Octopus Overlords

I was reading an article about the great extinction events in the history of the world. They are already listing global warming as # 6. And YOU were there!

Jaymann wrote:I was reading an article about the great extinction events in the history of the world. They are already listing global warming as # 6. And YOU were there!

Anything but first is still a loser.

Are we gonna let some chunck of rock beat us.


Come on guys all together, let's win this thing!

The asteroid was #5, and they're listed chronologically.

1. End-Ordovician: 440 million years ago
2. Late Devonian: 375-359 million years ago
3. End-Permian: 252 million years ago
4. End-Triassic: 201 million years ago
5. End-Cretaceous: 66 million years ago

Or, as YECs like to say, last Wednesday.

Welp, it looks like we are moving into the next phase of public understanding of climate change. The last phase found many still fixated on denial. You can tell we were coming to the end of this phase when the denialists went from denying any change was occurring to begrudgingly accepting change is occurring, but that's natural change buddy, see warming on Pluto, etc. Now that we are moving into even broader consensus/acceptance of human-caused climate change we get to move into the next scary phase of public thought on climate change: re-engineering climate will solve all (and make a lot of money)! Now I am all for exploring these options, but talk about an area where you want to tread very carefully...

Of course the next phase will get even more exciting, it's the, okay our bad climate change was indeed really happening... but... but... it's:

A. Natural; B. Not all bad (Who needs Bangladesh anyways?); and C. Was human caused, but is now way too late and we have to learn to adapt to the changed climate and focus on more important priorities. This is pretty much the space that Bjoern Lomborg has made his living in.

Enough wrote:Welp, it looks like we are moving into the next phase of public understanding of climate change. The last phase found many still fixated on denial. You can tell we were coming to the end of this phase when the denialists went from denying any change was occurring to begrudgingly accepting change is occurring, but that's natural change buddy, see warming on Pluto, etc. Now that we are moving into even broader consensus/acceptance of human-caused climate change we get to move into the next scary phase of public thought on climate change: re-engineering climate will solve all (and make a lot of money)! Now I am all for exploring these options, but talk about an area where you want to tread very carefully...

Of course the next phase will get even more exciting, it's the, okay our bad climate change was indeed really happening... but... but... it's:

A. Natural; B. Not all bad (Who needs Bangladesh anyways?); and C. Was human caused, but is now way too late and we have to learn to adapt to the changed climate and focus on more important priorities. This is pretty much the space that Bjoern Lomborg has made his living in.

Based off of website like Drudge and Fauxnews I would argue that a high percentage of the US population is still in denial about the human causation.

Enough wrote:Welp, it looks like we are moving into the next phase of public understanding of climate change.

When last I remember we were on was Bargaining. Does that mean Depression is next? Perhaps that's when the shit starts to really hit the fan?

Scraper wrote:

Enough wrote:Welp, it looks like we are moving into the next phase of public understanding of climate change. The last phase found many still fixated on denial. You can tell we were coming to the end of this phase when the denialists went from denying any change was occurring to begrudgingly accepting change is occurring, but that's natural change buddy, see warming on Pluto, etc. Now that we are moving into even broader consensus/acceptance of human-caused climate change we get to move into the next scary phase of public thought on climate change: re-engineering climate will solve all (and make a lot of money)! Now I am all for exploring these options, but talk about an area where you want to tread very carefully...

Of course the next phase will get even more exciting, it's the, okay our bad climate change was indeed really happening... but... but... it's:

A. Natural; B. Not all bad (Who needs Bangladesh anyways?); and C. Was human caused, but is now way too late and we have to learn to adapt to the changed climate and focus on more important priorities. This is pretty much the space that Bjoern Lomborg has made his living in.

Based off of website like Drudge and Fauxnews I would argue that a high percentage of the US population is still in denial about the human causation.

indeed.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

Writing in his Real Science blog, Steven Goddard explained how he found out that NASA had altered U.S. temperature readings to show a warming trend where none existed: He compared graphs published on NASA’s website in 1999 to those available today. He even set up an animation of the two temperature graphs to show the extent of the fraud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... anipulated

Scraper wrote:

Enough wrote:Welp, it looks like we are moving into the next phase of public understanding of climate change. The last phase found many still fixated on denial. You can tell we were coming to the end of this phase when the denialists went from denying any change was occurring to begrudgingly accepting change is occurring, but that's natural change buddy, see warming on Pluto, etc. Now that we are moving into even broader consensus/acceptance of human-caused climate change we get to move into the next scary phase of public thought on climate change: re-engineering climate will solve all (and make a lot of money)! Now I am all for exploring these options, but talk about an area where you want to tread very carefully...

Of course the next phase will get even more exciting, it's the, okay our bad climate change was indeed really happening... but... but... it's:

A. Natural; B. Not all bad (Who needs Bangladesh anyways?); and C. Was human caused, but is now way too late and we have to learn to adapt to the changed climate and focus on more important priorities. This is pretty much the space that Bjoern Lomborg has made his living in.

Based off of website like Drudge and Fauxnews I would argue that a high percentage of the US population is still in denial about the human causation.

True, but if you look at mainline organizations that those things are tied to we see them starting to accept it's real (re-insurance markets, corporation boards of directors, etc). Maybe we're in the "last throes" of denial? I dunno, I think it's getting to the point where folks on the denial bus are viewed more like kooks and quacks at this point. I am willing to accept I could be jumping the gun on this next phase though.

Edit for typo

Enough wrote:"last throws"

throes

Rip wrote:
indeed.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

Writing in his Real Science blog, Steven Goddard explained how he found out that NASA had altered U.S. temperature readings to show a warming trend where none existed: He compared graphs published on NASA’s website in 1999 to those available today. He even set up an animation of the two temperature graphs to show the extent of the fraud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... anipulated

Fabulous citations dude. First guy is also an evolution denier among other lovely beliefs and second dude is a pseudonym for a climate skeptic (Tony Heller) with a grad degree in electrical engineering who happens to be close friends with first dude and he doesn't even believe in the greenhouse effect on Venus. But yeah, sure it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy. LOL.

Isgrimnur wrote:

Enough wrote:"last throws"

throes

and

Enough wrote:Fabulous citations dude. First guy is also an evolution denier among other lovely beliefs and second dude is a pseudonym for a climate skeptic (Tony Heller) with a grad degree in electrical engineering who happens to be close friends with first dude and he doesn't even believe in the greenhouse effect on Venus. But yeah, sure it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy. LOL.

Animated graphs don't lie.

This reminds me of a pretty interesting article on the physics of the building collapses of 9/11 written by a philosophy or history or some other art Prof. It sounded good. It read well. It was pretty convincing. And then 40 million engineers come out of the woodwork to explain why it was nonsense.

why would 40 million engineers lie? Because somethingsomething conspiracy.

Enough wrote:Welp, it looks like we are moving into the next phase of public understanding of climate change. The last phase found many still fixated on denial. You can tell we were coming to the end of this phase when the denialists went from denying any change was occurring to begrudgingly accepting change is occurring, but that's natural change buddy, see warming on Pluto, etc.

Yes, now we get the benefit of hearing the explanation from world famous scientists James Inhofe and Charlie Daniels.

spoilers: god did it!

Enough wrote:he doesn't even believe in the greenhouse effect on Venus.

Wow. If you can't even establish that premise then he's about useless. That's like saying God put the Dinosaur bone here... maybe so we could have oil?

Enough wrote:

Rip wrote:
indeed.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

Writing in his Real Science blog, Steven Goddard explained how he found out that NASA had altered U.S. temperature readings to show a warming trend where none existed: He compared graphs published on NASA’s website in 1999 to those available today. He even set up an animation of the two temperature graphs to show the extent of the fraud.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... anipulated

Fabulous citations dude. First guy is also an evolution denier among other lovely beliefs and second dude is a pseudonym for a climate skeptic (Tony Heller) with a grad degree in electrical engineering who happens to be close friends with first dude and he doesn't even believe in the greenhouse effect on Venus. But yeah, sure it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy. LOL.

Whatever, the "next phase" is clearly not even close to being upon us.

Rip wrote:Whatever

Whatever?

Enough wrote:Fabulous citations dude. First guy is also an evolution denier among other lovely beliefs and second dude is a pseudonym for a climate skeptic (Tony Heller) with a grad degree in electrical engineering who happens to be close friends with first dude and he doesn't even believe in the greenhouse effect on Venus. But yeah, sure it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy. LOL.

Not that I am defending these guys, but that's just a pure ad hominem argument. You're attacking them rather than their data. Show us where they are wrong.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Rip wrote:Whatever

Whatever?

Yea, arguing that you don't agree with them does nothing to support the notion that people have given up on the notion that "man made climate change" is a fabricated crisis. They quite obviously have not. Just wishful thinking on some peoples part.

Grifman wrote:Not that I am defending these guys, but that's just a pure ad hominem argument. You're attacking them rather than their data. Show us where they are wrong.

With all due respect, this is an *old* claim. Every time some goon with a newspaper column repeats an oft-debunked myth, it shouldn't be incumbent on people to debunk it *again*.

So while I am sympathetic to the notion of "hey, that's an ad hominem argument!", in this case because it's the same group of people making the same mistake over and over again. This is why you shouldn't look to journalists for scientific arguments. The first goon has been repeatedly debunked on a number of topics over the years - and they all have a common theme - he has no idea what he is talking about, because he has no scientific background or training. He is susceptible to all manner of misinformation and misinterpretation problems.

He is to The Sunday Telegraph what Rip is to us.

My point being - when the same person or group of people keeps repeating something that has been repeatedly debunked, sometimes the cost is that they deserve to have their words immediately discarded when they repeat the same thing again with a more inflammatory headline (that will be feverishly clicked by Rip). At some point you lose the ability of playing the "but that's ad hominem!!" card.

Edit to add: A case in point is with our very own Rip. I know, with 100% certainty that *every* link that Rip will post related to climate change will be ill-conceived bunk. I know this because it's been true for 100% of the links he's posted so far. I also know that this is no guarantee that any/all future links are bunk - but he's lost the benefit of the doubt. That's on him, not me.

While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk. It was not a proclamation climate change denial but rather a show that climate change denial is not as unpopular as we may hope it is.

LordMortis wrote:While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk.

You wish. Hell, I wish.

Unfortunately, that simply isn't so.

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk.

You wish. Hell, I wish.

Unfortunately, that simply isn't so.

Except it was.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk.

You wish. Hell, I wish.

Unfortunately, that simply isn't so.

Except it was.

See? If Rip has been converted into believing those articles are bunk the goal posts are moving people!

Enough wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk.

You wish. Hell, I wish.

Unfortunately, that simply isn't so.

Except it was.

See? If Rip has been converted into believing those articles are bunk the goal posts are moving people!

I didn't say that either. I am simply observing that the fight of whether it becomes accepted as universally as the world being round is far from over.

Rip wrote:

Enough wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk.

You wish. Hell, I wish.

Unfortunately, that simply isn't so.

Except it was.

See? If Rip has been converted into believing those articles are bunk the goal posts are moving people!

I didn't say that either. I am simply observing that the fight of whether it becomes accepted as universally as the world being round is far from over.

Intriguing, except that I never claimed it was on the level of acceptance that the earth is round. I am seeing movement to the next phases though, plenty of folks are moving on to saying it is occurring but it's natural (pretty sure MSD has used that argument here before blaming warming on the sun), or it's occurring but it's not to our benefit to deal with it, and in fact would be downright a commie plot to implement any proposed solutions/mitigation. I am arguing we are in the process of leaving the denial phase, not that all denial has completely died out. And really your two citations are from the old guard of climate denial, guys who might stay stuck on the old paradigm until they die, even if the rest of the world moves on. It's like Kuhn's thoughts on paradigm change, it won't fully happen until the old priesthood isn't around anymore. I'm talking about degrees of general movement in a direction away from denial and you are talking about black and white binary stuff.

Also, it would have greatly helped had you clarified your stance on the part of LM's post I bolded above when you said "Except it was." You could have just as easily said, "I actually believe my linked articles are correct and they also show that we are still in stage one denial." So... what say you on your linked articles? Bunk to make a point? Or not bunk to make a point?

I will predict now that we will soon (next 10 years) go into a cooling phase.

I expect a cooling phase as soon as the sun goes down.

Rip wrote:I will predict now that we will soon (next 10 years) go into a cooling phase.

Based on your extensive background in climatology?

Enough wrote:

Scraper wrote:

Enough wrote:Welp, it looks like we are moving into the next phase of public understanding of climate change. The last phase found many still fixated on denial. You can tell we were coming to the end of this phase when the denialists went from denying any change was occurring to begrudgingly accepting change is occurring, but that's natural change buddy, see warming on Pluto, etc. Now that we are moving into even broader consensus/acceptance of human-caused climate change we get to move into the next scary phase of public thought on climate change: re-engineering climate will solve all (and make a lot of money)! Now I am all for exploring these options, but talk about an area where you want to tread very carefully...

Of course the next phase will get even more exciting, it's the, okay our bad climate change was indeed really happening... but... but... it's:

A. Natural; B. Not all bad (Who needs Bangladesh anyways?); and C. Was human caused, but is now way too late and we have to learn to adapt to the changed climate and focus on more important priorities. This is pretty much the space that Bjoern Lomborg has made his living in.

Based off of website like Drudge and Fauxnews I would argue that a high percentage of the US population is still in denial about the human causation.

True, but if you look at mainline organizations that those things are tied to we see them starting to accept it's real (re-insurance markets, corporation boards of directors, etc). Maybe we're in the "last throes" of denial? I dunno, I think it's getting to the point where folks on the denial bus are viewed more like kooks and quacks at this point. I am willing to accept I could be jumping the gun on this next phase though.

Edit for typo

The R Party has been moving toward reality on this topic (the Senate recently passed a resolution acknowledging warming and narrowly failed to endorse anthropogenesis), but they've so effectively trained their base in denial that they can only walk it back one baby step at a time.

One hopes that those baby steps follow in rapid succession so that the political debate can turn to possible remedies and adaptations, which is what we should be arguing about.

Isgrimnur wrote:I expect a cooling phase as soon as the sun goes down.

I think the data shows it will start sooner.

Kraken wrote: One hopes that those baby steps follow in rapid succession so that the political debate can turn to possible remedies and adaptations, which is what we should be arguing about.

Interesting thing going on.

http://www.nature.com/news/pilot-projec ... lt-1.13459

I can't find the item now but they are pulling out rods of stuff that is no longer CO2 gas now. I'm wondering if you can turn that back into energy, like coal.

Not good enough to preserve or reverse atmospheric trends or anything but it's real work on remedies and adaptations.

Alefroth wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:I expect a cooling phase as soon as the sun goes down.

I think the data shows it will start sooner.

Are we talking air, earth, or water?

RunningMn9 wrote:

Rip wrote:I will predict now that we will soon (next 10 years) go into a cooling phase.

Based on your extensive background in climatology?

Based on my uncanny prediction skills.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk.

You wish. Hell, I wish.

Unfortunately, that simply isn't so.

Except it was.

Rip wrote: Whatever, the "next phase" is clearly not even close to being upon us.

Your response to Enough implies that you're a liar. But since I can't prove it, I take it back.

Rip wrote:I will predict now that we will soon (next 10 years) go into a cooling phase.

How much money are you putting on it? Are you selling flood insurance policies at a potential loss due to this incredibly overblown problem? After all, if you are right, there is a LOT of money to be made from fearful libruls...

If not, then at what point would the overall evidence convince you that you have been wrong for the past 15 years plus on this, and moreso that your stubborn position has made the problem a LOT more difficult to fix (in conjunction with others who hold similar positions)? At that point, what will you do?

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

LordMortis wrote:While it wasn't evident from the post itself, rip's intent was to post stuff full of bunk to exemplify to that the world is not yet short of people believing in bunk.

You wish. Hell, I wish.

Unfortunately, that simply isn't so.

Except it was.

Rip wrote: Whatever, the "next phase" is clearly not even close to being upon us.

Your response to Enough implies that you're a liar. But since I can't prove it, I take it back.

The next phase is not needing to deal with deniers or not. Saying it isn't upon us says nothing for or against the claims of said deniers.

Rip wrote:The next phase is not needing to deal with deniers or not. Saying it isn't upon us says nothing for or against the claims of said deniers.

You are correct. I misread.

Pyperkub wrote: If not, then at what point would the overall evidence convince you that you have been wrong for the past 15 years plus on this, and moreso that your stubborn position has made the problem a LOT more difficult to fix (in conjunction with others who hold similar positions)? At that point, what will you do?

Blame Obama.

Thanks Obama!