blonde poker forum

observed global temperature changes since 1850. 2015 (so far) has broken the graph.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR6sVb2WIAEbV0v.png)

are you a climate change worrier or dernier?

is it irreversible, or what should we do about it?

What happened in 1880?

from the star newspaper, 1880

(http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/imageserver/imageserver.pl?oid=TS18800909.2.18&area=2&width=428&color=32&ext=gif&key=)

it was a hot year!

they don't write them like that any more :)

I am not a denier, but it has only broken the graph because the scale for the y axis has been set by somebody with a clear agenda. 

If you are told there was a 90% chance that there was a nasty murderer who likes to mutilate children waiting on the path to school; you wouldn't pack your daughter's bag and send her out on that same path because there was that small element of doubt about the whole thing.

It's truly a beautifully written piece. The art of eloquent writing seems to be lost in the media these days.

Nonsense. You're just reading the wrong sort of media.

The NY Times is still full of that awful, overwritten dense sort of prose.

I'm not sure I get what you mean by this. I get the first point, but not the second about the murderer.

It's not perfect but this gives a sense of the longer term

(http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/gtemps.jpg)

Hasn't that been debunked?
Seems unlikely that the majority of climatologists would have ignored that if it were true

Sorry if it wasnt clear.  Must climate change deniers aren't complete deniers, they just don't see the evidence as 100%.  I think people get the argument all wrong.  The consequences of ignoring climate change are too catastrophic even if you believe the chances aren't even that close to 100%.  I personally think by far the most likely reason for climate change is that it is man made, but don't think it is proven completely.  

But even if I think there is only a 90% chance it is true, we still need to do something about it.  The downside of action is much smaller than the downside of inaction.    In the real world you prepare for things that happen much less often than 90% of the time.  You'd have to be a complete Fwit to believe that there was zero chance climate change was man made.  

So back to the example, even if you think the statisticians have made a huge mistake and the murderer is only there 25% of the time, you still don't let your kid walk to school.

Ah OK, I get you now. It's a really good point. A proper Pascal's wager. I'm really struggling to see how anyone could disagree. And yet...

Lies, damned lies and adjusted statistics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

Cliffs: the International Panel on Climate Change and the scientists who feed into it have form for fiddling the data to promote their message.

Says Christopher Booker...

Sponsored by VW?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CR3h7oVVAAAQwbN.jpg)

goo.gl/ReiJUf 

Those famous climate sceptics in the USA have this to say. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

But the point here is the scale is hugely relevant as it only takes small incremental changes to have dramatic effects on climate. So to say "oh they've just zoomed in" shows a fundamental misunderstanding on the point and value of graphs in a scientific context.

Completely.

If I was drawing a graph of average global temperature it seems only natural to have the axis go down to -10F (water freezes at 32F)

This year is likely to be the warmest on record, U.N. says http://on.wsj.com/1PYxA3I 

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CUpv-RLWUAAanqS.png)

That reminds me of something that one of my fiancee's lecturers has said. His view is more from geological era's, it was something like; if a meteorite hits the planet - it alters the climate; if their's a massive super volcano - it alters the climate; if humans industrialise etc - it alters the climate. i.e. whatever we think of as man made - is still a natural event just like any of the other major events that have drastically altered the planet in the past. The worst case scenario is that we change the climate so much we die - but that doesn't really affect the planet.

It just reminds me whenever anybody says they're saving the planet, they're not - the planet doesn't care it will carry on in some form whatever happens.

Six graphics that explain climate change

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb

Thank God Jim Inhofe is head of the American environment committee.

murica fuk yeh   ;tk;  ;nemesis;

This person has taken the modern take on the word "literally" and taken it so absurdly far the other it has really puzzled me. I don't really get it. Has anyone ever thought that saving the planet meant preventing the destruction of the earth? Or just preventing the destruction of our planet as a place humans can inhabit

Paris climate talks: governments adopt historic deal

"

Governments have signalled an end to the fossil fuel era, committing for the first time to a universal agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid the most dangerous effects of climate change at crunch UN talks in Paris.

After 20 years of fraught meetings, including the past two weeks spent in an exhibition hall on the outskirts of Paris, negotiators from nearly 200 countries signed on to a deal on Saturday evening that set ambitious goals to limit temperature rise and to hold governments to account for reaching those targets.

François Hollande, the French president, appealed to negotiators to approve the 31-page text, and said countries had a rare chance to make history. “We are at a decisive point in time,” he said.
"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2015/dec/12/paris-climate-talks-francois-hollande-to-join-summit-as-final-draft-published-live?CMP=share_btn_tw

oh

The Paris Climate Treaty is scandalously expensive – and utterly useless says Bjorn Lomborg: http://bit.ly/1OZkZvK