**official** Environmentalists Do The Dumbest Things Thread

[SilentSnow 1]

Just because I believe in a higher power doesn't give you the right to question my extraordinary logic skills.Also: The reoccurring problem with SS is how confident that he is in an.y.thing. he says including, but certainly not limited to the fact, that the last 20 years are the hottest ever, all the while saying that millions of years of data is (and should be) used by the, now infamous, "real" scientists. And just for good measure, he says that temps from as recently as 100 years ago are unreliable.

Honestly. It's like talking to a belligerent third grader. No wonder this country is in such bad shape. I said this decade was the hottest in recorded history, not ever. Only the last 150 years was recorded. Before that temperatures are estimated using various measures. They do use millions of years of data, but only 150 years of recorded measurements. Less reliable does not mean "no idea". We can make reasonable inferences about past temperatures. And I'm not the one actively showing religious prejudice- see your comments about Mormons.

[brvheart 1,752]

You mean 4,000 years ago?

hahaha.(I'm not a young earther, like BG)

[donk4life 34]

You're talking to the wrong group. It is overwhelmingly global warming deniers who conflate local temperatures with global averages. Scientists use millions of years worth of data. The last 100 years of temperature data is of course more reliable than what came before. As for evidence, give me some specific examples.

Well, I think in large part most people (at least where I live) are still obstinate towards the idea of humans altering the chemical composition of the earth. So it's easier to cite examples to counter that argument.Even within periods where positive feedbacks caused cooling or warming of the earth there were always anomalies, sometimes lasting decades. But like I said, I'm not in the camp of firm deniers that humans haven't altered the planet. I guess the question for me becomes is how large of an impact are we having on it, given that many other possibilities for climate change/global warming can exist. That's what I meant by examples, since things like milkanovich cycles can greatly alter our climate. Even the atmosphere changes its composition without human interaction. But, we don't fully understand these concepts, so how much merit they hold I don't know.It's evident the earth has warmed the past 50 years, but I'm just not 100% ready to accept that humans are having the largest impact on the atmospheric processes and natural systems. I don't think 50 years of data stating the earth has warmed .8 degrees is enough to say humans are the biggest factor in its warming trend.. Who is to say the earth hasn't been on a warming trend since the Maunder Minimum? It's not out of the realm of possibility for the earth to fluctuate a few degrees, and we basically have no climate data during the 17th through 19th centuries. Which, in the scheme of things 200 years is nothing. But if we're going to make a big fuss over 100 years of data, than a lost 200 years of data becomes that much more important.

[brvheart 1,752]

And I'm not the one actively showing religious prejudice- see your comments about Mormons.

****ity ****. While I have NO. IDEA. why you are talking about Mormon in this post, you really didn't understand what I was posting if you think I was ripping on Mormons.

[Balloon guy 158]

hahaha.(I'm not a young earther, like BG)

Haha, he was at least a THOUSAND years off too!

[ShakeZuma 585]

Surely. Except for the fact that we already know that it's not nearly as hot as it was, according to real scientists, when the dinosaurs were around and the entire planet was a huge rain forest.

well I mean what do you expect? they were made up entirely of fossil fuels!

[Balloon guy 158]

well I mean what do you expect? they were made up entirely of fossil fuels!

Proving once again that vegans who refuse to hunt the prey God gave us deserve to starve in the cold without electricity or TV

[vbnautilus 48]

Well, I think in large part most people (at least where I live) are still obstinate towards the idea of humans altering the chemical composition of the earth.

I agree with most of your post. I think its clear we've altered the physical configuration of the earth, and its pretty obvious just by looking. This is beverly hills in 1918: and the same place now:In less than 100 years we've completely transformed the surface of the earth from something soft and porous to something hard and reflective. The question for me is how all these changes ripple out through the complex system that is the earth. It seems pretty naive to think that they don't in any way.

[Balloon guy 158]

I agree with most of your post. I think its clear we've altered the physical configuration of the earth, and its pretty obvious just by looking. This is beverly hills in 1918: and the same place now:In less than 100 years we've completely transformed the surface of the earth from something soft and porous to something hard and reflective. The question for me is how all these changes ripple out through the complex system that is the earth. It seems pretty naive to think that they don't in any way.

Plus I read somewhere that we put 4 gallons of clorox in the ocean...so that's been altered as well...you ever notice that the only Americans who think the earth is full are people in LA, NY or Chicago. The rest of the country has to drive through huge area os undeveloped land every day.BTW, a few years ago there was an interesting fact. Over 1/2 of LA county was completely undeveloped.That was within the last 10 years that was true.

[SilentSnow 1]

Well, I think in large part most people (at least where I live) are still obstinate towards the idea of humans altering the chemical composition of the earth. So it's easier to cite examples to counter that argument.Even within periods where positive feedbacks caused cooling or warming of the earth there were always anomalies, sometimes lasting decades. But like I said, I'm not in the camp of firm deniers that humans haven't altered the planet. I guess the question for me becomes is how large of an impact are we having on it, given that many other possibilities for climate change/global warming can exist. That's what I meant by examples, since things like milkanovich cycles can greatly alter our climate. Even the atmosphere changes its composition without human interaction. But, we don't fully understand these concepts, so how much merit they hold I don't know.It's evident the earth has warmed the past 50 years, but I'm just not 100% ready to accept that humans are having the largest impact on the atmospheric processes and natural systems. I don't think 50 years of data stating the earth has warmed .8 degrees is enough to say humans are the biggest factor in its warming trend.. Who is to say the earth hasn't been on a warming trend since the Maunder Minimum? It's not out of the realm of possibility for the earth to fluctuate a few degrees, and we basically have no climate data during the 17th through 19th centuries. Which, in the scheme of things 200 years is nothing. But if we're going to make a big fuss over 100 years of data, than a lost 200 years of data becomes that much more important.

Here's something that talks about other evidence for global warming besides just warming and how we know humans are causing it-http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-kno...le-graphic.htmlHere's one about Milankovitch cycles- http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-t...ntermediate.htmMaunder minimum-http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-in...ntermediate.htmAre temperature estimates reliable?http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-w...ntermediate.htmMy problem with much of the deniers is that they are deliberately ignorant. They have zero interest in learning more(or even the basics) about global warming. They just angrily repeat the same easily refuted arguments again and again and again. There are some legitimate skeptics out there, but they are pretty rare, and most of their objections already assume some level of global warming is going on.

[BaseJester 1]

I think the problem will be addressed by the normal forces of nature.

[SilentSnow 1]

I think the problem will be addressed by the normal forces of nature.

The normal forces of nature are murder, disease and starvation. No matter what, our society is eventually going to be sustainable. Liberals are just trying to get us there in a way that avoids the "natural" way.

[Balloon guy 158]

The normal forces of nature are murder, disease and starvation. No matter what, our society is eventually going to be sustainable. Liberals are just trying to get us there in a way that avoids the "natural" way.

So that's why you lean so hard Communist/Atheist forms of government.They are the most natural to you...

[SilentSnow 1]

So that's why you lean so hard Communist/Atheist forms of government.They are the most natural to you...

You really need to work on reading more than one line of a post.What part of "avoid the forces of nature" don't you understand?As for atheistic form of government, it doesn't exist unless you are talking about a government that is not a theocracy.

[donk4life 34]

Here's something that talks about other evidence for global warming besides just warming and how we know humans are causing it-http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-kno...le-graphic.htmlHere's one about Milankovitch cycles- http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-t...ntermediate.htmMaunder minimum-http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-in...ntermediate.htmAre temperature estimates reliable?http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-w...ntermediate.htmMy problem with much of the deniers is that they are deliberately ignorant. They have zero interest in learning more(or even the basics) about global warming. They just angrily repeat the same easily refuted arguments again and again and again. There are some legitimate skeptics out there, but they are pretty rare, and most of their objections already assume some level of global warming is going on.

Well one can't deny the temperature of the planet is rising. But from what I understand the first article is only taking into account LW radiation losses in the CO2 band. However, total LW radiation emission into space hasn't been reduced, and that's what effects the heat engine of the planet. The only issue I have with the other articles is we're basing a lot of that information on assumptions about paleoclimates, milankovitch cycles, etc. We really do not grasp these concepts and I just don't know how much validity they have in an argument for global warming. If we accept these theories, than while the planet has been fluctuating in and out of glacial periods for 500,000 years, they are merely oscillations since the planet has been steadily warming for the past 5 million years. But once again, the validity behind these arguments is up for debate. I will say I am a skeptic about the MWP. There are so many theories out there, all of which cherry pick evidence to fit their mold about the period that I really don't know whether to believe it matched the warming period we have today, was caused by solar irradiance, or wasn't global at all and was a merely a regional anomaly. We're basing most of that off of North American climate data, and the evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is widely contested. Even the date at which it occurred varies from about 900 to 1200 C.E. There's just so many factors that can change the temperature and climate of the planet. Even Northern and Southern oscillations cause teleconnections which give a rise to SSTs and melting of glaciers. I have no doubt there is anthropogenic fingerprint on the atmosphere, but like I said I'm not fully convinced a rise in CO2 is the absolute cause of a change in our heat engine. In all honesty, if there was going to be one thing that effected our planet the most I'd say it was the sun and our position, tilt, and wobble relative to it.Really, the problem with arguing about climate change is there's soooooo much funding out there for researching climate change nowadays that basically anyone with any interest in it can do research, post whatever crap they want and project wrong ideas into their readership.

[vbnautilus 48]

you ever notice that the only Americans who think the earth is full are people in LA, NY or Chicago. The rest of the country has to drive through huge area os undeveloped land every day.

Now it makes sense. You don't care what happens to the environment since you already live in a climate that barely supports life. Why would you care if its a degree or six hotter?

I think the problem will be addressed by the normal forces of nature.

For instance, by raising sea levels enough to wipe out the creatures who caused it?

[Balloon guy 158]

Now it makes sense. You don't care what happens to the environment since you already live in a climate that barely supports life. Why would you care if its a degree or six hotter?

As long as its a dry heat...

[Nikki_N 17]

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man...

[LongLiveYorke 38]

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man...

[SilentSnow 1]

1.Well one can't deny the temperature of the planet is rising. But from what I understand the first article is only taking into account LW radiation losses in the CO2 band. However, total LW radiation emission into space hasn't been reduced, and that's what effects the heat engine of the planet. 2.The only issue I have with the other articles is we're basing a lot of that information on assumptions about paleoclimates, milankovitch cycles, etc. We really do not grasp these concepts and I just don't know how much validity they have in an argument for global warming. If we accept these theories, than while the planet has been fluctuating in and out of glacial periods for 500,000 years, they are merely oscillations since the planet has been steadily warming for the past 5 million years. But once again, the validity behind these arguments is up for debate. I will say I am a skeptic about the MWP. There are so many theories out there, all of which cherry pick evidence to fit their mold about the period that I really don't know whether to believe it matched the warming period we have today, was caused by solar irradiance, or wasn't global at all and was a merely a regional anomaly. We're basing most of that off of North American climate data, and the evidence in the Southern Hemisphere is widely contested. Even the date at which it occurred varies from about 900 to 1200 C.E. 3.There's just so many factors that can change the temperature and climate of the planet. Even Northern and Southern oscillations cause teleconnections which give a rise to SSTs and melting of glaciers. I have no doubt there is anthropogenic fingerprint on the atmosphere, but like I said I'm not fully convinced a rise in CO2 is the absolute cause of a change in our heat engine. In all honesty, if there was going to be one thing that effected our planet the most I'd say it was the sun and our position, tilt, and wobble relative to it.4.Really, the problem with arguing about climate change is there's soooooo much funding out there for researching climate change nowadays that basically anyone with any interest in it can do research, post whatever crap they want and project wrong ideas into their readership.

1.You want LW radiation emission into space, otherwise that means the heat is being absorbed by the atmosphere and the rest of the earth.2.If you want you can ignore most of those issues. The main purpose of all those studies is to produce a model that properly calibrates the effect of CO2, water vapor, methane and other greenhouse gases on the climate. If the models are accurate, then we can assume that the assumptions about the more uncertain issues are basically correct. Keep in mind that uncertainty works both ways. -Models have significantly underestimated arctic melting, which means there might be more warming than predicted in the future once arctic ice isn't around to reflect heat.-Pollution has masked some warming lately, which means that true warming might be somewhat higher than the current measurements. -There are X-factors that are not in any model. For example, if the clathrate gun hypothesis is correct, then global warming would be way worse than currently predicted. -We have seen more floods, droughts, heat waves, large hurricanes and tornados than global warming models would have predicted in the last decade. Either it was a pretty unlucky ten years, or climate models are underestimating the amount of destabilization that is going to happen. 3.The sun's energy has been at unusually low levels the last decade, with of course temperatures at record highs. The evidence seems to show that the sun is a trivial factor. 4.I don't think this characterizes the climate research field at all. They are a legitimate scientific field with the same scientific methods and checks and balances as any other field. The main difference is that any question that ever arises gets publicized, whereas in most other science fields the public only pays attention to what the consensus opinion is. It is a myth that there is a data set/better alternate explanation out there that the climate community is ignoring.The two most important questions are----Do the models correctly predict the temperature changes we see? So far, they do. If anything they have slightly underestimated the amount of warming going on. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-mo...ntermediate.htm---How much damage is the amount of predicted warming going to do? This one is harder to answer. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-war...s-negatives.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animal...bal-warming.htmI would say the biggest threat is agriculture. Climate change destabilizes the world in various ways, most of which would hurt crop production. You can also throw in trillions of dollars in losses due to destabilized or more extreme weather. Sea level rise is not as important as long as you are willing to rebuild many of the world's cities, costing trillions of dollars more. But I guess all this is academic. We could theoretically do a lot to alleviate the damage from climate change, but we won't. Currently we are on pace to to essentially nothing, and it's hard to see that changing due to ignorance and human nature in general. Future generations will hate us, and with good reason.

[Balloon guy 158]

You do know that www.skepticalscience.org has already been shown to be a propaganda site?Using them as a reference automatically makes your points irrelevant.

[hblask 1]

Just some info, without comment:and this:

In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.

[SilentSnow 1]

You do know that www.skepticalscience.org has already been shown to be a propaganda site?Using them as a reference automatically makes your points irrelevant.

Link?Sorry to break it to you, but skepticalscience is just repeating the conclusions of most climatologists. Is there a single specific fact on that site that you dispute? If so, we can discuss it.

[donk4life 34]

The problem is you're continually using a website whose agenda is to attack skeptics of global warming. Of course the articles in there are going to have selected specific pieces of evidence which best fits their agenda. For every article posted on that website I'm sure there is evidence to counter it. I e-mailed my climatology professor about it last night and he told me to be weary of anything posted on that website, and he's a global-warming believer. I don't doubt Cook is using reputable sources and information, but it's going to be twisted and cherry-picked that you have to take it with a grain of salt. There's viable arguments to counter the CO2 lag behind argument, the CO2 increase arguments, almost any global warming argument there is going to be a counter argument to it, and they're not completely out of line either. Hell, even a simply graph like Henry's could very well counter that we're the main cause of global warming. We just don't have enough recorded data (and I'm not saying paleoclimate data) to accurately predict anything. We may very well be in an anomaly period with rapidly increasing temperatures resulting from some non-anthropogenic fingerprint (although, there was a decade where temperature rises halted while C02 emission continued to increase). It's just hard to discuss other sides to the climate change debate when you're going to reference the one site whose sole purpose is to dispel any skepticism of global warming.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

It's annoying when people blindly dismiss websites as "having an agenda" and therefore they are automatically as bad or biased as any other site with an agenda.SkepticalScience.com is quite good. It's mainly a FAQ for climate change with links to the supporting science. It's paints a very complete picture and is quite thorough.