Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

SF bay area
Mar 6, 2014 - 11:22am PT
Because the same temp increase requires doubling of CO2. That means for the same raw CO2 emission, the earlier emission has a greater impact than a later one, and we are already .8C towards the 2C threshold.

Mar 6, 2014 - 11:41am PT
Go away, Chief Pinocchio.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 6, 2014 - 11:49am PT
While perusing the blogs i came across this press release and synopsis of a just released book. The author claims we may be entering into a period of "civilizational exhaustion", where our irrational fears may result in civilization making monumental fear borne mistakes about energy mixes powering the future on a solar induced cooling world. The synopsis explains better than i can of what i have feared for sometime. Were at a crossroads, down one road lies perils to match the culturally ingrained negativity, down the other lies a world of evolving opportunity limited only by the degree we optimistically work for it.

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 6, 2014 - 11:50am PT
Go away, Chief Pinocchio.
Are you kidding?
This is the only attention he gets; he'll never leave.

Just greasemonkey the morons, and it cuts out 90% of the drivel.

If you guys would stop quoting the morons, it would be 100%

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Mar 6, 2014 - 11:58am PT
You approached your off width goals of the past with nothing but visions of the myriad of ways you might fail, i presume professor. Get off your high horse amigo, optimism opens entire worlds of opportunity unavailable to the closed mind.

Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 6, 2014 - 12:15pm PT
What I mean to say, is that if you have a pre-existing opinion, you can Google for ten minutes and find numerous websites and blogs that will agree with you, despite the truth.

If I am paranoid, like some of the recent posts here on this thread, you can go find a shitload of "information" which agrees with you.

This leads to a BIG problem with the internet. Many blog posts or statements may be totally untrue. Total gibberish. However, if you go to Google and have a pre-existing opinion, you will find a lot of crappy information that just happens to agree with you.

It is a common problem that is solved by the scientific method. Meaning: be very leery of information on the internet, and try to find the true experts in a field of study.

Argument from authority carries little weight. There are no authorities in science. There are only experts. So try to find the experts.

With climate change, right off the bat I see the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS is the best collection of experts in this country. Here is a link to their statement regarding climate change:

I am not a climate expert. I am an expert on depositional environments of clastic and carbonate rocks. These paleo depositional environments are controlled by the climate at the time of deposition, among other influences.

I can point out two large scale climate "hot houses" during the recent (post Cambrian) past. Also, the amount of CO2 can and has been reconstructed through time, with a fair degree of accuracy. I know that the late Mesozoic was very hot. That is easy. You just map the rock record at a certain point in time. Distribution of tropical plant fossils and various invertebrate fossils was controlled by climate.

So I know that it has happened before, and I know that the CO2 level during the Cretaceous was high.

Just Google "Cretaceous Thermal Maximum."

If you really want to get into it, you can start reading about ocean acidification and global anoxic events. These anoxic events are responsible for the carbon rich shales which sourced the worlds oil and gas accumulations during the Jurassic and Cretaceous.

Mar 6, 2014 - 12:27pm PT
Base104 -- "What I mean to say, is that if you have a pre-existing opinion,
you can Google for ten minutes and find numerous websites and blogs that will agree with you, despite the truth."

This holds so true for a lot of stuff being discussed on this forum.

This why research is so important.

Not that we just do a 5 to 10 minute googling and then have our immediate "Eureka" moment ("I have the answer!!!").

Some of this stuff takes years to give one an honest understanding ......


Mar 6, 2014 - 12:41pm PT
**This why research is so important.

Some of this stuff takes years to give one an honest understanding ......**

Yes and yes. It is a Captain Obvious remark to any that understands the scientific process. No offense meant to you duck. That is what I like about this thread. There are many posts that contain this type of quality, likewise, many that are just noise. If you have this understanding and humility a lot can be learned.
raymond phule

Mar 6, 2014 - 12:51pm PT

The more negativity & fear that can be instilled amongst the masses of sheep, the better.

I guess that you talk about rick sumner. He is definitely the person on this thread that is most afraid of the future and he also try say to everyone else that they also should be afraid. I guess that the sheep are you and the rest of the know it all because they read some blogs.

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Mar 6, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
thank you

several good posts here

it does take a lot of time and effort to sort out reality, and i really appreciate those of you making honest attempts to understand

we seem to be in situations requiring urgent smart decision making while deluged with obfuscated advice

it is not worthwhile to lock into a limited view of reality and then use it to ridicule others who are trying to learn and understand

it's a bit like being committed in a blizzard up a long steep ice gulley that is obviously building up to avalanche, while noticing possible escape routes up a few challenging off-width cracks on the sidewalls
Wade Icey

Trad climber
Mar 6, 2014 - 01:14pm PT
there you go making assumptions with no basis in fact...

Trad climber
Mar 6, 2014 - 02:06pm PT


Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 6, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
The stupidity, ignorance, and complete lack of critical thinking skills displayed by folks on this thread would be funny, if it weren't so sad that those folks get to vote.

They seem to think their opinion based on ignorance and misinformation is just as valid as expert understanding based on a lifetime of study and investigation.

Mar 6, 2014 - 02:35pm PT
Vote and breed...some have spawn.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
Mar 6, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
well CHEF go ahead and assume anything you want...have a nice day.

Social climber
Mar 6, 2014 - 03:06pm PT
This - the straight poop...

Gym climber
Mar 6, 2014 - 03:25pm PT
Dave Kos

Social climber

Mar 5, 2014 - 05:48pm PT
Whatever you think of Snopes' analysis (and it's bullshit to me--"create" and "invent" are nearly, if not completely, synonymous in the context of the quote), it sure isn't black-and-white that any reputable "fact checker" could simply label as true or false.

Did Steve Jobs create the iPhone?

Yes. Sorta, at least.
From a quick search, I see he's a named inventor on at least one of the design patents that was at issue in the famous Apple v. Samsung patent wars. (A design patent protects a device's appearance, rather than its functionality, so maybe he just invented the way they look or looked, not sure about that.)
See design patent D504,889. I also see Jobs is a named inventor on scores of Apple patents, but I don't know which ones may relate to iPhones. (If anyone has an iPhone and is curious, he or she can check to see if the packaging includes a list of patents--they frequently do--and we can cross check.)

No patents issued to your hero Al Gore, but that's fine, he didn't really claim to have invented the Internet (just to have "created" it), and if you don't like that, well some guy who maybe did create the Internet thinks Al's swell, and he did popularize (but not "invent" or "create") the term "Information Superhighway" (which has now been unpopularized), and you're all just a bunch of meanies for picking on such a great guy who's just trying to save the world form GLOBAL WARMING (and make more-than-a-few million in the process as in influence peddler).

And you would have us read your version of "Snopes" to figure out what's going on with the climate? LMFAO!!

Gym climber
Mar 6, 2014 - 04:10pm PT
Everyone knows Jobs stole the iPhone design from Sony...

Just like we all know Jobs stole iOS from Xerox.

Not quite everyone--someone forget to tell the frekaing judge and jury that gave Apple hundreds of millions in damages based on those patents!!
(But yeah, in reality, the judge and jury likely are idiots, at least as far as patents/technology/industrial design are concerned.)

I'm not even really sure what Kos was getting at--just tried to answer his questions as, for better or worse, the USPTO has seen fit to quality me to represent patent (and trademark) applicants before it.


Social climber
An Oil Field
Mar 6, 2014 - 05:04pm PT

Yes. On a topic as hot as this one, with a massive amount of research going on, the National Academy of Sciences is the best synopsis of science that you will find. They put out their first statement saying that climate was changing, and that change was caused by humans, in 2005 or something.

Since then, the evidence has been mounting and the science is better. The people who oppose this science tend to fall into groups with similar political philosophies. That is stupid, because mother nature doesn't ask you which primary you can vote in.

The methods that I see used by opponents TENDS (not everybody) to be similar in various political groups..

1) The climate isn't warming in almost all areas.

2) OK. The climate is warming, but it is natural variability.

3) CO2 is not causing global warming, and its levels are not rising

4) OK. CO2 does cause global warming, but it all comes from volcanoes. It doesn't come from humans burning fuels.

There are more, and you will often see people using more than one of the methods described above, even if they are inconsistent with each other.

5) You have the angry ignorant. You know the type. They don't like science at all, and just post insulting Memes and Photoshop jobs, accompanied by ad hominem attacks.

On the Climate Change side, you can also see wrongful interpretations of the science. Kind of like the Keystone Pipeline.

Ha ha. The Ed Show is on in the background at this very moment and he is crying about the danger to the aquifer. I want to slap my forehead. He just fumbled the name of the Ogallala Aquifer. I'm sitting on that aquifer right now.

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 6, 2014 - 05:14pm PT
Sitting on it or over it? There is only one way to tell... are your pants getting wet?

My favorite is: 7) Doesn't matter if climate is changing or not. There is nothing puny humans can do to change the Earth. If anyone even suggests reducing our adverse impacts it is fear mongering and anyone who agrees we should reduce our adverse impacts is a mindless conformist.... BECAUSE I SAID SO.

Awesome sketch... another cherry picked local weather report to dispute climate change... that one never gets old. Straight from "wattsupwiththat" complete with two legends, both of which contain shades of gray.
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews