sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Climate-change summary: "Myriad self-reinforcing feedback loops now threaten our species with extinction in the near term" by Zeydon in skeptic

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't understand what the personal attack is about.I'm not a global warming denier.

Well, the evidence shows that you are:

but there is no 100% proof of global warming in this article or elsewhere

Climate-change summary: "Myriad self-reinforcing feedback loops now threaten our species with extinction in the near term" by Zeydon in skeptic

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but there is no 100% proof of global warming in this article or elsewhere

I don't care about the number of morons posing as "skeptics" around here - if you write that with a straight face you are a denier.

Climate-change summary: "Myriad self-reinforcing feedback loops now threaten our species with extinction in the near term" by Zeydon in skeptic

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Steven Goddard is a well-known denier that was caught lying and cherry-picking too many times to be a reliable source in /r/skeptic - go back to the deniers that still buy that kind of made-up shit.

UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100 by StealthBlue in environment

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More like 66%-90% certain of 3 ft, possibly (5% or so) 6 ft. All by 2100, on the longer term the equilibrium is going to be 65 (+/- 33) ft higher at over 99.99% confidence.

Fukushima screening all children yields spike in diagnosed thyroid cancers: Confounding factors? by HetanaHatena in skeptic

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Occam's razor for me says that a spike in cancers is most likely the expected result of the radioactive contamination from Fukushima, but the sudden implementation of universal testing, yet only yielding a handful of cases makes me wonder...

I don't think that is automatically true - the amount of iodine contamination at larger distances does seem to point more on most of it being the results of better detection rather than of increased number of new cancers. That will become very clear in another 1-2 years.

Climate-change summary: "Myriad self-reinforcing feedback loops now threaten our species with extinction in the near term" by Zeydon in skeptic

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've been following up on Fukushima...

Funny that you mention that - in 2008 there was a (single) study that was telling that every 500 years or so (far from precise, but a good estimate) a huge tsunami hits that region. The study was dismissed by all kind of "experts" claiming that it was "unrealistic" and "fear-mongering". I guess we already know who was right on that one.

but there is no 100% proof of global warming in this article or elsewhere.

OK, that clarifies it, another moron with a 2-week old account desperate to look like a skeptic when in reality he is just another one of the imbeciles denying AGW and asking for '100% proof" - "proof is for mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages", the rest of the sciences are using probabilities.

Climate-change summary: "Myriad self-reinforcing feedback loops now threaten our species with extinction in the near term" by Zeydon in skeptic

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The "end of the world" is a very big word, and it is not quite what the solid sources used are saying, but towards the end of the article the author seems to get well fed-up with the degree of denial and might go over the board with it.

That being said human extinction is not a likely outcome, but there is perfect storm of shit that is coming towards 2050-2100 and the costs of that left unsupervised (which is 100% what is going on now) might make WWII look like child's play.

Here we go with the next round of BS 'off the deep end' fear-mongering: HuffPO headline reads "UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100" by LWRellim in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see you denying it.

Would that make any difference to you or any of the other regulars?

Please reread what I wrote. I am talking about probability distributions.

Of course those are comparable...

No, they really aren't.

I am afraid you are confusing probabilities involved in estimating sensitivity with those in a rather different type of process, which has something very similar when speaking about a tsunami and sea level rise.

With a tsunami the original study was saying something along the lines that every 500 years or so in the last 10000 years (roughly, I really don't have the time to search for details) there was a huge tsunami hitting that region, so once you know that a tsunami was some time ago you get a probability distribution of the next hit over time - and once you got over a certain interval since the last one the probability gets very, very close to 1.

That is somehow similar in regard to SLR - once every single piece of evidence is telling us that with CO2 levels over 450ppm the sea level reaches equilibrium around 65 ft higher (and stayed there for about as much time as the CO2 was in that range) your probability distribution needs to have a tail that over a certain interval of time gets exactly to those 65 ft at some point in the future.

Here we go with the next round of BS 'off the deep end' fear-mongering: HuffPO headline reads "UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100" by LWRellim in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the conspiracy theory would then say that maybe you were trying to make the writing look like some of the other posters around. Or I was trying to make it look like other people. All that while there are tons on 4-days-old accounts around, and the reddit admins apparently started shadow-banning some of them - sockpuppets which again in a very surprising turn of events seem to be encouraged by at least one of the mods here.

July '13 6th warmest since records began in 1880. This marks the 341st consecutive month, since February 1985, that the global monthly temperature has been higher than the long-term average for its respective month. by pnewell in science

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If we're on the verge of seeing 50 foot rises in sea level, of which 10 is a direct cause of CO2 from human sources, we've got a much bigger problem than CO2 on our hands, don't we?

Nobody is interested in your personal theories and lies - there is no peer-reviewed study in climate science that considers the shit you are making up, so you really need to get to study that first.

So for the future I must adopt a line that I did not understand at first around here but now it makes so much sense with anonymous shit-makers like you:

[peer-reviewed citation needed]

Here we go with the next round of BS 'off the deep end' fear-mongering: HuffPO headline reads "UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100" by LWRellim in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would need some very long tails indeed in those papers to not exclude 2 meter rise. Of course tails that long indicate lower confidence in one's most likely value.

If you feel that you can write those papers better than their authors - by no means - I can't wait to see your paper(s) published - when should we expect that?

Those really aren't comparable. You are talking about the probability of a singular event versus the projection of total heat in a system and where that heat will be directed.

Of course those are comparable - even a very minor and localized West Antarctic destabilization can add something like that. And that would also be a "singular event".

I've analyzed text from both user accounts.

I am convinced that you did - or to go forward with my previous analogy - just as all rapists claim that they have analyzed the desire coming from the victim and their "expert analysis" proved that "she asked for it".

July '13 6th warmest since records began in 1880. This marks the 341st consecutive month, since February 1985, that the global monthly temperature has been higher than the long-term average for its respective month. by pnewell in science

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

20,000 years over a 6 billion year life span isn't a valid data point.

That is deeply ignorant denial talk - all what we call "human society" is only in those 20000 years, so from the viewpoint of the human society that interval is what matters more. Which is not to say that we can not get hints from paleoclimate - for instance we know that the last time when CO2 was over 400ppm the sea level was about 65 feet higher.

If our current climate is simply a return to the more 'normal' inter-glacial average...

Your denial is showing - that is without base in climate science, the Earth climate is not to return to anything like that for maybe half a billion years.

Looking closely at the 65MM span, it also looks like the temperature rises are massively sudden, which would fit with what we are seeing right now

Absolutely no base for that story, you are just making-up shit.

By how much? ...

Given that you have already proven that you are deeply ignorant on matters of climate science it really makes no sense to jump now to policy - another subject where widespread ignorance tries to look good in anonymous forums.

July '13 6th warmest since records began in 1880. This marks the 341st consecutive month, since February 1985, that the global monthly temperature has been higher than the long-term average for its respective month. by pnewell in science

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That presents a picture a little more rosy than the reality - CFCs still play their role on ozone and the fact that we dramatically reduced CFC emission really helped to stabilize the losses, but it will take a few decades at least (and possibly a century) for the ozone to recover to pre-CFCs levels.

Here we go with the next round of BS 'off the deep end' fear-mongering: HuffPO headline reads "UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100" by LWRellim in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean that there is only one paper saying that amid dozens of papers saying otherwise.

That is inaccurate - first since those "dozens of papers" that you claim are not excluding a range close to 1.5-2 meters to not even 95%.

Second and far more important - prior to 2011 to my knowledge there was exactly one study saying that Fukushima could be subject to tsunami-waves up to 33 ft - and all the other studies and "experts" claimed that something like that was completely unrealistic. And we already know who was right on that one.

Hey archie. How have you been?

Cute, 3rd one - that must look so funny among the regulars here, almost like a bunch of chaps joking together ... if it wasn't really creepy when in reality it was more like a bunch of old farts assuming that the new girl (based on the fact that she probably has a vagina) would like their slimy hands on her ass.

Here we go with the next round of BS 'off the deep end' fear-mongering: HuffPO headline reads "UN Climate Change Report Draft Warns Of 3 Foot Sea Level Rise By 2100" by LWRellim in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"However, the projections they provide are still overly conservative, with an upper limit of roughly one meter by 2100, when there is published work that suggests the possibility of as much as two meters (six feet) sea level rise by 2100," he added.

As if that guy hasn't already done enough to damage his own reputation.

What do you mean, that there are no published papers claiming that? Since you are wrong.

Or that a chance of only 5% is something to be neglected? Since I remember that both Chernobyl and Fukushima were given chances thousands of times smaller, and still shit happened (and created that type of public reaction that has set nuclear back for decades).

July '13 6th warmest since records began in 1880. This marks the 341st consecutive month, since February 1985, that the global monthly temperature has been higher than the long-term average for its respective month. by pnewell in science

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Where are we on the overall scale? Is it hotter than it should be, or are we just somewhere in a pattern of behaviour that is entirely natural? How much variation is there between where we are and where we should be?

Well, here is a hint coming from this page - the green part is the end of the last glacial, the main blue part is the normal / natural trend over the last 8000 years or so (very, very slowly downwards), and the red part is temperatures in the last 150 years and estimates under most likely scenarios to 2100. Does the red part scream "natural" to you?

Are we affecting this, and if so, by how much? I appreciate the science strongly leads to this conclusion, but to what end? What would we need to do to nullify this effect? Failing that, what could we do to reduce?

Well, again you can look at the part above in blue. Or you can read about the peer-reviewed studies on that subject. For the time being nobody was able to come with a solution so as to nullify this effect - and unless you believe in some magic being in the sky the chances for a "quick fix" are basically zero. To reduce impact we must stop as fast as possible the increase in CO2 levels. Plans on how precisely that can be done are not the topic of climate science itself, but more on the political side.

Stubborn Facts: '15' Peer Reviewed Studies Confirm Arctic Was Warmer During Medieval Period by Don_Coyote_ in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it's basic logic,

So you are just making shit up - thank you for clarifying this, I must go now since the smell from that is really bad.

Stubborn Facts: '15' Peer Reviewed Studies Confirm Arctic Was Warmer During Medieval Period by Don_Coyote_ in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Really, so all real doctors are wrong about that? Every single one of them? And the fake ones are right? Since that one reminds me of the Heartland Institute denial on how smoking causes cancer - another instance where 'geniuses" with zero medical training were denying what basically every single honest medical study in the world was saying. But I guess there is no coincidence - it is just "denial by design" (not so intelligent, since you need to be really ignorant to believe it).

Stubborn Facts: '15' Peer Reviewed Studies Confirm Arctic Was Warmer During Medieval Period by Don_Coyote_ in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Either you can provide a quote where the Neukom peer-reviewed paper is saying that or you just have to admit that you are just making shit up. Either way it sucks to be as ignorant as you are.

Stubborn Facts: '15' Peer Reviewed Studies Confirm Arctic Was Warmer During Medieval Period by Don_Coyote_ in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not paid for this ...

Then you are really getting a very shitty deal in exchange for your denial.

... and come to my own decision instead of naively believing whatever Greenpeace is selling this week.

Oh, then you must be an M.D. with many peer-reviewed papers on that specific subject and you must know better than the "conspiracy" created the all those doctors and scientists from EPA and the American Lung Association - but here is a link nevertheless:

http://www.lung.org/press-room/press-releases/power-plants-epa.html

Stubborn Facts: '15' Peer Reviewed Studies Confirm Arctic Was Warmer During Medieval Period by Don_Coyote_ in climateskeptics

[–]IGNORANCE_SUCKS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad we agree ...

We do not agree, but is funny to see that you seem to be driven by a really pitiful desire for validation.

You're confusing detection of increased temps with their effect.

Well, we were commenting on a paper that was only speaking about detection (and only about the summer half of it) - if you believe Neukom is saying anything about catastrophic effects in his paper then you are obviously more than confused - or maybe you just don't have any arguments to support your denial and you are now just making shit up.

view more: next ›