>> ^bcglorf:


I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.
Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.
The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.
I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.


That's probably the first rebuttal to climate change I've ever read that doesn't spout nonsense and lies. Kudos to you.

Out of interest, you say you're "not entirely a layman". May I ask if that means you have studied climatology or simply that you read the papers?

As for water vapour, it's not really a "forcing agent", it's reactive. It's better explained here.

>> ^NetRunner:

@therealblankman directly measured temperature data has been around since the 1880's. Nasa's just compiled that data into a graphical video for mass consumption.
@visionep, @bcglorf here's a link to the scientific paper associated with the video: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImba
lancePaper.pdf
But it's not as if the questions you raise haven't been answered a million times over, and it's not as if coal and oil companies haven't spent billions trying to discredit the findings for almost two decades, without success.
Maybe, just maybe, you guys should give the benefit of the doubt to the people who've dedicated their lives to studying this stuff, and not assume that they've made some basic error that any layman can see?


I'm not entirely a layman. I'm basing my opinion on searches through peer reviewed journals, ones like this. If you go and take a look, you'll find it is a pretty much bullet-proof decimation of the statistical methods used in the infamous hockey stick graph. It's not a run and gun hit job by hacks funded by big oil either. Mann's team that generated the original hockey stick graph already came to the same conclusion(with gentler wording) in their own most recent work.

Read Mann's article for yourself, he's one of the most vehement of those claiming the science is 'settled'. His most recent paper's calculations with different statistical methods though show that the earth was just as warm(or warmer) twice before in just the last 2k years.

The science that is settled is that the planet has been warming for the last long while. The science is settled that the planet has been warming over just the last 100 years that we've had instrumental record. The science is settled that mankind is inputting measurable and even significant levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is settled that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect. The science is settled that CO2's overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is less between 5-15%, while water vapor accounts for 60-90%. Science is well agreed that the role of water vapor in long term climate change is very poorly understood.

I challenge anyone to dispute the above assessment of the current state of scientific understanding, as my searching of peer-reviewed journals shows the experts in each relevant field agreeing with the above statements. Putting those together doesn't exactly add up to 'time to panic'. The only smoking gun that every was considered was the hockey stick graph that appeared to show that the last 100 years of warming was abnormal and unusual. The evidence for it is being thrown out though, and the newly recalculated data, even by the original team, suddenly looks a lot less worrying and much more normal.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by garmachi.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by mintbbb.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by mintbbb.

Either this comment is missing the sarcasm box tick or you seriously missed the point, as well as misread the title.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^hpqp:
True, but the Bible does have its say on the matter:
Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."
Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."
Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."
Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.">> ^Morganth:
"Spare the rod, spoil the child" isn't actually in the Bible - it comes from a poem by Samuel Butler.


So we agree it (the bible) is not necessarily saying to go overboard on your child...and the concept of rod means different things to different people (And meant something entirely different 2K years ago.) I don't spare the rod on my children, but I have never once abused them. I have used a stern voice that hurt their feelings, a rare spank on their rump, and the dreaded time out. Of course the times I hug and tell them how great they are vastly outweighs the number of disciplines...
And I like how you named this post, "Spare the rod...or spoil the child." The "or" is what notes the tolerance you are developing towards religion--as though religion is not particularly responsible for this child's death...but sick, fucked up parents are to blame. Considering there are about 62 thousand cases of child abuse in Russia every year, I would agree with you.
You should read A Boy Called It...very heartrending...

>> ^hpqp:

True, but the Bible does have its say on the matter:
Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)."
Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."
Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."
Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."
Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel)."
Prov 29:15: "The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.">> ^Morganth:
"Spare the rod, spoil the child" isn't actually in the Bible - it comes from a poem by Samuel Butler.



So we agree it (the bible) is not necessarily saying to go overboard on your child...and the concept of rod means different things to different people (And meant something entirely different 2K years ago.) I don't spare the rod on my children, but I have never once abused them. I have used a stern voice that hurt their feelings, a rare spank on their rump, and the dreaded time out. Of course the times I hug and tell them how great they are vastly outweighs the number of disciplines...

And I like how you named this post, "Spare the rod...or spoil the child." The "or" is what notes the tolerance you are developing towards religion--as though religion is not particularly responsible for this child's death...but sick, fucked up parents are to blame. Considering there are about 62 thousand cases of child abuse in Russia every year, I would agree with you.

You should read A Boy Called It...very heartrending...

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Lawdeedaw.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Stingray.

How long it took and how many times it changed hands does nothing to the fact that 2k and gearbox released a sub-par game.