BMulligan: Dreddsnik: kingoomieiii: No YOU'RE a Towel: Phil Herup: Mugato: It's all about grant money!



...and left wing ideologue zealotry intensified by greed.

Yes, because if you are a scientist, trying to prove climate change is where the big bucks are.

Honestly, what bullshiat. If a scientist could actually come forward and conclusively PROVE that we aren't causing global warming (presumably by proving that something else IS), that guy would be FAMOUS AS SHIAT.

Actually,
It's more likely he would 'die in his sleep' .

Good lord. People don't really believe this argy bargy, do they?

Sorry, my mistake.
That sort if thing is totally unheard of.

Barbigazi: You had a thousand emails and didn't find a goddamn thing. It's time to shut-up.

Huh? It was clearly outlined in teh emails. They have been posted all over the net. Why are you people so willfully blind?

The shiat is fake. Get over it.

On top of that, I have a serious question. Why is it you'll beleive some scientists, who may or may not be bought and paid for, who say there is global warming. But you won't believe equally as smart scientists, who obviously don't have an agenda, that say there is no global warming?

Why is it that humans are so arrogant that they think just because they have some tools, and have been keeping records, they know what's happened or what is going to happen to a planet that's been here 6 billion years (or 6000, if you believe in the invisible sky wizard).

And why do you ignore that fact, proven by ice core samples, that the temperature has had wild swings, in a very short period of time, before humans were even here.

There are so many holes in this "theory" that it's down right laughable.

I guess that's the state of America. Say something on TV, have a "scientist" that surely isn't bought and paid for back it up, and nearly everyone instantly believes is.

America, home of the free sucker.

Hey, how's are ozone doing, anyway? That's gone, right? That's what all of the scientists said was going to happen.

bubbaprog: The only people who claim they "misrepresented climate science" are people who DON'T KNOW HOW QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF MEGAMETRIC DATA WORKS.

They obviously should have released their findings in coloring book form.

Science is all about the money and the pu$$y.

Dreddsnik: BMulligan: Dreddsnik: kingoomieiii: No YOU'RE a Towel: Phil Herup: Mugato: It's all about grant money!



...and left wing ideologue zealotry intensified by greed.

Yes, because if you are a scientist, trying to prove climate change is where the big bucks are.

Honestly, what bullshiat. If a scientist could actually come forward and conclusively PROVE that we aren't causing global warming (presumably by proving that something else IS), that guy would be FAMOUS AS SHIAT.

Actually,
It's more likely he would 'die in his sleep' .

Good lord. People don't really believe this argy bargy, do they?

Sorry, my mistake.
That sort if thing is totally unheard of.

The Interpol/Illuminati Joint Climate Task Force will get them with their black helicopters.

Science is dum

mrshowrules: abb3w: jwa007: Get the popcorn, break out the graphs, here comes a new Climate Change discussion at Fark. This will surely be the most enlightened, intelligent, and thoughtful discussion of the subject for at least 5 nano-seconds, the time from inception to the Boobies.

So, in the interest of trying to get a sane(ish) discussion started, a re-posting of the current pre-alpha 0.0.3 Global Warming "points" list.

1) Earth's climate varies over time
2) These variations occur in response to forcing factors; other factors provide feedbacks, which may be reinforcing or dampening.
3) Some compounds absorb infrared radiation and re-emit it at longer wavelengths when in gaseous form; these "greenhouse gasses" (GHGs) include CO2, various chlorofluorocarbons, and H2O.
4) The fraction of these constituents of the the atmosphere provides a positive feedback to heating from the sun.
5) Certain human activities and land use changes release GHGs into the atmosphere
6) Human activities have raised the atmospheric concentration of these GHGs to levels outside the range of the ordinary variability exhibited over at least the last 800000 years of Earth's history; and likely the last several million years.
7) How the climate system (including feedbacks) responds to changes in forcings and feedbacks can be constrained by examining paleoclimatic (from the Earth's history), observational, and physics-based modeling evidence.
8) Changes in non-GHG forcings (and/or non-anthropogenic forcings) are insufficient to explain observed phenomena such as changes in/to: the surface temperature over the last century, temperature trends in different layers of the atmosphere, outgoing and incoming radiation, expansion of the tropics, etc.
9) The combination of anthropogenic and natural forcings and feedbacks produces the closest current agreement with the observed evidence.
10+) [Projection of future trends]

Yes, it's incomplete. What part of "pre-alpha" didn't you get? I may type up something for 10+ in a few hours that mentions current emitted load, emission rate, and emission acceleration.

Both sides, feel free to tear in with criticism; general unallied trolls, feel free to complain about my making another "points" list that might have a fat chance of taking away some of your fun.

I take exception with some of number 10+. I believe rises in sea level won't be as serious as predicted. However, I expect very severe droughts and unprecedented socio-economic impacts including famine, disease and human migration.

Good list. I've made a shorter list in previous threads.

1) the world is warming
2) greenhouse effect is real
3) humans contribute to the greenhouse effect
4) anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real
5) AGW is serious
6) something can/should be done about AGW

I don't debate with people who deny anything lower than point 4

LOL, I like how you regurgitate what bought and paid for scientists have told you to believe, and you think you're so smart.

Why do you ignore all of the scientists and evidence that say global warming is BS?

Why do you ignore the fact that we are coming out of a mini ice age and humans have little to no impact on the warming?

Why do you chose to beleive some of the "facts" and not all of them?

Don't worry, we already know the answers.

So-called "global warming" is a communist plot.

Good thing GW is man made and not natural or that volcanoe erupting now in Iceland would be in BIG trouble.

/iceland need to buy some carbon credits from Al Gore to offset this eruption

OlafTheBent: Idiots calling highly intelligent people "stoopid"

/Brilliant

Intelligence is no guarantee of lack of stupidity.

If anything it often makes it more likely.

I know it's hard when you have nothing real to support your claims with but you deniers really need to let this go. It was a non-event that does not effect the climate change models.

Go back to blaming Unicorn farts and building your post apocalypse Mad Max mobiles.

Dusk-You-n-Me: el wharrrgarblo: Why do you ignore all of the scientists and evidence that say global warming is BS?

To be fair, it's really easy to ignore when you don't provide shut your eyes real tight, stick your fingers in your ears and can't see or hear any.

I love how the political teams pick and choose when they appeal to science.

Some *love* science when it vindicates modern agri-business practices, like fertilizers, anti-biotic use and GM crops.

Others *love* science when it implicates big business in yet another pollution or safety scheme that throws labor or the commons under the bus in the endless quest for ever-higher profits from steadily decreasing quality of goods and service.

But no-one seems to have the balls to say: I'll take science, warts and all. It's always a selective appeal to science.

And that's why they can all get farked.

el wharrrgarblo: Barbigazi: You had a thousand emails and didn't find a goddamn thing. It's time to shut-up.

Huh? It was clearly outlined in teh emails. They have been posted all over the net. Why are you people so willfully blind?

The shiat is fake. Get over it.

On top of that, I have a serious question. Why is it you'll beleive some scientists, who may or may not be bought and paid for, who say there is global warming. But you won't believe equally as smart scientists, who obviously don't have an agenda, that say there is no global warming?

Why is it that humans are so arrogant that they think just because they have some tools, and have been keeping records, they know what's happened or what is going to happen to a planet that's been here 6 billion years (or 6000, if you believe in the invisible sky wizard).

And why do you ignore that fact, proven by ice core samples, that the temperature has had wild swings, in a very short period of time, before humans were even here.

There are so many holes in this "theory" that it's down right laughable.

I guess that's the state of America. Say something on TV, have a "scientist" that surely isn't bought and paid for back it up, and nearly everyone instantly believes is.

America, home of the free sucker.

Hey, how's are ozone doing, anyway? That's gone, right? That's what all of the scientists said was going to happen.

el wharrrgarblo, you are my hero. keep up the good work.

USCLaw2010: /This graph was the deciding factor in the panel's conclusions

That's BULLSHIAT. The data is clearly wrong but you KNOW the panel never used that stupid data. Citation needed? I know that song; the "See me rolling : hating : Trying to catch me riding dirty" ratio is 1:1:9 and you can verify that with FIVE MINUTES of Google, you cheap farktard. You're just trying to discredit the panel by accusing them of using easily debunked data. I ain't falling for it.

Gah, this is the problem with global warming threads. So much falsified data, trying to obfuscate the issues by putting lies in pie charts.

Go EABOD and DIAF.

BillCo: It's been a while since we had a warmer's thread. Are they still pushing this crap.

Naw man. We gave up. You won. Our children's future is secure because a couple of climate scientists had a couple of emails that sounded kind of sinister if you have your head straight up your ass.

It was pretty awesome while it lasted. We were all getting totally rich and shiat. But stealing your money has finally lost its appeal. You can leave this thread now.

Because you are the winner.

el wharrgarblo: Hey, how's are ozone doing, anyway? That's gone, right? That's what all of the scientists said was going to happen.

The ozone hole has stopped expanding and looks to be finally beginning to shrink, thanks to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty promoted (and signed) by George H.W. Bush that limits emissions of gases that contribute to ozone depletion.

Funny thing- scientists said, "this is a problem," and then the US joined the rest of the world in limiting emissions, and then we solved the problem and the economy didn't collapse.

Thanks for bringing this up!

el wharrrgarblo: Why is it that humans are so arrogant that they think just because they have some tools, and have been keeping records, they know what's happened or what is going to happen to a planet that's been here 6 billion years (or 6000, if you believe in the invisible sky wizard).


See, that's part of yer problem right thar. Either the planet has been here for 6 billion years or for 6000. It's one or the other (or some other figure entirely); it doesn't depend on whether you believe in the invisible sky wizard.

Global climate change, similarly, is not unreal because GCC deniers don't believe it's real. It's not real just because the vast majority of scientists believe it's real. It's not even real because the evidence shows that it's real. Au contraire, the evidence shows that it's real because it's real.

1) The earth is indisputedly warming
2) We've ruled out every known natural cause for warming
3) A strong correlation remains between the advent of agriculture, the industrial revolution, and warming trends.

THEREFORE

The working hypothesis, that manmade global warming is occurring, cannot be rejected.

/hot like crime

kingoomieiii: el wharrrgarblo:
LOL, I like how you regurgitate what bought and paid for scientists have told you to believe, and you think you're so smart.

Why do you ignore all of the scientists and evidence that say global warming is BS?

Why do you ignore the fact that we are coming out of a mini ice age and humans have little to no impact on the warming?

Why do you chose to beleive some of the "facts" and not all of them?

Don't worry, we already know the answers.

Point 1: Frankly, in any other medium, the percentage of scientists who dispute AGW could be chalked up to sample noise. They are few enough to be safely disregarded. But why do you put SO MUCH MORE stock in what they few say than the others? Don't worry, we already know. It's fashionable to present yourself as delightfully "unindoctrinated". I mean, you don't REALLY think we landed on the moon, do you? OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE!

Point 2: You name two concepts here, calling them 'fact'. There may be some confusion as to what that word means, because neither of those two have been empirically proven (and the latter is supported by very little evidence).

Point 3: Same question, asshole.

The amount of scientists that don't believe is are most than just sample noise. And hey, at least they aren't faking results ON PURPOSE. You know, like fraud. Fraud that got sold to tens of millions in order to help politicians pass laws which take our righs away and cost us more money.

Did I mention politicians? That should your fist clue.

I think the fact that the investigations have, so far, failed to find any evidence of intentional scientific malpractice throws the validity of all the Global Warming skeptic's arguments in to question.

No, actually I don't believe that. I just put that there because when the CRU hack story broke there were so many people "concerned" about the validity of ALL climate research just because it looked as if one organization was playing fast and loose with the rules.

Attention!

Can anyone who believes that climategate is a real crisis please explain to me how so?? (try include some specifics and details) I want hear the latest spin.

Great, another troll headline that misrepresents the facts and the article. Thanks Drew.

RockIsDead: Intelligence is no guarantee of lack of stupidity.

If anything it often makes it more likely.

That's about as good a summation of modern conservatism as I've read anywhere.

PlusCestLaMeme: el wharrrgarblo: Why is it that humans are so arrogant that they think just because they have some tools, and have been keeping records, they know what's happened or what is going to happen to a planet that's been here 6 billion years (or 6000, if you believe in the invisible sky wizard).


See, that's part of yer problem right thar. Either the planet has been here for 6 billion years or for 6000. It's one or the other (or some other figure entirely); it doesn't depend on whether you believe in the invisible sky wizard.

Global climate change, similarly, is not unreal because GCC deniers don't believe it's real. It's not real just because the vast majority of scientists believe it's real. It's not even real because the evidence shows that it's real. Au contraire, the FAKEevidence shows that it's FAKE because it's FAKE.


FTFY.

The real evidence shows otherwise. Get over it. You people have gotten duped by dozens of things that were suppose to be horrifc over the past 30 years. They've ALL been wrong.

You know what? Fark it. You're right. We should get together. I've got this awesome bridge for sale I KNOW you'd be interested in. Unicorns even live underneath it! Trust me.

Dusk-You-n-Me: el wharrrgarblo: which take our righs away

Your Glenn Beck is showing. OOGA BOOGA

A guy who defends the constitution and points our the far left's hypocrisy? That's fine by me.

Sure he showboats around, but that doesn't change the fact that he stands for the constitution.

People who refuse to believe that the climate is changing remind me of smokers.

Since 1966, cigarette packs in the US have come with warning labels. I was too young to know what was going on prior to the warning labels making their appearance, but I would assume that there was a prolonged period of public debate on the topic, with some probably decrying the "alleged" health risks related to smoking. My guess is that the lines were drawn with doctors/scientists firmly in the "it's dangerous" camp, while the tobacco companies and a good chunk of the general public fell into the "it's not dangerous" camp. An assumption on my part, to be sure.

Even today, more than 40 years since the labels were put into place, people continue to smoke. Some undoubtedly think that the warnings are overblown, citing anecdotal evidence that they (or someone they know) have been smoking for years, and hey, they've never gotten sick. The warnings must be nonsense.

Of course, years later, when smokers do get sick, some have turned to suing tobacco companies for selling a dangerous product, even though the warning was there all along.

To complete the analogy, all of this reminds me of global climate change. Huge public debate, with the average Joe refusing to believe what the climate scientists have been saying. And if you make the assumption that in 40 years the predictions do come true, I won't be surprised (if I'm even still alive) if the same people decrying it as nonsense now are the same ones who scream the loudest, and possibly even try to sue the government for not doing more to protect them.

el wharrrgarblo:

LOL, I like how you regurgitate what bought and paid for scientists have told you to believe, and you think you're so smart.

This has always been one of the most amusing bits of denier derp, given how almost all the US research on the climate in the past decade was signed off on by appointees of a POTUS who refused to believe ACC even existed and was known for stuffing positions with partisan buddies.

kingoomieiii: el wharrrgarblo: kingoomieiii: el wharrrgarblo:
LOL, I like how you regurgitate what bought and paid for scientists have told you to believe, and you think you're so smart.

Why do you ignore all of the scientists and evidence that say global warming is BS?

Why do you ignore the fact that we are coming out of a mini ice age and humans have little to no impact on the warming?

Why do you chose to beleive some of the "facts" and not all of them?

Don't worry, we already know the answers.

Point 1: Frankly, in any other medium, the percentage of scientists who dispute AGW could be chalked up to sample noise. They are few enough to be safely disregarded. But why do you put SO MUCH MORE stock in what they few say than the others? Don't worry, we already know. It's fashionable to present yourself as delightfully "unindoctrinated". I mean, you don't REALLY think we landed on the moon, do you? OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE!

Point 2: You name two concepts here, calling them 'fact'. There may be some confusion as to what that word means, because neither of those two have been empirically proven (and the latter is supported by very little evidence).

Point 3: Same question, asshole.

The amount of scientists that don't believe is are most than just sample noise. And hey, at least they aren't faking results ON PURPOSE. You know, like fraud. Fraud that got sold to tens of millions in order to help politicians pass laws which take our righs away and cost us more money.

Did I mention politicians? That should your fist clue.

Follow the money? Have you ever noticed how you an start at either side of a maze?

Both sides stand to make money.

I'm genuinly interested. Who makes money if this is fake? Like, the working people get to keep more of their money instead of getting taxed more?

Not being a smart ass.

The Crepes of Wrath: People who refuse to believe that the climate is changing remind me of smokers.

Since 1966, cigarette packs in the US have come with warning labels. I was too young to know what was going on prior to the warning labels making their appearance, but I would assume that there was a prolonged period of public debate on the topic, with some probably decrying the "alleged" health risks related to smoking. My guess is that the lines were drawn with doctors/scientists firmly in the "it's dangerous" camp, while the tobacco companies and a good chunk of the general public fell into the "it's not dangerous" camp. An assumption on my part, to be sure.

Even today, more than 40 years since the labels were put into place, people continue to smoke. Some undoubtedly think that the warnings are overblown, citing anecdotal evidence that they (or someone they know) have been smoking for years, and hey, they've never gotten sick. The warnings must be nonsense.

Of course, years later, when smokers do get sick, some have turned to suing tobacco companies for selling a dangerous product, even though the warning was there all along.

To complete the analogy, all of this reminds me of global climate change. Huge public debate, with the average Joe refusing to believe what the climate scientists have been saying. And if you make the assumption that in 40 years the predictions do come true, I won't be surprised (if I'm even still alive) if the same people decrying it as nonsense now are the same ones who scream the loudest, and possibly even try to sue the government for not doing more to protect them.

Besides the fact that there is no evidence that smoking is good for you. Besides the FAKE material put out by climate "experts". Besides scientists who don't believe in global warming.

Yeah, real good comparison.

maxheck: el wharrrgarblo:

LOL, I like how you regurgitate what bought and paid for scientists have told you to believe, and you think you're so smart.

This has always been one of the most amusing bits of denier derp, given how almost all the US research on the climate in the past decade was signed off on by appointees of a POTUS who refused to believe ACC even existed and was known for stuffing positions with partisan buddies.

You mean all of the FAKE research. Stop leaving that out. The cats out of the bag, and jus about everyone laughs at people who still buy global warming.

Like I said, how's that ozone doing? It's gone, right?

OlafTheBent: Idiots calling highly intelligent people "stoopid"

/Brilliant

Idiots believing every single thing that "intelligent" people say...

Additionally, these same idiots react religiously to anyone who questions the "intelligent" peoples motives.

/Brilliant

/When Cap-in-trade passes, Al Gore is almost an instant Billionare
//Many of these scientists sit on boards of "green" companies that will sell you all the climate friendly products.
///I actually believe the climate is changing and still believe that these scientists should be asked the tough questions...