That just means that more of them will be able to fit inside subby's computer.

Pretty sure it was warmer millions of years ago and that there were insects that were several feet long during those periods.

The human race, or for that matter all carbon-based lifeforms existing on earth are far to insignificant to foster anthropologic climate change.



/Forster's Australian for beer

aragonphx: Pretty sure it was warmer millions of years ago and that there were insects that were several feet long during those periods.

I can't imagine they tasted as good as they do today though! MMMMM MMMMM!

/Forster's

aragonphx: Pretty sure it was warmer millions of years ago and that there were insects that were several feet long during those periods.

And there were these big lizards wandering around too. I won't believe in climate change until I see a Brachyosaur with 12 items in the 10 items or less line at Albertson's.

FARK in FL: The human race, or for that matter all carbon-based lifeforms existing on earth are far to insignificant to foster anthropologic climate change.

Man, I don't think you're aware of just how many farking people there are.

Meanwhile, the ExxonMobil shills at NASA are trying to tell us that the most recent month was the coolest of the past 7 years. Hey, Big Oil shills at NASA...stop polluting the conversation with, you know, data.



/cue the tards to come in and apologize that something that covers the entire surface of the earth for 7 years is "just weather".

Yeah, until they crawl up your urethra and make an ant farm in your bladder.

SevenizGud: Meanwhile, the ExxonMobil shills at NASA are trying to tell us that the most recent month was the coolest of the past 7 years. Hey, Big Oil shills at NASA...stop polluting the conversation with, you know, data.

[img441.imageshack.us image 640x426]

/cue the tards to come in and apologize that something that covers the entire surface of the earth for 7 years is "just weather".

No, that's climate. The issue is the overall trend over decades not months.

SevenizGud: Meanwhile, the ExxonMobil shills at NASA are trying to tell us that the most recent month was the coolest of the past 7 years. Hey, Big Oil shills at NASA...stop polluting the conversation with, you know, data.

Stop reading sucky blogs.

Link (new window)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming (new window)

"In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F)"

Dennis Miller: "Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtnu9b701RE (new window)

crab66: Stop reading sucky blogs.

Right. You should listen to people like NOAA and IPCC. Never mind the fact that the IPCC is trying to "hide the decline" with "Mike's Nature Trick". Oh, and they're deliberately circumventing the FOIA requests with the help of the Obama Whitehouse (new window). But...yeah...trust these guys. They're objective, I'm sure.

dukwbutter: Dennis Miller: "Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtnu9b701RE (new window)


I mean it's not like immensely complex systems on massive scales can change by deceptively small values and still have far-reaching effects.

That shelf in my kitchen is a few degrees off level. I guess that means changing the axial tilt of the earth by a few degrees wouldn't matter. Derp derp derp.

A degree or two must be meaningless since my perceptions of hot, cold and comfort don't allow me to view such a change in any other context.

dukwbutter: Right. You should listen to people like NOAA and IPCC. Never mind the fact that the IPCC is trying to "hide the decline" with "Mike's Nature Trick". Oh, and they're deliberately circumventing the FOIA requests with the help of the Obama Whitehouse (new window). But...yeah...trust these guys. They're objective, I'm sure.

crab66: Stop reading sucky blogs.

dukwbutter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming (new window)

"In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F)"

Dennis Miller: "Am I the only one who finds that amazingly stable?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtnu9b701RE (new window)

Do you know the average temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial?

aragonphx: Pretty sure it was warmer millions of years ago and that there were insects that were several feet long during those periods.

But, you see, the insect KNEW about the impending Ice Age, they read about it on their ISLAB, so they bulked up. They're smart bastards.

Only in magical retard land is NOAA not credible.


I get my data from bubba's blog. He said that Pa reckons that the global warmin is a socialist plot by Obama! He even made a chart with some crayons that momma got for him at the Walmart.

dukwbutter: crab66: Stop reading sucky blogs.

Right. You should listen to people like NOAA and IPCC. Never mind the fact that the IPCC is trying to "hide the decline" with "Mike's Nature Trick". Oh, and they're deliberately circumventing the FOIA requests with the help of the Obama Whitehouse (new window). But...yeah...trust these guys. They're objective, I'm sure.

The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature, and is openly discussed in papers and the IPCC reports. (new window)

A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming. (new window)

Note: Climategate includes FOIA requests


Thanks for bringing back those gems. I hadn't seen anyone trot out those busted POS arguments in months.

crab66: crab66: Stop reading sucky blogs.

I assume by this you mean "stop reading blogs that aren't foaming at the mouth delusional ramblings of scientists controlled by funds that are available only to global warming alarmists, not real scientists." So, I guess you mean I should ignore NOAA and the IPCC, since they're funded by taxpayer funds which are only available if they reach the one conclusion that is politically correct...that Global Warming errr Klimate Change uhhhh ManBearPig is a very real and present danger.

Baryogenesis: Do you know the average temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial?

No, and you don't either, because there weren't any thermometers back then. And the correlation of tree ring data to temperature is junk science also (new window). So, dream your little dream and pretend to be a scientist, but you're not. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the @ss. Global Warming/Climate Change is a religion, not a science. Science is based on skepticism. And you're not skeptical. You swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker. There is no global warming. There is no climate change. And you are not a scientist.

FARK in FL: The human race, or for that matter all carbon-based lifeforms existing on earth are far to insignificant to foster anthropologic climate change.

[www.stephentaylor.ca image 640x422]

/Forster's Australian for beer [www.lovemarks.com image 310x207]

Humans, by definition, are the only species capable of anthropogenic climate change, note the prefix anthro-

By the by, are you familiar with the Great Oxygenation Event?

Baryogenesis: By the by, are you familiar with the Great Oxygenation Event?

Are you familiar with ManBearPig?

Sorry. I don't argue with complete nutjobs who do nothing but post blogs by people who have no real expertise in whatever they are trying to sell. Next you will start telling me about fluoride and chemtrails.

dukwbutter: Baryogenesis: Do you know the average temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial?

No, and you don't either, because there weren't any thermometers back then. And the correlation of tree ring data to temperature is junk science also (new window). So, dream your little dream and pretend to be a scientist, but you're not. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the @ss. Global Warming/Climate Change is a religion, not a science. Science is based on skepticism. And you're not skeptical. You swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker. There is no global warming. There is no climate change. And you are not a scientist.

Science is based on *evidence*. Skepticism is important, but denial, something you have in spades, is the antithesis of science. As far as paleoclimate is concerned, broad trends are far more important than hundredth of a degree precision on March 12 60,000 years ago. Scientists do have a very good idea of what the climate was like during recent ice ages despite your pathetic and unsupported assertion to the contrary.

Oxygen isotope ratios are used as a proxy for global temperature in the time periods we are discussing. Tree ring proxies go back for around 1000 years, not 100,000 or more. You're only off by a factor of 100 in your sad attempt to cast doubt on climate science. Furthermore, the problem you so predictably trot out (from that same sad denial blog) isn't even a problem. To wit: Link (new window)

Do take note of the primary literature citations in the links I provided. Now, I know you and your tinfoil hat are completely on board the "it's a conspiracy!!11!!" train, but I thought I'd point out the blog vs. primary literature "battle" for any folks who are bored enough to be scrolling the thread.

dukwbutter: Baryogenesis: Do you know the average temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial?

No, and you don't either, because there weren't any thermometers back then. And the correlation of tree ring data to temperature is junk science also (new window). So, dream your little dream and pretend to be a scientist, but you're not. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the @ss. Global Warming/Climate Change is a religion, not a science. Science is based on skepticism. And you're not skeptical. You swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker. There is no global warming. There is no climate change. And you are not a scientist.

You're referencing the work of someone that does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. Not exactly a reliable source.


crab66: Stop reading sucky blogs.

crab66: Sorry. I don't argue with complete nutjobs who do nothing but post blogs by people who have no real expertise in whatever they are trying to sell. Next you will start telling me about fluoride and chemtrails.

Whereas someone that goes by "Crab66" is obviously a Climate Scientist with a PHD from Harvard that travels back and forth between NOAA and the IPCC. Am I right? Because, I'm so stupid, and you don't like the web site I link to. You must have peer-reviewed published papers, am I right? Am I close?

Because, if I want honest-to-god proof of anthropogenic global warming, that makes me a nut job wearing aluminum foil on my head. Whereas a clever, informed, level-headed professional like yourself is willing to thrown Western civilization as we know it into the toilet based on some junk science by people who have a serious conflict of interest - namely that their funding is tied to continuing the myth of Global Warming. But I'm the nut job. OK. I got it. Thanks for playing. You're right. I don't want to argue with you. It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Philbb: You're referencing the work of someone that does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. Not exactly a reliable source.

All the experts are getting rich on that sweet sweet grant money bonanza! They can't be trusted! There's just no incentive for them to do honest science when they're making trillions off uncle sam. Energy companies, auto manufacturers and oil sheiks just can't compete.

Yes. By posting a link to what is considered by most normal people to be legitimate data. Rather than some blog from a guy with no formal relevance on the subject. That is certainly the same as me claiming to be an expert myself.

That's quite a leap bud. Keep digging that hole.

I'm super cereal! Why won't anyone believe me?!!!

Translation: I have been called on my bullshiat and have no real argument or data to back up my claims.

crab66: Yes. By posting a link to what is considered by most normal people to be legitimate data. Rather than some blog from a guy with no formal relevance on the subject.

Claiming that your data is valid, but mine somehow isn't because you don't like my websites. It's just nuts. Keep it up. I'm super cereal.

dukwbutter: It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

You can say that again.

I forgot to tell you the temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial.



dukwbutter: if I want honest-to-god proof of anthropogenic global warming

Ah, here we go. You claim to be a skeptic while hitting all the denialist talking points you got from a denialist blog. If you want to be considered as something other than a science denying halfwit parroting a few talking points he heard on talk radio this morning then you would do well to answer the following question without resorting to ad hominem attacks or claims of conspiracy.

What evidence would convince you that humans are a primary (not sole) cause of current climate change? Feel free to stick to broad points, this is fark after all. Do keep in mind that science *never* deals in absolutes. It never proves anything in the same way logic or mathematics proves something.

Look at my legit data from this website!




Link (new window)

Here's the Hide the Decline video, which I'm sure you just hate, because it sort of lays out how the IPCC fudged the data day in and day out for years to make the data look like they wanted it. They deliberately manipulated the temperatures, and then claimed to have lost the manipulated *unedited) data. Then, they consistently refused to make their temperature data available. Guffaw!!!

Link (new window)

How can you possibly mistake these bunch of lying, fudging, nitwits as scientists? Seriously? They should be in jail, not doing research.

dukwbutter: crab66: Yes. By posting a link to what is considered by most normal people to be legitimate data. Rather than some blog from a guy with no formal relevance on the subject.

Claiming that your data is valid, but mine somehow isn't because you don't like my websites. It's just nuts. Keep it up. I'm super cereal.

It's been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread that the author of that blog has no formal climate training while we post links citing primary research, data from NASA etc. Gee wiz who should be listened to among those sources?

Besides, you already played this game from the other side. Your attempts at undermining the legitimacy of the scientific data by mentioning climategate was thoroughly debunked. Don't act as if you didn't already fail at a superficially similar tactic.

dukwbutter: Here's the Hide the Decline video, which I'm sure you just hate, because it sort of lays out how the IPCC fudged the data day in and day out for years to make the data look like they wanted it. They deliberately manipulated the temperatures, and then claimed to have lost the manipulated *unedited) data. Then, they consistently refused to make their temperature data available. Guffaw!!!

Link (new window)

How can you possibly mistake these bunch of lying, fudging, nitwits as scientists? Seriously? They should be in jail, not doing research.

Oh yeah, a youtube video. Very convincing. Here, from the link I posted earlier which you obviously didn't read because, even though you claim to be a skeptic, it would be evidence that conflicts with your worldview.

source (new window)

A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:

In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called "trick"1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."
In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU's "Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists' rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."
In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".
In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

Climategate is a manufactured controversy that only dishonest science deniers like yourself trot out in the vain hope that someone believes your bullshiat.

Cue a line about how all those reports finding no wrongdoing among climate scientists is just a sign of how deep the conspiracy goes.

Baryogenesis: I forgot to tell you the temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial.

You don't need to tell me what the temperature was during the ice ages, or during the interfellatio periods, or what the ambient temperature is when you start your shift at Pizza Hut. If you know for sure what the exact temperature was thousands of years ago, It's clear that you're more than just a scientist. You're clairvoyant!!!

Now, hustle off to the Pizza Hut to start your shift. You can draw up some more crayon graphs on lunar temperatures from millions of years ago after your shift. Maybe you can hire on to the IPCC one day. They're always looking for more "true believers" that won't let science get in the way of producing consistent results and nice smooth graphs.

Hide the decline...
Hide the decline...
Hide the decline...

Oh my god that video is funny, don't you think? Isn't it funny how they sort of lay out, not just the "hide the decline", but all of the other concerted efforts to skew the data to fit their narrative. Brilliant. Don't you agree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4 (new window)

dukwbutter: If you know for sure what the exact temperature was thousands of years ago, It's clear that you're more than just a scientist. You're clairvoyant!!!

Baryogenesis: As far as paleoclimate is concerned, broad trends are far more important than hundredth of a degree precision on March 12 60,000 years ago

I do hope you continue making a complete fool of yourself. It's very entertaining.

dukwbutter: It's like having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

At least you've gotten one thing (half) right in this thread. The good new is that ignorance is reversible. The bad news is deliberate ignorance and unwavering, proud, mouth frothing stupidity is not.

dingleberry, there's no data, my friend. The "scientists" are desperately trying to make the graphs paint this dire scenario, but the truth is that they're artists, not scientists. The average temperate of the earth has gone up 1.4 degrees over the last hundred years. that's all I need to know. There is no global warming.

Somehow, you and a bunch of other probably well-meaning people look at the same data and somehow, you throw out every single rule of science out the window. "Statistically significant" means nothing to this field. They're reading tea leaves. And then, when it's finally sure that Global Warming can't be sold, the old bait and switch says "Let's market Klimate Change" instead. You're hedging your bets. It's smart, on your part. It's like being at the track and "boxing" the exacta or the trifecta. It increases your odds of being right.

Basically, marketing "Kilimate Change" is easier because the climate always has been changing, and always will continue to change. So, the pseudo-scientists have basically said "the climate (which always has changed in the past) will continue to change in the future!"

Well, ok. Brilliant. It was a smart move, after falling flat on their faces with the Global Warming. (Oh, and don't forget the Ice Age they were predicting back before Global Warming).

So, the "scientists" have vacillated between predicting the upcoming "Ice Age" and "Global Warming" and finally settled on "Klimate Change". OK. It was a smart move. I'll give you that. But it's not a prediction. It's like predicting the sun will rise tomorrow. Well, duh. Of course it will.

Until you nimrods can make some accurate forecasts (which you can't), then our arguing is meaningless. However, to take your sham of a religion and try to make changes to the world's economy based on your lunacy is alarming beyond belief. It makes me want to eliminate all funding to the nimrods at the IPCC who are currently digging themselves a new little hole by trying to circumvent the FOIA requests by clandestinely communicating outside of their official channels.

Odd behavior for a group so honorable as you seem to believe they are. For a group with nothing to hide, the IPCC sure seems to want to keep their data and communications a secret. Odd for a publicly fundied group, don't you agree?

I mean, for a true believer such as yourself, it must be somewhat frustrating that the people running the show are so secretive and manipulative in their work, no?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/66790 8 2/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generatio n.html (new window)

"I guess we can take this sign down for now"

I rarely come out of hibernation, but hey, climate change has stirred me.

I've been reading duk's sheait, and conclude that it is just that. He's too wound up to be a troll.

Duk... man get a grip dude, you are arguing with the world. The world disagrees. Shut up already.

Going back to sleep now.

dukwbutter: dingleberry, there's no data, my friend. The "scientists" are desperately trying to make the graphs paint this dire scenario, but the truth is that they're artists, not scientists. The average temperate of the earth has gone up 1.4 degrees over the last hundred years. that's all I need to know. There is no global warming.

Read that again. I can't wait for the backpedaling. Busted your own talking point there.

dukwbutter: Global Warming can't be sold, the old bait and switch says "Let's market Klimate Change"

Ah huh. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. And references to climate change and not strictly global warming start earlier than that. Busted talking point number 2 of this post.

dukwbutter: don't forget the Ice Age they were predicting back before Global Warming

1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2. (new window)

Busted talking point number 3.

dukwbutter: Until you nimrods can make some accurate forecasts (which you can't), then our arguing is meaningless.

Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections (Rahmstoorf 2007) compared 2001 IPCC projections of global temperature change (coloured dotted lines) with observations from HadCRUT (blue) and NASA GISS data (red). The thin lines are the observed yearly average. The solid lines are the long term trends, which filter out short term weather fluctuations.



Link (new window)

Busted talking point number 4

dukwbutter: It makes me want to eliminate all funding to the nimrods at the IPCC who are currently digging themselves a new little hole by trying to circumvent the FOIA requests by clandestinely communicating outside of their official channels. Odd behavior for a group so honorable as you seem to believe they are. For a group with nothing to hide, the IPCC sure seems to want to keep their data and communications a secret. Odd for a publicly fundied group, don't you agree?

Climategate has been thoroughly debunked and I already have provided citations earlier in the thread. Busted talking point number 5


Would you care to answer my question from earlier? Or do you want to continue dodging any real discussion of the evidence in favor of repeating the same debunked lies and conspiracy theories? Here, I'll repost it for your convenience.

Baryogenesis: What evidence would convince you that humans are a primary (not sole) cause of current climate change? Feel free to stick to broad points, this is fark after all. Do keep in mind that science *never* deals in absolutes. It never proves anything in the same way logic or mathematics proves something.

Any real skeptic could list the things that would change his mind. By the way:

Baryogenesis: If you want to be considered as something other than a science denying halfwit parroting a few talking points he heard on talk radio this morning then you would do well to answer the following preceeding question without resorting to ad hominem attacks or claims of conspiracy.

is relieved.

I see the anti-science soldiers are up early today.

I haven't had time to check the blogs for the daily talking points ... is today a "GW is not real" day or "GW is real but AGW is not real" day.

/you guys seem to flip between them even though they contradict each other
//I guess when you're just regurgitating anti-science talking points, logic isn't important