You know, we should chat about global warming

[Lobohan]

Doorhinge doesn’t know how to reason. He supposes that the “fact” that the IPCC had 28 years to convince people and hasn’t is an rock solid evidence that they are wrong.

Like it simply can’t process for him that maybe public opinion can be against something and that thing can still be the right thing to do. (I’m not saying that the public is against doing something about climate change, but DH thinks it is)

Aside from the false facts and misinformation he’s working with, he doesn’t even know how to use them properly to form a conclusion.

Doorhinge’s process:

1. The IPCC had 28 years.
2. People still think it’s a hoax.
3. There is no need to do anything about global warming.

2 is misinformation, and 3 doesn’t follow from 2. His brain is a mess.

[Colibri]

@Lobohan

2. His brain is a mess.

It’s like trying to teach algebra to an aardvark.

[BrainGlutton]

@El_Kabong

No, but you could ask for a title change. How about “You know, we should chat about how liberals love Stalin”? I think that would be all kinds of rewarding.

We do not! It’s strictly physical!

[BrainGlutton]

@magellan01

That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read. Is that an Onion-like thing?

This is.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Meanwhile, Exxon is being investigated for securities fraud for deceiving investors and the public about climate change, link:

As early as 1977 – roughly a decade before researcher James Hansen testified before Congress to alert the world to the dangers of climate change – a senior company scientist warned executives that “there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels,”

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to connect the dots between Exxon, right-wing politics, and politicized climate-change deniers.

[Morgenstern]

Climate change is killing our sex drive…

No really…

Climate change is killing our sex drive, bringing down U.S. birth rate, study...

Short version. People screw less on hot days.

Now, that’s science for ya.

[Kimstu]

@Morgenstern

People screw less on hot days.

Now, that’s science for ya.

I believe it was a 1948 publication by C. Porter that first drew the attention of researchers to this phenomenon.

[Smeghead]

@Morgenstern

Climate change is killing our sex drive…

No really…

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/health/climate-change-sex-drive-birth-rate/
Short version. People screw less on hot days.

Now, that’s science for ya.

Good. A population reduction would be a good place to start.

[watchwolf49]

Global warming will force us to use more vowels?

“How The Climate Can Shape The Way We Speak” on NPR’s Weekend Edition today.

[BrainGlutton]

@doorhinge

Oh my! Parmesan had been associated with Al Gore. Little wonder that she’s depressed.

Surprised that took five pages.

**Gore’s Law

Gore’s Law** states, as coined by Laanta in March 2008:

“As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches 1.”[1]

Immediately after making the post, commenters proceeded to nitpick at Gore — thus proving his point.

Why Gore’s Law is relevant

The problem with attacking Al Gore is that he has absolutely fuck all to do with the science of climate change, no matter his carbon footprint,[2] PMRC involvement, Manbearpig, etc. You really can’t find a better instance of poisoning the well.

Common examples and the reasons they are fallacious include:

• Al Gore is a Democrat.

  Even if this was a problem, association fallacy. It’s the equivalent of a leftie rejecting calls for alternative energy because T. Boone Pickens wants it too.

• Al Gore stands to profit from climate change mitigation. Conflict of interest!

  If you see Al Gore making money as a bad thing, this is an appeal to motive and an argument from adverse consequences.

• There are x number of errors made in Al Gore’s film.

  Fallacy fallacy. Just because a sub-set of his arguments could be proven wrong doesn’t mean that AGW isn’t happening.[3] Gore is a politician with zero academic expertise in climatology;[4] all he did was put the scientific consensus into Hollywood format.

In Laanta’s words: “Al Gore could be short, evil and fond of child sacrifice. He could emit more CO2 snoring at night than Christopher Monckton does all year. And his movie could be even more inaccurate than The Great Global Warming Swindle. But this wouldn’t change a thing.”[1]

Was An Inconvenient Truth Nobel-worthy? It’s certainly debatable. While Gore was awarded for popularizing the issue to the general public, others believe he received too much credit because the data involved was never his in the first place.[5]

[inscrutable]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Meanwhile, Exxon is being investigated for securities fraud for deceiving investors and the public about climate change, link:

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to connect the dots between Exxon, right-wing politics, and politicized climate-change deniers.

…so what difference would it have made if the “truth” about global warming had come out in 1977? Maybe there would have been slightly more aggressive cafe standards…

[Lumpy]

@inscrutable

…so what difference would it have made if the “truth” about global warming had come out in 1977? Maybe there would have been slightly more aggressive cafe standards…

If the desperate need for alternatives to fossil fuels had been clear earlier, would it be too much to hope that the anti-nuclear scare after Three Mile Island wouldn’t have shut down development and building of nuclear power plants?

[doorhinge]

@BrainGlutton

Surprised that took five pages.

(post shortened)

Hahahaha. The linked article mentioned Al Gore. A climate scientist who was associated with Al Gore is depressed that many of the public finds her research to be unbelievable. I’m shocked. And who is “Laanta” and why do you believe he/she is so obsessed with Al Gore?

*Gore’s Law

Gore’s Law states, as coined by Laanta in March 2008:

Quote:
“As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches 1.”[1]

Why Gore’s Law is relevant

The problem with attacking Al Gore is that he has absolutely fuck all to do with the science of climate change, no matter his carbon footprint,[2] PMRC involvement, Manbearpig, etc. You really can’t find a better instance of poisoning the well.*

I’m shocked. Al Gore has absolutely fuck all to do with the science of climate change and yet Madeleine Thomas chose to associate Camille Parmesan with Al Gore. Little wonder that Parmesan is depressed.

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

For posterity, using Al Gore with no context about anything he has said, like if he was the bogey man, is a move made by deniers who try to inject politics into the issue.

The way you referred to Gore is really just like a Godwin, just a symptom that guys like you do not have any ideas left, so the personification and political cards are played, regardless if it was noted **for years already **that the ones that do play those cards nowadays are just branding themselves as partisan, no science, useless idiots for the fossil fuel industry.

You’re missing the point. Camille Parmesan is depressed. Why is she depressed? Is it because Al Gore has made a fortune pushing the CO2 is evil agenda while Parmesan only recieved an atta-boy and a share of the Nobel money? Is it because so many people find Parmesan’s work to be unbelievable? Is it because Parmesan invested heavily in Carbon Credit futures?

What can you do to make Parmesan feel better? You could send her a get-well-soon card and tell her it’s going to be OK. You could also send her a dozen roses to represent your desire to cut down any plant that produces CO2. (Get it? Any “plant” that produces CO2. )

[doorhinge]

@Colibri

It’s like trying to teach algebra to an aardvark.

The current cycle of global warming began before the end of the last ice age. That doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand?

[Colibri]

@doorhinge

The current cycle of global warming began before the end of the last ice age. That doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand?

You could hardly demonstrate more clearly that you have zero understanding of the issues involved. The current extremely rapid anthropogenic warming has nothing much to do with long-term climate cycles.

I’m sure this has been explained to you any number of times. The fact that you still bring it up just emphasizes your idiocy.

By the way, doorhinge, do you think that the theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity are correct?

[BrainGlutton]

@doorhinge

And who is “Laanta” . . .

See here.

[BrainGlutton]

@doorhinge

The current cycle of global warming began before the end of the last ice age. That doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand?

Because it’s not true. The current cycle of global warming began with the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

[Lobohan]

@doorhinge

The current cycle of global warming began before the end of the last ice age. That doesn’t seem all that difficult to understand?

Why are all the PhDs in the field convinced, but you, a simpering twat with delusions of mediocrity seeing something they’re missing?

[Morgenstern]

@BrainGlutton

Because it’s not true. The current cycle of global warming began with the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

Then clearly, the British are to blame got starting it.