No, you’re wrong. The name hasn’t been changed.

The primary organization compiling the research is the IPCC, which was established in 1988. Do you know what the “CC” stands for there?

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2009 8:07:41 PM

9/26/2009 9:44:11 PM

You really have to have your head in the sand if you dont see the change in verbage in the last year or so. Hell, just look at the title of this thread. Global climate change is brilliant though, you can say ANYTHING is now global climate change.

9/26/2009 10:26:15 PM

^ you have to have your head in the sand to not realize people have been using the term “climate change” forever.

… or maybe you need your eyes checked

[Edited on September 26, 2009 at 10:29 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2009 10:29:01 PM

it must be great ignoring the obvious, moron. You do it so well

http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Degrees-Change-Blu-ray/dp/B0013ENSHE

Quote :

"Editorial Reviews Amazon.com In the 2004 eco-thriller The Day After Tomorrow, director Roland Emmerich dramatized the potential consequences of accelerated global warming."

http://www.amazon.com/Day-After-Tomorrow-Widescreen/dp/B00005JMXX

Quote :

"Supreme silliness doesn't stop The Day After Tomorrow from being lots of fun for connoisseurs of epic-scale disaster flicks. After the blockbuster profits of Independence Day and Godzilla, you can't blame director Roland Emmerich for using global warming as a politically correct excuse for destroying most of the northern hemisphere. Like most of Emmerich's films, this one emphasizes special effects over such lesser priorities as well-drawn characters and plausible plotting, and his dialogue (cowritten by Jeffrey Nachmanoff) is so laughably trite that it could be entirely eliminated without harming the movie. It's the spectacle that's important here, not the lame, recycled plot about father and son (Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhaal) who endure an end-of-the-world scenario caused by the effects of global warming. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the awesome visions of tornado-ravaged Los Angeles, blizzards in New Delhi, Japan pummeled by grapefruit-sized hailstones, and Manhattan flooded by swelling oceans and then frozen by the onset of a modern ice age. It's all wildly impressive, and Emmerich obviously doesn't care if the science is flimsy, so why should you? --Jeff Shannon "

It's like you are blind, dude.

9/27/2009 2:47:06 PM

Quote :

"what’s your point?"

9/27/2009 4:02:18 PM

theres really not a single exact time and date when the verbiage changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change'...there is no consensus on the time when the wording shifted...we really don't know

kind of like the issue at hand

9/27/2009 7:28:56 PM

Oh my god, burro...

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

Quote :

"The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures."

It is not because the earth is cooling.

9/27/2009 11:43:43 PM

well, I guess that settles the question if even the EPA admits it

9/28/2009 10:17:03 AM

Good to see the UN "phoning it in"

Quote :

"Talking About The Weather United Nations Uses Wikipedia Graph What started as a brouhaha in the blogosophere has turned into a minor embarrassment for the United Nations in the climate debates. As first reported on ClimateAudit.org, the origin of a graph used in last week’s UN climate report, published to coincide with the summit in New York attended by President Obama and other world leaders, was not an august team of scientists working around the clock, but rather Wikipedia. Perhaps equally surprising was the revelation that the graph’s author was not a climatologist, but instead an obscure Norwegian ecologist, Hanno Sandvik, who claimed no expertise regarding the data used in his graph. Misidentified in the UN report as “Hanno,” Sandvik politely distanced himself from the graph as the story unfolded. The UN report authors, meanwhile, had given a scientist they had never met or heard of the appearance of scientific legitimacy. Was copying and pasting a Wikipedia graph drawn by a non-climatologist the best that the United Nations, with all the resources at its disposal, could do? Evidently, it was. Sandvik himself appeared surprised. “ ‘My’ graph has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal since I am not a climatologist,” he wrote in an e-mail to TalkingAboutTheWeather.com. “The graph has been drawn using data that have undergone peer-review. That means that the graph is ‘mine’ only in a very restricted sense, viz. that I have drawn it – the underlying data [are] not mine, as the source provided clearly indicates. I have no qualification to judge whether the underlying data are correct or erroneous, and have never pretended to be able to do so.” This is not the first graph with a hockey-stick shape to gain notoriety. The most famous example is that of Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s own hockey stick graph, prominently featured at the 2001 UN IPCC meeting and in its Third Assessment Report. Michael Mann's famous hockey stick graph used by the United Nations for its Third Assessment Report in 2001 but abandoned by the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007. That hockey stick has since been debunked by the United States Congress by the world-renowned statistics expert Edward Wegman."

rest of entry here: http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/united-nations-uses-wikipedia-graph/

[Edited on September 28, 2009 at 10:29 AM. Reason : j]

9/28/2009 10:29:20 AM

Since the MSM only reports when things are really bad I figured I'd spread the word about this:

Quote :

"Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention? The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history. Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters: A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season."

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06/antarctic-ice-melt-at-lowest-levels-in-satellite-era/

10/9/2009 2:15:54 PM

HAHAH THEN EVERYTHING MUST BE OKAY.

10/10/2009 12:37:12 AM

Quote :

"Since the MSM only reports when things are really bad "

The mainstream media are not science oriented, so they are not the best source of scientific news. Nor are blogs, which are usually run by people with questionable scientific credibility, like the one you provided.

The best sources are science news aggregators like http://esciencenews.com/

That is, unless you don't want to think independently and just like to read opinion pieces you agree with that distort science. Then go ahead and continue being an idiot and read blogs.

10/10/2009 3:04:11 AM

IT IS CREDIBLE BECAUSE I AGREE WITH IT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[Edited on October 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM. Reason : s]

10/10/2009 9:42:27 AM

^^ You mean like the journal "Science"? Which has been proven to practically refuse to publish anything that doesn't agree with AGW?

10/10/2009 2:42:59 PM

We're already aware that in your little world scientific journals are equally as or less credible than internet blogs. Now run along and make another porn thread.

10/10/2009 3:56:03 PM

haha. do a little research about just how fucking biased Science is. When you have a guy who submits an article with the peer review section filled in in response to an article that was not peer reviewed and said article is rejected because it "wasn't peer reviewed," you have to just shake your head. But hey, keep talking out your ass, dude.

10/10/2009 5:37:46 PM

Quote :

"you have to just shake your head. "

I shake my head every time you try to come up with a logical argument from your paint-chip necrotized brain.

[Edited on October 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2009 7:06:51 PM

nice ad hominem. It's obvious you have nothing intelligent to say. so how about you just shut the fuck up. Admit that you like the taste of Al Gore's penis

10/10/2009 7:08:11 PM

If CO2 concentrations are going up faster than predicted and temperatures are going up slower than predicted, why does it not follow that the catastrophic predictions are unlikely?

Similarly, what mechanism is going to turn rising global temperatures into a disaster? Humans are an adaptable species, so how come we can't keep ahead of any potential changes?

10/10/2009 11:38:13 PM

To elevate the thread from the stupidity on this page, these are recent articles related to global warming on esciencenews.com. This is not intended to persuade anyone either way:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/08/last.time.carbon.dioxide.levels.were.high.15.million.years.ago.scientists.report

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/09/key.new.ingredient.climate.model.refines.global.predictions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299426.stm

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/06/arctic.sea.ice.recovers.slightly.2009.remains.downward.trend.says.u.colorado.report

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-sensitive-is-climate-to-carbon-dioxide

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/06/water.scarcity.will.create.global.security.concerns

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/10/07/a.trees.response.environmental.changes.what.can.we.expect.over.next.100.years

10/11/2009 1:05:40 AM

correlation != causation

10/11/2009 1:15:31 AM

random postulate here.

10/11/2009 2:00:42 AM

so, if CO2 is going up, why are temperatures going down? please, make your models explain this.

10/11/2009 4:44:13 PM

Quote :

"correlation != causation"

nope but sometimes correlation => causation

there's your free science lesson for the day you can thank me later

10/11/2009 4:47:54 PM

you are such an idiot. correlation NEVER implies causation. what a fucktard

10/11/2009 4:48:44 PM

http://www.amazon.com/Causation-Prediction-Adaptive-Computation-Learning/dp/0262194406

http://www.amazon.com/Causality-Reasoning-Inference-Judea-Pearl/dp/052189560X/ref=pd_sim_b_2/177-3396366-7221603

Looks like it's time to read the fuck up

10/11/2009 4:51:10 PM

Logic 101. Correlation NEVER implies causation.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=does+correlation+imply+causation

to argue otherwise shows just how fucking stupid you are

10/11/2009 4:51:42 PM

A lot of times the covariance matrix you're working with gives you causal structure. Not saying that any of these studies are in such a position (seeing as how I haven't read them), but it's certainly true of a lot of studies.

In some cases where there's ambiguity about the causal direction in a correlation, you can orient the relation with prior knowledge (or temporal knowledge; A occurs before B). In some cases, there's no ambiguity about the direction of the causal relation implied by the correlation due to the other correlations/covariances present in the data.

10/11/2009 4:54:48 PM

prior knowledge mean more that just correlation.
covariance matrix means more than just correlation.

thus, correlation does NOT imply causation.

10/11/2009 4:55:52 PM

lmao aaron sit the fuck down you are out of your depth even once we started discussing basic statistics/mathematics

sorry, gotta quote this for the lols

Quote :

"prior knowledge mean more that just correlation. covariance matrix means more than just correlation. thus, correlation does NOT imply causation."

bahahaa

[Edited on October 11, 2009 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2009 4:56:33 PM

oooh, pulling out the math penis, even though you are arguing against a fucking principle of statistics. Look, you can use correlation to arrive at causation, but correlation alone never gives causation. Otherwise, it would be clear that Global Warming is caused by the lack of pirates

10/11/2009 4:58:23 PM

Go back and read again what I said.

10/11/2009 5:00:30 PM

go back and retake logic 101.

10/11/2009 5:01:15 PM

Hahaha you fucking dumb ass. It makes no sense for me to sit here and try to educate you, because you won't even (can't even) get your basic facts right.

Quite a large body of research in statistics concerns itself with inferring causal structure from data. I wouldn't expect you to know this since you don't read. Also, lol@ the fact that even a simple trip to wikipedia or Wolfram mathworld could have fixed the basic errors you've made in your posts.

10/11/2009 5:03:50 PM

i like how much you are shoving your dick around. it's obvious you are trolling. But, please, offer me proof that shows that correlation, alone, can ever equal causation. That a fucking r^2, by itself, allows me to give a causal relationship.

everything you have discussed requires more than a fucking r^2. but you are still in here whipping your dick around, acting like you know something the rest of us don't. Then you fall back on "but I'm not gonna try and educate you." It's because you are so fucking obviously WRONG that there is nothing you can say. it's a shame that the university didn't figure out just how vapidly ignorant you are before it awarded you a degree.

10/11/2009 5:11:27 PM

"Correlation != Causation"

Was the claim.

I amended it to: "sometimes, correlation => causation". Then I referred you to not one, but two books that outline algorithms for doing so. I could point you to ~4-5 different algorithms that reliably do this if you'd like.

10/11/2009 5:31:40 PM

and I will tell you, again, that correlation never implies causation. you have your algorithms that require more than just correlation. thus, correlation is not implying causation.

if you had said "sometimes correlation can be used with other information to derive causation," then I would agree with you. you did NOT say that. you said "sometimes you can have only correlation and derive causation." That is factually false. Go ask your precious math teachers.

10/11/2009 5:36:29 PM

mcdanger, arguing logic with burro, is like teaching multivariable calculus to 5th graders.

you don't bother, because they lack the capacity.

10/11/2009 11:32:30 PM

Quote :

"This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on? "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

10/12/2009 9:47:08 AM

^That was already posted above.

A possible cooling trend is not new:

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/05/stay-cool-about-short-term-climate.html

As is mentioned in both articles, they believe it is temporary and warming will resume within a decade or so.

10/12/2009 12:24:43 PM

Don't I feel sheepish.

10/12/2009 12:39:14 PM

Quote :

"and I will tell you, again, that correlation never implies causation. you have your algorithms that require more than just correlation. thus, correlation is not implying causation. if you had said "sometimes correlation can be used with other information to derive causation," then I would agree with you. you did NOT say that. you said "sometimes you can have only correlation and derive causation." That is factually false. Go ask your precious math teachers."

Life must be next-to-fucking-impossible for somebody of your stunningly limited capacities. Are you sure you aren't an undiagnosed developmentally challenged person? You should really go in for tests, though, because the level of stupidity you consistently demonstrate on this website could only be matched by somebody willfully acting that way (elaborate troll? Why hasn't somebody suggested that aaronburro is a salisburyboy-esque troll that does nothing but spew dumb shit that makes anybody with even a modicum of education see red?).

Here's a decent introduction to one of the causal learning algorithms: http://www.dina.dk/phd/s/s6/learning3.pdf

Now, you're not going to read it, but I linked to it anyway. In fact, even if you were to attempt reading it (which you won't), I doubt you'd understand it (because it requires higher than a 5th grade reading level and an understanding of math surpassing an average 8th grader's). But in case you do, you'll find that these algorithms are designed to operate on correlation matrices (which are derived from covariance matrices implied from the data; thought I'd point it out since you didn't fucking know).

There are cases where edges remain ambiguous. The class of graphs which are disambiguated versions of these under-determined structures are called the "Markov equivalence class". In some cases, you're able to orient some of these edges using prior knowledge (which is what I alluded to in my previous post). Notice, however, that in some cases you can recover the full structure WITHOUT prior knowledge. Prior knowledge can, however, aid you in resolving ambiguities which can then set of a cascade, leading to more structure learning that you were able to learn before.

Again, you're not even going to read this post. If you did, you wouldn't understand it. But there it is, you slobbering fucking dunce.

10/12/2009 1:43:38 PM

^ Now that we've gone down that fucking rabbit hole, do you believe that our planet is still in peril as described by Gore, the IPCC, and others or not?

Quote :

"According to the science Gore presents so expertly, the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late."

http://environment.about.com/od/aninconvenienttruth/fr/goremovie_2.htm

10/12/2009 3:34:31 PM

Quote :

"^ Now that we've gone down that fucking rabbit hole, do you believe that our planet is still in peril as described by Gore, the IPCC, and others or not?"

I haven't studied the relevant papers so I don't know.

10/12/2009 3:57:53 PM

I don't get what hooksaw is so angry about. He can still drive his GMC Yukon Denali if he wants.

10/12/2009 4:13:35 PM

^^ Fair enough.

^

Quote :

". . .[D]o you believe that our planet is still in peril as described by Gore, the IPCC, and others or not?"

10/12/2009 4:34:13 PM

Yes.

10/12/2009 4:36:18 PM

In peril as in... what?

10/12/2009 9:08:21 PM

the polar bears are dying (not)

10/12/2009 9:09:14 PM