FARK.com: (6911388) Scientists determine global warming caused by the Wall Street Journal's and Daily Mail's pants being on fire

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.

		Scientists determine global warming caused by the Wall Street Journal's and Daily Mail's pants being on fire (blogs.discovermagazine.com)		459
		More: Fail, Daily Mail, Little Ice Age, scientific skepticism, quiet periods, average surface temperature, Wall Street Journal

• • •

13356 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2012 at 5:52 PM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6911388

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

459 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

Paris1127

2012-01-30 04:40:54 PM

The article is so fallacious that the Met offices decided to publish another release stating clearly that the Mail article "includes numerous errors", is "misleading", and that the author chose "... to not fully include the answers we gave him".

This quotation could apply to any Daily Fail article.

/Skeptical Science is an interesting site

YoungSwedishBlonde

2012-01-30 04:49:56 PM

Ahhh, I see the "there has been no warming since 1998" fallacy is still in full effect.

Darth_Lukecash

2012-01-30 05:18:13 PM

Gee, I wonder if the fact it's owned by the Murdoch family has anything to do with it?

RexTalionis

2012-01-30 05:36:28 PM

Darth_Lukecash: Gee, I wonder if the fact it's owned by the Murdoch family has anything to do with it?

Surprisingly enough, the Daily Mail is not owned by News International.

sno man

2012-01-30 05:40:09 PM

RexTalionis: Darth_Lukecash: Gee, I wonder if the fact it's owned by the Murdoch family has anything to do with it?

Surprisingly enough, the Daily Mail is not owned by News International.

the WSJ is though

WizardofToast

2012-01-30 05:54:00 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: Ahhh, I see the "there has been no warming since 1998" fallacy is still in full effect.

Well I dunno. I've been curious on this whole global warming thing since the number of pirates in the world dropped. We need our Blackbeards and Morgans.

The Goddamn Batman

2012-01-30 05:56:51 PM

The Daily Fail and Wall Street Journal published things that were flat-out wrong? Unpossible!

Gunny Highway

2012-01-30 05:57:32 PM

I thought it was because Mr. Bungle's ass is on fire.

ObeliskToucher

2012-01-30 05:57:54 PM

Deniers!

moops

2012-01-30 05:58:03 PM

DON'T BOTHER US WITH THE FACTS!

s2s2s2

2012-01-30 06:01:03 PM

News publications are not weather!

Brubold

2012-01-30 06:01:32 PM

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - Kevin Trenberth

I wonder if Mr. Trenberth knows he's been brainwashed by Fox News and was secretly working for them while at the CRU.

Macular Degenerate

2012-01-30 06:01:55 PM

Articles on Fark:

1. Most people are ugly and stupid
2. Technology is awesome
3. Cute animals are cute
4. Boobies

I put this squarely behind Door #1

ghare

2012-01-30 06:01:59 PM

Global Warming thread????
WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING!

s2s2s2

2012-01-30 06:02:51 PM

ghare: Global Warming thread????
WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING! WALL OF GREEN TEXT ATTENTION WHORING!

Hi there. You have grabbed my attention.

Rapmaster2000

2012-01-30 06:02:53 PM

Oh yeah, well it snows in the winter! Take that libs!

Gyrfalcon

2012-01-30 06:05:02 PM

So when does that stupid fool with the green text come in to tell us See! See! Solid proof that I've been right all along and scientists agree there is no global warming, because four of them agree that there isn't! And that it's sunspots we need to worry about!

Or is he just going to ignore this because of the 225 scientists who disagree with his four pet believers?

bravian

2012-01-30 06:06:32 PM

sno man: the WSJ is though

The WSJ editorial page was always full of FAIL. But at least before Murdoch they would print rebuttals to an editorial a day or week later. That not so mysteriously stopped a few years ago.

/my favorite was the logistics guy for the war in Iraq responding to the MN Taxpayers league that it would be cheaper to buy everyone a BMW then to fund public transportation
//needless to say the MN Taxpayers league got owned

fusillade762

2012-01-30 06:06:52 PM

moops: DON'T BOTHER US WITH THE FACTS!

Facts have a known liberal, anti-fossil fuel bias.

m1ke

2012-01-30 06:07:06 PM

Meh, I'll survivie either way.

chaddsfarkprefect

2012-01-30 06:08:26 PM

My favorite part of the article is the chart that starts at 1973.

Religion of Scientific Intolerance - if you disagree with their conclusions, you're excommunicated.

RexTalionis

2012-01-30 06:09:18 PM

bravian: sno man: the WSJ is though

The WSJ editorial page was always full of FAIL. But at least before Murdoch they would print rebuttals to an editorial a day or week later. That not so mysteriously stopped a few years ago.

/my favorite was the logistics guy for the war in Iraq responding to the MN Taxpayers league that it would be cheaper to buy everyone a BMW then to fund public transportation
//needless to say the MN Taxpayers league got owned

I used to read it daily (well, weekdays) when I was in college in 2004 or so. The decline in quality in the few years since News Corp bought it is shocking.

Tatterdemalian

2012-01-30 06:09:45 PM

Of course, the only numbers the article is concerned with is the number of licensed climatologists who support and oppose the findings. 255 against and 4 for, the nays have it. Because the laws of nature are subject to popular vote.

/if we can vote down the law of gravity, we won't NEED flying cars

limboslam

2012-01-30 06:11:08 PM

Global Warming just means cozier winters.

Remember....
i486.photobucket.com

Just try and see the beauty in whatever life throws at you..

RexTalionis

2012-01-30 06:12:28 PM

chaddsfarkprefect: My favorite part of the article is the chart that starts at 1973.

Religion of Scientific Intolerance - if you disagree with their conclusions, you're excommunicated.

Right, because that's a 40 year period. The chart can extend even further showing the same general trend.

In any case, it's a sight better than the woman who released a study claiming that global warming stopped for a number of years, arbitrarily choosing, if I recall, a 12 year period instead of a round number like, say, 10. Incidentally, the period she chose also had a statistical outlier that skewed the trend because she was dealing with a very small sample size.

TorqueToad

2012-01-30 06:12:33 PM

SVenus

2012-01-30 06:16:22 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: Ahhh, I see the "there has been no warming since 1998" fallacy is still in full effect.

www.woodfortrees.org

bravian

2012-01-30 06:21:36 PM

RexTalionis: I used to read it daily (well, weekdays) when I was in college in 2004 or so. The decline in quality in the few years since News Corp bought it is shocking.

Yea ... its really been noticeable. Especially the last couple of years. I may finally break down and subscribe to the NYT.

WelldeadLink

2012-01-30 06:22:41 PM

chaddsfarkprefect: My favorite part of the article is the chart that starts at 1973.

Yup. Using the 1973 chart to compare to the Daily Mail's chart of the Met's temperatures being flat since 1997. Silly. Of course a chart that starts at the 1973 cold point will show a rise. Why didn't he start at 1900 or the end of the last glacial period? Then the temp would rise even more, even if we weren't using much evil oil before the 1940s.

I used to respect BadAstronomy. He should stick to what he knows.

Curse of the Goth Kids

2012-01-30 06:22:51 PM

Gunny Highway: I thought it was because Mr. Bungle's ass is on fire.

That's not funny.

gilgigamesh

2012-01-30 06:22:54 PM

SVenus: YoungSwedishBlonde: Ahhh, I see the "there has been no warming since 1998" fallacy is still in full effect.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Global average temperatures have not climbed year after year since 1997. However, the hottest years on record, except one, are all from the decade of 2001-2011.

So yes, that statement is a fallacy.

squirrelinator

2012-01-30 06:23:13 PM

GeneralJim

So degrees concerning the topic at hand don't matter to you? Is this correct?

\Pre-emptive

bravian

2012-01-30 06:23:39 PM

SVenus: YoungSwedishBlonde: Ahhh, I see the "there has been no warming since 1998" fallacy is still in full effect.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

blogs.discovermagazine.com

gilgigamesh

2012-01-30 06:24:12 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Gunny Highway: I thought it was because Mr. Bungle's ass is on fire.

That's not funny.

Well done.

ghare

2012-01-30 06:26:31 PM

squirrelinator: GeneralJim

So degrees concerning the topic at hand don't matter to you? Is this correct?

\Pre-emptive

Please. These "scientists" have failed to account for the basics: water in the atmosphere, CO2, and sunspots. Also ALGORE. You don't need a fancy degree to see through their transparent lies

jagec

2012-01-30 06:30:32 PM

Tatterdemalian: Of course, the only numbers the article is concerned with is the number of licensed climatologists who support and oppose the findings. 255 against and 4 for, the nays have it. Because the laws of nature are subject to popular vote.

/if we can vote down the law of gravity, we won't NEED flying cars

No, but over a long enough timeframe, the views held by the majority of scientists within their specialty will tend to approach truth.

If global climate change is such BS, it should be easier and easier to prove it as more and more evidence is accumulated.

Gunny Highway

2012-01-30 06:31:11 PM

Curse of the Goth Kids: Gunny Highway: I thought it was because Mr. Bungle's ass is on fire.

That's not funny.

Boo! Boo!

squirrelinator

2012-01-30 06:31:54 PM

ghare: squirrelinator: GeneralJim

So degrees concerning the topic at hand don't matter to you? Is this correct?

\Pre-emptive

Please. These "scientists" have failed to account for the basics: water in the atmosphere, CO2, and sunspots. Also ALGORE. You don't need a fancy degree to see through their transparent lies

This bolded, italicized, and underlined statement invalidates your argument

Zion21

2012-01-30 06:33:11 PM

True story bro.

Curse of the Goth Kids

2012-01-30 06:33:15 PM

Gunny Highway: Curse of the Goth Kids: Gunny Highway: I thought it was because Mr. Bungle's ass is on fire.

That's not funny.

Boo! Boo!

You knew all along god dammit, and you wouldn't tell me. Well. look at you now!

georgeyporgey

2012-01-30 06:35:08 PM

jagec: Tatterdemalian: Of course, the only numbers the article is concerned with is the number of licensed climatologists who support and oppose the findings. 255 against and 4 for, the nays have it. Because the laws of nature are subject to popular vote.

/if we can vote down the law of gravity, we won't NEED flying cars

No, but over a long enough timeframe, the views held by the majority of scientists within their specialty will tend to approach truth.

If global climate change is such BS, it should be easier and easier to prove it as more and more evidence is accumulated.

More and more climate skeptics everyday......
and more and more climate warmest are becoming exposed as frauds....

ghare

2012-01-30 06:38:20 PM

georgeyporgey: jagec: Tatterdemalian: Of course, the only numbers the article is concerned with is the number of licensed climatologists who support and oppose the findings. 255 against and 4 for, the nays have it. Because the laws of nature are subject to popular vote.

/if we can vote down the law of gravity, we won't NEED flying cars

No, but over a long enough timeframe, the views held by the majority of scientists within their specialty will tend to approach truth.

If global climate change is such BS, it should be easier and easier to prove it as more and more evidence is accumulated.

More and more climate skeptics everyday......
and more and more climate warmest are becoming exposed as frauds....

See? This proves you don't need a degree or have to know what you're talking about to disprove global warming!

flamingboard

2012-01-30 06:40:55 PM

georgeyporgey

2012-01-30 06:41:50 PM

ghare: georgeyporgey: jagec: Tatterdemalian: Of course, the only numbers the article is concerned with is the number of licensed climatologists who support and oppose the findings. 255 against and 4 for, the nays have it. Because the laws of nature are subject to popular vote.

/if we can vote down the law of gravity, we won't NEED flying cars

No, but over a long enough timeframe, the views held by the majority of scientists within their specialty will tend to approach truth.

If global climate change is such BS, it should be easier and easier to prove it as more and more evidence is accumulated.

More and more climate skeptics everyday......
and more and more climate warmest are becoming exposed as frauds....

See? This proves you don't need a degree or have to know what you're talking about to disprove global warming!

Wow! You convinced me, There is global warming, good job Perry Mason! You are super smart! I wish I was you! I bet chicks dig you, and guys want to be you.

gilgigamesh

2012-01-30 06:43:40 PM

georgeyporgey: More and more climate skeptics everyday......
and more and more climate warmest are becoming exposed as frauds....

Why is it that people who believe the data on global warming come with charts and links to studies, and the ones who don't just post semi-literate drivel like this?

Oh right. I just answered my own question.

Contrabulous Flabtraption

2012-01-30 06:44:18 PM

JerkStore

2012-01-30 06:56:02 PM

Can someone please tell me why there are amateur climate change deniers? The pros, you know, the guys at the oil companies and other corporations that have a lot to lose if it's true and who get paid to spread misinformation, yeah, those guys I understand. They're liars, but at least they're professional liars and are probably up-to-date on the latest research (i.e. they know the truth but are paid to spin it).

But what about the garden-variety yahoos on message boards and FW:FW:FW:FW:FW E-mails with no real reason to deny climate change, yet continue to do so with the vehemence of a Sunday preacher? Is it just because they hate hate hate Al Gore? What is the real motivation here? It has to be more than just simple stupid, right?

Right?

Jim_Callahan

2012-01-30 06:58:47 PM

WelldeadLink: chaddsfarkprefect: My favorite part of the article is the chart that starts at 1973.

Yup. Using the 1973 chart to compare to the Daily Mail's chart of the Met's temperatures being flat since 1997. Silly. Of course a chart that starts at the 1973 cold point will show a rise. Why didn't he start at 1900 or the end of the last glacial period? Then the temp would rise even more, even if we weren't using much evil oil before the 1940s.

I used to respect BadAstronomy. He should stick to what he knows.

Um, there are a lot of global climate cycles that run in the 10-11 year range (the El Nino pattern being probably the most famous one in the US, the sunspot cycle being less well known but still widely known even among non-scientists).

Any chart showing on the order of 10 years by itself means precisely dick in a climate discussion, or at least this particular climate discussion. You need to see a fair number of the 11-year cycles at once to see any overall trend resulting form atmospheric composition changing.

bighairyguy

2012-01-30 07:01:09 PM

Ix-nay on the ebuttal-ray, it just encourages the hippies.

LaughingRadish

2012-01-30 07:01:44 PM

gilgigamesh: georgeyporgey: More and more climate skeptics everyday......
and more and more climate warmest are becoming exposed as frauds....

Why is it that people who believe the data on global warming come with charts and links to studies, and the ones who don't just post semi-literate drivel like this?

Oh right. I just answered my own question.

Maybe it has something to do with the failure to show empirically that human activity has anything to do with it.

Displayed 50 of 459 comments