Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Now that only nitwits and lunatics believe in global warming, the UN sets it's sights on a new doomsday scenario for scientists to use to obtain fat grants   (foxnews.com) divider line 240
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

3182 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Nov 2008 at 6:33 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-11-26 10:59:10 PM  
One's ignorance does not shift the burden of proof.
 
2008-11-26 10:59:40 PM  
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: chimp_ninja: For nicksteel:

1) What flaws do you find in the recent study published in Nature Geoscience by Gillett, et al.? Please be specific.

2) When can we expect your rebuttal to see print?

I was wondering if you were going to show up and start asking asinine questions again.

Could you explain where Gillett is incorrect? This is a very recent paper showing direct evidence for anthropogenic warming, which is exactly what you were asking for. Surely you can refute his claims, given the statements you've made above.

I'm calling your bluff. Tell me where they are incorrect.


You're calling my bluff?? You need to prove that it is true. Prove that there is substance to their simulations.
 
2008-11-26 11:00:50 PM  
nicksteel: No, but if you knew anything about the subject, you would know that most people who believe in global warming use the NASA records to support them.

If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that most people use more than just the NASA numbers.
 
2008-11-26 11:00:56 PM  
trofl: One's ignorance does not shift the burden of proof.

Yes it does. You global warming weenies attack anybody who disagrees with you, but you never can prove anything.
 
2008-11-26 11:01:48 PM  
nicksteel: You're calling my bluff?? You need to prove that it is true. Prove that there is substance to their simulations.

I'm not invoking any simulations. I've explained how one proves that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in increased energy retention, which was the question you asked. All of that data can be calculated from first principles knowing only the surface temperature of the Sun and Earth.
 
2008-11-26 11:02:13 PM  
whatshisname: nicksteel:
I responded directly. What is your problem???

You completely missed the point. Then when someone made it clear to you, you responded by asking another question. You have no answers, just naive and misdirected half-baked questions.


That is rich. I ask questions, I get no answers. And now I am the one who is mis-directed?? I find it strange that you cannot answer simple questions.
 
2008-11-26 11:02:55 PM  
Flab: nicksteel: No, but if you knew anything about the subject, you would know that most people who believe in global warming use the NASA records to support them.

If you knew anything about the subject, you'd know that most people use more than just the NASA numbers.


Wrong, but thanks for playing.
 
2008-11-26 11:04:15 PM  
trofl: nicksteel: trofl: nicksteel: again with the simplistic examples. The IPCC was pretty clear - they do not believe that anybody can accurately predict something as complex as the climate.

Please start answering some of my questions. To what level of accuracy are they talking about? What you're saying has no meaning without such qualifiers.

Read their statement. Are you now arguing against the IPCC and yet still in favor of global warming??

Keep spinning your wheels. I'm done here, at least with responding to you. You refuse to qualify "accurate," which is necessary to continue this discussion. You refuse to answer any of my questions. You have not explained exactly why my examples have been too simplified. You've hinged your entire argument on a single statement in the IPCC that basically explains why they cannot predict climate to absolute perfect precision. That's not saying much.


absolutely perfect??? That statement is a long way from talking about "absolutely perfect".
 
2008-11-26 11:05:07 PM  
nicksteel: Yes it does. You global warming weenies attack anybody who disagrees with you, but you never can prove anything.

I just proved how an increase in carbon dioxide will result in increased energy retention. If you are going to assert that my proof is incorrect, you'll need to be more specific.

I admit it is oversimplified, but since you don't seem to understand the topic even at the present level, I'm hesitant to begin introducing other terms.
 
2008-11-26 11:05:15 PM  
phildeez: looking at the list of Nobel Laureates (who are purported to express belief in global warming) in the beginning of this thread...is anyone but me disappointed that the list includes no person relevant to the field of...say...meteorology or climatology, that sort of thing? Physics, economics, and medicine/physiology are heavily represented but...

Shhhh!
 
2008-11-26 11:05:30 PM  
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: You're calling my bluff?? You need to prove that it is true. Prove that there is substance to their simulations.

I'm not invoking any simulations. I've explained how one proves that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will result in increased energy retention, which was the question you asked. All of that data can be calculated from first principles knowing only the surface temperature of the Sun and Earth.


try paying attention just once, you moron. You said that you were calling my bluff and wanted me to refute the Gilette report.
 
2008-11-26 11:06:34 PM  
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: Yes it does. You global warming weenies attack anybody who disagrees with you, but you never can prove anything.

I just proved how an increase in carbon dioxide will result in increased energy retention. If you are going to assert that my proof is incorrect, you'll need to be more specific.

I admit it is oversimplified, but since you don't seem to understand the topic even at the present level, I'm hesitant to begin introducing other terms.


You have an extremely vague idea of what the word proof means. You proved nothing.
 
2008-11-26 11:07:06 PM  
nicksteel: Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Prove it.
 
2008-11-26 11:07:20 PM  
nicksteel: That is rich. I ask questions, I get no answers. And now I am the one who is mis-directed??

Let's look at a typical exchange with you.

YOU: So now there's more energy?! Where's it coming from? (...nobody with any sort of knowledge of the climate would have to ask that question)
ME: The sun
YOU: But the sun isn't getting stronger! (completely missing the obvious way in which a constant solar output can raise the temperature of the earth)
SOMEONE ELSE: It's not that the sun is getting stronger, it's that the earth is retaining more heat.
YOU: Uh, uh, uh, prove it!

It's like having an argument with a 5-year-old.
 
2008-11-26 11:08:03 PM  
Flab: nicksteel: Wrong, but thanks for playing.

Prove it.


you first. Prove that most people use other data.
 
2008-11-26 11:10:14 PM  
Nicksteel: Gillett, et al. demonstrate "the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence."

You're asking for proof. This is a published study in an extremely reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, based on the publicly available CRUTEM3 data set. I'm not seeing any flaws in their methodology, and obviously neither did the reviewers or the editorial board.

What is everyone missing? Please be specific.
 
2008-11-26 11:10:31 PM  
whatshisname: nicksteel: That is rich. I ask questions, I get no answers. And now I am the one who is mis-directed??

Let's look at a typical exchange with you.

YOU: So now there's more energy?! Where's it coming from? (...nobody with any sort of knowledge of the climate would have to ask that question)
ME: The sun
YOU: But the sun isn't getting stronger! (completely missing the obvious way in which a constant solar output can raise the temperature of the earth)
SOMEONE ELSE: It's not that the sun is getting stronger, it's that the earth is retaining more heat.
YOU: Uh, uh, uh, prove it!

It's like having an argument with a 5-year-old.


So prove that the earth is retaining more heat. Prove that man is responsible. You can't and that pisses you off, doesn't it?

You attack me because I am not willing to blindly follow. I ask you to show me the evidence and you don't.
 
2008-11-26 11:12:39 PM  
chimp_ninja: Nicksteel: Gillett, et al. demonstrate "the observed changes in Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are not consistent with internal climate variability or natural climate drivers alone, and are directly attributable to human influence."

You're asking for proof. This is a published study in an extremely reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal, based on the publicly available CRUTEM3 data set. I'm not seeing any flaws in their methodology, and obviously neither did the reviewers or the editorial board.

What is everyone missing? Please be specific.


The simulation that they ran is their proof. That is nothing more than proof that they created a simulation that matches their beliefs.
 
2008-11-26 11:12:50 PM  
IPCC:

Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined. Observations can show that there have been changes in weather, and it is the statistics of changes in weather over time that identify climate change. While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences. A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75. Another common confusion of these issues is thinking
 
2008-11-26 11:13:20 PM  
whatshisname: nicksteel: That is rich. I ask questions, I get no answers. And now I am the one who is mis-directed??

Let's look at a typical exchange with you.

YOU: So now there's more energy?! Where's it coming from? (...nobody with any sort of knowledge of the climate would have to ask that question)
ME: The sun
YOU: But the sun isn't getting stronger! (completely missing the obvious way in which a constant solar output can raise the temperature of the earth)
SOMEONE ELSE: It's not that the sun is getting stronger, it's that the earth is retaining more heat.
YOU: Uh, uh, uh, prove it!

It's like having an argument with a 5-year-old.


Yup. Lockwood and Frohlich (PDF) demonstrated in 2006 that the recent temperature increases have occurred during a time when all solar fluctuations have been net negative. This is absolutely consistent with greenhouse forcing of sufficient magnitude, but directly contradicts the hypothesis that solar fluctuations are the primary driver.
 
2008-11-26 11:13:38 PM  
nicksteel: Prove that man is responsible. You can't and that pisses you off, doesn't it? You attack me because I am not willing to blindly follow.

People far smarter than I have already proven it. I make fun of you because you are a moron.

That's all there is to it, really.
 
2008-11-26 11:14:37 PM  
nicksteel: So prove that the earth is retaining more heat. Prove that man is responsible. You can't and that pisses you off, doesn't it?

I did, above. Please explain where I am incorrect.
 
2008-11-26 11:14:48 PM  
whatshisname: nicksteel: Prove that man is responsible. You can't and that pisses you off, doesn't it? You attack me because I am not willing to blindly follow.

People far smarter than I have already proven it. I make fun of you because you are a moron.

That's all there is to it, really.


No, they have not proven it. I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question. Now THAT is moronic.
 
2008-11-26 11:15:45 PM  
trofl: IPCC:

Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate change and weather are intertwined. Observations can show that there have been changes in weather, and it is the statistics of changes in weather over time that identify climate change. While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences. A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75. Another common confusion of these issues is thinking


Heh, what a place to end it. It really ends:

Another common confusion of these issues is thinking that a cold winter or a cooling spot on the globe is evidence against global warming. There are always extremes of hot and cold, although their frequency and intensity change as climate changes. But when weather is averaged over space and time, the fact that the globe is warming emerges clearly from the data.
 
2008-11-26 11:16:22 PM  
nicksteel: No, they have not proven it. I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question.

Damn, it's the Bevets of global warming threads. Do you have any quotes about tin foil hats?
 
2008-11-26 11:16:59 PM  
Blubber. Oddment. Tweak.
 
2008-11-26 11:17:26 PM  
nicksteel: Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

nicksteel:

The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.



Christ. Nice copy-and-paste there.

You can't even express your own argument and instead mindlessly parrot a site that is "Dedicated to Restoring Judeo-Christian Principles to American Public Policy".

nicksteel: I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question. Now THAT is moronic.


I don't pull out these pics often, but in this case, this can be only termed
i38.tinypic.com


/I mean "Restoring Judeo-Christian Principles to American Public Policy"? C'mon.
 
2008-11-26 11:17:36 PM  
nicksteel: you first. Prove that most people use other data.

You're the one who accused me of being ignorant on the topic. Back your assertion.
 
2008-11-26 11:17:42 PM  
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: So prove that the earth is retaining more heat. Prove that man is responsible. You can't and that pisses you off, doesn't it?

I did, above. Please explain where I am incorrect.


You did not prove anything. You cannot show me that the recent trend in the temperature is anything more than a nature occurrence. You tell me that somebody said that it is, so that must make it true. I, for one, am not going to blindly follow these people. I ask for proof, you give me names.
 
2008-11-26 11:18:03 PM  
nicksteel: No, they have not proven it. I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question. Now THAT is moronic.

I gave you a simple proof, above. (2008-11-26 10:54:33 PM, EST)

Explain where I am incorrect, or concede that proof has been given.
 
2008-11-26 11:18:57 PM  
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

nicksteel:

The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.


Christ. Nice copy-and-paste there.

You can't even express your own argument and instead mindlessly parrot a site that is "Dedicated to Restoring Judeo-Christian Principles to American Public Policy".

nicksteel: I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question. Now THAT is moronic.


I don't pull out these pics often, but in this case, this can be only termed



/I mean "Restoring Judeo-Christian Principles to American Public Policy"? C'mon.


uh, I quoted the IPCC report, you moron.
 
2008-11-26 11:19:26 PM  
nicksteel: You did not prove anything. You cannot show me that the recent trend in the temperature is anything more than a nature occurrence. You tell me that somebody said that it is, so that must make it true. I, for one, am not going to blindly follow these people. I ask for proof, you give me names.

No, I did not invoke authority. I explained how one can calculate the magnitude of the additional heat retention from first-principles data.

Explain where I am incorrect, or concede that proof has been given.
 
2008-11-26 11:20:28 PM  
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: No, they have not proven it. I find it strange that you are willing to blindly follow these people without question. Now THAT is moronic.

I gave you a simple proof, above. (2008-11-26 10:54:33 PM, EST)

Explain where I am incorrect, or concede that proof has been given.


This???


Given the absorption cross-section of carbon dioxide as a function of wavelength (empirically measured or calculated from quantum mechanics), the respective blackbody spectra of the Sun and the Earth, and solar irradiance data... absolutely. A good high school student could. You're asking questions which just betray your ignorance now.

Is this what you are referring to as proof??
 
2008-11-26 11:21:19 PM  
Flab: nicksteel: you first. Prove that most people use other data.

You're the one who accused me of being ignorant on the topic. Back your assertion.


Which one?? That you are ignorant or that people rely most on the NASA temperature numbers??
 
2008-11-26 11:22:32 PM  
nicksteel: Given the absorption cross-section of carbon dioxide as a function of wavelength (empirically measured or calculated from quantum mechanics), the respective blackbody spectra of the Sun and the Earth, and solar irradiance data... absolutely. A good high school student could. You're asking questions which just betray your ignorance now.

Is this what you are referring to as proof??


Yes. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is sufficient to increase solar energy retention by roughly the observed magnitude. It is something you can calculate from first principles.
 
2008-11-26 11:24:32 PM  
nicksteel:
uh, I quoted the IPCC report, you moron.


Whoh. I made a mistake there. My apologies.

While you most likely got both from the same page, the first one is not from the IPCC. The stuff you copy-and-pasted were actually reposted on the site from the Heartland Institute (new window).
 
2008-11-26 11:24:49 PM  
nicksteel: Which one?? That you are ignorant or that people rely most on the NASA temperature numbers??

Well, if you manage to prove the latter, it'll take care of the former, won't it?
 
2008-11-26 11:26:21 PM  
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: Given the absorption cross-section of carbon dioxide as a function of wavelength (empirically measured or calculated from quantum mechanics), the respective blackbody spectra of the Sun and the Earth, and solar irradiance data... absolutely. A good high school student could. You're asking questions which just betray your ignorance now.

Is this what you are referring to as proof??

Yes. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is sufficient to increase solar energy retention by roughly the observed magnitude. It is something you can calculate from first principles.


And no other factors could possibly be involved???
 
2008-11-26 11:28:59 PM  
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel:
uh, I quoted the IPCC report, you moron.

Whoh. I made a mistake there. My apologies.

While you most likely got both from the same page, the first one is not from the IPCC. The stuff you copy-and-pasted were actually reposted on the site from the Heartland Institute (new window).


sorry, I did not get it from the site. What quote has you all bent out of shape?
 
2008-11-26 11:29:54 PM  
nicksteel: chimp_ninja: nicksteel: Given the absorption cross-section of carbon dioxide as a function of wavelength (empirically measured or calculated from quantum mechanics), the respective blackbody spectra of the Sun and the Earth, and solar irradiance data... absolutely. A good high school student could. You're asking questions which just betray your ignorance now.

Is this what you are referring to as proof??

Yes. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is sufficient to increase solar energy retention by roughly the observed magnitude. It is something you can calculate from first principles.

And no other factors could possibly be involved???


chimp_ninja, you might as well bang your head against a brick wall...
 
2008-11-26 11:30:08 PM  
Flab: nicksteel: Which one?? That you are ignorant or that people rely most on the NASA temperature numbers??

Well, if you manage to prove the latter, it'll take care of the former, won't it?


Do I need to post all of the reports that have graphs based on NASA data?? That would take up lots of room.
 
2008-11-26 11:31:05 PM  
whatshisname: nicksteel: chimp_ninja: nicksteel: Given the absorption cross-section of carbon dioxide as a function of wavelength (empirically measured or calculated from quantum mechanics), the respective blackbody spectra of the Sun and the Earth, and solar irradiance data... absolutely. A good high school student could. You're asking questions which just betray your ignorance now.

Is this what you are referring to as proof??

Yes. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is sufficient to increase solar energy retention by roughly the observed magnitude. It is something you can calculate from first principles.

And no other factors could possibly be involved???

chimp_ninja, you might as well bang your head against a brick wall...


What is wrong with asking questions?? That is how real science works. Only an idiot would not ask questions.
 
2008-11-26 11:33:02 PM  
nicksteel: chimp_ninja: nicksteel: Given the absorption cross-section of carbon dioxide as a function of wavelength (empirically measured or calculated from quantum mechanics), the respective blackbody spectra of the Sun and the Earth, and solar irradiance data... absolutely. A good high school student could. You're asking questions which just betray your ignorance now.

Is this what you are referring to as proof??

Yes. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is sufficient to increase solar energy retention by roughly the observed magnitude. It is something you can calculate from first principles.

And no other factors could possibly be involved???


I'll repeat: That is sufficient to demonstrate that the measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is sufficient to increase solar energy retention by roughly the observed magnitude. It is a simple statement of the greenhouse effect, and it is not remotely controversial.

The major refinement you would make would be to also include anthropogenic methane, N2O, CFCs, etc., but that only strengthens the case that the recent manmade alterations to our atmosphere increase energy retention.
 
2008-11-26 11:33:03 PM  
nicksteel: sorry, I did not get it from the site. What quote has you all bent out of shape?

nicksteel: Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

I mean, I can understand using different sources, but if you're going to blindly parrot a site, at least change a word so you can't google it verbatim (new window) and find out where you copied it from. (new window)

I mean, give a source at least!
 
2008-11-26 11:35:03 PM  
nicksteel: Yes. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the measured increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is sufficient to increase solar energy retention by roughly the observed magnitude. It is something you can calculate from first principles.

And no other factors could possibly be involved???

chimp_ninja, you might as well bang your head against a brick wall...

What is wrong with asking questions?? That is how real science works. Only an idiot would not ask questions.


Despite what you may have been told there are some really stupid questions. And you know lots of them.
 
2008-11-26 11:35:25 PM  
trofl: nicksteel: so prove to me that man is responsible for the increase. The increase that nobody anywhere has actually recorded.


You mean that increase?


farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2008-11-26 11:35:31 PM  
nicksteel: What is wrong with asking questions?? That is how real science works. Only an idiot would not ask questions.

Technically, an idiot might ask really, really stupid questions. I know teachers say those don't exist, but that's just one of those white lies that can keep the peace in the classroom.
 
2008-11-26 11:36:18 PM  
Damnhippyfreak: nicksteel: sorry, I did not get it from the site. What quote has you all bent out of shape?

nicksteel: Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

I mean, I can understand using different sources, but if you're going to blindly parrot a site, at least change a word so you can't google it verbatim (new window) and find out where you copied it from. (new window)

I mean, give a source at least!


I did not get it from that site. I told you that already.

Is the information wrong???? I love the way that you tree huggers attack the source of the data, but not the data itself. It shows a level of intelligence and maturity that is amazing.
 
2008-11-26 11:37:19 PM  
FireBreathingLiberal: A partial list of "nitwits and lunatics":

They aren't experts in climatology, dude.

/fair is fair
//Climate change is very real
 
2008-11-26 11:37:44 PM  
chimp_ninja: nicksteel: What is wrong with asking questions?? That is how real science works. Only an idiot would not ask questions.

Technically, an idiot might ask really, really stupid questions. I know teachers say those don't exist, but that's just one of those white lies that can keep the peace in the classroom.


I am not talking about the intelligence of a question, I am talking about the lack of intelligence in having no questions. Religions demand that, not science.
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report