into it.

[Mizango]

Lief is a political stud, no one steps to him like that.

[pahnphoenix]

anyone who investigates an issue by trying to find proof of what they want to believe instead of unbiasedly trying to find truth should be marginalized and generally ignored. [unfunny] trolls should also be ignored.

[Kuya]

My God, they gave equal time to both viewpoints, not suppressing a new story when a more recent study contradicted an earlier report? Unheard of.

I just startd reading BBC and am already finding it far more fair and balanced than any major American news outlet. I'm going to check out al-Jazeera next.

Al Jazeera is basically the Arab BBC; great stuff.

[Leif]

Oh shut up already, you played-out jackass. Your entire premise for objecting to the idea of climate change is that scientific proof which goes against your beliefs is not proof. Data that doesn't agree with what you think is invalid. Scientists with findings counter to your beliefs are compromised.

You're not a conservative voice of reason, you're just a douche who's scared to be wrong on the internet.

Except the BBC and Newsweek etc are not research.

Get me the facts from the people who made the facts. That's all. Not hard. This is not unreasonable. This is not unfair. The burdon is not too high. This is simple. It's easy. It's super easy.

To repeat: Get the facts from the place that created the facts. Then post them here.

anyone who investigates an issue by trying to find proof of what they want to believe instead of unbiasedly trying to find truth should be marginalized and generally ignored.

I don't know who this is directed to, but right on sister!

[unfunny] trolls should also be ignored.

If my posts weren't so critically relevant and on-point, I would think you were talking to me.

[Cadsuane]

Last time I checked, the only beef some conservatives have with biologists is when they conflict over the myth of evolution.

Uh, that's a pretty big fucking beef to have actually, what with evolution being part of the bedrock for the entirety of modern biology, and embryology, and taxonomy, etc., etc.

[Max™]

When it comes to global warming, however, this is precisely why we’re headed off a cliff, why the Copenhagen talks that open this week, almost no matter what happens, will be a disaster. Because climate change is not like any other issue we’ve ever dealt with. Because the adversary here is not Republicans, or socialists, or deficits, or taxes, or misogyny, or racism, or any of the problems we normally face -- adversaries that can change over time, or be worn down, or disproved, or cast off. The adversary here is physics.

Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet. For two years now, we’ve been aware of just what that bottom line is: the NASA team headed by James Hansen gave it to us first. Any value for carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible "with the planet on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” That bottom line won’t change: above 350 and, sooner or later, the ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hydrological cycles are thrown off kilter, and so on.

And here’s the thing: physics doesn’t just impose a bottom line, it imposes a time limit. This is like no other challenge we face because every year we don’t deal with it, it gets much, much worse, and then, at a certain point, it becomes insoluble -- because, for instance, thawing permafrost in the Arctic releases so much methane into the atmosphere that we’re never able to get back into the safe zone. Even if, at that point, the U.S. Congress and the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee were to ban all cars and power plants, it would be too late.

This I completely agree with.

We didn't make things warm to the point they're at now, but we ARE tossing more fuel into a furnace which is running at or near maximum capacity, which is not smart.

[eunhye]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climate...e-to-a-typo/2/

Oh too funnay.

IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate (of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate. …

[Where] did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?

According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!

In other words, it appears that the immensely rapid decline of the Himalayan glaciers, so widely reported to be coming in 2035, was originally reported not to happen until 2350.

A flurry of corrections will no doubt be forthcoming.

[eunhye]

My favorite picture.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

[Leif]

That's the dumbest thing you've said in the last 45 seconds. Nevermind the fact that one of my responses to you was a clear gathering of our information on climate change. I'm going to let your ignoring that one slide

You brought news stories to the table. That is far from being considered conclusive evidence.

You have to put up the data itself from original sources because reports on those original sources are invalid? What kind of Glenn Beck bullshit? You're an asshole.

I'm an asshole? Really? Ever heard of the game 'Telephone'? This is not some unfair request. Original sources please.

Here, provide for me, from the original sources, mind you, the data to support these arguments of yours.

Burden of proof is on you. You have to show that the world is coming to an end. It's not my job to debunk baseless claims on an hourly basis. You are responsible for the arguments you make.

Keep in mind, going off of your criteria, anything which comes from a news agency or includes the word "said" in reference to a spokesperson, official, or expert is invalidated.

Yes. Is this truly unreasonable? I would argue not. First of all, spokespeople have no direct contact with the research, and as such, cannot be cross-examined (for more help as to whether the source is good, ask yourself it we could admit it in court). What news stories call climate change "experts" or "officials" may actually be the lunch lady who works at the climate change fabrication center. In addition, what these "experts" or "officials" say means nothing without the backing of clear scientific data.

So yes, it means that you are free to bring up statements by experts and officials, as long as they had contact with the data, and as long as their testimony is accompanied by factual data.

Am I using random scatterings of legal terms? Yes. Why? Because it's important to emphasize what is and is not valid to prove a point. If people just talk opinion (Ex. "It is a grave threat."... "How so?"... "The world will end in 25 years."... "How?" ... "Sea levels will rise?" ... "How do you know this?" ... "We have scientific data" ... "Can we see it?" ... "The world will end in 25 years" ... "You didn't answer the question." ... "Sea levels will rise")
then we factually get nowhere.

They also can't come from any source which has accepted funding from or is affiliated with conservative groups.

Good thing conservatives aren't in the business of climate change.

- The case against Global Warming
- The case against Evolution
- The case to invade Iraq
- The case against Universal Health Care

Since we're in a very interesting argument that I seem to be winning, let's not get distracted by those side issues.



Now, defend yourself. This means actual facts so I don't have to keep coming back here and lecturing you on how to find valid evidence and conduct basic research.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Leif, if you wrote a column about a topic and Ann Coulter wrote a column about the same topic, I'd love to see if I could tell the difference.

[Max™]

Grab their dicks after they read it out loud to you, Ann's is bigger.

[Heavencloud]

I don't feel like reading through all the stupid bickering, but is Leif really trying to say that global climate change is not being accelerated by humans?

Any simple environmental education shows us that humans are causing the 6th great extinction & are clearly GREATLY increasing the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. The clear scientific data is the FACT that earth is being warmed due to human activity, which is very easily measured. It takes little research & intuition to foresee what will happen if we don't stop producing these amounts of CO2... right?