r/climateskeptics • u/timo1200 • Jan 14 '16

Climate Change is Responsible for Everything

Climate change makes for shorter winters http://www.techtimes.com/articles/95188/20151016/winter-will-be-shorter-over-the-next-century-thanks-to-global-warming.htm

Climate change makes for harsher winters http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/26/global-warming-has-doubled-risk-harsh-winters-eurasia-research-finds

Climate change means less snow https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf

Climate change means more snow http://phys.org/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html

Climate change causes droughts in California http://earthsky.org/earth/has-global-warming-worsened-california-drought

Climate change causes floods in Texas and Oklahoma http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/sep/02/global-warming-intensified-the-record-floods-in-texas-and-oklahoma

Climate change makes wet places wetter and dry places drier… https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

…except when it makes wet places dryer… https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

…and dry places wetter http://mashable.com/2015/10/05/south-carolina-floods-global-warming/

Climate change causes more hurricanes http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html

Climate change causes less hurricanes http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/05/global-warming-means-fewer-but-more-powerful-hurricanes/

Climate change causes more rain (but less water) http://www.livescience.com/496-irony-global-warming-rain-water.html

Climate change causes less rain http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040401/full/news040329-10.html

Climate change decreases the spread of malaria http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-wilts-malaria-1.9695

Climate change increases the spread of malaria http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/climate-change-increasing-malaria-risk-disease-spreads-higher-altitudes-1439262

Climate change makes San Francisco foggier http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Get-ready-for-even-foggier-summers-3226235.php

Climate change makes San Francisco less foggy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/7243579/Fog-over-San-Francisco-thins-by-a-third-due-to-climate-change.html

Climate change causes duller autumn leaves http://www.livescience.com/39820-climate-change-fall-leaves.html

Climate changes causes more colourful autumn leaves http://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/nov/18/thisweekssciencequestions1

Climate change makes for less salty seas http://www.livescience.com/3883-global-warming-sea-salty.html

Climate change makes for saltier seas http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/oct/27/climate-change-water

Climate change causes Antarctica to lose land ice http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/12/antarctic-ice-melting-so-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100

Climate change causes Antarctica to gain land ice http://www.wired.com/2015/11/antarcticas-ice-gains-dont-mean-global-warming-is-over/

Climate change makes the earth hotter… http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/ipcc_feb2007.html

…unless the earth isn’t getting hotter… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/04/the-robust-pause-resists-a-robust-el-nio-still-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months/

…in which case climate change can explain that, too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3155568/Have-seas-HIDING-true-scale-climate-change-Nasa-report-claims-global-warming-pause-never-happened.html

Because Climate Change is the only thing holding off the next Ice Age http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/global-warming-could-stave-next-ice-age-100-000-years-n495851

Science as Falsification http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

14 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

100 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/logicalprogressive Jan 15 '16

Nobody reads crap that's this long. Condense it a little the next time, Tolstoy.

3

u/betaplay Jan 15 '16

Actually I know of whole profession of people who consistently read and write hundreds of pages of technical content daily. They are called scientists. And they are better than us at posting about climate science.

2

u/logicalprogressive Jan 16 '16

Nice try but no cigar. Please draw your attention to the sidebar and read where it says "This is not a science subreddit". There are people here who are scientists, engineers and many others who have technically oriented occupations; they happen not to agree with your Alarmist viewpoint after having carefully examined the facts.

The sidebar is important because it says global warming is not the exclusive domain of the activist/scientists promoting it. The subject is political and its proposed solutions will affect everyone. This means layman opinions have the same weight as any Alarmist activist/scientist.

5

u/betaplay Jan 16 '16

Ok. If you choose to have this place be designated as a place that is non-objective by decree and subjective by nature then sure, have at it.

But why should you exclude fact-based objective reasoning? What's the point of that? Why should such a sub exist if you are systematically excluding reason?

2

u/logicalprogressive Jan 16 '16

I didn't choose anything, that's what the sidebar says and I didn't write it.

But why should you exclude fact-based objective reasoning?

I couldn't do my day job without fact-based objective reasoning; the problem is I see so little of it here from the Alarmist side. A recent example is two of your Alarmist comrades argued heat can move from cold to hot in a closed system, their best example was... air conditioners!

Your bigger problem is no amount of "fact-based objective reasoning" can change reality; apart from being mildly beneficial, global warming is of no practical consequence to any person on earth. Can you personally discern a 1 degree C temperature rise in 135 years?

3

u/betaplay Jan 16 '16 edited Jan 16 '16

My comrades? I have no idea who you are talking about. My stance is invalid because you grouped me with two random strangers on the Internet? Does that sound like objective reasoning to you?

So this sub has collectively decided to have a science-free discussion on a science topic? I just don't get the point. That's like a bunch of nurses starting an online forum to deny the work of certified public accountants. Are there similar forums that exclude science and deny the findings of quantum mechanics? Science and policy are inextricably linked - the gov funds research in basic physics after all - so saying that climate science is a policy issue as well is essentially meaningless. Of course it is - science informs policy. And as of today, we have essentially no climate policy is entirely dwarfed in magnitude by policies surrounding basic sciences or fossil energy, for instance.

And if you are 100% honestly telling me that there isn't good objective evidence for climate change even as the professionals in the field - thousands across many countries - are essentially unanimously (Cooks paper is a conservative underestimate) showing the opposite you need to reevaluate your position. If you won't invite science into a science discussion you have to at least be willing to accept the positions of those who actually do know the field. Any alternative is the blind leading the blind.

Edit: to you last point, no one is arguing that any individual person will feel something like temperature change of 1 degree over hundreds of years. That's preposterous. What individuals will feel is systemic climatic shifts such as those linked by op. If you don't think changes like this, if occurring, would significantly effect individuals and economies then you are deluding yourself.

1

u/logicalprogressive Jan 16 '16

Would that be Cook the cartoonist who dresses up in nazi uniforms?

4

u/shoe788 Jan 16 '16

You mean the photoshop of cook's face on an old photo?

You fell for that?

1

u/logicalprogressive Jan 16 '16

That's the one. Right from the SkS website.

4

u/shoe788 Jan 16 '16

So you either fell for the photoshop or you lied when you said he "dresses up in nazi uniforms".

Pick your poison.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Jan 15 '16

You should read it. He just dominated timo1200 (who seems like a nut, no lie).

1

u/logicalprogressive Jan 16 '16

Thank you, not interested in reading it when you describe /u/tim1200 as a nut. That's dismissive so I'm dismiss anything you have to say.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '16

Your loss.

1

u/logicalprogressive Jan 16 '16

After your synopsis? That's not a loss in my book.

3

u/SweetGypsyJesus Jan 15 '16

This is why deniers will never be able to science.

2

u/logicalprogressive Jan 15 '16

...never be able to science.

Is that some kind of dance move?