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.

(Telegraph)   Expert warns the UK is in danger of becoming an "ecological desert", presumably in addition to a "culinary" and "dental-care" desert   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 76
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

848 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Mar 2009 at 10:55 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-09 09:52:55 AM  
I have a very minor overbite. My dentist was absolutely astounded that I didn't want to waste thousands and thousands of dollars on braces for a purely cosmetic (and a barely noticable one at that) issue.

Also, American 'cuisine' is taking a perfectly good piece of food and deep fat frying it. You're worse then the scots. Another fun trick is hiding lackluster ingredients behind two pounds of salted butter. Let's not even get started on the quality of your cardboard with ketchup and processed 'cheese' product that you insult the word pizza with.
 
2009-03-09 10:32:04 AM  
Bored Horde: I have a very minor overbite. My dentist was absolutely astounded that I didn't want to waste thousands and thousands of dollars on braces for a purely cosmetic (and a barely noticable one at that) issue.

Also, American 'cuisine' is taking a perfectly good piece of food and deep fat frying it. You're worse then the scots. Another fun trick is hiding lackluster ingredients behind two pounds of salted butter. Let's not even get started on the quality of your cardboard with ketchup and processed 'cheese' product that you insult the word pizza with.


You'll pry my cholesterol-laden cheese from my cold, greasy dead hands!!!

Just kidding, yeah our food can be pretty bad.
 
2009-03-09 11:10:09 AM  
Bored Horde: I have a very minor overbite. My dentist was absolutely astounded that I didn't want to waste thousands and thousands of dollars on braces for a purely cosmetic (and a barely noticable one at that) issue.

Also, American 'cuisine' is taking a perfectly good piece of food and deep fat frying it. You're worse then the scots. Another fun trick is hiding lackluster ingredients behind two pounds of salted butter. Let's not even get started on the quality of your cardboard with ketchup and processed 'cheese' product that you insult the word pizza with.


American food is in a pretty sorry state. Too much mass production and mass consumption. Then again, my wife lived in England for 6 years, and has on occasion, made British dishes. Every time, I beg her to stop. Her most infamous was Yorkshire pudding. I don't know how starved people were when that was invented, but if I want shoe leather, I'll go eat a shoe.

Oh, and Weetabix. Its like a block of cardboard. She was so thrilled to get a box of it, but even then, she couldn't finish it all. What limited exposure I've had to British food convinces me that all the jokes on Fark are true.
 
2009-03-09 11:12:28 AM  
Culinary? You're just not going far enough north, subby. Look for the Taste of Scotland seal of approval. I'd suggest North Ronaldsay Lamb at The Creel in St. Margaret's Hope, Orkney.
 
2009-03-09 11:17:14 AM  
Ecological desert is a curious term. It is used by ecologists, a group you would think has a collective grasp on biodiversity and...ecology. Yet they use desert to describe an environment poor in species diversity. This is nonsensical. Deserts host a greater range of species than most other terrestrial environments - a higher count of species/hectare. For example...

When we compare our desert with others, the contrast is striking. Overall, the Sonoran Desert has the greatest diversity of plant growth forms- architectural strategies for dealing with heat and drought-of any desert in the world. From giant cacti to sand-loving underground root parasites, some seventeen different growth forms coexist within the region. Often, as many as ten complementary architectural strategies will be found together, allowing many life forms to coexist in the same patch of desert.

Biodiversity in the desert is often measured on a scale that would not be used in the tropical rainforest. Desert ecologists have found twenty kinds of wildflowers growing together in a single square yard (.84 m2), while a single tropical tree might take up the same amount of space. On an acre (.4 ha) of cactus forest in the Tucson Basin, seventy-five to 100 species of native plants share the space that three mangrove shrubs might cover in swamp along a tropical coast. These levels of diversity are a far cry from the "bleak and barren" stereotype, and it may well be that the Sonoran Desert region is more diverse than other arid zones of comparable size.

Consider for example, the flora of the Tucson Mountains, which Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum research scientists recently inventoried with a number of their colleagues. In an area of less than forty square miles (100 km2), this botany team encountered over 630 plant species-as rich a local assortment of plants as any desert flora we know. This small area contains roughly one-sixth of the Sonoran Desert's entire plant diversity. It is disproportionately rich relative to its size, its paucity of surface water, and its elevational range.

Such a diversity of wildflowers and blossoming trees attracts a diversity of wildlife as well. In the Sonoran Desert area within a thirty mile radius of Tucson, you can find between 1000 and 1200 twig- and ground-nesting native bees (all of them virtually "stingless"). As the Desert Museum's research associate Stephen Buchmann wryly notes, "this may mean that the Sonoran Desert region is the richest bee real estate anywhere in the world - the entire North American continent has only 5000 native bee species."

Desert wildflowers attract more than bees. Southern Arizona receives visits from more hummingbird species-seventeen in all-than anywhere else in the U.S. Other pollinator groups, such as butterflies and moths, are well-represented in the region as well. Single canyons near the Arizona-Sonora border may harbor as many as 100 to 120 butterfly species, and moth species may number five to ten times higher than that in the same habitats. When all pollinating organisms breeding or passing through here are counted, it may be that the greater Sonoran Desert has as large a pollinator fauna as any bioregion in the world.

This region is also rich in small mammals and reptiles. Some eighty-six species of mammals have ranges centered within the San Pedro National Riparian Area alone, a record unsurpassed by any natural landscape of comparable size in the U.S.; the area contains half of all mammal species in the binational Sonoran Desert. At least ninety-six species of reptiles are endemic to the Sonoran Desert - found here and nowhere else in the world.
(new window)

Yet the disappearance of biodiverstiy in England is described as making England a biological desert. It's a very poor choice of words - a stupid phrase.
 
2009-03-09 11:26:11 AM  
Bored Horde: Also, American 'cuisine' is taking a perfectly good piece of food and deep fat frying it.

Uh, isn't gratuitous deep-frying the hallmark of British cuisine? We yanks pretty much just copied your style, except we mostly replaced eggs, hash browns and sausage with cold cereal.
 
2009-03-09 11:31:56 AM  
Bored Horde:
Also, American 'cuisine' is taking a perfectly good piece of food and deep fat frying it. You're worse then the scots.


Riight.. Britain's greatest/most famous culinary contribution is probably fish and chips.
 
2009-03-09 11:36:55 AM  
Well you can rest knowing that anyone who uses that phase doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.
 
2009-03-09 11:44:29 AM  
Britain may be a culinary desert, but the biomass is increasing thanks to tasty invasive species from India.
 
2009-03-09 11:47:09 AM  
FTFA:
Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, said the country is already at risk of losing hundreds of different species because of development, intensive farming and climate change.

What climate change?

According to NOAA data, the trend for temperatures this entire century is for COOLING, not warming:

brock.lenzus.com

And according to the NSIDC, there is more arctic sea ice now than there was years and years ago.

/but please, ignore all the, you know, actual data, and go on with your Gorebull Warming religion, Chicken Little fearmonger.
 
2009-03-09 12:07:01 PM  
Brockway: FTFA:
Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, said the country is already at risk of losing hundreds of different species because of development, intensive farming and climate change.

What climate change?

According to NOAA data, the trend for temperatures this entire century is for COOLING, not warming:



And according to the NSIDC, there is more arctic sea ice now than there was years and years ago.

/but please, ignore all the, you know, actual data, and go on with your Gorebull Warming religion, Chicken Little fearmonger.


Good show, chief. I'd meander off to another thread before someone with a scrap of motivation comes along and hands your ass to you.
 
2009-03-09 12:07:42 PM  
Yes, Brockway in with this century!

Hey brock, what about the cumulative effect of the past hundred years? Even you could admit that most ecological changes take much longer than 100 months, especially with plant life. Show me a trend line for the past 1000 months.
 
2009-03-09 12:08:08 PM  
Brockway I have a few questions.


First, why do you feel a trend line of less than 10 years is more statistically viable/ of greater importance than longer trends, taking into consideration that the standard climatological trend is 30 or more years.

Secondly, in regards to your statement about ice, while there is greater ice extent is there also more ice volume? What is your reasoning that the net ice cover differences between two randomly chosen years is more telling than a long term trend? Do you think that the theory of anthropogenic climate change somehow removes interannual variability?

Finally, why do you feel the source of data validates any and all analysis of said data?
 
2009-03-09 12:08:56 PM  
Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: Bored Horde: I have a very minor overbite. My dentist was absolutely astounded that I didn't want to waste thousands and thousands of dollars on braces for a purely cosmetic (and a barely noticable one at that) issue.

Also, American 'cuisine' is taking a perfectly good piece of food and deep fat frying it. You're worse then the scots. Another fun trick is hiding lackluster ingredients behind two pounds of salted butter. Let's not even get started on the quality of your cardboard with ketchup and processed 'cheese' product that you insult the word pizza with.

American food is in a pretty sorry state. Too much mass production and mass consumption. Then again, my wife lived in England for 6 years, and has on occasion, made British dishes. Every time, I beg her to stop. Her most infamous was Yorkshire pudding. I don't know how starved people were when that was invented, but if I want shoe leather, I'll go eat a shoe.

Oh, and Weetabix. Its like a block of cardboard. She was so thrilled to get a box of it, but even then, she couldn't finish it all. What limited exposure I've had to British food convinces me that all the jokes on Fark are true.


What limited exposure I've had to your wife convinces me that she can't cook.

Yorkshire Pudding is lovely.
 
2009-03-09 12:14:36 PM  
MrSteve007: Yes, Brockway in with this century!

Hey brock, what about the cumulative effect of the past hundred years? Even you could admit that most ecological changes take much longer than 100 months, especially with plant life. Show me a trend line for the past 1000 months.


Booooo. This is a designated Brit/American flamewar. Save it for the next climate change thread.
 
2009-03-09 12:14:38 PM  
Brockway: According to NOAA data, the trend for temperatures this entire century is for COOLING, not warming:

This ENTIRE century? You mean ALL 9 and a bit YEARS OF IT?

I've been looking at data that goes a little bit further back than that, and the trend is definitely a warming one.

The jury is only out on what is causing it.
 
2009-03-09 12:16:33 PM  
Brockway: FTFA:
Helen Phillips, Chief Executive of Natural England, said the country is already at risk of losing hundreds of different species because of development, intensive farming and climate change.

What climate change?

According to NOAA data, the trend for temperatures this entire century is for COOLING, not warming:



And according to the NSIDC, there is more arctic sea ice now than there was years and years ago.

/but please, ignore all the, you know, actual data, and go on with your Gorebull Warming religion, Chicken Little fearmonger.


Brockway, you're a genius and you deserve great scientific recognition. You should submit your work to the appropriate journals - I'd love to see you published! I mean, you do have serious work that overturns the current scientific consensus on global warming, don't you? I'm sure you have lots of ideas that most scientists have never thought of, which is how I know you're right! So, submit! I want to see you published! You'll become world-famous and go down in scientific history!

Really!!!
 
2009-03-09 12:19:35 PM  
Bored Horde: I have a very minor overbite. My dentist was absolutely astounded that I didn't want to waste thousands and thousands of dollars on braces for a purely cosmetic (and a barely noticable one at that) issue.

Also, American 'cuisine' is taking a perfectly good piece of food and deep fat frying it. You're worse then the scots. Another fun trick is hiding lackluster ingredients behind two pounds of salted butter. Let's not even get started on the quality of your cardboard with ketchup and processed 'cheese' product that you insult the word pizza with.


lol...that's awesome, coming from the country that brought the world fish and chips. In all seriousness, I don't recognize your description as "American food" at all, and all the posters who seemed to agree with you must think that McDonald's and Burger King comprise the bulk of "American food". I'm here to tell you that it's not, and my wife (and occasionally myself) can prove it. Home cooking for the win.

In even more seriousness, learn to laugh at yourself a little. If you can stand to show off those gruesome teeth of yours, that is. ;-)
 
2009-03-09 12:26:00 PM  
In other news today, I now realise that Brockway is just a troll and I shouldn't have bothered responding except with:

i239.photobucket.com
 
2009-03-09 12:28:02 PM  
Glasgowsfinest: What limited exposure I've had to your wife convinces me that she can't cook.

Yorkshire Pudding is lovely.


Indeed it is, with some roast beef and gravy.
 
2009-03-09 12:29:22 PM  
karmachameleon 2009-03-09 12:16:33 PM:

Brockway, you're a genius and you deserve great scientific recognition. You should submit your work to the appropriate journals - I'd love to see you published! I mean, you do have serious work that overturns the current scientific consensus on global warming, don't you? I'm sure you have lots of ideas that most scientists have never thought of, which is how I know you're right! So, submit! I want to see you published! You'll become world-famous and go down in scientific history!


Uhm, yo, Einstein, I am quoting data straight from NOAA. So when you say "have lots of ideas that most scientists have never thought of"...uh, yeah...I thought to look at the actual data. None of the climate "scientists" seem to have ever thought of doing that.

leehouse 2009-03-09 12:08:08 PM:

First, why do you feel a trend line of less than 10 years is more statistically viable/ of greater importance than longer trends, taking into consideration that the standard climatological trend is 30 or more years.


Because it is what is happening currently. Nobody ever said the earth NEVER warmed. All you Chicken Littles out there with your "durr hurr, it's warmer now than 1883, therefore it must STILL be warming, durr hurr durr."

What is your reasoning that the net ice cover differences between two randomly chosen years is more telling than a long term trend?


Randomly chosen? Einstein, I chose THIS YEAR against which to compare prior values. How is choosing this year random? The whole point of the selection was to compare to the PRESENT.
 
2009-03-09 12:31:23 PM  
Bored Horde: Let's not even get started on the quality of your cardboard with ketchup and processed 'cheese' product that you insult the word pizza with.

At least we don't boil our pizza.
 
2009-03-09 12:33:04 PM  
Brockway: Because it is what is happening currently. Nobody ever said the earth NEVER warmed. All you Chicken Littles out there with your "durr hurr, it's warmer now than 1883, therefore it must STILL be warming, durr hurr durr."

"Durr hurr hurr" is actually more applicable to someone who wants to call 9 years of data a trend.

The temperature will fluctuate in the short term. Thats why you use the longest term data you can.

Go and do that and then post another graph.
 
2009-03-09 12:34:46 PM  
beer4breakfast: At least we don't boil our pizza.

You know, I've heard this one about boiled pizza before, but I've never seen it...

I have seen it deep fried mind you. After putting chicken curry over the top of it.
 
2009-03-09 12:41:45 PM  
Glasgowsfinest: beer4breakfast: At least we don't boil our pizza.

You know, I've heard this one about boiled pizza before, but I've never seen it...

I have seen it deep fried mind you. After putting chicken curry over the top of it.


I was just kidding around. It's an old Bill Hicks line, and I wasn't even sure boiled pizza existed.
 
2009-03-09 12:41:46 PM  
Glasgowsfinest 2009-03-09 12:33:04 PM

"Durr hurr hurr" is actually more applicable to someone who wants to call 9 years of data a trend.


Glasgowsfinest 2019-03-09 12:33:04 PM

"Durr hurr hurr" is actually more applicable to someone who wants to call 19 years of data a trend.


Glasgowsfinest 2109-03-09 12:33:04 PM

"Durr hurr hurr" is actually more applicable to someone who wants to call 109 years of data a trend.

The temperature will fluctuate in the short term. Thats why you use the longest term data you can determine the trend for the entire century.


FTFY

Go and do that and then post another graph.


Have a cup of STFU, and then I'll post another graph.
 
2009-03-09 12:58:42 PM  
karmachameleon

The guy has a long history of outright lying. He is without reason or integrity, a religious-like zealot who repeats the same disproven, childish points over and over as if they were holy writ. He was never interested in accurate statistical analysis in the first place, and never will be. Really, don't waste the effort.

i42.tinypic.com
/you can repost this as much as you like though - save yourself some typing.
 
2009-03-09 01:00:50 PM  
Brockway: What climate change?

According to NOAA data, the trend for temperatures this entire century is for COOLING, not warming:


I'll bite.

If the earth has been cooling for the last century would that not be considered climate change?
 
2009-03-09 01:03:35 PM  
Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-09 12:58:42 PM

The guy has a long history of outright lying.


If by "lying" you mean "posting the data straight from NOAA, and citing the URL from whence the data originated", then I agree with you.

/LOLZ!
 
2009-03-09 01:10:17 PM  
Thorny: If the earth has been cooling for the last century would that not be considered climate change?

It hasn't been cooling for the last century. When he talks about "This entire century" he's talking about the 21st century - i.e., the last 9 years. Note label on the x-axis of the graph: "Number of months". His graph of "this entire century" is data for the last 9 years, not the last 100 years.

Also, as Damnhippyfreak points out, his data do not show a cooling trend for that period
 
2009-03-09 01:11:11 PM  
Thorny 2009-03-09 01:00:50 PM:

I'll bite.

If the earth has been cooling for the last century would that not be considered climate change?


Clearly that depends on whether the definition of "climate change" is constructed in such a way as to be so nebulous that any assertion of its existence cannot be falsified through the data.

So tell me, what is the UNIT of climate change? How many climate change units per year did we experience 1880-1980? How many climate change units from 2001-present?

The whole notion of "climate change" won out when it turned out that "severe weather" was not nebulous enough.

Warmer: severe warming
Cooler: severe cooling
The same: severely ordinary
 
2009-03-09 01:13:34 PM  
Ctrl-Alt-Del 2009-03-09 01:10:17 PM:

Also, as Damnhippyfreak points out, his data do not show a cooling trend for that period


Whenever you are ready, just show me a trendline that fits the data better that has a positive slope.

/taps foot
//waiting
///LOLZ!
 
2009-03-09 01:16:47 PM  
Brockway: Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-09 12:58:42 PM

The guy has a long history of outright lying.

If by "lying" you mean "posting the data straight from NOAA, and citing the URL from whence the data originated", then I agree with you.

/LOLZ!



Accurate data, sure, but also an incorrect analysis that you repeatedly lie about.

I have pointed this out repeatedly to you, and yet you bleat out the same childish, deliberately misleading excuse everytime, no matter how many times the error is pointed out to you. It is further indication of your irrational zealotry.
 
2009-03-09 01:17:08 PM  
Bored Horde: I have a very minor overbite. My dentist was absolutely astounded that I didn't want to waste thousands and thousands of dollars on braces for a purely cosmetic (and a barely noticable one at that) issue.

Hey, we must have had the same dentist. I went to one that said the exact same thing. He also said that my upper and lower teeth weren't aligned by about 2mm.

Another fun trick is hiding lackluster ingredients behind two pounds of salted butter.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, that's the French you're talking about there.
 
2009-03-09 01:20:19 PM  
Brockway: Have a cup of STFU, and then I'll post another graph.

I was right about the troll part then. You have no idea what you're talking about.
 
2009-03-09 01:20:31 PM  
Brockway: Ctrl-Alt-Del 2009-03-09 01:10:17 PM:

Also, as Damnhippyfreak points out, his data do not show a cooling trend for that period

Whenever you are ready, just show me a trendline that fits the data better that has a positive slope.

/taps foot
//waiting
///LOLZ!



This is why you don't take Brockway seriously on any statistical analysis or inference. He doesn't even know what his "best-fit line" even means. He just checked off a box in Excel without even knowing the basics of what it is.

Hint: There is no better line using least-squares linear regression.
 
2009-03-09 01:23:11 PM  
Brockway:

Warmer: severe warming
Cooler: severe cooling
The same: severely ordinary


Who said that climate change strictly meant severe temperature change?
 
2009-03-09 01:30:17 PM  
Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-09 01:20:31 PM:

Hint: There is no better line using least-squares linear regression.


I swear you're coming around. Pretty soon I'll have you on board the whole 2008-1998=10 thing.

But until then....

/Eleventy!!
//LOLZ!!!
 
2009-03-09 01:33:43 PM  
I'd like to know why Brockway chooses this particular topic to troll about. I've seen him make rational and logical posts in other threads ... but on climate change he turns his full retard mode up to 11.

It's confusing.
 
2009-03-09 01:34:26 PM  
Thorny 2009-03-09 01:23:11 PM :

Who said that climate change strictly meant severe temperature change?


Who said you could read for comprehension? Nobody.

The whole point of the post was to point out that what "climate change" means is deliberately chosen to be so nebulous as to be meaningless, so that Chicken Little could go around saying "see, climate change" no matter how the data turn out.

Temperature is just one example that turned out to be a little toooooo measureable/quantifiable for Chicken Little and the Gorebull Warmists.

Again...what is the UNIT of climate change?
 
2009-03-09 01:35:32 PM  
Brockway: karmachameleon 2009-03-09 12:16:33 PM:


leehouse 2009-03-09 12:08:08 PM:

First, why do you feel a trend line of less than 10 years is more statistically viable/ of greater importance than longer trends, taking into consideration that the standard climatological trend is 30 or more years.

Because it is what is happening currently. Nobody ever said the earth NEVER warmed. All you Chicken Littles out there with your "durr hurr, it's warmer now than 1883, therefore it must STILL be warming, durr hurr durr."

What is your reasoning that the net ice cover differences between two randomly chosen years is more telling than a long term trend?

Randomly chosen? Einstein, I chose THIS YEAR against which to compare prior values. How is choosing this year random? The whole point of the selection was to compare to the PRESENT.


You still ignore that the 30+ year range is still generally considered the minimum for a trend on climatological scales and I'm wondering why. This doesn't even go into your arbitrary choice of only doing a trend line for "this century".


Your choice of this year isn't arbitrary, your choice of years having less ice at the pole than this year is arbitrary.

Also, you failed to answer my final question. Why do you feel a source of data validates the analysis of said data?
 
2009-03-09 01:36:22 PM  
American cuisine is vastly superior. We're a country full of immigrants. You can't say our pizza is crappier than anyone else's because we have actual the Italians making it. We have everybody else's cuisine plus our own. We combine good cuisine from other countries and the results are awesome. It's not our fault if you can't be bothered to drive an extra block of two instead of just shoveling down the crap slinged out by the fast food places. After all, most of our fast food is influenced by the Brits. I mean it's Burger King and not Burger President right?

/suck it Britlanders!!!
 
2009-03-09 01:37:30 PM  
Zafler 2009-03-09 01:33:43 PM :

I'd like to know why Brockway chooses this particular topic to troll about. I've seen him make rational and logical posts in other threads ... but on climate change he turns his full retard mode up to 11.


Yeah. I guess posting the data straight from NOAA, and citing the URL for the data right on the graph is "full retard" now. Nothing says 'full retard' quite like posting the NOAA data, including the URL.

/LOLZ!!
 
2009-03-09 01:37:36 PM  
Ah yes. Why I got bored with Fark, right here. There's nothing like a bad joke repeated daily, no wonder the amusing posters all left.

Ah well, I'll get over it.
 
2009-03-09 01:38:42 PM  
Brockway: Whenever you are ready, just show me a trendline that fits the data better that has a positive slope.

Why? Do you think that it would prove something if I did? That is, something other than the already demonstrated fact that you like to lie about what your graph supposedly demonstrates?
 
2009-03-09 01:38:46 PM  
Brockway: Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-09 01:20:31 PM:

Hint: There is no better line using least-squares linear regression.

I swear you're coming around. Pretty soon I'll have you on board the whole 2008-1998=10 thing.

But until then....

/Eleventy!!
//LOLZ!!!



And yet, it is still insufficient to make wrong claims like this:

Brockway: According to NOAA data, the trend for temperatures this entire century is for COOLING, not warming:

/stop lying already
 
2009-03-09 01:40:40 PM  
Brockway: Yeah. I guess posting the data straight from NOAA, and citing the URL for the data right on the graph is "full retard" now. Nothing says 'full retard' quite like posting the NOAA data, including the URL.

/LOLZ!!



Again, data is not equal to analysis. The data is fine, your analysis is not.

This is the second time I've pointed this out to you in this thread. Yet more evidence of your irrational zealotry.
 
2009-03-09 01:41:02 PM  
spacechicken170am: We combine good cuisine from other countries and the results are awesome.

Yes, we do the same thing and call it "Indian". The results are also awesome.

I mean it's Burger King and not Burger President right?

Given that the burger is a Roman invention, it should be Burger Caesar.

/suck it Britlanders!!!

Well it's not like we can chew it, amirite? *Badambam*
 
2009-03-09 01:42:58 PM  
leehouse 2009-03-09 01:35:32 PM:

You still ignore that the 30+ year range is still generally considered the minimum for a trend on climatological scales and I'm wondering why.


The 30 year range is still generally considered the minimum for a trend on climatological scales because Chicken Little hasn't needed to move the goalposts when the totally cherrypicked value of 30 years still works for them. But you can rest assured that when the 30-year value turns negative, as it is sure to do as the earth continues its cooling trend, they will simply start with the "durr hurrr durrr, only a 50+ year trend means anything, hurr durr".

That's why.
 
2009-03-09 01:43:50 PM  
Arthur the Sandwich Maker: Ah yes. Why I got bored with Fark, right here. There's nothing like a bad joke repeated daily, no wonder the amusing posters all left.

It has been really bad recently. The same joke (about the same article) posted in the morning and then repeated in the afternoon.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | 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