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.

(Some Guy)   "What are these Green groups going to do when the vast population of the United States and elsewhere around the world concludes that there is no global warming? That day is not far off"   (americandaily.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

5569 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Mar 2009 at 11:19 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



401 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-03-16 03:00:05 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Some perspective....the last 2 billion years


How many humans were thriving in the "Precambrian" through.. let's say.. "Tertiary," combined?
 
2009-03-16 03:00:31 PM  
Hmm... I google "Nicksteel" and "Brockway" and I get Another Likely Thread with both of them in it... plus several other sites being hit by both Brockway and Nick Steel.

Interesting, eh?
 
2009-03-16 03:03:43 PM  

asecondhandconjecture.com

Came here for this. Was disappointed.

 
2009-03-16 03:04:59 PM  

Pxtl: Hmm... I google "Nicksteel" and "Brockway" and I get Another Likely Thread with both of them in it... plus several other sites being hit by both Brockway and Nick Steel.

Interesting, eh?


I love pathetic little creatures like you, always looking for some connection that isn't there. It is a sign of a very sad life. Maybe it's just because we are both interested in the same thing - assholes who believe any stupid thing they are told - like that man made global warming is real.
 
2009-03-16 03:07:21 PM  

Brockway: Yeah, let's get rid of that, too. By golly, let's just get rid of all the data we don't like. If the data don't fit, we'll MAKE IT fit!


You see that diagonal red line in the right part of my graph? It uses all the data from 1970-2008. Including 2008. And 1998.

YOU FAIL again.
 
2009-03-16 03:08:37 PM  
"The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable. Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures. More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity..Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now."
- from the Earth Charter website


"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land."
- David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!


"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species, returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!


"While the death of young men in war is unfortunate, it is no more serious than the touching of mountains and wilderness areas by humankind."
[David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth
and former executive director of the Sierra Club]
 
2009-03-16 03:10:59 PM  

nicksteel: Pxtl: Hmm... I google "Nicksteel" and "Brockway" and I get Another Likely Thread with both of them in it... plus several other sites being hit by both Brockway and Nick Steel.

Interesting, eh?

I love pathetic little creatures like you, always looking for some connection that isn't there. It is a sign of a very sad life. Maybe it's just because we are both interested in the same thing - assholes who believe any stupid thing they are told - like that man made global warming is real.


Aren't you the one who said torture is fine and dandy becauce the republicans said so?
 
2009-03-16 03:11:33 PM  

MrSteve007:

Guess that's why the EPA gave me one of their highest awards last year (new window).

/Aiming for a total of 75% reduction this year


is2.okcupid.com

Well hello Mr. Fancy Pants!
 
2009-03-16 03:13:22 PM  

nicksteel:

Does it make one bit of difference how many years are used?? You use this argument as a way to avoid dealing with the truth - man made global warming is a farce.

How many years of data would you like, douche bag??


Actually, it does make a difference. I haven't had a formal stats class in a few years, so I'm going off memory correct me if I'm wrong. A longer data set improves the statistical relevance of a trend line through said data, primarily due to noise being less of a factor as the length of time you look at increases.

As for 30 years, this is primarily chosen as a means of factoring out inter-annual variability, and semi-decadal oscillations(ENSO, and a few others) which have an effect on global temperatures. I've seen arguments that data sets as short as 12-15 years are statistically significant and the trend lines for these short data sets sufficiently remove the effects of ENSO and other forms of variability but even these arguments indicate more data is better.
 
2009-03-16 03:13:43 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brockway: Yeah, let's get rid of that, too. By golly, let's just get rid of all the data we don't like. If the data don't fit, we'll MAKE IT fit!

You see that diagonal red line in the right part of my graph? It uses all the data from 1970-2008. Including 2008. And 1998.

YOU FAIL again.


how so? Just because you have a graph that supports the lies that you have been told??

Who is the bigger failure - the guy who is told that the average temperature has increased by .7 degrees C over the last one hundred years and believes that it is a sign of doom -

OR

- the guy who has the ability to think on his own and come to his own conclusions? A guy who can look at the data and realizes that the climate is rather stable.

I'm thinking that the guy who shiats little bricks because he is worried about a .7 degree increase in temp is the real farking loser.
 
2009-03-16 03:14:24 PM  
Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.
 
2009-03-16 03:14:56 PM  

Zamboro:
People who favor the renewable-only approach have rarely looked into how weak these sources really are. We don't "have" them, we understand how to build them. They aren't a given until we build them, and you'd have to build an awful lot of solar/hydro/geo plants to satisfy the same energy requirements that could be met with a single sizable nuke reactor.

Keep in mind, you can't build renewable energy facilities just anywhere. There are only a few places you could build effective geothermal plants, only so many dams you could build hydro facilities into, only so many places in the country where solar plants would make sense. Nuclear works anywhere.

Moreover, unlike this imaginary preexisting network of renewable energy facilities, we're already paid for and begun the construction of the nuclear waste disposal infrastructure, with Yucca mountain as the central repository.

If we went full nuclear, there's enough fissible material mined, refined and ready to use for the entire nation to continue along its current exponential energy usage path for several decades, and if you combine that with known veins of ore waiting to be mined, that expands to several centuries.

I favor a mixed approach. Renewables where they're appropriate, nuclear where they aren't.


I agree with the mixed approach, but like Dams and Geothermal and such, you can't place nuclear everywhere either. Yucca mountain cannot take all of the waste out there nor can the waste be placed just anywhere. Nuclear has many the same problems as renewables, but they never talk about it. Storage is not a solution to the waste issue and until that is solved going Full Nuclear is not going to be viable either.
Some areas will need nuclear, but the out right dismissal of other options by the Pro-Nukes guys is as idiotic as those who are anti-nuke at any cost
 
2009-03-16 03:16:30 PM  

The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.


Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?
 
2009-03-16 03:17:58 PM  

nicksteel: Does it make one bit of difference how many years are used??

Yes.

You use this argument as a way to avoid dealing with the truth - man made global warming is a farce.

Glad to have your informed opinion on that. So, what data set are you using to reach that determination? I certainly don't think there is an entirely unified consensus on anthropomorphic origins for the phenomenon, but I also think it's still an open debate, I'd be just tickled pink, Captain, if you'd show me your conclusive evidence. And by that I mean a model that filters out all known variables, and provides enough data to make an actual determination on.

How many years of data would you like, douche bag??

Well, Chief, I'd probably be pretty happy with sticking to the amount of data determined by general consensus of those who study such things needed to provide actual information that isn't occluded by known cyclical weather patterns or easily swayed by random variation. But no, I'm sure your little friend's 'They just chose that amount because it makes their theories look good' conspiracy is right on the money. Way to go, Ace. You sure showed them, and me.

/Next time just post "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" in all caps so people know to ignore your post.
 
2009-03-16 03:18:25 PM  
No one but the most infinitely STUPID are arguing that global warming does not exist. The ONLY question is the degree to which mankind is contributing to it.

Motherf*cker, this stuff pisses me off. People like this are not fit to breed.

z.about.com
/burning
 
2009-03-16 03:19:21 PM  

nicksteel: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Brockway: Yeah, let's get rid of that, too. By golly, let's just get rid of all the data we don't like. If the data don't fit, we'll MAKE IT fit!

You see that diagonal red line in the right part of my graph? It uses all the data from 1970-2008. Including 2008. And 1998.

YOU FAIL again.

how so? Just because you have a graph that supports the lies that you have been told??

Who is the bigger failure - the guy who is told that the average temperature has increased by .7 degrees C over the last one hundred years and believes that it is a sign of doom -

OR

- the guy who has the ability to think on his own and come to his own conclusions? A guy who can look at the data and realizes that the climate is rather stable.

I'm thinking that the guy who shiats little bricks because he is worried about a .7 degree increase in temp is the real farking loser.



The greatest loser would be the one argues from wilfull and intentional ignorance. The real loser is the person who still claims that 0.7 degrees over only 100 years is insignificant after it's been pointed out again and again that the difference between now and the last ice age (LGM) is ~8 degrees (from the Vostok ice cores).
 
2009-03-16 03:19:34 PM  

nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?


I can but you can't


/"because you're a pencil-dicked, no-load, loser asshole"
//(That's about where you're at right now with the whole "rational discourse" thing, yes?)
 
2009-03-16 03:19:37 PM  
Many former communists took refuge in the enviro movement. They'll just find another cause to justify attacking capitalism.
 
2009-03-16 03:19:44 PM  

leehouse: nicksteel:

Does it make one bit of difference how many years are used?? You use this argument as a way to avoid dealing with the truth - man made global warming is a farce.

How many years of data would you like, douche bag??

Actually, it does make a difference. I haven't had a formal stats class in a few years, so I'm going off memory correct me if I'm wrong. A longer data set improves the statistical relevance of a trend line through said data, primarily due to noise being less of a factor as the length of time you look at increases.

As for 30 years, this is primarily chosen as a means of factoring out inter-annual variability, and semi-decadal oscillations(ENSO, and a few others) which have an effect on global temperatures. I've seen arguments that data sets as short as 12-15 years are statistically significant and the trend lines for these short data sets sufficiently remove the effects of ENSO and other forms of variability but even these arguments indicate more data is better.


I can show you over 100 years of data that illustrates that the average global temperature over that time period has increased by .7 degrees C. That data shows that the climate is very stable, but you prefer to argue over how many years of data somebody wants to post. Most of the data posted is a subset of over 100 years of data that shows stability.

What you are arguing is pointless.
 
2009-03-16 03:20:07 PM  

nicksteel: Does it make one bit of difference how many years are used??


Um, yes. This is kind of how statistics works.
 
2009-03-16 03:20:21 PM  
The planet will be fine. It's the people that are farked.

/RIP
 
2009-03-16 03:20:55 PM  

Brainsick: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I can but you can't


/"because you're a pencil-dicked, no-load, loser asshole"
//(That's about where you're at right now with the whole "rational discourse" thing, yes?)


so, you only like guys with really big dicks. Good for you.
 
2009-03-16 03:23:18 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: nicksteel: Does it make one bit of difference how many years are used??
Yes.

You use this argument as a way to avoid dealing with the truth - man made global warming is a farce.

Glad to have your informed opinion on that. So, what data set are you using to reach that determination? I certainly don't think there is an entirely unified consensus on anthropomorphic origins for the phenomenon, but I also think it's still an open debate, I'd be just tickled pink, Captain, if you'd show me your conclusive evidence. And by that I mean a model that filters out all known variables, and provides enough data to make an actual determination on.

How many years of data would you like, douche bag??

Well, Chief, I'd probably be pretty happy with sticking to the amount of data determined by general consensus of those who study such things needed to provide actual information that isn't occluded by known cyclical weather patterns or easily swayed by random variation. But no, I'm sure your little friend's 'They just chose that amount because it makes their theories look good' conspiracy is right on the money. Way to go, Ace. You sure showed them, and me.

/Next time just post "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" in all caps so people know to ignore your post.


Have you read the basic literature, douche bag? Have you read the IPCC report?
 
2009-03-16 03:24:13 PM  

nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?


I forgot you've always had a problem with reading comprehension, otherwise you might have noticed the words "just about" before the word "anything". See I already had no faith that you could answer a post without being a complete asshole to people here. Then again, you don't have much of a mind to set for that, what with your being a torture enthusiast and all, so there really was no hope there to begin with.

Its always hilarious how the people who make the basement claim are always the most antisocial people in the discussion. You prove that point quite nicely.
 
2009-03-16 03:24:32 PM  

nicksteel: I can show you over 100 years of data that illustrates that the average global temperature over that time period has increased by .7 degrees C. That data shows that the climate is very stable


No, it doesn't. ~+1 K/century is a large increase, and given the source of the forcing, it's likely to accelerate with time.
 
2009-03-16 03:24:51 PM  

Opiate of the Lasses: The planet will be fine. It's the people that are farked.

/RIP


^^^^^
THIS!
We'll survive as a species, but the transition will be painful and devastating because of the speed it will occur.
 
2009-03-16 03:26:22 PM  

The Only Good Moran: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I forgot you've always had a problem with reading comprehension, otherwise you might have noticed the words "just about" before the word "anything". See I already had no faith that you could answer a post without being a complete asshole to people here. Then again, you don't have much of a mind to set for that, what with your being a torture enthusiast and all, so there really was no hope there to begin with.

Its always hilarious how the people who make the basement claim are always the most antisocial people in the discussion. You prove that point quite nicely.


You still made a very stupid statement whether the words "just about" are in it or not. What percentage of things are beyond "just about"?
 
2009-03-16 03:26:28 PM  

nicksteel: Brainsick: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I can but you can't


/"because you're a pencil-dicked, no-load, loser asshole"
//(That's about where you're at right now with the whole "rational discourse" thing, yes?)

so, you only like guys with really big dicks. Good for you.


So you admit that he's right then. That's rather disturbing you would confirm such a thing.
 
2009-03-16 03:27:22 PM  
How about this: In the end we're going to suck this rock dry of anything possibly useful and LEAVE because our sun is gonna go BOOM!

We'd better be in full Star Trek mode by then...
 
2009-03-16 03:28:22 PM  

nicksteel: Have you read the basic literature, douche bag?


For example, from the journal Science:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

See, reading the basic literature reinforces the conclusion that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities. This is rather important, unlike your Bevets-style quote-mining of Sierra Club members and whatever.
 
2009-03-16 03:28:28 PM  

Brockway: Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-16 02:24:15 PM:

And what you refuse to provide is a justification of why you believe that a span of ~8 years means "now" in terms of climate (when ~30 years is the accepted norm to account for variability arbitrarily selected length of time to best make the fearmongering case from the data), or why 2001 is an meaningful time to start besides any other year, or a justification for simply ignoring the rest of the data set.

FTFY


[facepalm]

And there you go. Yet again you refuse to provide a justification, even when called out. The simple fact is that you can't. You arbitrarily chose 2001 to have some sort of mystical, magical meaning to climate.

And even if 30 years was arbitrary (which it isn't), that in no way justifies your arbitrary choice. The fact that you would claim that a 30-year timeframe is arbitrary speaks to your complete ignorance on the topic. The simple existence of just the 11-year sunspot cycle (which affects irradiance) refutes your claim.

Alright, even if you don't believe that, we'll use your own criterion for argument's sake, and assume that 8 years represents "now". Here is a Q&D 8 year running mean (in red) with raw temperature anomalies in blue, calculated from the GISS data set. The simple fact is that you cherrypicked not only an arbitrarily inappropriate range of time, you managed to further ignore data by only looking at one 8 year period.

i40.tinypic.com

In short, what you claim has nothing to do with data, or analysis, or even science. Your claims reflect only your own ability to warp your own perceptions, ability to be wilfully ignorant and willingness to post misleading analysis in service to your own zealotry.
 
2009-03-16 03:28:36 PM  

The Only Good Moran: nicksteel: Brainsick: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I can but you can't


/"because you're a pencil-dicked, no-load, loser asshole"
//(That's about where you're at right now with the whole "rational discourse" thing, yes?)

so, you only like guys with really big dicks. Good for you.

So you admit that he's right then. That's rather disturbing you would confirm such a thing.


Speaking of people with reading comprehension problems, you are the head of the class. I never admitted that he was right. I just pointed out that he prefers big dicks. Apparently, so do you.
 
2009-03-16 03:29:41 PM  

nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I forgot you've always had a problem with reading comprehension, otherwise you might have noticed the words "just about" before the word "anything". See I already had no faith that you could answer a post without being a complete asshole to people here. Then again, you don't have much of a mind to set for that, what with your being a torture enthusiast and all, so there really was no hope there to begin with.

Its always hilarious how the people who make the basement claim are always the most antisocial people in the discussion. You prove that point quite nicely.

You still made a very stupid statement whether the words "just about" are in it or not. What percentage of things are beyond "just about"?


Were you getting your ass handed to you so thoroughly that you felt you had no choice but to change the topic to trivial semantics?

/rhetorical question
 
2009-03-16 03:30:01 PM  
I see this thread blew the lid off after I went to lunch.

Carry on.
 
2009-03-16 03:31:41 PM  
Anybody notice how, the moment Brockway disappears with his graphs and charts, Nicksteel appears with his trash-talking, and his Boobies is one defending Brockway?

Hmm.

It makes you think.
 
2009-03-16 03:32:39 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I forgot you've always had a problem with reading comprehension, otherwise you might have noticed the words "just about" before the word "anything". See I already had no faith that you could answer a post without being a complete asshole to people here. Then again, you don't have much of a mind to set for that, what with your being a torture enthusiast and all, so there really was no hope there to begin with.

Its always hilarious how the people who make the basement claim are always the most antisocial people in the discussion. You prove that point quite nicely.

You still made a very stupid statement whether the words "just about" are in it or not. What percentage of things are beyond "just about"?

Were you getting your ass handed to you so thoroughly that you felt you had no choice but to change the topic to trivial semantics?

/rhetorical question


I was not getting my ass handed to me. If you had read the previous posts, you would have seen that my statement was valid.

Hopefully, you would also see that it had nothing to do with trivial semantics. I'm guessing that you are a product of the public school system.
 
2009-03-16 03:33:11 PM  

nicksteel: Have you read the basic literature, douche bag? Have you read the IPCC report?


yup

So, we've established the data set being used. Now, how and why do your conclusions differ from theirs? What accounts for those differences, what are the causes, and what are the ramifications? C'mon. It's probably worth a nobel prize if you're right and can prove it. At the very least, if you can manage to articulate your interpretation of the data in a clear fashion you could start a literal revolution in thought, change the very fabric of discourse.

Except you can't.

All you have is "Nu-uh! That's not true!" and when laughed at unmercifully about that you log alt and switch to, "This is stupid! None of this is important! It's not even 1 degree!"

I honestly hope you're right, Champ. But just like before, if you are it has absolutely nothing to do with your version of reality.
 
2009-03-16 03:34:49 PM  

vonster: How about this: In the end we're going to suck this rock dry of anything possibly useful and LEAVE because our sun is gonna go BOOM!

We'd better be in full Star Trek mode by then...


That won't be for 5,000,000,000 years or so. Any semblance of civilization has only been around for 8-10,000 years or so. I think we have some time.
 
2009-03-16 03:35:48 PM  

nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: nicksteel: Brainsick: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I can but you can't


/"because you're a pencil-dicked, no-load, loser asshole"
//(That's about where you're at right now with the whole "rational discourse" thing, yes?)

so, you only like guys with really big dicks. Good for you.

So you admit that he's right then. That's rather disturbing you would confirm such a thing.

Speaking of people with reading comprehension problems, you are the head of the class. I never admitted that he was right. I just pointed out that he prefers big dicks. Apparently, so do you.


Where did he directly say he liked big dicks?

Don't blame me for making that claim, you're the one who said it, and since he clearly doesn't like you, its pretty easy to get to that outcome.
 
2009-03-16 03:36:06 PM  

Pxtl: Anybody notice how, the moment Brockway disappears with his graphs and charts, Nicksteel appears with his trash-talking, and his Boobies is one defending Brockway?

Hmm.

It makes you think.



Different flavors of WHAARGARRBL. The only thing that links them is a deepset, purposeful ignorance. They're both ostriches, but they prefer to stick their heads in different kinds of sand.
 
2009-03-16 03:36:20 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: vonster: How about this: In the end we're going to suck this rock dry of anything possibly useful and LEAVE because our sun is gonna go BOOM!

We'd better be in full Star Trek mode by then...

That won't be for 5,000,000,000 years or so. Any semblance of civilization has only been around for 8-10,000 years or so. I think we have some time.


Roger that....just saying that we will eventually trash the place on our way out.
 
2009-03-16 03:38:26 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: nicksteel: Have you read the basic literature, douche bag? Have you read the IPCC report?

yup

So, we've established the data set being used. Now, how and why do your conclusions differ from theirs? What accounts for those differences, what are the causes, and what are the ramifications? C'mon. It's probably worth a nobel prize if you're right and can prove it. At the very least, if you can manage to articulate your interpretation of the data in a clear fashion you could start a literal revolution in thought, change the very fabric of discourse.

Except you can't.

All you have is "Nu-uh! That's not true!" and when laughed at unmercifully about that you log alt and switch to, "This is stupid! None of this is important! It's not even 1 degree!"

I honestly hope you're right, Champ. But just like before, if you are it has absolutely nothing to do with your version of reality.


The IPCC reported a net change of .7 degrees C over a period of 100 years. They see that as a cause for alarm. I see it as stability. I'm not the only one that can see this, so you can forgt any Nobel Prize.

The IPCC is a political body and that is their concern - politics, not science.


This is a section of the IPCC report that the scientists wanted to have included by the IPCC politicians removed:

" * "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." * "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes." * "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility."
 
2009-03-16 03:38:32 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: C'mon. It's probably worth a nobel prize if you're right and can prove it. At the very least, if you can manage to articulate your interpretation of the data in a clear fashion you could start a literal revolution in thought, change the very fabric of discourse.


Yup. That's the funniest part of the 'librul conspiracy' myth regarding scientific conclusions-- anyone who could put down hard numbers demonstrating that (for whatever reason) increasing the atmospheric absorption of incoming sunlight will not gradually warm the planet... would be the most famous scientist in their field immediately.

There really isn't much incentive to publish the 2400th paper confirming and refining the observations demonstrating anthropogenic climate change. The business of discovery rewards those who defy trends. The problem is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no one has found any hard numbers disproving those thousands of existing studies.
 
2009-03-16 03:40:15 PM  

nicksteel:
I was not getting my ass handed to me. If you had read the previous posts, you would have seen that my statement was valid.


Should we take a poll?

Hopefully, you would also see that it had nothing to do with trivial semantics. I'm guessing that you are a product of the public school system.

I'm sad for you.
 
2009-03-16 03:41:54 PM  
Man, this thread has devolved quickly...anybody see my original post?

Brainsick: StarlingFive: Zafler: It is basic highschool level chemistry and physics.

You have to factor in that a high school education isn't exactly widespread in some parts of our nation. Even the ones that get the ticket forget everything they know asap.

I have problems explaining the whole thing to these people, mostly I just give up and talk to someone who can hold a conversation without shouting about sky monsters. Grandparents, however, take a bit of finesse. You cant tell them to shove off - and you cant let them keep being stupid about it either.


Two things I always mention when it comes to "climate talk":
1: We all know what happens if you sit in a running car inside a closed garage, right? The planet is a lot like that garage, it just takes longer to fill up with noxious fumes and
2. It took MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of years before the planet was "livable" by human standards, a big reason being carbon removal from the atmosphere due to natural oil deposits, fossils and swamps/marshes. We have been digging that stuff up and burning it for close to 150 years now and we're RUNNING OUT! What took the earth millenia to store, we've released in less than 200 years. Logically, we are impacting the planet's balance.

/Even grandpa should be able to grasp that

 
2009-03-16 03:43:00 PM  

The Only Good Moran: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: nicksteel: Brainsick: nicksteel: The Only Good Moran: Its staggering how some people here think we as a species can do just about anything that we set our mind to, yet somehow can't fathom that we can affect our environment or our climate through our actions.

Who is stupid enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to?? Can you fly without mechanical help? Can you fly faster than the speed of sound? Can you transport yourself out of your mother's basement to a bar? Can you talk to that pretty girl you see everyday?

I can but you can't


/"because you're a pencil-dicked, no-load, loser asshole"
//(That's about where you're at right now with the whole "rational discourse" thing, yes?)

so, you only like guys with really big dicks. Good for you.

So you admit that he's right then. That's rather disturbing you would confirm such a thing.

Speaking of people with reading comprehension problems, you are the head of the class. I never admitted that he was right. I just pointed out that he prefers big dicks. Apparently, so do you.

Where did he directly say he liked big dicks?

Don't blame me for making that claim, you're the one who said it, and since he clearly doesn't like you, its pretty easy to get to that outcome.


He never said it directly and I never said that he did. Your inability to comprehend what you read is smacking you in the face again.

He was trying to insult me by mentioning the size of my penis. Obviously, if he liked little dicks, he would not have used the terminology that he did. (Not a real deep thinker, are you?) I have no idea why he thinks that he knows the size of my penis but he obviously is an admirer of big dicks.

W
 
2009-03-16 03:44:56 PM  

nicksteel: leehouse: nicksteel:

Does it make one bit of difference how many years are used?? You use this argument as a way to avoid dealing with the truth - man made global warming is a farce.

How many years of data would you like, douche bag??

Actually, it does make a difference. I haven't had a formal stats class in a few years, so I'm going off memory correct me if I'm wrong. A longer data set improves the statistical relevance of a trend line through said data, primarily due to noise being less of a factor as the length of time you look at increases.

As for 30 years, this is primarily chosen as a means of factoring out inter-annual variability, and semi-decadal oscillations(ENSO, and a few others) which have an effect on global temperatures. I've seen arguments that data sets as short as 12-15 years are statistically significant and the trend lines for these short data sets sufficiently remove the effects of ENSO and other forms of variability but even these arguments indicate more data is better.

I can show you over 100 years of data that illustrates that the average global temperature over that time period has increased by .7 degrees C. That data shows that the climate is very stable, but you prefer to argue over how many years of data somebody wants to post. Most of the data posted is a subset of over 100 years of data that shows stability.

What you are arguing is pointless.


As it has been pointed out earlier in this thread a global increase of .7K isn't stable for a number of reasons. If you'd like to honestly discuss these reasons we can, but I doubt you are willing to discuss this in a rational manner.

Damnhippyfreak: Brockway: Damnhippyfreak 2009-03-16 02:24:15 PM:

And what you refuse to provide is a justification of why you believe that a span of ~8 years means "now" in terms of climate (when ~30 years is the accepted norm to account for variability arbitrarily selected length of time to best make the fearmongering case from the data), or why 2001 is an meaningful time to start besides any other year, or a justification for simply ignoring the rest of the data set.

FTFY

[facepalm]

And there you go. Yet again you refuse to provide a justification, even when called out. The simple fact is that you can't. You arbitrarily chose 2001 to have some sort of mystical, magical meaning to climate.

And even if 30 years was arbitrary (which it isn't), that in no way justifies your arbitrary choice. The fact that you would claim that a 30-year timeframe is arbitrary speaks to your complete ignorance on the topic. The simple existence of just the 11-year sunspot cycle (which affects irradiance) refutes your claim.


Thanks, that covered a number of things I didn't mention(sunspots cycles and PDO) but should have.
 
2009-03-16 03:45:28 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: nicksteel:
I was not getting my ass handed to me. If you had read the previous posts, you would have seen that my statement was valid.

Should we take a poll?

Hopefully, you would also see that it had nothing to do with trivial semantics. I'm guessing that you are a product of the public school system.

I'm sad for you.


Should I care about your feelings??
 
2009-03-16 03:47:56 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Different flavors of WHAARGARRBL. The only thing that links them is a deepset, purposeful ignorance. They're both ostriches, but they prefer to stick their heads in different kinds of sand.


On the contrary, my working hypothesis is that Brockway is just a dick who knows he's full of shiat but doesn't care. He just wants attention, and most of the people who've seen these threads before just find him boring and repetitive. There are trolls who are funny jester-types, but most of the trolls are just assholes, and Brockway is their posterboy.

In contrast, nicksteel is merely a garden-variety moron with serious issues controlling his temper. I suspect he's angry at his disappointing lot in life, and ends up simply lashing out at educated people (on this topic or others-- watch him around the Politics tab) as 'enemies' to feel some measure of revenge.

I would argue that they are very different flavors of WHAARGARRBL, particularly given that Brockway is feigning massive ignorance, whereas nicksteel is personifying it.
 
2009-03-16 03:47:57 PM  
Zamboro:I favor a mixed approach. Renewables where they're appropriate, nuclear where they aren't.

Definitely worth a read (new window)
 
Displayed 50 of 401 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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