Jump to content
The Corroboree
Evil Genius

The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Well it's not really secret anymore now is it?

 

97% concensus of man made global warming, yet the climate is cooling

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL:lol:

 

Confirmation bias alright.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lol... Your the biggest troll in here sunshine.

 

Rub a fish on it and you might feel better:wink:

 

 

Edited by waterboy 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated but funny.

 

Can see you are "special" indeed, as in special education :bootyshake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most can work out who's special alright:wink:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me beeing special or not don't make you less retarded though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yep here comes that childish shit again, award for the most amateur derail attempt *golf clap*

 

 

 

Edited by waterboy 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:

Well it's not really secret anymore now is it?

 

97% concensus of man made global warming, yet the climate is cooling

https://climate.nasa.gov

Seems all the evidence is to the contrary. Of course, I think you must be much more intelligent than that guys over at NASA and the many other scientific groups over the world.

 

GlobalTemp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously though, does it hurt pretending to be that slow or does it really just come naturally to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damm a few window lickers in this thread lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting Rules

 

2) Please be friendly and supportive (no insults).

 

but then there's this....

 

6) Provide a valid and accurate climate, or a location from which climate can be deduced.

 

which is kinda related to this "discussion" in a convoluted and punlike, interesting, amusing way    :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't mean to take any kind of moral high road or anything like that. Just noticing this thread taking a nasty turn toward the bitches gripes section of the place. But the guy in the Bar that tries to break up the fight is invariably the one who ends up getting decked so hey, youall wanna verbally start punching on, be my guest. Pretend I'm not here, I'll go make some popcorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, freakazoid said:

6) Provide a valid and accurate climate, or a location from which climate can be deduced.

 

Using self depreciation to bring the thread back on topic. It's good to see you have not lost your sense of humour, considering the rising sea levels have forced you to live a semi aquatic existence.:wink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, freakazoid said:

Posting Rules

 

2) Please be friendly and supportive (no insults).

 

but then there's this....

 

6) Provide a valid and accurate climate, or a location from which climate can be deduced.

 

which is kinda related to this "discussion" in a convoluted and punlike, interesting, amusing way    :P

 

No two ways about it, there simply isn't a lot of  posting of factual information as we are seeing many resources are simply one persons opinion.

1880    -0.19    -0.11
1881    -0.1    -0.14
1882    -0.1    -0.17
1883    -0.19    -0.21
1884    -0.28    -0.24
1885    -0.31    -0.26
1886    -0.32    -0.27
1887    -0.35    -0.27
1888    -0.18    -0.27
1889    -0.11    -0.26
1890    -0.37    -0.26
1891    -0.24    -0.27
1892    -0.27    -0.27
1893    -0.32    -0.27
1894    -0.32    -0.24
1895    -0.22    -0.23
1896    -0.11    -0.21
1897    -0.12    -0.19
1898    -0.28    -0.17
1899    -0.18    -0.18
1900    -0.09    -0.21
1901    -0.15    -0.24
1902    -0.3    -0.27
1903    -0.39    -0.3
1904    -0.49    -0.32
1905    -0.28    -0.35
1906    -0.23    -0.37
1907    -0.4    -0.38
1908    -0.44    -0.4
1909    -0.48    -0.41
1910    -0.44    -0.41
1911    -0.43    -0.39
1912    -0.36    -0.35
1913    -0.35    -0.32
1914    -0.16    -0.3
1915    -0.12    -0.29
1916    -0.33    -0.28
1917    -0.43    -0.28
1918    -0.28    -0.28
1919    -0.27    -0.28
1920    -0.25    -0.26
1921    -0.17    -0.25
1922    -0.27    -0.24
1923    -0.24    -0.22
1924    -0.25    -0.21
1925    -0.21    -0.21
1926    -0.09    -0.2
1927    -0.2    -0.2
1928    -0.19    -0.19
1929    -0.35    -0.18
1930    -0.15    -0.19
1931    -0.1    -0.19
1932    -0.17    -0.18
1933    -0.3    -0.18
1934    -0.14    -0.17
1935    -0.21    -0.15
1936    -0.16    -0.12
1937    -0.04    -0.08
1938    -0.03    -0.03
1939    -0.03    0.01
1940    0.11    0.05
1941    0.18    0.08
1942    0.05    0.09
1943    0.07    0.09
1944    0.21    0.07
1945    0.09    0.03
1946    -0.07    0
1947    -0.04    -0.04
1948    -0.11    -0.07
1949    -0.11    -0.09
1950    -0.19    -0.08
1951    -0.07    -0.08
1952    0.01    -0.08
1953    0.07    -0.08
1954    -0.15    -0.07
1955    -0.14    -0.06
1956    -0.2    -0.05
1957    0.04    -0.04
1958    0.07    -0.01
1959    0.03    0.02
1960    -0.02    0.03
1961    0.06    0.02
1962    0.04    0
1963    0.07    -0.02
1964    -0.2    -0.03
1965    -0.1    -0.04
1966    -0.05    -0.05
1967    -0.02    -0.04
1968    -0.07    -0.03
1969    0.07    -0.01
1970    0.03    0
1971    -0.09    0
1972    0.01    0
1973    0.16    -0.01
1974    -0.08    0
1975    -0.02    0.01
1976    -0.11    0.03
1977    0.17    0.07
1978    0.06    0.12
1979    0.16    0.16
1980    0.27    0.19
1981    0.33    0.21
1982    0.13    0.22
1983    0.31    0.21
1984    0.16    0.21
1985    0.12    0.23
1986    0.18    0.25
1987    0.33    0.28
1988    0.41    0.31
1989    0.28    0.34
1990    0.44    0.34
1991    0.41    0.33
1992    0.22    0.33
1993    0.24    0.33
1994    0.31    0.34
1995    0.44    0.37
1996    0.33    0.4
1997    0.47    0.43
1998    0.62    0.45
1999    0.4    0.48
2000    0.4    0.5
2001    0.54    0.52
2002    0.62    0.55
2003    0.61    0.58
2004    0.53    0.6
2005    0.67    0.61
2006    0.62    0.61
2007    0.64    0.61
2008    0.52    0.62
2009    0.63    0.62
2010    0.7    0.62
2011    0.57    0.63
2012    0.61    0.67
2013    0.64    0.71
2014    0.73    0.77
2015    0.86    0.83
2016    0.99    0.89
2017    0.9    0.95

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Edited by Inyan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4 April 2018 at 9:35 PM, freakazoid said:

 Just noticing this thread taking a nasty turn toward the bitches gripes section of the place..

 

This thread is called 'The great global warming/cooling thread Part 2' because the first global warming cooling thread went pretty much where this one is going and was canned. Let's not have it happen a second time?! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2018 at 1:17 AM, Inyan said:

https://climate.nasa.gov

Seems all the evidence is to the contrary. Of course, I think you must be much more intelligent than that guys over at NASA and the many other scientific groups over the world.

 

GlobalTemp.png

 

Because you can measure global temperature to 1 degree over 100's of years

 

This 1 degree difference must be the same reason why i hear people talk about how they used to ice skate every winter
 

Retards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be time to discuss the psychology of those that play make believe in their heads their heads.

 

It seems they are always focused on themselves... No surprises there really.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161004103313.htm

Climate change is a serious threat to humans, animals, and Earth's ecosystems. Nevertheless, effective climate action has been delayed, partly because some still deny that there is a problem. In a new thesis in psychology, Kirsti Jylhä at Uppsala University has studied the psychology behind climate change denial. The results show that individuals who accept hierarchical power structures tend to a larger extent deny the problem.

 

In the scientific community there is a strong consensus that humans have significantly affected the climate and that we are facing serious challenges. But there is a lot of misinformation about climate change in circulation, which to a large part is created and distributed by organised campaigns with the aim of postponing measures that could combat climate change. And there are people who are more prone than others to trust this misinformation.

 

Previous research has consistently shown that it is more common among politically conservative individuals to deny climate change. In her thesis, Kirsti Jylhä has investigated this further and in more detail. Her studies included ideological and personality variables which correlate with political ideology, and tested if those variables also correlate with climate change denial.

 

The results show that climate change denial correlates with political orientation, authoritarian attitudes and endorsement of the status quo. It also correlates with a tough-minded personality (low empathy and high dominance), closed-mindedness (low openness to experience), predisposition to avoid experiencing negative emotions, and with the male sex.

Importantly, one variable, named social dominance orientation (SDO), helped explain all these correlations, either entirely or partially.

Social dominance orientation is a measure of the acceptance and advocating of hierarchical and dominant relations between social groups. This acceptance of hierarchies also extends to accepting human dominance over nature.

 

The correlation between SDO and climate change denial can perhaps be explained by considering the many injustices of climate change. Our current wealthy lifestyles are the primary cause of climate change, but the most serious consequences are affecting mainly poor countries and people, as well as animals and future generations of humans.

 

According to Kirsti Jylhä, it is possible that individuals who accept the unequal distribution of the risks and benefits of climate change, more easily can keep demanding more evidence for climate change before admitting and addressing it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201704/why-do-people-want-refute-climate-change

 

To test their hypotheses, they recruited subjects to participate in a survey of political belief-related factors and climate change denial related factors. They administered the following scales:

    The Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, measuring a) authoritarian aggression, B) authoritarian submission, and c) conventionalism;
    The Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale, measuring the "tendency to prefer group-based hierarchy and inequality";
    The Ideological orientation measure, asking individuals where they fall politically, ranging from "extremely liberal" to "extremely conservative";
    The Climate Change Mitigation Threat (CCMT) scale, measuring anxiety-related the possible effects on socioeconomic stability due to proposed changes such as higher costs for higher carbon emission, caps on emissions, and the impact on conventional fuel industries from alternative energy sources;
    The Climate Change Denial scale, measuring four types of climate change denial including a) denial of existence of climate change, B) denial of human cause, c) impact denial and d) climate science denial.

Their findings, representing correlations and requiring follow-up research to clarify causal relationships, are nevertheless fascinating.

 

First of all, they confirmed that ideological orientation, RWA and SDO were associated with higher levels of climate change denial. The found that CCDT was correlated with all ideological variables as well as with all climate change denial variables. This supports the basic idea that not only is right-wing ideology connected with climate change denial, but it is also connected with reporting greater concern that addressing climate change will upset the socioeconomic status quo.

 

Furthermore, they found that while SDO and Conventionalism predicted all of the climate change denial factors, the Agression and Submission subscales were not statistically significant on a more complex level of analysis.

 

Because the threat to the socioeconomic status quo was a partial determinant of climate change denial, this research strongly suggests that political orientation leads to climate change denial for additional reasons such as identification, where conservatives might adopt the prevailing views of the group, including attitudes about climate change. It is interesting, though of unclear significance, that on closer analysis Aggression and Submission were not correlated with climate change denial, especially in the context of measuring contributors to Authoritarianism, highlighting the role of Conservativism over the potentially effects of retaliatory or defensive reactions.

 

The finding that socioeconomic threat is associated with avoidant coping (denial) is telling because it is another disturbing example of how people can sacrifice long-term health and safety in order to prevent short-term losses. Avoidant coping is generally considered to be maladaptive, for example, and acceptance and reappraisal, forms of active coping, are generally more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comment is pretty base DualWieldRake.

 

You seem to be reduced to invective when faced with ideas that conflict your own beliefs.

 

Not much to respect there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all the tool has left :wink:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me me me me, sad little child:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh...

 

Northerner wanders off to the garden to find something to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Northerner said:

Your comment is pretty base DualWieldRake.

 

You seem to be reduced to invective when faced with ideas that conflict your own beliefs.

 

Not much to respect there.

 

What idea exactly was that again?

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×