Reality: your "science" is most likely made up...

LordZorch: Reality: your "science" is most likely made up...

Anything that disagrees with Hannity surely is.

LordZorch: Reality: your "science" is most likely made up...

As opposed to Sean Hannity, the well-known and oft-published climatologist.

LordZorch: Reality: your "science" is most likely made up...

Global warming thread: CHECK
Lord Zorch turd dropped in the boobies?: CHECK
All is normal in the universe?: CHECK

Problem: A scientific finding has been proven suspect.
Solution: immediately quote said finding as undeniable fact.

LordZorch: Reality: your "science" is most likely made up...

And I'm sure yours is the model of empirical rigor.

Newsflash: Hannity is a liar. He's also an idiot, but it goes beyond sheer idiocy and ignorance into deliberately lying to his sheep.

Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?, Isn't the purpose of science is to test ideas. Closed minds close debate.

bearsfolks
Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?, Isn't the purpose of science is to test ideas. Closed minds close debate.

Scientists should and do keep questioning things. However there's also a point, which we're well past when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, where the level of certainty is high enough that we need to take action. There will never be 100% certainty.

Climate scientists, Media Matters, and Hannity. It's a trifecta of constant error.

bearsfolks: Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?



Might have something to do with it.

Racht: bearsfolks: Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?



Might have something to do with it.

Yes, because if we've learned one thing lately, it's that we can implicitly trust climate scientists' alarming graphs.

MuadDib:
Yes, because if we've learned one thing lately, it's that we can implicitly trust climate scientists' alarming graphs.

Well, I'm sure the global warming deniers have done their own research and have an alternate graph of "correct" global temperatures per year. Surely you can find one of those for me, yes?

MuadDib: Yes, because if we've learned one thing lately, it's that we can implicitly trust climate scientists' alarming graphs.

Nothing they have said calls into question the veracity of their instrumental temperature record. Furthermore,

Are the data points collected by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center in the DoE also fabricated?

Is the satellite temperature data collected by Remote Sensing Systems also fabricated?

Is the satellite temperature data collected by the University of Alabama-Huntsville also fabricated?

All of these data points more or less match up. George Soros' tentacles have a long reach, huh.

Ok, I don't give a fark about this flamewar because only idiots don't think global warming is a problem, but if Hannity doesn't think this is an usually mild fall, he's not only an idiot, he's an idiot who hasn't been outside in a month and a half.

elchip: All of these data points more or less match up. George Soros' tentacles have a long reach, huh.

I hear that dude is like 9/10ths tentacles, and 1/10th hating capitalism.

For seven million a year I'd say just about anything big business wanted me to say too.

Republicans have learned well from Joe Goebbels.

MuadDib: Racht: bearsfolks: Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?

Might have something to do with it.

Yes, because if we've learned one thing lately, it's that we can implicitly trust climate scientists' alarming graphs.

I think this answers your question, bearsfolks. It takes two to debate. There are some people who will disregard any evidence presented.

NOAA is already on the list, but perhaps "The year 2009" should be added for this one.

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefor, America
(LOPCATGOPATA for short):
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Dogs

More groups will be added as they and their nefarious schemes are exposed.

Why do they call it a hoax?

I mean, in order for global warming to be a hoax there would have had to have been organized groups going up to the arctic with thousands of miles of extension cord and hair dryers, melting the pack ice.

Without getting caught, of course.

what_now: Ok, I don't give a fark about this flamewar because only idiots don't think global warming is a problem, but if Hannity doesn't think this is an usually mild fall, he's not only an idiot, he's an idiot who hasn't been outside in a month and a half.

To be fair, it has been average to below average in much of the US this year:



Though overall it's still one of the top five hottest years on record. The other four, of course, all occurring in the last twelve.

We don't need science to know that Hannity is a douche. it's one of those things that is instinctual and comes from our lizard brains. We instinctively know to eat, to drink, to procreate, to stay away from fire and that Hannity should be slapped whenever possible.

Ah, so this explains why my mom and dad have been harping on this so much lately. Hannity's got them all whipped up into a lather over this subject. I figured as much.

what_now: Ok, I don't give a fark about this flamewar because only idiots don't think global warming is a problem, but if Hannity doesn't think this is an usually mild fall, he's not only an idiot, he's an idiot who hasn't been outside in a month and a half.

I presume Hannity resides in the NYC area. It's been in the 50s and 60s here all month. Pretty temperate for the end of November, from what I'm told.

Racht: To be fair, it has been average to below average in much of the US this year:

Yeah, but Hannity is in NYC, and it's been A LOT warmer in the northeast than usual, and the summer was really, really weird- it rained for a month straight, got hot for a month and then hopped right into fall. For about 2 1/2 months the temperature has been consistent. That's weird.

elchip: MuadDib: Yes, because if we've learned one thing lately, it's that we can implicitly trust climate scientists' alarming graphs.

Nothing they have said calls into question the veracity of their instrumental temperature record. Furthermore,

Are the data points collected by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center in the DoE also fabricated?

Is the satellite temperature data collected by Remote Sensing Systems also fabricated?

Is the satellite temperature data collected by the University of Alabama-Huntsville also fabricated?

All of these data points more or less match up. George Soros' tentacles have a long reach, huh.

I dunno but when MANY parts of the code used to run the simulations have stuff like this in them, it makes you think that everybody has to be in on it.

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

Rev.K: Why do they call it a hoax?

I mean, in order for global warming to be a hoax there would have had to have been organized groups going up to the arctic with thousands of miles of extension cord and hair dryers, melting the pack ice.

Without getting caught, of course.

Because the GOP is currently little more than a pack of conspiracy theorists.

Ask an older republican you may know about ACORN or birth certificates. See what happens.

/my list is only half-joking.

BOZ:
I dunno but when MANY parts of the code used to run the simulations have stuff like this in them, it makes you think that everybody has to be in on it.

The only people who look at that and think it's all a giant conspiracy are the same people who already thought it was all a giant conspiracy.

You know... technically they're both right regardless of the politics. Any year is bound to be "one of the warmest" as well as "one of the coldest" ever since it falls somewhere between "the warmest" and "the coldest." They need to be more specific ;P

/yes I know what they imply when they say "one of the --est"
//I just feel like being contrary.

Diogenes: MuadDib: Racht: bearsfolks: Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?

Might have something to do with it.

Yes, because if we've learned one thing lately, it's that we can implicitly trust climate scientists' alarming graphs.

I think this answers your question, bearsfolks. It takes two to debate. There are some people who will disregard any evidence presented.

Apparently.

I Said: NOAA is already on the list, but perhaps "The year 2009" should be added for this one.

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefor, America

With all those hate groups out there, how can America possibly survive this onslaught? WE MUST TAKE UP ARMS

make me some tea: With all those hate groups out there, how can America possibly survive this onslaught? WE MUST TAKE UP ARMS

Well that's my new favorite picture.

BOZ: I dunno but when MANY parts of the code used to run the simulations have stuff like this in them, it makes you think that everybody has to be in on it.

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

Obviously it's a far left conspiracy.

BOZ: ;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

You realize that "real temperatures" here are contrasted with "reconstructed temperatures," which are used to fill in when real temperature measurements aren't available?BOZ: ; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

I have no idea what they're talking about here. What does this even mean? And for that matter, what do the other comments really mean? This could mean anything. We have no idea what they're talking about based on one comment for one function. Do enlighten me.

I Said: make me some tea: With all those hate groups out there, how can America possibly survive this onslaught? WE MUST TAKE UP ARMS

Well that's my new favorite picture.

I heart GIS sometimes. :D

make me some tea: I heart GIS sometimes. :D

It's a damn good find.

Racht: bearsfolks: Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?

Might have something to do with it.

MuadDib: Yes, because if we've learned one thing lately, it's that we can implicitly trust climate scientists' alarming graphs.

Also, 150 years is a very long time to compare climate data from. You know, that's like one second in geological time.

Racht: To be fair, it has been average to below average in much of the US this year:

Which is all that matters to the Hannity crowd. The rest of the world doesn't exist.

Rev.K: Why do they call it a hoax?

I mean, in order for global warming to be a hoax there would have had to have been organized groups going up to the arctic with thousands of miles of extension cord and hair dryers, melting the pack ice.

Without getting caught, of course.

They go at night.

Oh, I see what it takes to get a greenlight dealing with global warming climate change. You have to bash someone on the most watched cable news channel.

Gotcha!

/What was it those e-mails said again? Something about squelching those who disagree?
//Preparing to get squelched

superdolfan1: You have to bash someone on the most watched cable news channel.

Is this a joke?

He's technically correct, if he had said that this is one of the coldest years in recent history in the United States, because it has been. I severely doubt he said that though, which means he's lying and/or intentionally distorting the truth.

Seriously, deniers, what's it like to know that reality and facts are evil liberal plots? How do you function when you perceive reality to be wrong?

Oh, I see what it takes to get a greenlight dealing with global warming climate change an uber leftist conspiracy. You have to bash someone on the most watched cable news channel. Because somehow, someone that most of the world knows, stating falsehoods as facts, is news. Yeah. Whatever.

Gotcha!

/What was it those e-mails said again? Something about squelching those who disagree?
//Preparing to get squelched by the left for bravely voicing my opinion from my keyboard outpost. LONG LIVE THE OBAMA DISSENTION!

I say, let's reduce our carbon emissions, if only to get a better idea of their effect on global temperature.

Then we can point and laugh at everyone when it turns out that it was solar activity all along that wiped our species from the planet.

Wait a minute..

superdolfan1: Oh, I see what it takes to get a greenlight dealing with global warming climate change. You have to bash someone on the most watched cable news channel.

Gotcha!

/What was it those e-mails said again? Something about squelching those who disagree?
//Preparing to get squelched

You didn't offer us anything squelchable.

mediablitz: Racht: To be fair, it has been average to below average in much of the US this year:

Which is all that matters to the Hannity crowd. The rest of the world doesn't exist.

To the libs, the rest of the world only exists when it's convenient.

For example, the Middle East political turmoil doesn't exist because it doesn't affect us here in the US. However the sand storm in the Middle East does affect us.

Some wingnut dictator in a South American country shouldn't be messed with, as him nationalizing all of the privately owned businesses is none of our concern. But don't you dare cut down a single tree in the Amazon.

Fair and balanced. Not.

superdolfan1: To the libs, the rest of the world only exists when it's convenient.

For example, the Middle East political turmoil doesn't exist because it doesn't affect us here in the US. However the sand storm in the Middle East does affect us.

Some wingnut dictator in a South American country shouldn't be messed with, as him nationalizing all of the privately owned businesses is none of our concern. But don't you dare cut down a single tree in the Amazon.

Fair and balanced. Not.

BOZ: these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

I have no doubt this is what you're talking about, and yelling "OMG LOOK ARTIFICIALLY ADJUSTED"

I'm going to go ahead and offer what that says to me, not because I think I know all about this stuff, but because I don't think you do either, so as long as you're spewing this sh*t I might as well too.

What this says to me is that they're creating models to attempt to project climate behavior. But before they can use them to make projections, they have to calibrate them, meaning they have to run them against KNOWN data to see if they produce accurate results. In this case, they weren't matching up to recorded temperatures, so they've made an adjustment to make it more accurate and are trying again. The goal isn't to make sh*t up - it's to recreate what we already know has happened before trying to figure out where it's going.

That's what it says to me, anyway. But what do I know. Or you, for that matter.

GAT_00: How do you function when you perceive reality to be wrong?

I like this.