A question about climate change/global warming.

http://cosy.com/Science/CO2-pineGrowth100120_400.gif

Of course, as part of this guy's study, I'm sure he imposed drought or flood conditions on the high ppm plants

"look here, if climate change takes place in my garage and i control the temperature and amount of water the plants get, everything's gonna be fine!"

"Only the profound retardation of government school K-12 math and science education can explain how so many are duped by this GlobalStatistStupidity against the very molecule upon which all life is built and without double digit concentrations of which life would have been very unlikely to have gotten a toehold on the planet .

From what I’ve observed , you can get a PhD in climate science without ever learning how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball"

looooooooooooooooool

These fucking people! It's like saying 'Oxygen is important for us to breathe, therefore it's OK if we pump up the O2 in ther atmosphere."

Even though pure oxygen is toxic over long periods, and has a tendency to make things spontaneously combust.

http://climateconference.heartland.org/

how much oil money do these guys get for showing up?

During an appearance on "Fox & Friends" on Tuesday morning, Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty acknowledged the reality of climate change, but expressed skepticism that humans contribute to the environmental process.

"There's always been climate change, but until recently people were worried as much about global cooling," he said when asked to define his position on the issue. "The reality of it is the science indicates that most of it, if not all of it, is caused by natural causes and as to the potential human contribution to that, there's a great scientific dispute about that very issue."

drop dead

I'm sure the hosts on Fox and Friends vigorously contested his invocation on the widely debunked "global cooling" meme. People like Pawlenty that say things like "until recently people were worried as much about global cooling" are really just revealing that they can't distinguish between legitimate scientists and media sensationalists, because the people that were "worried" about global cooling were overwhelmingly the latter.

Of course, I doubt he even believes most of what he's saying. He recognizes that being anti-environment is now a litmus teat de conservatives.

Uh, iPhone fail, but I kind of like "litmus teat de conservatives" better tbh

Anyway, not sure what to do when presidential candidates repeat widely debunked lies, and rarely get called out on it. Post-fact society, here we come (are?)

uh http://www.grist.org/i/assets/usa_today_sun_ilovecharts_tumblr

no way that wasnt on purpose

like, there's no reason to have that hand there lol

incredible

the sun is watching footage of a supernova

like, there's no reason to have that hand there lol

yeah, i thought the same thing! maybe the sun is supposed to be leaning on a pole (lol) after a long run or something?

My cock does not go up to 130-degrees. :(

xpost maybe the sun is indicating the current temperature?

Wonder if there's an accompanying graphic of a moon shot.

Seems Luke a really heavyhanded way to indicate the temperature. Pointing would be just fine, rather than a sweaty deathgrip!

Luke=like

Wow, looks like someone took the idea of 'boiling-hot cum' literally.

lol

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."

I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

it'll be interesting to see how he attempts to talk himself out of this one, but he will try, doubtlessly.

Americans are more likely to attribute the increased severity of natural disasters to global climate change than to signs of apocalyptic biblical prophecy.

• Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of global climate change, compared to 44% of Americans who say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of what the Bible calls the 'end times.' -White evangelical Protestants and Republicans are an exception to this pattern:
• Among White evangelicals, 67% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the 'end times' compared to 52% who see it as evidence of global climate change.
• Among Republicans, 52% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the 'end times' compared to 41% who see it as evidence of global climate change.

http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=519

i guess i'm supposed to be happy that overall, slightly more Americans attribute the increased severity of recent natural disasters to science rather than Catbeast, but http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/images/2006/10/19/dmu_head_in_hands_315x420.jpg

Sorry to spam multiple threads, but if I can even get one person to participate in this I think it's worth it.

Some of you may have heard about the Tar Sands protests at the White House, running every day from Aug 20th - Sept. 3rd. 322 arrests have been made so far.

The media coverage is starting to pick up steam:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/tar-sands-xl-keystone-pipeline-protest.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/why-far-off-canadian-tar-sands-have-become-a-make-or-break-issue-for-obama-with-enviros.php?ref=fpb
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61837.html#ixzz1W4D5RzZZ

If any of you are willing to join me on Sept. 3rd, here's a pretty detailed account of what you're in for:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/adam-maynard-we-shall-overcome-tar-sands/
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/update-from-legal-support-team/

"Processing once we arrived at the jailhouse was relatively painless. One by one they snapped off our plastic cuffs and led us to a long table staffed with officers who had us fill out paperwork for our release. Because of the low severity of our crime – we were charged with failure to obey a lawful order (aka get off the sidewalk) – and the benevolence of the Park Police, we were granted a “post and forfeit” release. Under these terms we could pay a $100 fine instead of staying overnight in jail and arranging a date in court. Thankfully we were instructed to have cash on us beforehand, and we were all out of police custody by 2:00 or so. Not so bad considering arrests had started around 11:30. I also want to make a point of saying that the DC Park Police were courteous and professional throughout the process, and I hope they spend my $100 wisely."

After being relative assholes on the first day (the Park Police decided to try to deter future protesters by holding them for 2 days overnight in jail), all of the protesters are now getting charged with "Failure to Obey" (a traffic charge less than a misdemeanor) and a "post and forfeit" release, which entails a $100 fine and an immediate release.

Sept. 3rd is the last day of the protests, and will probably have the most people and the most coverage. If any of you want to kick it in the paddywagon with me for an hour or so on the 3rd I'd welcome your company. Or, of course, if you can make it on any other day, even just to register your support (no arrest/fine), please do.

Join your friends on the right wing in interpreting the interpretations of'Climategate II'.

Jesus fucking christ. Reading stuff like that makes my head explode. I've want to bitterly rant at length but I'm iphoning it so I'll save it for later.

*sounds of people removing bookmark from thread*

Wow, it didn't even take them 24 hours (via Washington Monthly/Steve Benen)

A Koch-financed study of climate data, which many on the right agreed to accept no matter the outcome, just concluded that global warming is real and the scientific consensus is legit.

But it snowed yesterday in parts of the Northeast, so we once again have to deal with nonsense like this:

From Eric Bolling’s Twitter feed:

“Hey A Gore…earliest snow in NYC since the Civil War…where’s your global warming now, see?:

Last night on his Fox Business program, Bolling also pointed to the snowstorm to try to rebut climate change. On-screen text during the segment read, “Global Warming: A Scam?”

Ari Fleischer, recently hired by CNN to be one of the more respectable Republican voices, went there, too.

“This is freaky. The temp is dropping & the snown is sticking like crazy. Al Gore - get rewrite”

Does every freak snow storm have to bring out the worst in climate deniers? Is all of this really necessary?

People (including my dad, who does the same) need to have the difference between "climate" and "weather" tattooed on their faces

Well, the Daily Mail is certainly an unbiased and trustworthy source.

peepee in Canada

Well, isn't this just dandy...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/04/greenhouse-gases-rise-record-levels

The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide has jumped by a record amount, according to the US department of energy, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, the co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/01/01fotos/Newspaper-550.jpg/image_large

sure is a graph

well tbf they're shitty newspapers on every other subject in the world too

it's the trend of increasing shittiness that's annoying

2011 the 9th warmest year on record in last 130 years. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-temps.html

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

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/15/breaking-news-a-look-behind-the-curtain-of-the-heartland-institutes-climate-change-spin/

i wonder if this will get 1/1,000,000th of the coverage that the Climategate non-scandal received

hey my generation, you suck

In 2011, the largest chunk of respondents, 67 percent, said they aren't certain global warming is happening. Meanwhile, 23 percent were concerned or alarmed, and at the other end, 10 percent are not worried or don't believe it is happening.

excuse me for a second.

http://www.getgreatcodes.com/graphics/funny/16/funnypic171.gif

Political affiliation also mattered. Zero conservative Republicans were alarmed, while only 10 percent were concerned.

excuse me for a second.

http://www.getgreatcodes.com/graphics/funny/16/funnypic171.gif

Going to have to kill me some people

Climate scientist Michael Mann lets National Review Online and Mark Steyn know that they're facing a defamation lawsuit.

been so depressed since reading that McKibben piece

i'm really glad that his article is reaching a somewhat wider audience, but there wasn't much in there that was new, right?

not really, it's just the starkness of the math and the lack of progress/lateness of the hour

i confess that this isn't an issue that worries me, but maybe a pressing urgent fear isn't a pre-req for policy change?

why doesn't it worry you