So that's it for the election.

[Saskrotch]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

global warming doesnt exist, just left-wing retardism since liberalism is a mental disorder.

you cant take these people seriously. they want to overtax an already suffocating economy to give to people who don't deserve it all while the country is already bankrupt.

True story.

[Lucky]

I'm talking about carbon taxes, that'll be $4.20 everytime u wanna fart

[Hasbinlulz]

First of all, here is a more recent (recency isn't important tho right? What could we have learned in only five years?? lol) study published in Nature (one source you cite) entitled "At Least Three Quarters Of Climate Change Is Man Made."
http://www.nature.com/news/at-least-...an-made-1.9538

Secondly, when you do a simple google search on Richard S. Lindzen (a generally well respected professor at MIT), after the wikipedia about him and his own page, the third result is literally titled: "Is Richard S. Lindzen deliberately lying, or just deluded?" Yes it is an opinion piece, but it is indicative of the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists, from the little I've studied about it. He is basically the most credible scientist of the "opposition" to the idea that recent global climate changes have humans to blame. That being said, the ratio of scientists who agree with him, as this article cites, is 97 against, 3 for:
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent) and meteorologists (64 percent). A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of Americans believe that human activity contributes to climate change. Read more at http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html.

Fuck off with your bullshit, "doc."

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Hasbinlulz]

somehow the other link (from which the second link above is referenced) didn't come through: http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/...r_just_deluded

[Hasbinlulz]

Also, like that article says, do a ctrl+F on this document and tell me how many times "wall street," "economics," and "energy" come up, and tell me if that tells you something or not.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...ationsRSL.html

[Hasbinlulz]

Fucking noobs should know better by now.

[Hasbinlulz]

Good point about global warming distracting people from other issues tho. That is true, and should be addressed. A lot of things currently threaten -the entire world- that aren't being talked about (rain forest bioDiversity and the chitridomycosis/amphibian situation, mainly).

[Lucky]

who gives a fuk about the animals unless theyre in the ovens

[Splorf22]

I just continue to find it so funny that you attack Daldoma for citing sources and then proceed with a massive appeal to authority with *gasp* blog citations from a . . . software developer. http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/who Meanwhile your entire attack on Richard Lindzen is a giant ad hominem against someone who has done a lot more research than you ever will. Do you really not understand that the 'scientific consensus' means nothing compared to the reality of things?

Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!

Well, I've utterly destroyed all your links, so how about you say something about mine? I mean, other from your usual ad hominems. Flame away, just know that a good post has many ingredients, not just trolling.

[Hasbinlulz]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyway, I read your Nature article. I can only say . . . HAHAHAHAHAHA. Let me see if I can explain to your mongoloid brain why those authors should be taken out and beaten with a hose. Google the name of the paper (its free to download) and skip down to 'methodology'. Then see if you can tell me with a straight face that a 3-layer neural network with 10 nodes and 12 input parameters can represent our Earth, the sun, its atmosphere, and so on. All of this stuff ends up being the same BS: when you train on data since 1850, both CO2 and temperature have increased. If you throw any statistical measure at this of course it will say they are correlated. Now, repeat after me: correlation is not causation!

Yeah, except that a simulation only needs to be as complex as will produce consistent and predictive results, you fucking tool.

Read the last paragraph, and see if your fancy letters can help you ferret out the reason why this study is valid rather than invalidated by lack of infinite complexity, as you seem to desire:

Here we have shown that for global temperature the fundamental principle of conservation of energy, combined with knowledge about the evolution of radiative forcing, provides a complementary approach to attribution. Our results are strongly constrained by global observations and are robust when considering uncertainties in radiative forcing, the observed warming and in climate feedbacks. Each of the thousands of model simulations is a consistent realization of the ocean atmosphere energy balance. The resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7–6.5 °C, 5–95%, mean 3.6 °C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from palaeoclimate archives11. Using a more informative prior assumption does not significantly alter the conclusions (see Supplementary Information). Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing. The discrepancy between the total and the sum of the two contributions (14% on average) arises because the total ocean heat uptake is different from the sum of the responses to the individual forcings. Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07 °C (0.03–0.13 °C) to the warming since 1950 (see Fig. 3c). The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times.