Skip to main content

View Diary: Climate SOS: Deniers, Rejecters and Skeptics, Oh My! (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm going to post this link (4+ / 0-)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    Read, and if you still keep posting denialist talking points propagated by paid trolls, I will start HRing.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because you may have been one of those tricked.

    •  Please don't HR me, you big bad trusted user, you (0+ / 0-)

      I have seen the light.

      I will think the way you do, because of the link.

      I've seen the light.

      Hallelujah.

      Happy?

    •  Nietzsche said it best (0+ / 0-)

      "The best way to destroy a cause is by becoming it's most excessive advocate".

      You threaten to HR comments you don't like and dismiss it as "big oil propaganda".  Great way to engage in dialogue.

      Actually, I came to my thoughts entirely on my own as a layman.  And I already acknowledged that those who pooh pooh AGW theory also have vested interests in doing so.

      This guy does a far better job than you by being tactful and respectful to those who are AGW skeptics:

      Anyway, HR away.  Enjoy living in your bubble.

      •  I'm following you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        samanthab, Dave in Northridge

        This is a reality-based community, and if you will both ignore established science and post denialist talking points I will HR.  I'm not going to HOS, just for those things

        There is room for debate on this site.  I'm not a big fan of carbon taxes; I think giving enough incentive to solar will take care of the problem, with the way the technology is advancing.  Once solar is cheaper energy source than fossil fuels everywhere, and that day is already here in many places in the US, then it's game over for Big Oil and Big Coal.  We just have to take down those fuckers and let science do its thing.

        But in the meantime, anyone who posts that the science is still out on manmade global warming is the same in my eyes as someone who posts favorably about the science behind The Bell Curve.

        •  Request for clarification. If I post a link to a (0+ / 0-)

          published paper that argues for a sensitivity distribution that is lower than the IPCC consensus, or that shows a drought frequency and severity reconstruction that undermines Hansen's analysis, or an analysis of MWP and LIA temperatures that disagrees with Mann et al, am I committing an HRable sin?

          Where are we, now that we need us most?

          by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:31:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  IPCC SREX 2012: (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe you should HR them for expressing uncertainty.

      http://ipcc-wg2.gov/...

      "There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes. Confidence in
      observed changes in extremes depends on the quality and quantity of data and the availability of studies
      analyzing these data, which vary across regions and for different extremes. Assigning ‘low confidence’ in
      observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the
      possibility of changes in this extreme. Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to make
      assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity. The more rare the event the more difficult it is to identify
      long-term changes. Global-scale trends in a specific extreme may be either more reliable (e.g., for temperature
      extremes) or less reliable (e.g., for droughts) than some regional-scale trends, depending on the geographical uniformity
      of the trends in the specific extreme. The following paragraphs provide further details for specific climate extremes
      from observations since 1950. [3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.2.1]
      It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase
      in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely
      that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium
      confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily
      temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. In
      many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number
      of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]
      There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely
      that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and
      subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]
      There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,
      intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been
      a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in
      observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and
      inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]
      There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in
      particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,
      or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
      There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and
      frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are
      limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,
      there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of
      these changes. [3.5.2]"

      Where are we, now that we need us most?

      by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:09:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are confusing Jim Hansen's opinions with (0+ / 0-)

      the scientific consensus.  Even a cursory review of current research will demonstrate the differences.  

      You are also implying that people like Judy Curry, Cliff Mass, Pielkes Jr. and Sr., Hans Svensmark and numerous others are paid trolls.  They may be wrong about specific arguments, but it is absurd to claim as you do that they are either "denialists" or paid by someone other than their academic employers.

      Where are we, now that we need us most?

      by Frank Knarf on Fri Aug 24, 2012 at 07:21:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site