By the by, just what in the bleeding fuck is a “global warming bully”?
For almost all of which, we weren’t here.
Someone impolite enough to insist that objective reality matters, and that the welfare of billions of people is more important than your right to cheap gas for your SUV.
What, “dirty fucking hippy” wasn’t good enough?
Perhaps people are finally realizing just how dated that sounds. People ranting about “hippies” always make me want to roll my eyes.
I prefer crunchies, much more descriptive.
You know the type - Liberal Arts major, music festival attendees with “Free Tibet” and “Visualize World Peace” and “Fight Global Warming” stickers on their ancient VW Microbus spewing oil fumes out the back who get stoned and talk about joining the Peace Corps to teach starving Africans how to appreciate modern dance better.
Actually, no, I don’t. I know a lot of the real people that the vapid stereotype is supposedly based upon.
There is an interesting aspect of Science. It has to be repeatable, measurable, and observable. This makes scientific publications pretty trustworthy. Because of peer review, articles submitted for publishing need to pass muster with the review boards before they can be published.
Yet the vast majority of articles support the theory. And a great amount of ink has been used on it.
Now, the conspiracy theorists on the right seem to think that all scientists are part of a looney bin left wing cabal. But scientists are just like every other profession, there are representatives of all walks of life. In fact, since genius often carries with it eccentricity, the outliers on the left and right tend to be even more extreme.
Let me tell you something else about scientists. They love to get published. The more prestigious the rag, the better. The more groundbreaking the topic, the better. With publishing comes grants, recognition, and respect among peers. If it’s blockbuster enough, they may even get recognition outside of scientific circles. They are a curious bunch, and if they start on a thread, they will not finish until they have seen where that thread leads to.
All of which leads me to my point. If a scientist where to find proof that the theory is a bunch of hooey, he/she would pounce on it! Even if his opinions had been different. Scientists are used to having the facts change their opinions. And publications would be thrilled to be the first to break the story that broke the theory. The scientist that pulled that off would forever become known as The Scientist That Proved It Wrong (or, in keeping with scientific shorthand, TSTPIT), and would get grants, awards, speaking tours, and hot smart chicks (or dudes)! Not only would there be scientific publishers banging on their door, but Time! Newsweek! Fox! NBC! It would be the scientific equivalent of a home run!
But that’s the thing. TSTPIT hasn’t shown up yet. And as the topic is studied more and more, the longer a legitimate counter argument has to appear, the less it looks like TSTPIT will ever show up. Not that it is out of the realm of probability, it just looks like the consensus is on the right path.
It depends how much certainty you are looking for and what you mean by “anything.” But anyway, the “Pascal’s Wager” issue doesn’t really bear on the point I was making.
Do you have a cite for that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I would like to know exactly what ice you are talking about.
I respectfully disagree. In science and elsewhere, people who go against popular beliefs are often ridiculed, villified, or otherwise dumped on. Eventually they may be vindicated, but the process can take a while.
In my opinion, TSTPIT is (metaphorically) here – people just don’t realize it yet. A few more years of flat or declining temperatures and people will start waking up.
I work at a supercomputing institute, and work with a large number of scientists and researchers. I’m trying to think of any of them that would actually give a crap if they were ridiculed, vilified, or otherwise dumped on. I suppose one of them is an emotional and nervous wreck, so maybe he’d fold like a cheap card table. But that is just my experience.
I think it would depend on how serious the ridicule, vilification, and/or dumping would be.
For example, my spouse is a scholar in the humanities, so I know that failing to suck up to the popular view in that area makes it much harder to get published and to get work.
I thought sure I posted a reply to this, wherein I largely agreed but expressed concern that the more extreme projections felt like BS to me. But it’s not here.
Maybe somewhere else on the internet, someone is wondering what I’m ranting about…
“Anything” is pretty vague, I agree. If the “consensus” models are correct about how the atmosphere works (and I don’t want to hijack this thread into another endless debate about consensus, hence the quotation marks), then by the time there is enough certainty to satisfy the reasonable skeptics (again, some very subjective terms), the time between emission reduction and temperature reduction will be too long for those who begin the emission reductions to see any meaningful change in temperature.
Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier comes to mind.
Greenland’s ice too.
And Antarctica.
It took me only a minute or two of googling to find those stories; there are plenty more. Because despite what deniers like you like to pretend, the writing is on the wall, and has been for years.
I don’t know what you mean by “extreme”, but every time scientists look they see more bad signs. Ice melting, permafrost melting; it looks more and more like we are headed for a worst case scenario, or close to it. Especially since we’ve put off doing anything, and put it off and put it off. By now, I suspect the deniers have one, we won’t be able to stop it, and in a decade or two or three we’ll see a full fledged world disaster. A “Florida underwater and California has an inland sea” level of disaster.
Yeah. So What? Where’s the proven cause and effect?
Can you quote the part of that article where it says that ice is melting which has been frozen for 4000 years or so?
Thanks in advance!!
Same question: Please quote the part of the article where it says the ice that’s melting in Greenland has been frozen for 4000 years.
Please quote the part of the article where it says the ice melting in Antartica has been frozen for 4000 years.
Thanks in advance!!!
Ah, yes, the argument that depsite all the climatalogical models it’s just PURE COINCIDENCE that all this is happening now, in this highly industrialized point in history. Just chance, that’s all. What would convince you, hmmm ? Nothing at all, I expect.
Why don’t YOU explain why the scientific consensus is wrong, and why the timing is so very suspicious ? Evil liberals with heat rays melting the ice ?
:rolleyes: I already DID. Because I knew you’d say that. Again :
The ice of Greenland is about 100,000 years old.
Antarctica has been frozen for millions of years.