Name all the scientists you can who had great ability to write grant proposals that get funding.
Now name all the scientists you can who made great advances in scientific knowledge, or who were great scientific communicators.

See which list is longer?

What does it mean for an engineering company to be highly successful?

What does it mean for an academic to be highly successful?

See the difference?

I don't think you could say that with confidence. Geocarbsulf is already pretty rough by 55 million years ago.
But certainly, no species of primate that is currently existent were doing fine during periods that had higher CO2 concentrations than we're going to be seeing.

I don't see how speciation could occur without internal variation in a species. There's nothing to differentially select for.

Moreover, within an ecological system, a drop in genetic diversity of a species can result in a drop in species biodiversity of the system, and vice-versa

The experimental results, combined with natural observations, show that in this system, the maintenance of species diversity is dependent on sufficient genetic variation, because without this variation the system would become dominated by B. nigra (if sinigrin levels are uniformly high), or by other species (if sinigrin levels are uniformly low). - Mutual Feedbacks Maintain Both Genetic and Species Diversity in a Plant Community Lankau and Strauss, NATURE, (2007)

They're not antithetical. Warm periods are associated with and increase in both speciation and extinction.
Speciation is a bit limited at the moment due to greatly reduced gene pools from habitat loss, pollution, over exploitation and climate change. So this particular one will hit hard.

Most of the fossil fuel that we burn today comes from the Carboniferous period, when the newly evolved bark bearing trees were laid down in large numbers because the capacity to break down or digest the lignin had not yet evolved.

That carbon has been taken out of the biosphere and buried deep these past 300 million years. We are in a very real way returning the climate to the one that is was by digging up the dead: It is the same carbon that we are returning to the atmosphere.

It's not a good point about the much higher levels of greenhouse gasses in the past. That's why what we're doing now is dangerous.

Nope, hotter now.

Yeah, mate. The scientists did all that undergrad and postdoc study so that they could all become idealists instead of doing research.

Thank God we have you to show us where they all went wrong. Politics!

You do realize as the only person smarter than all the scientists, you have an obligation to fix up the politics errors in the climate science papers, and submit the truth for publication.

People who doubt science be it evolution or climate science or that vaccines are effective, or that we landed on the moon are fine is small quantities, but that kind of bullshit in "news for nerds" being moderated up is a bit near the bone.

Yes, we get it: you enjoy trolling the people who like science, but Angel does have a valid point. Stop writing so much bullshit. It's getting offensive.

Gore is carbon neutral isn't he?

Gore doesn't have a private jet.

How does a jet consume energy without existing?

That's not true for any of the past 420 million years

Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.

Bullshit

Kind of irrelevant. We have existent species now. Those are the ones that have to be able to live. Really fucking massively sized insects, and dinosaurs are already dead.

Nope:
CO2, increasing since about 1750.
Temp, from about 1900.

Well, we've got a lot of science now, so we don't need to base our decisions on what you think.

No it's not. It's from the combustion of fossil fuels.

Bullshit

Bullshit. Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP

The 10 state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative saw their combined economies increase by 1.6 billion in the first three years. Oh, the pain! The pain! Ouch! Stop the hurt!


Why did /. vote this bullshit +5, interesting? I would have thought anti-science grandstanding was antithetical to "news for nerds". This place really has dropped in discernment over the past few years hasn't it. .

There seems to be a lot of pyromaniacs in politics in Canada and Australia at the moment. Also in the US Congress.

Nope. Nearer 0.5C.

If it's not, then you have no basis for claiming there's a pause. A pause is when you can show that there has been at most 0 increase.
Perhaps you should test against the weaker criteria, that it is distinguishable from 0.16C. Then at least you could claim there's been a slowing.

Dude, the AR5 was last year. IPCC aren't doing WG1 publications now.

In terms of climate science, analysis of deeper ocean warming is now consistent with radiative forcing from other calculations. You're ten months behind the science.

Well informed, and, dare I say it, nerdy, dissenting views are well tolerated. Anti-science: Climate change denial, anti-vax, intelligent design proponents, moon landing hoaxers ... I don't mind these people having a voice, but "+5 Informative"?

I beg to differ.


(Although at time of posting, it's +1 Informative)