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.

(Breitbart.com)   UN: Global warming has put 55% of the Netherlands underwater. Netherlands: We think we would have noticed that   (breitbart.com) divider line 269
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

3789 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2010 at 12:56 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



269 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-02-05 10:57:29 AM
but but peer review
 
2010-02-05 11:00:39 AM
IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.


ZOMG Smoking gun!!!
 
2010-02-05 11:02:51 AM
Barbigazi: IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.

ZOMG Smoking gun!!!


Seriously.

Though most of Breibart's readers won't get past the first couple of paragraphs, which are rather misinformative.
 
2010-02-05 11:06:04 AM
Oh, and SOCIALISM.
 
2010-02-05 11:06:30 AM
Even if it really was 55%, the Dutch wouldn't think of letting that kickass place go under. They would find a way.

/Loves Amsterdam
 
2010-02-05 11:08:25 AM
I'm pretty sure 'below sea level' and 'underwater' actually mean 2 different things. And I haven't had my coffee yet so I'm not even gonna bring up the thing about how the himalayan glaciers thing was a typo that unfortunately got taken as an actual figure and repeated.
 
2010-02-05 11:10:07 AM
old_toole: Even if it really was 55%, the Dutch wouldn't think of letting that kickass place go under. They would find a way.

/Loves Amsterdam


The solution here is dykes, big fat dykes.
 
2010-02-05 11:12:41 AM
false data is false data
 
2010-02-05 11:17:41 AM
Ima10urin8: false data is false data

You are like a train steaming powerfully into a ravine where there is no bridge.
 
2010-02-05 11:19:17 AM
make me some tea: Barbigazi: IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.

ZOMG Smoking gun!!!

Seriously.

Though most of Breibart's readers won't get past the first couple of paragraphs, which are rather misinformative.


I don't see why he bothered putting it in. Nobody that reads it on that site will believe it.

Oh, and
i575.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-05 11:33:49 AM
Weird. It's like the headline and the article are saying two different things. And the thing that the article is saying is pretty unimportant.

Weird.
 
2010-02-05 11:34:23 AM
kitryne: I'm pretty sure 'below sea level' and 'underwater' actually mean 2 different things.

Do you mean that if I balance a glass of H2O on my head, I amn not "underwater?"

There goes my best party trick.
 
2010-02-05 11:34:48 AM
IPCC is not to be trusted in any way. They have an agenda that is both political and a money grab.
 
2010-02-05 11:43:59 AM
I love when you post in threads, because I'm always reminded of your endearing story thanks to Favorites.

img402.imageshack.us
 
2010-02-05 11:48:01 AM
Barbigazi: Ima10urin8: false data is false data

You are like a train steaming powerfully into a ravine where there is no bridge.


One can always hope.
 
2010-02-05 11:55:09 AM
Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude
I love when you post in threads, because I'm always reminded of your endearing story thanks to Favorites.


Oh shiat, lmao. that was supposed to fade into the sunset.
 
2010-02-05 12:00:32 PM
jehovahs witness protection
IPCC is not to be trusted in any way. They have an agenda that is both political and a money grab.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Give it up. TFA is yet another example of a right wing source taking a minor error from a lengthy document on global warming and saying, "this means global warming is false!"
 
2010-02-05 12:01:10 PM
Ima10urin8: Schadenfreude ist die schoenste Freude
I love when you post in threads, because I'm always reminded of your endearing story thanks to Favorites.


Oh shiat, lmao. that was supposed to fade into the sunset.


It will always remain a vivid memory in my mind. One of the heartiest lol moments I can remember here. Mostly because it just caught me off guard while reading through that thread.
 
2010-02-05 12:08:31 PM
patrick767: jehovahs witness protection
IPCC is not to be trusted in any way. They have an agenda that is both political and a money grab.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Give it up. TFA is yet another example of a right wing source taking a minor error from a lengthy document on global warming and saying, "this means global warming is false!"


It IS false. But you are a liberal sheep who refuses to listen to reason.
 
2010-02-05 12:25:55 PM
patrick767: jehovahs witness protection
IPCC is not to be trusted in any way. They have an agenda that is both political and a money grab.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Give it up. TFA is yet another example of a right wing source taking a minor error from a lengthy document on global warming and saying, "this means global warming is false!"


Rather taking a continuing collection of errors, misrepresentations, and bad calculations and realizing that someone may have been exaggerating claims because of a self-serving agenda. Most likely to make money.

A lot of good reliable people who truly are working to figure out why we are seeing warming trends and what may be the results are being given bad data to work from. Some of the resulting works come up with ideas for mitigating or repairing the problem that will actually cause more harm.
 
2010-02-05 12:26:09 PM
jehovahs witness protection: It IS false. But you are a liberal sheep who refuses to listen to reason.*


*None of which was supplied in this post.
 
2010-02-05 12:32:55 PM
kitryne: I'm pretty sure 'below sea level' and 'underwater' actually mean 2 different things.

yah, so the farktard who did the headline was looking for a greenlight. good jorb.

but, below sea level and river flood plain are two different things.

it is interesting that they TRIED to get this fixed a nubmer of times and were basically ignored.

would be INTERESTING to see what other factual changes were requested and ignored.

/my "belief" has changed over time: ice age is coming, panik global warming, ozone hole will kill us, ice age is coming, AGW is real, questioning the data, and finally, we will survive trivially either way, why should we make changes either way
/yes, I KNOW all the arguments from both side. dont like the IPCC's admitted agenda ("even if we are wrong about the data, we should make these changes")
 
2010-02-05 12:34:25 PM
Dufus: Rather taking a continuing collection of errors, misrepresentations, and bad calculations and realizing that someone may have been exaggerating claims because of a self-serving agenda. Most likely to make money.

Step 1. ???
Step 2. ???
Step 3. ???
Step 4. PROFIT!!!!
 
2010-02-05 12:39:04 PM
Dufus
Rather taking a continuing collection of errors, misrepresentations, and bad calculations and realizing that someone may have been exaggerating claims because of a self-serving agenda. Most likely to make money.

A lot of good reliable people who truly are working to figure out why we are seeing warming trends and what may be the results are being given bad data to work from. Some of the resulting works come up with ideas for mitigating or repairing the problem that will actually cause more harm.


Who do you think is more capable of evaluating climate data and also in determining when they've gotten misrepresented or otherwise "bad" data? Is it you, me, some journalist or commentator, a shill for oil and tobacco companies (e.g. the guy who writes "Junk Science"), or perhaps expert scientists in the relevant fields studying climatology? I'm going to go with the latter and amongst the latter, the overwhelming view is that AGW is very real and very dangerous.
 
2010-02-05 12:48:14 PM
U.N. FUNNIES

Translator Intern: (voice cracking) Excuse me sir, but I am willing to volunteer to further investigate the moist Nether-regions!

Ghost of Dag Hammarskold: GET OUT, YOU PUSILLANIMOUS BOOB!
 
2010-02-05 12:55:31 PM
patrick767: Who do you think is more capable of evaluating climate data and also in determining when they've gotten misrepresented or otherwise "bad" data? Is it you, me, some journalist or commentator, a shill for oil and tobacco companies (e.g. the guy who writes "Junk Science"), or perhaps expert scientists in the relevant fields studying climatology? I'm going to go with the latter and amongst the latter, the overwhelming view is that AGW is very real and very dangerous.

Ironically though, politicians pointed out this particular error.

Peer review is useful, but does not necessarily result in good science, evidently.
 
2010-02-05 12:58:28 PM
patrick767: Give it up. TFA is yet another example of a right wing source taking a minor error from a lengthy document on global warming and saying, "this means global warming is false!"

Scientists are incapable of making errors, you troglodyte.
 
2010-02-05 01:01:05 PM
Fail tag is for subby?

/"below sea level" != "underwater"
 
2010-02-05 01:02:54 PM
They do get 200 nautical miles of waters considered as part of their territory so maybe 55% of their territory is underwater. Probably not though.
 
2010-02-05 01:04:21 PM
Skleenar: Step 1. ???
Step 2. ???
Step 3. ???
Step 4. PROFIT!!!!


Even if you subscribe to to the AGW line of thought, you can't be so unimaginative that you can't envision how a group of people could profit from resulting public fear and public policy initiatives. I mean jeez - a bunch of companies (as well as individuals) made gobs of money off AGW already. Hundreds of scientists have jobs and grant money as a result.

Don't pretend a profit motive doesn't exist - it damages your credibility.
 
2010-02-05 01:04:23 PM
Barbigazi: You are like a train steaming powerfully into a ravine where there is no bridge.


It'll be alright if you get to 88 miles per hour, then you'll travel forward in time to when the bridge is completed. No problem!

=Smidge=
 
2010-02-05 01:04:43 PM
The incident could cause further embarrassment for the IPCC, which recently admitted a claim in the same report that global warming could melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was wrong.

You see, that's the problem with the scientific method. The conclusions are always changing based on new evidence. Religion is better because it doesn't have that problem.
 
2010-02-05 01:06:51 PM
GAT_00: make me some tea: Barbigazi: IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

"They should have been clearer," Vallaart said, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had exact figures.

ZOMG Smoking gun!!!

Seriously.

Though most of Breibart's readers won't get past the first couple of paragraphs, which are rather misinformative.

I don't see why he bothered putting it in. Nobody that reads it on that site will believe it.

Oh, and


Just wondering GAT, is there a school I can go to, to study climatology? I wonder if I can get a masters in climate change.
 
2010-02-05 01:07:15 PM
I've never been to Holland but I've been to Aruba. There a lot of Dutch people there are most of them are tall, well built, blonde, and really good looking.
 
2010-02-05 01:08:36 PM
www.dethklok.org

Pssh the dutch
 
2010-02-05 01:08:39 PM
IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said.

Wait, so they have the number that is below sea level, why would they need to add to that number any other number? Also wouldn't the area threatened by river flooding overlap significantly with the area below sea level? Even if you needed to include both areas wouldn't adding those numbers result in a meaningless statistic as it fails to remove the areas which are being counted twice?

wtf
 
2010-02-05 01:08:50 PM
GoldSpider: patrick767: Give it up. TFA is yet another example of a right wing source taking a minor error from a lengthy document on global warming and saying, "this means global warming is false!"

Scientists are incapable of making errors, you troglodyte.



It's really difficult to put up a ridiculous straw man when it is directly contradicted in the one-sentence post you're responding to.
 
2010-02-05 01:09:46 PM
He should send O'Keefe to investigate the UN's phone system big dumb climate research machine.
 
2010-02-05 01:11:59 PM
Bullshiat in, bullshiat out.

People will take it seriously when the "scientists" stop all the fraud, lies and BULLSHIAT.
 
2010-02-05 01:13:30 PM
RockIsDead: Bullshiat in, bullshiat out.

People will take it seriously when the "scientists" stop all the fraud, lies and BULLSHIAT.


You're still breathing?
 
2010-02-05 01:14:54 PM
The failure is in the people reporting the news. Scientific articles are really easy to misrepresent.
 
2010-02-05 01:15:26 PM
Skleenar: Step 1. ???
Step 2. ???
Step 3. ???
Step 4. PROFIT!!!!


Cap and trade will be incredibly profitable for a large number of people, even though a carbon tax would arguably be more effectively implemented between significantly different economies. On the regulatory side there are absolutely people advocating solutions which are purely self serving.
 
2010-02-05 01:15:45 PM
RockIsDead: Bullshiat in, bullshiat out.

People will take it seriously when the "scientists" stop all the fraud, lies and BULLSHIAT.


Don't you know all this anti-AGW stuff is big oil propaganda? and with how much money they have, it's never going to stop.

Though it doesn't help that the big oil investigators, you know, find chinks in the armor that may discredit or maginalize AGW.
 
2010-02-05 01:16:19 PM
Sorry IPCC but I reject your religion.
 
2010-02-05 01:16:28 PM
RockIsDead: Bullshiat in, bullshiat out.

People will take it seriously when the "scientists" stop all the fraud, lies and BULLSHIAT.


This! What's science ever done for us?!
 
2010-02-05 01:17:02 PM
Gee, if only there was a way to satisfy both sides in this debate.
 
2010-02-05 01:17:11 PM
snowstradamus: maginalize.

Yeah I said it.
 
2010-02-05 01:17:24 PM
People are reading statistics wrong and its somehow a huge scandal?

It's just people who suck at statistics. The data is correct. (at least in this case.)
 
2010-02-05 01:17:31 PM
Damnhippyfreak: It's really difficult to put up a ridiculous straw man when it is directly contradicted in the one-sentence post you're responding to.

I'm trying to set the record straight. The idea that a mistake was made here is patently absurd. There has to be an explanation that the rube who wrote this article is incapable of understanding.
 
2010-02-05 01:17:55 PM
jehovahs witness protection: patrick767: jehovahs witness protection
IPCC is not to be trusted in any way. They have an agenda that is both political and a money grab.

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Give it up. TFA is yet another example of a right wing source taking a minor error from a lengthy document on global warming and saying, "this means global warming is false!"

It IS false. But you are a liberal sheep who refuses to listen to reason.


I came here for the lawls.

I got the lawls.
 
Displayed 50 of 269 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report