clever

4/8/2014 8:38:52 PM

I mean, let's look at the piece which claims these are all threatened due to climate change, shall we? Hell, let's check out the first three. Surely the first three would be the ones most affected, right?

1. Great Barrier Reef - mainly threatened by pollution
2. Venice - Has been sinking ever since the city was founded.
3. Dead Sea - Shrinking due to water being drained by people.


hmmm...

4/9/2014 7:50:10 PM

There can be only one cause to any given effect.

4/9/2014 10:38:18 PM

If you're going to claim "OMFG THIS THING IS GOING TO CAUSE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS TO DISAPPEAR!!!!", it'd be helpful if that thing is the primary cause of those other things disappearing, much less if it is actually a cause of it

4/10/2014 1:34:28 AM

uh, i think you need to read the link again. their causes are not different than yours.

4/10/2014 8:55:08 AM

^Very true. However the article's opening sentence is poorly worded.

Quote :

"The world is filled with jaw-dropping sights, but rapid climate change is threatening some of the most spectacular natural wonders. Here are just a few of the world’s most majestic places that could disappear in as little as a few decades."

To me that implies that everything listed underneath that heading is being harmed by global warming.

Also I just noticed they said "natural wonders" but then list Venice. Kinda sticks out, as the only non-natural place featured.

[Edited on April 11, 2014 at 9:16 AM. Reason : grammar]

4/11/2014 9:06:19 AM

http://www.wral.com/fact-check-gop-senate-candidates-make-some-questionable-claims/13589575/

Quote :

"CLIMATE CHANGE: During a debate earlier this week, all four candidates were asked whether climate change caused by humans was a fact. All four said no. Crabtree followed up in the WRAL News debate by asking what was causing climate change and does the federal government have a role in reacting to it. Candidates continued to express skepticism about the topic. "The point is the liberal agenda – the Obama agenda, the Kay Hagan agenda – trying to use it as a Trojan horse for their energy policy," Tillis said. "They're trying to use it as a tool to put fear in people." He went on to say Democrats were using "false science" to promote their policy agenda. Grant said that the federal government should not play a role, and the state governments should respond to any effects of climate change. Harris echoed that position, saying the federal government needs to "stay away from this" issue. "Climate changes every day," Brannon said. "Does a human being affect it? The answer is no." Fact Check RedFact check: We could go with news outlets such as The Guardian or The Washington Post, but we'll let NASA carry our water here: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." Tillis' claim is that climate change is "false science" created to drive a political agenda. Brannon clearly says humans aren't driving climate change. The preponderance of scientific opinion disagrees. This claim gets a red light on our fact-checking scale."

4/26/2014 2:06:01 PM

oh look, the 97% bullshit claim again. *yawn* I remember the day when science worked on science and not ideology.

4/27/2014 3:56:30 PM

Unfortunately most Americans form their opinions based on ideology rather than science. This is why that number is useful in convincing the layperson.

4/27/2014 10:19:54 PM

Quote :

"oh look, the 97% bullshit claim again"

Care to demonstrate that 97% debunking?

Here's NASA's claim: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I don't have access to the journals they're citing for that number at the moment, I'm inclined to believe them over you.

4/28/2014 8:59:47 AM

When burro, et al. come up with the flux equilibrium for CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, then they'll have my attention.

4/28/2014 1:10:31 PM

No mention of the WHs indefinite delay of the Keystone XL pipeline? Not sure what to make of it myself. If it's politics, I don't think its a terribly smart move unless he's waiting until after the election to reject it. Firing up conservatives about the issue and then just approving it anyway doesn't make much sense. I personally think rejecting it is very important as a symbolic move and is one instance where principle should trump pragmatism. It's a very clear message to the rest of the world that the US is moving towards a post-fossil fuel energy policy.

4/28/2014 1:18:53 PM

Obama is a coward

4/28/2014 1:54:04 PM

troll troll troll

4/29/2014 12:12:13 AM

Quote :

"No mention of the WHs indefinite delay of the Keystone XL pipeline? Not sure what to make of it myself. If it's politics, I don't think its a terribly smart move unless he's waiting until after the election to reject it. Firing up conservatives about the issue and then just approving it anyway doesn't make much sense. I personally think rejecting it is very important as a symbolic move and is one instance where principle should trump pragmatism. It's a very clear message to the rest of the world that the US is moving towards a post-fossil fuel energy policy."

symbolism over pragmatism... how very democrat of you.

4/29/2014 7:57:14 AM

I'm not entirely sure what you could characterize as "pragmatic" about tar sands...

4/29/2014 9:17:49 AM

it looks like he is saying that delaying it is pragmatic vs. rejecting it later. I don't understand why anyone would assume that this will be rejected, in my opinion this is being delayed so it can be approved later.

4/29/2014 9:26:19 AM

My understanding is that the pipeline was going to be delayed anyway to determine a new route outside of Nebraska.

I may have that wrong.

4/29/2014 4:26:26 PM

National Climate Assessment
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report

5/7/2014 9:42:26 AM

its almost like an episode of snl where the white house response takes 10 years.

5/7/2014 3:54:00 PM

10 years ago no one in the white house was batshit crazy enough to make the rising sea level claims this report makes.

5/7/2014 4:21:35 PM

what?

5/7/2014 4:25:55 PM

this nonsense

5/7/2014 4:33:32 PM

Not from 10 years ago (only 6), but still, its the Bush EPA saying:

Quote :

"Sea level has risen approximately 30 cm (1 foot) along most of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts in the last century.1 In the next century, however, rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures are likely to expand ocean water and melt glaciers, and thereby accelerate the rise in sea level. By the end of the 21st century, global average sea level is likely to be rising 1.5–9.7 mm/yr even if polar ice sheets do not begin to disintegrate, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.2 Additional contributions from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets could be negligible or add as much as 4 mm/yr.3 Because of regional subsidence, sea level has risen, and almost certainly will continue to rise, 1–2 mm/yr more rapidly than the global average along the mid- Atlantic Coast.4 Thus, by 2100, sea level could be rising 3–16 mm/yr.5 Over the next century sea level is expected to rise 30 to 90 cm (1 to 3 feet) along the mid-Atlantic coast.6"

http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/452/US_Coastal_Elevations_&_Sensitivity_to_SLR_Background_Info._-_Titus_&_Strange_2008.pdf

(from the 1st paragraph of the Preface)

5/7/2014 5:26:27 PM

The G.O.P. Can’t Ignore Climate Change
By JON M. HUNTSMAN Jr.MAY 6, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/opinion/the-gop-cant-ignore-climate-change.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=OP_TGC_20140508&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=4

5/9/2014 8:34:02 AM

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-147



you are going to see this in the news and all over facebook. i'm not commenting either way, but i find it interesting that the article on nasa's website doesn't mention global warming.

or the actual paper...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/pdf

[Edited on May 13, 2014 at 10:09 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2014 9:52:00 AM

Why should they? The article is merely pointing out the embayment and instability of a portion of a continental glacier. It simply points out that, over time, the sea ice no longer seems to form there which was previously slowing down the movement of the glacier.

5/13/2014 10:40:19 AM

^^ your link does mention climate change

5/13/2014 10:42:33 AM

^did you read it? the only place where climate change was mentioned was the name of an annual report that they quoted a fact from.

[Edited on May 13, 2014 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2014 11:26:23 AM

but that's definitely what they are talking about. they point out that most climate change predictions do not include this, and state that projections should lean toward the high-end because of that

Quote :

"The region contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 4 feet (1.2 meters). The most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report estimates that by 2100, sea level will rise somewhere from just less than 1 foot to about 3 feet (26 to 98 centimeters). But the vast majority of these projections do not take into account the possibility of major ice loss in Antarctica. Rignot said this new study suggests sea level rise projections for this century should lean toward the high-end of the IPCC range."

instead of "doesn't mention", did you mean "doesn't imply a causal link to" or something?

5/13/2014 11:48:04 AM

it was in the proper name of a report they referenced.

5/13/2014 11:58:44 AM

and also the subject matter they were discussing

5/13/2014 11:59:33 AM

I just got handed a "weather and climate" course at a college in Tennessee.

Unfortunately.



With your permission sirs I would like to use materials from this thread to generate debate among students.

(and to anticipate their likely responses)

5/13/2014 1:13:43 PM

Quote :

"and also the subject matter they were discussing"

again, you are wrong. they were discussing sea level rise.

5/13/2014 1:45:52 PM

... which is part of climate change

5/13/2014 1:46:30 PM

Quote :

"I just got handed a "weather and climate" course at a college in Tennessee. Unfortunately. With your permission sirs I would like to use materials from this thread to generate debate among students. (and to anticipate their likely responses) "

Tennessee? Don't risk it, tell them god controls the weather and keep your employers happy.

5/13/2014 1:48:08 PM

Quote :

"... which is part of climate change"

sea levels can change for any multitude of reasons. including ice sheets breaking off from antarctica, which this entire article was about.

5/13/2014 1:50:01 PM

and then they talk about how the sea level rise from climate change doesn't take that into account, so you should lean towards the higher end of the climate change predictions.

i'm not sure how this isn't clear to you or why you are trying to pretend like that's not what they are talking about

[Edited on May 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2014 1:51:23 PM

If you can get them to distinguish between weather and climate, then you will be light years ahead of the general public.

Carbon isotopes, CO2 absorption within the Thermal IR band, investigating aggregate warmer nighttime temps, natural sources/sinks vs. anthropogenic sources. And that's just climate...

5/13/2014 2:33:40 PM

Someone embed this,

http://youtu.be/cjuGCJJUGsg

5/14/2014 3:02:43 PM

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/10-feet-of-global-sea-level-rise-now-inevitable

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12/western-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn

I apologize if this is a repost-

5/15/2014 12:21:18 PM

Only 10 feet in several hundred years? Big deal!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/15/opinion/safina-antarctic-ice-melts/

5/15/2014 2:53:00 PM

Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming

Quote :

"Some are calling it the new "Climategate." A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming. "[Bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com, which is devoted to questioning global warming. Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels. The president repeatedly has rejected naysayers in the climate debate -- most recently, when he spoke May 9 in Mountainview, Calif. "We've still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate,” he said. The administration recently released a comprehensive climate report that critics worry will be used to justify additional environmental regulations. Bengtsson's paper, submitted to the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that greenhouse gas emissions might be less harmful and cause less warming than computer models project. For that, Morano said, Bengtssonpaid a steep price. "They've threatened him. They've bullied him. They've pulled his papers. They're now going through everything they can to smear his reputation. And the ‘they’ I'm referring to is the global warming establishment," Morano said. The Times of London reported that Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of a think tank after being subjected to “McCarthy-style pressure” from other academics. Pressure even reportedly came from one U.S. government scientist. Bengsston told the Times of London this week: "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with computer models." He added, "If people are proposing to do major changes to the world's economic system we must have much more solid information." His view helps to illustrate the cavernous divide in this debate. Climate scientists who question the consensus often say they're demonized -- unable to publish, unable to find research funding. The scientific establishment presses on -- frustrated with anyone who, in their view,would impede saving the planet. The debate raises a question about whether consensus in science is even relevant. As the novelist and global warming skeptic Michael Crichton argued,"The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus." The Bengtsson allegations recall a similar controversy in 2009, dubbed “Climategate,” when hundreds of emails were leaked, several of which raised questions about whether scientists were overstating the climate change case."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/16/climategate-ii-scientific-community-accused-muzzling-dissent-on-global-warming/

For a "news" organization and political party that grossly fails at acknowledging and understanding science, they sure as hell have become ad hoc experts in the peer review process.

Actually, why this article is noteworthy is because this guy's article was rejected (last February) from the biggest fraud of a "journal" in all of environmental discussion and academia. Now, of course Faux News, et al. will not acknowledge this because it would deter from there sensationalist paradigm. But you all should at least be aware of the "sources" of this supposed controversy.

5/16/2014 8:31:36 PM

misread


[Edited on May 17, 2014 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2014 3:09:43 PM

I love how Marco Rubio couldn't back up his statement that he knows for a fact humans are not contributing to climate change. Of course I will trust the consensus of the scientific community and NASA's JPL over Rubio any day .

5/17/2014 8:58:43 PM

^^^ Considering that the peer-review process has been hijacked in the climate community, as evidenced by the ClimateGate emails, it's important to keep pointing it out. "I disagree with you" is not as valid reason to prevent publication of a paper, yet that's exactly what Mann and his cronies have pushed.

5/17/2014 11:55:38 PM

BUT, BUT BENGHAZI CLIMATEGATE!!!!!!!!!!

5/18/2014 8:12:14 AM

^^ I'm not asking for your trust in this regard. I am simply stating what a farce of a publication Environmental Research Letters is seen as throughout the environmental and scientific publishing community. It isn't because they don't tow whatever line you think there is, but it's just because they're a hack publication that dupes Faux News et al. into giving them credence because they have a legit sounding name. Cling to whatever myth you choose about emails or hockey sticks (which has been addressed and verified), but the evidence of anthropogenic induced warming is still more abundant than the passive philosophy of apathy.

5/18/2014 9:48:01 AM

lol

5/18/2014 5:24:17 PM

^^ Yeah, we addressed those emails the same way UNC addressed its scandal: they asked themselves if they did anything wrong, said no, and that was that!

5/18/2014 5:43:57 PM