Support NeoGAF

[Earthstrike]

1) Notice the chart stops at the year 2000, it doesn't show the decrease in temperature change with increased CO2 after 2000

Are you fucking serious? Are you really this fucking stupid? Look at the fucking chart. Take a fucking ruler, put it to your screen and measure up. THE CHART DOES EXTEND BEYOND 2000.

How fucking stupid can you possibly be? The only reason I'm not responding to everything is because there have been many responses beyond this point and I haven't read them all, but when you're ability to read a fucking chart is clearly not even present I have to interject.

 

[Lime]

not to shit on the jeff_rigby parade, but he/she is pretty famous for making kind of crazy threads about PS3 architecture (no offense, jeff, you just have a certain way of posting that comes across as kind of detached)

 

[Indicate]

The lack of citation from scientific journals is hilarious in this thread.

 

[Mailbox]

Are you fucking serious? Are you really this fucking stupid? Look at the fucking chart. Take a fucking ruler, put it to your screen and measure up. THE CHART DOES EXTEND BEYOND 2000.

How fucking stupid can you possibly be? The only reason I'm not responding to everything is because there have been many responses beyond this point and I haven't read them all, but when you're ability to read a fucking chart is clearly not even present I have to interject.

I personally find it hilarious how he can say that after we are currently in our second successive hottest recorded year in history.

I get that we wants to be skeptical, and in science that's rather healthy, but to disregard everything scientists have been saying so intensely is just baffling and comes off as horribly arrogant and detached

 

[FoxSpirit]

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

Also, let me set this straight: the scientific community is not a bunch of morons who simply overlook facts. Because all this discussion is exactly that, calling 95% of scientists who agree on climate change dumb. Or people with an agenda. Proxies of the climate change industry. But only a valliant one in twenty even dares to speak the truth and shows how it really is, free from bias.

Give me a break.

 

[AuthenticM]

You guys didn't know that Jeff Rigby was legit crazy?

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm skeptical because parts of Greenland were green and settled during the medieval warming period while many of those same areas are under ice now with temperatures that are supposed to be higher today resulting in glaciers melting at unheard of rates. .

Good thing we're talking about the planet as a whole and not localized spots

 

[jeff_rigby]

Are you fucking serious? Are you really this fucking stupid? Look at the fucking chart. Take a fucking ruler, put it to your screen and measure up. THE CHART DOES EXTEND BEYOND 2000.

How fucking stupid can you possibly be? The only reason I'm not responding to everything is because there have been many responses beyond this point and I haven't read them all, but when you're ability to read a fucking chart is clearly not even present I have to interject.

This chart does show temperature change flattening out after 2000 while the other chart does not. I assume you are not calling me stupid but yourself for not knowing this or believing the hype.

The chart still shows the rate of temperature increase from 1910 to 1940 before man made CO2 could have had an impact is greater than after 1940. Doesn't anyone know how to read a chart?

 

[jeff_rigby]

I personally find it hilarious how he can say that after we are currently in our second successive hottest recorded year in history.

I get that we wants to be skeptical, and in science that's rather healthy, but to disregard everything scientists have been saying so intensely is just baffling and comes off as horribly arrogant and detached

This is an example of the manipulation of data. IF you actually look at the data not the descriptions, the rate of temperature change has decreased as seen in the slope change in the last chart I posted and the increase if it's happening is at the margin of error or less than .02 degrees over temperatures nearly 10 years earlier. If CO2 is steadily increasing and it is responsible for the increase in temperature then there is some other process negatively impacting global warming. The models were wrong. Why?

2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly, the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis.

When you combine the above with the slope of temperature change increase before man made CO2 was an issue is exactly the same as after, it raises questions. In the text for the Nasa satellite data used to say we are in the second successive hottest year in history, it says the margin of error is greater than the actual change they report so they are taking the largest possible temperature it could be and reporting that.

 

[jeff_rigby]

You guys didn't know that Jeff Rigby was legit crazy?

Speculating the PS3 is not end of life because it will be used as a Vidipath client and PS Now using PS3 hardware to stream PS3 games to other platforms indicate a longer life for the PS3 and a possibly more efficient Cell is being used. This might mean a seriously refreshed PS3 is coming and then I speculated it would support low power IPTV as a Vidipath client as low power modes are required by the EU and Energy Star power boards.

Other than the above I'm about 90% accurate. That's really legit crazy huh. Look how crazy I was about the PS3 getting a HTML5 <video> browser using GTk APIs and then using WebMAF for building Webkit APPs. Or that the PS3 with the Playready port is getting a major OS upgrade for the APP side of the PS3 VERY similar to the PS4 which has a WebGL desktop and also used WebMAF for APPs.

Because you don't have the background knowledge to see the obvious you think I am crazy for seeing the obvious.

 

[Mailbox]

I feel like this Veritasium video from a year ago is oddly appropriate right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

 

[jeff_rigby]

I feel like this Veritasium video from a year ago is oddly appropriate right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU

Very good video as a background and I only have two problems with it.

1) If the earth warms slightly and that causes CO2 to be released by the sea then with warming the surface warmer seas are less acidic not more. Arctic cold water and deep seas are the only areas that can absorb more CO2 and become acidic.

2) Temperature increases be it man made from CO2 or whatever does cause both more increases in CO2 from the ocean and an increase in water vapor which is the major greenhouse gas. This is undisputed and in the video so there must be negative feedback or we would ramp right up to unsurvivable temperatures like Venus. On the contrary the earth has spent more time in ice ages than it has in warm periods which seems to indicate that warming is the fragile process and we need to find ways to keep us in the warm period.

A) The decrease in slope from 2000 on seems to indicate a negative feedback is in play or the sun is decreasing in activity (this is also mentioned in the video).
B) The slope for temperature increase before man made CO2 being nearly the same as after raises questions over whether CO2 is in play or negative feedback has no lag.

We don't know enough about the climate processes and if Cosmic ray-Sun-Cloud creation is a factor we will know in two years if we are going into a minor ice age as we did at the last Dalton minimum.

SHOCK CLAIM: World is on brink of 50 year ICE AGE and BRITAIN will bear the brunt

Weak sun could offset some global warming in Europe and US &#8211; study

GLOBAL WARMING? LOW SUN SPOT CYCLE COULD MEAN &#8216;LITTLE ICE AGE&#8217;

Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 | Top Scientists Predict Global Cooling 2015-2050

The Sun Has Gone Quiet

Global Cooling Imminent

New paper finds .8C global cooling during Dalton Minimum

Global Cooling by Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen

Yes, it is Going to Get Colder &#8211; Add More Antifreeze.

Dalton Rather Than Maunder Minimum?

Real risk of a Maunder minimum &#8216;Little Ice Age&#8217; says leading scientist

Since Dalton-Minimum 190 years ago, never has the sun been so inactive.

Swiss scientists now say that the Little Ice Age most certainly could have been triggered by variations in solar activity.

Two Review Papers Conclude &#8212; It is the SUN! Not CO2.

 

[Jackben]

I thought they already debunked climate change because they caught all those scientists making up fake data so they would get liberal money.

 

[jeff_rigby]

I thought they already debunked climate change because they caught all those scientists making up fake data so they would get liberal money.

No, the earth has been warming at nearly the same rate from about 1850 to 2000 so the climate is changing. It's just questionable how much can be caused by CO2 as the rate of change is nearly the same before and after man is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere.

The models were proved wrong and CO2 sensitivity was halved in new models to bring them in line with the changes before 2000. Some are now saying because the slope from 2000 on is much less that it's 1/3 of what was originally proposed. It's hard to pin down because the models have to take in negative feedback and positive feedback. Add to that, the Sun has a major impact that was not part of the model. From 2012 on it's been reducing in sunspot activity when it's supposed to be increasing.

 

[Jackben]

So really it's not a question of whether climate change is real, but rather how much of it is man made?

If that's the case, I don't understand why anyone would be against climate change studies or research into alternative energy sources. How is attempting to preserve and protect a bad thing?

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

The lack of citation from scientific journals is hilarious in this thread.

THANK YOU

 

[Bigboss242]

Fuck revenge. The only outcome I would want from this is an end to the "debate" and a swift pivot of the priorities of climate change

Too late now we all pay the price.

 

[jeff_rigby]

So really it's not a question of whether climate change is real, but rather how much of it is man made?

If that's the case, I don't understand why anyone would be against climate change studies or research into alternative energy sources. How is attempting to preserve and protect a bad thing?

It's not. You have to understand the Carbon credits and carbon tax are ways to make money for individuals like Gore and for another revenue stream for the Federal Government. There is less money now to buy votes.

There is a political battle about man made CO2 and mitigation because of the above. Both sides distrust each other and there are enough issues in the science to give both sides wiggle room to distort facts. The Democrats and liberals say the science is settled and "deniers" should be shot (read the posts in the last page). The conservatives point out what the data says and say we should wait till it's clearer before draconian measures are implemented.

If a non-governmental body were to collect the carbon tax and only use it for alternative energy research then I would be in favor. But the people most impacted by the denial of the Keystone pipeline and a carbon tax are the poor. So with a carbon tax would be a additional government program to hand out money to the poor to pay for increases in food and electricity costs because of the carbon tax. Of every dollar collected by the government about 30% is consumed and does not get back to us so it's a bad idea.

Nuclear power and Hydroelectric have been stalled in the US. France has the largest number of nuclear reactors per capita and is selling electricity at hugely inflated rates to "Green countries".

 

[neoemonk]

That's where the quotation marks come into play. It's noting that Republicans are still showing an ignorant face in today's age, despite the companies they're protecting truly knowing 40-ish years ago.

I recently deleted my Facebook because it was turning into political meme overload, but climate change denial was a theme there. Whether the people in power think it's true or not, their voter base certainly doesn't, or at least the cross section I'm exposed to in my life.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

It's not. You have to understand the Carbon credits and carbon tax are ways to make money for individuals like Gore and for another revenue stream for the Federal Government. There is less money now to buy votes.

There is a political battle about man made CO2 and mitigation because of the above. Both sides distrust each other and there are enough issues in the science to give both sides wiggle room to distort facts. The Democrats and liberals say the science is settled and "deniers" should be shot (read the posts in the last page). The conservatives point out what the data says and say we should wait till it's clearer before draconian measures are implemented.

If a non-governmental body were to collect the carbon tax and only use it for alternative energy research then I would be in favor. But the people most impacted by the denial of the Keystone pipeline and a carbon tax are the poor. So with a carbon tax would be a additional government program to hand out money to the poor to pay for increases in food and electricity costs because of the carbon tax. Of every dollar collected by the government about 30% is consumed and does not get back to us so it's a bad idea.

Nuclear power and Hydroelectric have been stalled in the US. France has the largest number of nuclear reactors per capita and is selling electricity at hugely inflated rates to "Green countries".

You say this as if there is no profit to be gained from supporting a political agenda that either advocates the "wait and see" approach or full out promotes climate change denial, which is what ExxonMobile are being accused of.

We can debate certain interpretations of measurements and compare between existing climate models in terms of how they correspond with past data, but if you're going to bring politics into this then I'd like to see some sources that explain how any agenda behind overestimating the effects of climate change (and the degree to which humanity is responsible for it) isn't dwarfed by the agendas behind underestimating these effects (and the extent of our contribution to them). Personally I've never understood this argument, perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Cited but dismissed: and the author should be "barred for spreading misinformation treatened with Jail" by the poster for posting FACTS. Who are really the deniers?

Exxon&#8217;s conclusion during the 1980s has subsequently been validated by real-world climate observations. For example, IPCC&#8217;s first assessment report, published in 1990, predicted 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming per decade, and perhaps as much as 0.5 degrees Celsius per decade. In the 25 years since 1990, however, temperatures have increased by just over 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade, or less than half the IPCC predictions. Also, IPCC predicted 6 centimeters of sea level rise per decade. In reality, sea level has risen at less than half that pace. IPCC reports predicted more frequent and severe extreme weather events, yet hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and nearly all other extreme weather events have become less frequent and less severe as our planet continues is modest warming. IPCC predicted declining agricultural production, yet global crop production continues to set new records virtually every year. In short, Exxon made a judgment call that &#8220;skeptics&#8221; had a better handle on climate science than alarmists, and Mother Nature has proven Exxon correct.

 

[mcz117chief]

Honestly, it is nothing THAT special. The environment is changing constantly, that much can be seen by studying history books. Ice ages, mini-ice ages, periods of very high temperatures and humidity and everything in between. It isn't something we should be alarmed about, we just have to adapt. Some rivers will dry out and others will form, where there are deserts now might be jungles in a century and vice versa. Who knows, if the CO2 in atmosphere will keep on rising we might see the return of equisetales forests.

So really it's not a question of whether climate change is real, but rather how much of it is man made?

If that's the case, I don't understand why anyone would be against climate change studies or research into alternative energy sources. How is attempting to preserve and protect a bad thing?

You can't put a lid on climate change, it is something our ancestors have learned to live with and we will have to too. I am not saying that we should devastate the planet at every turn but saying we have to stop climate change is ridiculous. Back in the days there were constant forest fires, huge parts of continents could have burned down which released an insane amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, much more than we make. Then you have volcanic eruptions (and other smaller stuff like coal fires and oil fires) those alter the climate a ton more than humans could ever do.

Just look what a single volcano, Krakatoa, did to the global climate in 1883.

 

[blu]

Cited but dismissed: and the author treatened with Jail by the poster. Who are really the deniers?

I'm failing to follow your line of reason. So because the temperatures rising has not hit IPCC's most pessimistic predictions, there's no rising of temperatures?

Honestly, it is nothing THAT special. The environment is changing constantly, that much can be seen by studying history books. Ice ages, mini-ice ages, periods of very high temperatures and humidity and everything in between. It isn't something we should be alarmed about, we just have to adapt. Some rivers will dry out and others will form, where there are deserts now might be jungles in a century and vice versa. Who knows, if the CO2 in atmosphere will keep on rising we might see the return of equisetales forests.

You can't put a lid on climate change, it is something our ancestors have learned to live with and we will have to too. I am not saying that we should devastate the planet at every turn but saying we have to stop climate change is ridiculous. Back in the days there were constant forest fires, huge parts of continents could have burned down which released an insane amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, much more than we make. Then you have volcanic eruptions (and other smaller stuff like coal fires and oil fires) those alter the environment a ton more than humans could ever do.

It's not the change per say - life on earth has seen much hotter times. It's the rate of change.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Cited but dismissed: and the author should be "barred for spreading misinformation treatened with Jail" by the poster for posting FACTS. Who are really the deniers?

where is the author threatened with jail?

 

[mcz117chief]

It's not the change per say - life on earth has seem much hotter times. It's the rate of change.

Yeah, I know.

 

[Lime]

Apparently man-made climate change deniers still exist.

 

[jeff_rigby]

where is the author threatened with jail?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183041378&postcount=44 And it's only barred from posting (facts) while Exon should be jailed for believing scientists who were proven correct.

 

[jeff_rigby]

I'm failing to follow your line of reason. So because the temperatures rising has not hit IPCC's most pessimistic predictions, there's no rising of temperatures?

It's not the change per say - life on earth has seen much hotter times. It's the rate of change.

As you say it's the rate of change with the last 18 years a nearly 0 change. Before man made CO2 the warming RATE is the same as it is after and from 2000 it flattens to almost 0. Please explain that?

Please explain ice ages with CO2 levels 10 time what we have now? Please explain why the earth has been in ice ages many times longer than it's been in warm periods.

 

[Aureon]

1) Notice the chart stops at the year 2000, it doesn't show the decrease in temperature change with increased CO2 after 2000
2) Notice the temperature is increasing from 1910 to 1940 at a greater rate than after 1950 to 2000 when our CO2 consumption drastically increases and as you move to the right the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. This chart shows that as CO2 increases the effect decreases.
3) from 1940 to 1975 the temperature decreases and this is the industrial boom after and during WWII where CO2 going into the atmosphere drastically increases.

The slope of the temperature line tells all. The following is a better chart showing the slope doesn't change which means CO2 is not having an impact in global warming. The first and second slopes are before Man made CO2 could have an impact on global temperature. Something else is causing that warming and the rate is the same as attributed to man made CO2 in the third red sloping line. .

Read the chart, before man made CO2 the temperature increased .9 degrees from 1910 to 1940 and .7 degrees from 1940 to 2000. Do the math and there is less global warming after man made CO2; in 30 years .9 degree vs 60 years and .7 degrees.

Chill guy, it's natural processes not man made. A longer chart shows the medieval warming period was withing the margin of error the same as today. That's what the chart on the top shows. The bottom chart was fudged and leaves out the medieval warming period and squashed the chart so that you can't see the slope is the same as before man made global warming could have had an impact.

Ehm.
Are you unfamiliar with noise in statistics?
It's completely expected for data to break down when analyzed over periods of time too short.
If you want to properly do the breakdown analyze, the commonly accepted method is to split it in two still-relevant buckets, randomly, and see if it still holds up.
... And it does.
Cherry picking data subsets post-hoc proves nothing.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183041378&postcount=44 And it's only barred from posting (facts) while Exon should be jailed for believing scientists who were proven correct.

Facts according to The Heartland Institute....

The Heartland Institute

A science denying think thank that among many other things helped tobacco companies obfuscate the health risk for as long as inhumanly possible.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Facts according to The Heartland Institute....

The Heartland Institute

A science denying think thank that among many other things helped tobacco companies obfuscate the health risk for as long as inhumanly possible.

While that may be true the Heartland article is posting facts that are documented by the IPCC and NASA. The only questions would be did Exon really believe their scientists or did they get lucky.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

While that may be true the Heartland article is posting facts that are documented by the IPCC and NASA. The only questions would be did Exon really believe their scientists or did they get lucky.

Why would they believe them, the bottom line is much important than the data, that hurts it.

 

[blu]

As you say it's the rate of change with the last 18 years a nearly 0 change.

On what planet?

Before man made CO2 the warming RATE is the same as it is after and from 2000 it flattens to almost 0. Please explain that?

'Before' being? Man has been pumping out CO2 since the industrial revolution.

Please explain ice ages with CO2 levels 10 time what we have now? Please explain why the earth has been in ice ages many times longer than it's been in warm periods.

Why should I explain ice ages? And why are you trying to shift the topic away from the rate of change?

 

[Jackben]

I don't know what to believe. Knowing that, what is the worse thing that could happen if we act as if man made climate change is a real problem? Is working to lowerg pollution, recycle more and become more self sustaining a bad thing? It doesn't seem bad at all. A lot better than the alternative.

 

[Stinkles]

Speculating the PS3 is not end of life because it will be used as a Vidipath client and PS Now using PS3 hardware to stream PS3 games to other platforms indicate a longer life for the PS3 and a possibly more efficient Cell is being used. This might mean a seriously refreshed PS3 is coming and then I speculated it would support low power IPTV as a Vidipath client as low power modes are required by the EU and Energy Star power boards.

Other than the above I'm about 90% accurate. That's really legit crazy huh. Look how crazy I was about the PS3 getting a HTML5 <video> browser using GTk APIs and then using WebMAF for building Webkit APPs. Or that the PS3 with the Playready port is getting a major OS upgrade for the APP side of the PS3 VERY similar to the PS4 which has a WebGL desktop and also used WebMAF for APPs.

Because you don't have the background knowledge to see the obvious you think I am crazy for seeing the obvious.

Jeff, the point is you're making conclusions in a vacuum that 95% of climate change scientists have already filled with data and conclusions that are not only better researched and thought out than yours, but have been laboriously tested, cross referenced and pulled apart for decades.

You're not just wrong, you're literally ignoring the entire scientific method.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Jeff, the point is you're making conclusions in a vacuum that 95% of climate change scientists have already filled with data and conclusions that are not only better researched and thought out than yours, but have been laboriously tested, cross referenced and pulled apart for decades.

You're not just wrong, you're literally ignoring the entire scientific method.

Watch this video.

 

[Hypron]

Jeff, the point is you're making conclusions in a vacuum that 95% of climate change scientists have already filled with data and conclusions that are not only better researched and thought out than yours, but have been laboriously tested, cross referenced and pulled apart for decades.

You're not just wrong, you're literally ignoring the entire scientific method.

Yeah. It's kinda sad.

Arguing with climate change deniers is like arguing with conspiracy theorists though. There's nothing you can say that'll convince them because they'll disregard any conflicting evidence, no matter how overwhelming it is.

 

[Indicate]

.

 

[Foffy]

Watch this video.

Ted Cruz is your argument?! Did you see the comments?

You have people denying evolution because DNA exists. YES, SOMEONE SAID THIS.

Those are the people who buy Cruz and his prying.

 

[bsp]

Then you have volcanic eruptions (and other smaller stuff like coal fires and oil fires) those alter the climate a ton more than humans could ever do.

Just look what a single volcano, Krakatoa, did to the global climate in 1883.

If you are defining "alter the climate a ton more than humans could ever do" to mean CO2 emissions, volcanoes emit around 1% of the CO2 that human activity contributes.

I also find it somewhat misleading to describe Krakatoa under the guise of "what a single volcano can do" when it is probably the most violent eruption ever recorded. It is nowhere near the norm to allow you to dismiss all human contributions towards the global climate (which is very, very shortsighted).

 

[jeff_rigby]

Ted Cruz is your argument?! Did you see the comments?

You have people denying evolution because DNA exists. YES, SOMEONE SAID THIS.

Those are the people who buy Cruz and his prying.

No the Sierra club president's response to Ted Cruz is the argument. There is no discussion and the 18 year pause is being ignored/denied....scientific data is being ignored every bit as vehemently as some of the evolution deniers.

If CO2 is such a forcer for temperature increases then what's stopped it in it's tracks is even greater and THAT should be feared as a colder earth is massively more dangerous to our over populated world. Remember over the history of the earth even with CO2 levels 10 times today we have had Ice ages for something like 5 times longer than we have had warm periods. It appears that cooling and ice ages are the predominant NORM. 2 degrees of heat from 1980 levels will displace 10s of millions and may cause disease and starvation to a few million but a rapid 2 degree temperature decrease from 1980 levels will kill billions.

Perhaps it's a negative feedback due only to the temperature increase in which case we have no worries about CO2 either. More research is needed but I'd suggest watching the next few years closely.

 

[KHarvey16]

No the Sierra club president's response to Ted Cruz is the argument. There is no discussion and the 18 year pause is being ignored/denied....scientific data is being ignored every bit as vehemently as some of the evolution deniers.

If CO2 is such a forcer for temperature increases then what's stopped it in it's tracks is even greater and THAT should be feared as a colder earth is massively more dangerous to our over populated world. 2 degrees of heat from 1980 levels will displace 10s of millions and may cause disease and starvation to a few million but a rapid 2 degree temperature decrease from 1980 levels will kill billions.

Perhaps it's a negative feedback due only to the temperature increase in which case we have no worries about CO2 either. More research is needed but I'd suggest watching the next few years closely.

There is absolutely no pause. That's not denial, it's an objective truth.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm

Read that and address it.

 

[jeff_rigby]

There is absolutely no pause. That's not denial, it's an objective truth.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm

Read that and address it.

The 2010? article is addressing the decrease from 2007 to 2008 and the pause from 2000 to 2008 and says the noise may be hiding an increase and 7 years is too short a time to determine if it is normal variability or a pause, you need at least decades. It is now 7 years later and 1.8 decades of pause, it's now pretty much confirmed as a "pause" not short term "weather" variability.

The above is obvious from the link and reading the article. This echos the Sierra club denials.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Watch this video.

Shoot straight with us. Exxon is funding your research for your Playstation posts, aren't they? It's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[KHarvey16]

The 2010? article is addressing the decrease from 2007 to 2008 and the pause from 2000 to 2008 and says the noise may be hiding an increase and 7 years is too short a time to determine if it is normal variability or a pause, you need at least decades. It is now 7 years later and 1.8 decades of pause, it's now pretty much confirmed as a "pause" not short term "weather" variability.

The above is obvious from the link and reading the article. This echos the Sierra club denials.

It's obvious you either did not read the material I linked you to or could not understand it. I sent you to the intermediate version, but there is a basic tab that dumbs it down if that is more your speed.

 

[jeff_rigby]

Shoot straight with us. Exxon is funding your research for your Playstation posts, aren't they? It's the only thing that makes sense.

Nah, some Sony employees tired of the corporate secrecy contact me from time to time to leak info. I go through the trouble to cite and cite to keep Sony corporate from knowing I am getting inside information.

My stock portfolio is heavily Sony and I do research on their plans. If you read the whitepapers, CE industry news and FCC plans, Sony was a bargain in 2011 with the greatest turnaround chance. Whats coming has been delayed by both Tivo suits to the FCC and the end of Moore's law. In 2010 everything was on track for Microsoft's Yukon and the PS4 using 3D memory. By late 2011 it became clear to industry insiders that 3D memory and interposers weren't going to happen. Yukon became Durango and Sony has to use GDDR5 so they moved the ARM block out of the APU to Southbridge with it's own DDR3 memory. This is still part speculation based on Industry papers that did a turnaround on Amkor 3D assembly plans from early to late Oct 2011 ....

 

[GreatestHits]

waaaiiit, is jeff_rigby the dude who made his ps3 have better graphix by tweaking his system???

 

[sc0la]

Nah, some Sony employees tired of the corporate secrecy contact me from time to time to leak info. I go through the trouble to cite and cite to keep Sony corporate from knowing I am getting inside information.

My stock portfolio is heavily Sony and I do research on their plans.

So you practice insider trading as well as climate change denial? Good show.

 

[Elfforkusu]

There was no "global warming pause", the heat just went into the oceans.

re: the climate change is natural talking point:

CO2 and the climate have been roughly stable for the last 10,000 years, a.k.a. all of human civilization. Thanks to our efforts, we're transforming the climate on a global level. We're turning Earth into something different. Call it Earth 2.

That this new Earth 2 can support human civilization is likely. It has all the hallmarks of a liveable world: liquid water, abundant plant life. But it also has large patches of its oceans covered by plastic debris. Acquifers, lakes, and rivers polluted by deadly poisons. Its weather patterns are more severe than the ones we're used to. Yet none of those caveats preclude human civilization.

But they might preclude the survival of 7 billion humans. Think of it this way: Earth has a limit, at our current level of technology, of how many humans can live lives free of misery and disease. "Carrying capacity". We can speculate on what Earth's carrying capacity is, but what about Earth 2's?

Because the number is going to be smaller. Coastline cities destroyed by rising sea levels, fertile farmland transformed into deserts. Among other questions: where do the displaced people go? These are the true consequences of climate change. The closer Earth 2 is to our current version, the less dire the outcome.

 

[BlastProcessing]

So you practice insider trading as well as climate change denial? Good show.

Who knew that a global warming thread on GAF would cause an SEC investigation?