Is Global Warming Real?

all joking aside?

Yes

I'm, v. controversially, gonna say it's the real deal.

I think the important question is how can we make some money off of it. Maybe think of something 'green' we can sell.

This is a poorly worded question. A better one would be:

If the evident climate change of the last 10 to 20 years the result of human activity?

more importantly, is it rael?
http://desencyclopedie.wikia.com/images/6/6f/Rael.jpg

i wanna start a cult

if some creepy french guy gets to start one i should to.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

hello, ilx system, what do you think of paris hilton and justice?

I keep my globes perfectly frigid, thank you very much

Hi, I'm the planet Venus and I want to state that there is no such thing as global warming.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9705/venus_pvo.jpg

what do you think of paris hilton and justice?

they don't mix

Venus was totally a lush psychedelic paradiase in C.S. Lewis' Perelandra, once again irrefutable evidence for hardcore-Xtians-know-best-abt-global-warming.

My astronomy prof. asked in the first day of class if anyone believed global warming didn't exist. About six people raised their hands. He told them to get out and find a new class.

He described the surface of Venus as "Hellish and inhospitable," a wonderful phrase I now pepper throughout my conversation.

In non-climate-related endearments, he absolutely loathed being called as an expert witness.* "The scientific method ends with PEER REVIEW by other experts, not trial by jury, grumble grumble grumblecakes." The last day of class, a student next to me wrote the following assessment of him:

Martin is often possibly

which I guess sums it up pretty well.

*Not for astronomy or physics; he was a hardcore audio expert and sometimes was an expert witness for5 audio-related things.

He told them to get out and find a new class.

That is a beautiful thing.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

He told them to get out and find a new class.

I don't agree. The objective testing of hypothesis does not require "belief" in anything, and that is what he should be teaching. Intolerance is not compatible with science.

not even intolerance of willful ignorance?

So if people are not able to produce or understand the scientific research, one should prevent them from being exposed to it? Hardly the mark of a good teacher.

oh snaps!

no yr right he was being rather bitchy and unhelpful (albeit in a funny way - but maybe he just gets tired of having the same argument over and over with people who aren't really listening)

For the most part, a scientific consensus exists that suggests that human action can change the environment, and that it probably already has.

Where the real debate lies is in how much human actions versus 'natural' events really change the earth's temperature. On this issue, there is vast disagreement WITHIN the scientific community. And yet, one is not able to disagree on this point without being crucified by the majority of people and by the media.

This is bad because certain scientific research gets discounted, while other research gets too much focus, and we as a community get a distorted view of the entire body of scientific research. As a result, public policy is similarly distorted.

To be very honest I haven't spent much time considering the climate change issue. However, in any scientific hypothesis building exercise, it is NEVER a good idea to be intolerant towards others' opinions without even understanding in what sense they disagree with you. The good professor is allowing irrational bias to seep into his thinking. That is rather unfortunate for someone of the scientific community.

no yr right he was being rather bitchy and unhelpful (albeit in a funny way - but maybe he just gets tired of having the same argument over and over with people who aren't really listening)

That was it, but he was also a total diva. I think he was totally frustrated w/the univ.'s science department (whose most published/famous prof. wasone of the world's leading cryptozoologists), and didn't want completely headstrong students who would argue generally non-scientific things for hours if given the chance. But as a student noted he was OFTEN POSSIBLY. I like that because it means nothing, but prof was also a semi-cipher; he was truly often possibly.

Even though I agree with him in concept, that professor sounds like a huge dick.

He was a huge dick but somehow endearing. Maybe that was why I liked him. That's pretty much the prototype of everyone I dated until I was 20. "Oh sure, but he's FUNNY."

Microwave Transmissions from Earth orbiting Satellites are causing Global Warming!

http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/satellites.htm

http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/ALLINONE.jpg

A Common misconception about microwave transmissions is that the transmission is directly beaming straight into the receiving antennae.

The Convinent Truth

The debates unnerved both candidates. When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

extreme weather in the coming years - houses in motion - destropy the roofs - aaigh

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/05/419061/will-global-warming-ruin-football-in-the-south/

I kinda want to make a joke about that but there isn't anything funny enough to offset the loss of football.

Speaking of the south heading south, there are python outbreaks in Florida that are killing ecosystems. The pythons are spreading northward. We might have to start a snake-whacking day

a question about realness from aja

she is doing kegstands at san francisco state by now, no?

http://imgur.com/a/AfvGY

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2012/5/4/1336125117472/Leo-blog--The-Heartland-I-007.jpg

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/04/heartland-institute-global-warming-murder?newsfeed=true

"ARE YOU A VEGETARIAN? SO WAS HITLER!"

biw they got the new yrok city ice chucnk!!

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/3195-iceberg-born-greenland.html

This article's made the rounds, the best bits elided.

Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.

grrrrrrrrr

this is the very first sentence. i don't know if i can get through this without punching the screen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

this is one of those times where the Economist's policy of not printing the author(s) names is really fucking annoying. here's a gem:

Other recent studies, though, paint a different picture. An unpublished report by the Research Council of Norway, a government-funded body, which was compiled by a team led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, uses a different method from the IPCC’s. It concludes there is a 90% probability that doubling CO₂ emissions will increase temperatures by only 1.2-2.9°C, with the most likely figure being 1.9°C. The top of the study’s range is well below the IPCC’s upper estimates of likely sensitivity.

This study has not been peer-reviewed; it may be unreliable.

let me just go ahead and perform the google search for the author:

HOW SCIENCE WORKS

it's telling that when trying to come up with some research that backs up what they want to say (aka the opposite process as actual science), that's the best study that they could come up with

I am always embarassed when I discover colleagues/friends reading the Economist

embarrassed even

It shows their broadmindedness; they're reading a magazine by European intellectuals.

from the beginning paragraph, again:

"And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”

so this caught my eye. james hansen, of course, is not only the leading climate scientist in the united states, but also pretty well known as an activist. recently he announced his retirement from the government, and one of his stated reasons was that he wanted more freedom to protest the lack of action on climate change in the united states.

so i was interested to see the context that he would have placed around the words “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”, because i'm sure he didn't just say that out of nowhere. but there's no record of him saying that anywhere on the internet, at any time, except in the article. was it a private phone call with the anonymous author(s) of the article, then?

already, in the week since the article came out, the quote has been picked up and puked up all over the internet as evidence that even climate scientists don't believe in climate change now.

what a fucking mess

this is the very first sentence. i don't know if i can get through this without punching the screen.

lol yes. i was just reading this and coming to ilx all like http://www.lolriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Pounding-Keyboard-GIF.gif to say this.

no one who reads and lovingly reposts that piece of shit will ever read this debunking, but here's a good one:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/02/1807771/making-sense-of-climate-sensitivity-how-the-economist-and-msm-keep-getting-it-wrong/

did you see this paper zs? that quote is from the first paragraph

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf

ah, thanks! google search turned up nothing because in the paper he says "5-year", rather than the "five-year" that's used in the article.

And even The Economist article hedges its so-called assertions, but don't tell this Mr. Starburst.

It shows their broadmindedness; they're reading a magazine by European intellectuals.

lol exactly. I find the thin patina of intellectualism spread across their capitalist apologist politics disgusting, personally.

can't count the number of times I've flipped through it to read about some incredibly fucked up stuff going on somewhere but WAIT LOOK AT THE INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE MONEY that it engenders! wow there really are two sides to every story!

global warming isn't real because i don't like the economic implications that would be associated with it

sadly, that's it in a nutshell afaict