There have been a lot of publicity stunts to bring attention to climate change.

Jeter said: “Regardless of how you feel about it, it’s something that needs to be addressed because we’re seeing more and more natural disasters each year, it seems like.”

"Regardless of how you feel about it, it's something that doesn't need to be addressed because we're not seeing more and more natural disasters each year, it doesn't seem like."

Transmitted by the bite of female mosquitoes, the disease is occurring more widely due to increased movement of people and goods - including carrier objects such as bamboo plants and used tires - as well as floods linked to climate change, the United Nations agency said.

as well as floods linked to climate change, the United Nations agency said.

Well, Joe, why don't you debunk their argument then? You seem to have a countering argument. Provide us with that argument for an alternative explanation of global warming, with a synopsis of the data from the studies that support it.

By the way, Joe. The UN agency referenced is the World Health Organization. Can you also provide us with your credentials that might substantiate your expertise so that your challenge to WHO science would have some credibility?

I lived in Indonesia for almost three years and I was exceptionally lucky in that I never got Dengue, although almost everyone around me came down with it. It's not a pleasant experience for sure.

LOL. Let's plummet the world economy into depression so we can try to avoid having a couple floods somewhere on the planet which allegedly spread dengue fever a few miles farther than it already existed. Give me a break.

It's awful. I got denque about three years ago in India

I'm asking you to substantiate your position. If you believe cap and trade will "plunge the global economy into depression", please site your sources and provide a synopsis of the data supporting this view. And while you're at it, please provide studies/data on what will happen to the global economy if we do nothing at all, so we can have an informed risk/benefit discussion comparing doing nothing versus invoking cap and trade.

And if you know of no studies and are just citing an opinion that has no substantiation, let us know that too so we can all gauge how seriously you think about things.

My position is substantiated by something called "common sense."

A colloquial name for it is "breakbone fever". Is that an accurate description of how you felt?

So you just want us to accept what you say because you're Joe Kehoskie and Joe Kehoskie claims he has "common sense".

That and a token will get you a ride on the subway.

The most noticeable effects for me were a very high fever/extreme weariness (since they often go hand-in-hand) and serious arm and leg pain (which I figure would be the "breakbone" component).

Climate change denial, at this point, is just... I would say it's like ostriches putting their heads in the sand but it's a myth that they actually do that. I don't know what it's like. It's absurd. We can argue about the specific causes and how best to address it, but ignoring the results is puerile.

Any one, sure... but what if I can combine them all?

The average guy sitting two desks away from you at work probably knows more about climate change than Derek Jeter.

Yet b/c of their fame/monetary success they have an inflated sense of their own importance, and the idiotic sheeple listen to them, making them dangerous.

This happens because immune complexes localize to the joints, causing inflammation. From what I hear, it's incredibly painful.

sheeple

As far as WHO goes, again, accepting their opinions at face value is silly. There is a huge amount of junk science out there, and assuming they can link a specific illness, or even floods, directly to global warming requires a child like belief in WHO.

Jeter is indeed an awesome fielder. Just look at him!

The old Appeal to Authority fallacy, always love hearing that.

Which would have no damned point at all. But go crazy.

6. Loch Ness Monster/Sasquatch/Big foot

The idea that climate change caused Hurricane Sandy or some specific flood somewhere is little more than theory.

A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.

Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2°C and 4.5°C, with the most probable being 3°C of warming.

In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming.

The Research Council of Norway (Norwegian: Norges forskningsråd) is a Norwegian government agency responsible for awarding grants for research as well as promoting research and science. It also advises the Government in matters related to research, and is subordinate the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.

Who else do you go to for the best information but the people who are working on it? There is no other source, unless you know of someone who's doing boffo climate science out of their parents' basement that nobody knows about.

And I'm impressed with the old "Intellectual Elites Are Out To #### Us" fallacy. Thanks Shibal. I also thought it was rich that, at the same time you scoffed at my appeal to authority, you rebutted by doing the exact same thing- citing the Norwegian study. Good job. Most people shamefully disguise their hypocrisy. You mount it on a pedestal and spray paint it in neon orange.

Oh, and please provide the Norwegian study that nullifies the last 25 years of accumulated data. No offense but I'm a bit skeptical of your claim.

The IPCC are the only ones doing research? Ok, it's settled then. They must be right.

You made some lame attempt to cite IPCC as The Final Answer on global warming.

To paraphrase: global temps have remained stable since 2000, despite the fact that CO2 emissions are still climbing.

"The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity."
dishonest can you be?

Natural changes also a major factor

The figure of 1.9°C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.

This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.

The year 2012 was the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 36th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2012, all 12 years to date in the 21st century (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2012.

Is anyone arguing temps haven't gone up this last century?

No, it made fun of YOU for doing that. You. Not people.

If you're going to respond to that by arguing with people who aren't here, again, go crazy.

Of course, its dishonest when describing trends to use an outlier as a baseline but that's how conservatives/deniers operate these days. Finally, here's a global map of the year 2012. While there were a multitude of areas that experiences record warms, none show record colds:

Yeah? And what is it when people treat the measly ~130 years of weather records that exist from 1880 to 2012, out of the millions of years of the Earth's existence, as some sort of dispositive sample? (Or when people say things like you said in #62, pointing to a 100-year sample out of millions of years?)

This is called a non sequitor, Joe.

You just complained that it's "dishonest when describing trends to use an outlier as a baseline," but then you pointed to a 100-year sample and want us to treat that 100-year sample, out of millions of years of the Earth's existence, as some sort of baseline. This, despite evidence the Earth was even warmer many centuries ago, long before factories and SUVs.

We have excellent temperature records going back thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years, from the ice cores and speleothems. We have coarser temperature records from sediment cores from the ocean and on land going back millions of years.

You are an embarassment, Joe, and I say this as a diehard Republican. Shut up and let the rational folks do the talking.

Yet another Primate who doesn't know the meaning (or spelling) of "non sequitur."

You just complained that it's "dishonest when describing trends to use an outlier as a baseline," but then you pointed to a 100-year sample and want us to treat that 100-year sample, out of millions of years of the Earth's existence, as some sort of baseline.

I'm arguing that when the earth got warmer in the early 1000's there was a huge boom in European civilization. The "High Middle Ages" were a huge leap forward from the "Dark Ages". Agricultural productivity soared, populations grew, technology improved, and the arts flourished. Likewise, the Muslim world reached its peak in that era. The Medieval times were quite good, and saw significant recovery from the damage of the fall of Rome, and the Viking and Arab invasions.

It's a non sequitur because no comment was made about temperature data that captures the entire earth's history. We only have the data we have. And, quite frankly, I don't see how that is relevant.

Snapper, you're attributing all this to a warmer climate? That seems a real stretch to me.

Another non sequitur, Joe. Keep this up you're going to earn a photo in Merriam Websters

Well, as long as we're being pedantic, Joe, the earth is not millions of years old, it's billions of years old.

Your Jeter joke made fun of people who trust their eyes instead of data, which is exactly what a lot of people do when it comes to climate change. The idea that climate change caused Hurricane Sandy or some specific flood somewhere is little more than theory.

I'm always amazed to see the idea that surface temperature records don't go back very far in time deployed as some kind of "gotcha", that it's something that scientists have not considered. Of course they've considered it, which is why they've worked on so many other proxies for temperature.

Hurricane formation frequency is much more highly correlated with atmospheric conditions - instability, Saharan dust, wind shear, than SSTs;

I'm always amazed to see the idea that surface temperature records don't go back very far in time deployed as some kind of "gotcha", that it's something that scientists have not considered.

The Norwegian report says that the temp increase from a doubling of the CO2 would result in an upward change less than the IPCC estimate. The IPCC estimate is 2.0-4.5 degrees. The Norwegian suggests a lower estimate of 1.2-2.9 degrees. The two reports only differ in the degree of upward change, not in whether change is happening or not. And the two estimates overlap quite a bit so the Norwegian report actually supports the IPCC. Here:

The WHO uses all the latest and most reliable analyses, like those from the the US National Academy of Sciences and the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It takes major cajones on your part to dismiss National Academy reports as "junk science". And I'm going to have to ask you to substantiate your claim that "there is a huge amount of junk science out there". Please use specific citations and data from unbiased and independent organizations. I don't doubt that there have been some flawed studies. But there's a huge leap from that to nullifying the copious numbers of well-conducted studies and assuming WHO expert panels cannot distinguish good from bad science.

Probably the most important driver of this low CO2 state in the last 20 million years or so is the India-Asia collision resulting in a lot of rapidly eroding high mountains, and an increased rate of CO2 capture into fresh soils and rocks.

It wasn't intended as a "gotcha." As I said in that very same comment, which 'zop conveniently ignored while doing his usual Smartest Guy in History performance art, "This, despite evidence the Earth was even warmer many centuries ago, long before factories and SUVs" (emphasis added).

Joe, do you realize that you're just masturbation fodder for the liberals? You're stupid and ideological and uncreative; you are easily out debated by anyone with reasonable intelligence and there are lots and lots of very smart people on this site. They play with you like a cat batting around a half-dead mouse, then feel self-satisfied at how much smarter they are than the conservatives. You might as well just suck their dicks, since you serve no purpose other than to reaffirm everything they believe about how much superior their cause is to the other side. I'm not a RINO; and you're not a Republican. You're a simple-minded #### who chose the Red Team and have about as much serious engagement with conservative concepts as Rickey Henderson does with self-deprecation.

(i.e., the most recent 65 million years, with no dinosaurs other than birds.)

Catastrophic anthropologic climate change is "settled science" just like the Earth is flat was "settled science". Nearly everyone in history that shouted "settled science" was eventually humiliated by the truth.

This little aside from OCF in #82 reminds me of something (as an amateur student of evolution) that has always interested me: at what point would you be able to say birds became BIRDS and not just another funky dinosaur offshoot of the raptor clade? I suppose it's more of a philosophical question than anything else, but at what point can you say a species was Aves and not still a theropod dinosaur? Loss of teeth? Beak? It certainly isn't feathers, because we now know that tons of late-Cretaceous dinos were sporting plumage.

Just a random question.

When I was a earth science student, both undergrad and grad, I blew off evolutionary biology/paleontology because (a) actually doing the science is painstaking, boring, and involves tons of memorization and (b) with isotopes, there isn't nearly as much need for biostratigraphy as there used to be. But now that I'm professionally lawyering and doing geology as a hobby, I totally dig evolutionary biology. Its totally ####### fascinating and there's tons of unknowns, and the rise of DNA analysis has turned the field upside down much like plate tectonics did to the main fields of geology back in the 1960s. Forget dinosaurs evolving into birds, we don't even have human evolution remotely buttoned down and that's two orders of magnitude more recent.

This may stun you, but there's both natural climate change and there's anthropogenic climate change. And the anthropogenic signal is overprinted on the natural signal; meaning that it is simultaneously possible that it was warmer many centuries ago AND that anthropogenic climate change is real and ongoing. Similarly, if the natural signal would be for cooling temperatures during the past decade, and the anthropogenic signal would be for warming, you'd get something that looks like what we've observed; a near flat-lining since 1999 or so. The evidence for anthropogenic warming isn't that the Earth is warming, its that the physics of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere demands that the Earth warms. The smart skeptics (i.e., not you) can debate the rate of warming or the ultimate magnitude of warming (within reasonable limits) or the specific regional impacts of warming but no respected scientist thinks its not going to warm up, because the science is so obvious than anyone with reasonable training in the field (i.e., not you) can "get" the problem.

None of this justifies tanking our economy to "fix" global warming, which may or may not be a "problem", since there's nothing inherently wrong with a warming earth, and remediation should only be implemented after a careful cost/benefit analysis.

Joe, do you realize that you're just masturbation fodder for the liberals?

I'm not a RINO; and you're not a Republican. You're a simple-minded #### who chose the Red Team and have about as much serious engagement with conservative concepts as Rickey Henderson does with self-deprecation.