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.

(Fox News)   In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species' history   (foxnews.com) divider line 802
    More: Obvious, global warming, American Physical Society, Kevin Trenberth, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Climategate, Extraordinary Popular Delusions, species, Alarmism  
•       •       •

10806 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2012 at 10:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



802 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-20 02:34:56 AM  

GeneralJim: Kazan: cman: Where is the ice age promised to us in the 70s? I am still waiting for that.

In 1970 the vast majority of published papers predicted warming. (new window)
Interesting story about that. Yeah, the SCIENCE showed that the overall trend was warming. It still does. But there was a young computer modeller who insisted that current trends -- and there WAS cooling from around 1940 until about 1975 -- indicated that we were headed to an ice age. Our deforestation had raised the albedo of the planet, and we were going to trigger the next massive glaciation early by messing around. This guy was pretty good at getting people riled up with a doomsday story. When the next upwards temperature trend, started by the ocean oscillations, as the previous 30-year downward trend had been, our intrepid young modeller again saw the new trend as a continuous upward trend, rather than as part of a 60-year cycle, and changed his doomsday message from one of impending ice age to one of disastrous warming, a position he holds to this day.

The name of the young and ignorant modeller? James Hansen.


[citation needed]
 
2012-02-20 02:41:51 AM  
AliceBToklasLives:
So for the sake of argument, let's say global warming is an utter hoax.

Does that mean we ought to keep polluting like crazy? We should go back to when rivers periodically caught fire? I mean, is the entire ecology movement predicated on global warming?

Yeah, it pretty much is, for now. The only problem is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and by dousing their drawers over carbon, they are pretty much ignoring the incredibly nasty stuff being put into the ecology. When this hoax is over, perhaps they will get back to actually cleaning things up.
 
2012-02-20 02:41:53 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: Kazan: cman: Where is the ice age promised to us in the 70s? I am still waiting for that.

In 1970 the vast majority of published papers predicted warming. (new window)
Interesting story about that. Yeah, the SCIENCE showed that the overall trend was warming. It still does. But there was a young computer modeller who insisted that current trends -- and there WAS cooling from around 1940 until about 1975 -- indicated that we were headed to an ice age. Our deforestation had raised the albedo of the planet, and we were going to trigger the next massive glaciation early by messing around. This guy was pretty good at getting people riled up with a doomsday story. When the next upwards temperature trend, started by the ocean oscillations, as the previous 30-year downward trend had been, our intrepid young modeller again saw the new trend as a continuous upward trend, rather than as part of a 60-year cycle, and changed his doomsday message from one of impending ice age to one of disastrous warming, a position he holds to this day.

The name of the young and ignorant modeller? James Hansen.

[citation needed]


Never mind. In the 1970s, James Hansen was indeed working with computer models of planetary climate...the planet Venus.

The more you Wiki (new window)...
 
2012-02-20 02:43:49 AM  

GeneralJim: Kazan: cman: Where is the ice age promised to us in the 70s? I am still waiting for that.

In 1970 the vast majority of published papers predicted warming. (new window)
Interesting story about that. Yeah, the SCIENCE showed that the overall trend was warming. It still does. But there was a young computer modeller who insisted that current trends -- and there WAS cooling from around 1940 until about 1975 -- indicated that we were headed to an ice age. Our deforestation had raised the albedo of the planet, and we were going to trigger the next massive glaciation early by messing around. This guy was pretty good at getting people riled up with a doomsday story. When the next upwards temperature trend, started by the ocean oscillations, as the previous 30-year downward trend had been, our intrepid young modeller again saw the new trend as a continuous upward trend, rather than as part of a 60-year cycle, and changed his doomsday message from one of impending ice age to one of disastrous warming, a position he holds to this day.

The name of the young and ignorant modeller? James Hansen.


Years ago a hardworking man took his family from New York State to Australia to take advantage of a work opportunity there. Part of this man's family was a handsome young son who had aspirations of joining the circus as a trapeze artist or an actor. This young fellow, biding his time until a circus job or even one as a stagehand came along, worked at the local shipyards which bordered on the worst section of town.

Walking home from work one evening, this young man was attacked by five thugs who wanted to rob him. Instead of just giving up his money the young fellow resisted. However they bested him easily and proceeded to beat him to a pulp. They mashed his face with their boots, and kicked and beat his body brutally with clubs, leaving him for dead. When the police happened to find him lying in the road they assumed he was dead and called for the Morgue Wagon.

On the way to the morgue a policeman heard him gasp for air, and they immediately took him to the emergency unit at the hospital. When he was placed on a gurney a nurse remarked to her horror, that his young man no longer had a face. Each eye socket was smashed, his skull, legs, and arms fractured, his nose literally hanging from his face, all is teeth were gone, and his jaw was almost completely torn from his skull. Although his life was spared he spent over year in the hospital. When he finally left his body may have healed but his face was disgusting to look at. He was no longer the handsome youth that everyone admired.

When the young man started to look for work again he was turned down by everyone just on account of the way he looked. One potential employer suggested to him that he join the freak show at the circus as The Man Who Had No Face. And he did this for a while. He was still rejected by everyone and no one wanted to be seen in his company. He had thoughts of suicide. This went on for five years.

One day he passed a church and sought some solace there. Entering the church he encountered a priest who had saw him sobbing while kneeling in a pew. The priest took pity on him and took him to the rectory where they talked at length. The priest was impressed with him to such a degree that he said that he would do everything possible for him that could be done to restore his dignity and life, if the young man would promise to be the best Catholic he could be, and trust in God's mercy to free him from his torturous life. The young man went to Mass and communion every day, and after thanking God for saving his life, asked God to only give him peace of mind and the grace to be the best man he could ever be in His eyes.

The priest, through his personal contacts was able to secure the services of the best plastic surgeon in Australia. They would be no cost to the young man, as the doctor was the priest's best friend. The doctor too was so impressed by the young man, whose outlook now on life, even though he had experienced the worse was filled with good humor and love.

The surgery was a miraculous success. All the best dental work was also done for him. The young man became everything he promised God he would be. He was also blessed with a wonderful, beautiful wife, and many children, and success in an industry which would have been the furthest thing from his mind as a career if not for the goodness of God and the love of the people who cared for him. This he acknowledges publicly.

The name of that young man? Mel Gibson.
 
2012-02-20 02:50:47 AM  

GeneralJim: AliceBToklasLives: So for the sake of argument, let's say global warming is an utter hoax.

Does that mean we ought to keep polluting like crazy? We should go back to when rivers periodically caught fire? I mean, is the entire ecology movement predicated on global warming?
Yeah, it pretty much is, for now. The only problem is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and by dousing their drawers over carbon, they are pretty much ignoring the incredibly nasty stuff being put into the ecology. When this hoax is over, perhaps they will get back to actually cleaning things up.


The only people "ignoring the incredibly nasty stuff being put into the ecology" are the ones making money from putting it there. Who, coincidentally, are largely the same people who believe that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant" and that "the entire ecology movement [is] predicated on global warming."

And you are their shill.
 
2012-02-20 02:51:45 AM  
Felgraf:
Even if, for some reason, that's true, CHEMISTRY would have to be wrong for Ocean Acidification from increased CO2 to be false.

Ocean Acidification is the next phase of this scam, and will be trotted out once panic can no longer be induced by talking of AGW. It is also a scientific non-starter. Carbon dioxide levels were once about twenty times what they are now, and sea life was fine with that. Look at carbon dioxide levels over a LONG time. We are at historic low levels. Normally, carbon dioxide levels have been many times what they are now:

i31.tinypic.com
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
Daniel H. Rothman (Massachusetts Institute of Technology),
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (7),
April 2, 2002, pp. 4167-4171.
 
2012-02-20 02:56:49 AM  
I should be in the kitchen:
Here's what I really don't understand... Even if global warming is all a big hoax, WTF is wrong with trying to curb pollution because, y'know, it's UNHEALTHY. Do they really want to go back to the 70s when "smog days" were so bad people couldn't go outside? Do they think it's ok for companies to dump industrial waste into waterways?

I agree with you that the pollution should be stopped. But I would point out that NONE of the problems you mention here are caused by carbon dioxide. And yet, carbon dioxide is the focus of the environmental movement. You should ask yourself why this is.
 
2012-02-20 02:58:11 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Years ago ...


And now I know...the rest of the story.

/snopes FTW
 
2012-02-20 03:06:37 AM  
lokisbong:
muck4doo: Moronic climate change denier like typing.

So you are smarter than the climate scientists who say this is a real problem and not just fear mongering like Faux news likes to spout all the time? They say ignorance is bliss. You must be on blissful Farker. The science is plain to anyone with even a limited knowledge of how to read and listen to intelligent people instead of just following Faux news. Are you afraid your oil company stocks will lose money or are you just not worried about the world we leave for future generations?

It matters not what "intelligent people" believe. What matters is if the hypothesis tests out -- and it does NOT. The planet doesn't believe in AGW, and that is sufficient. But, yes, you keep kneeling in front of the "intelligent people." You seem real eager to put on the yoke.

So, how about you explain to me how sending trillions of dollars to the third world, while letting what will very shortly be the top two polluters in the world continue to increase the carbon dioxide level? Could you do that?
 
2012-02-20 03:15:46 AM  
Kazan:
i never said anything of the such - i said total arable land would be reduced. There area areas that would become farmable that are now not, however all the projections show that less than will become farmable than will become non-farmable. that's a net reduction in arable land.

When the planet warms up, there is greater biomass, and greater diversity of life. That's why they call the warm periods "optima." If we were to warm up a few K, that would INCREASE production, as the increasing carbon dioxide has increased plant growth.
 
2012-02-20 03:25:59 AM  
Kazan:
if you go back up thread and read what i said you'll see that nowhere did i say the world was going to come to and end, or that even anything drastic would have to be done. i pointed out how most of the things we need to do are rather tame and minor things overall, but they add up in the overall sceme of things

i'm sorry that this doesn't fit your narrative of how someone who actually supports science is supposed to sound like, but reality doesn't match your delusions. i think it is time for you to grow up and learn to differentiate your masturbatory fantasies from reality.

So, does this mean that you are going to quit referring to anyone properly scientifically skeptical of the hypothesis of AGW as young-earth creationists, and implying that they all believe the climate doesn't change -- or are you going to continue to masturbate?

/ Get more tissues...
 
2012-02-20 03:37:55 AM  

GeneralJim: So, how about you explain to me how sending trillions of dollars to the third world, while letting what will very shortly be the top two polluters in the world continue to increase the carbon dioxide level? Could you do that?


This is what you're really upset about, isn't it? All of the junk science, outright howlers, and denialist talking points are in support of a wingnut alarmist email. The only sources I can find for your screed are the usual far-right suspects bleating about the evil Yew-nited Nations.

Your economic sources seem to be as valid as your scientific sources....
 
2012-02-20 03:47:28 AM  

GeneralJim: So, does this mean that you are going to quit referring to anyone properly scientifically skeptical of the hypothesis of AGW as young-earth creationists, and implying that they all believe the climate doesn't change -- or are you going to continue to masturbate?


In terms of your level of understanding of the underlying science (and your implicit support of an underlying agenda), comparing you to a young-earth creationist is quite reasonable.
 
2012-02-20 03:56:27 AM  
vygramul:
This shade is known as "Attention Whore Green"

No connection to this thread.

Yet.

Only you, so far. So, you think I'm an attention whore? Well, then, thanks so much for making it all about *ME* before I even show up.

/ *SMOOCH*


sparkboutik.com
 
2012-02-20 03:56:39 AM  

GeneralJim: lokisbong: muck4doo: Moronic climate change denier like typing.

So you are smarter than the climate scientists who say this is a real problem and not just fear mongering like Faux news likes to spout all the time? They say ignorance is bliss. You must be on blissful Farker. The science is plain to anyone with even a limited knowledge of how to read and listen to intelligent people instead of just following Faux news. Are you afraid your oil company stocks will lose money or are you just not worried about the world we leave for future generations?
It matters not what "intelligent people" believe. What matters is if the hypothesis tests out -- and it does NOT. The planet doesn't believe in AGW, and that is sufficient. But, yes, you keep kneeling in front of the "intelligent people." You seem real eager to put on the yoke.

So, how about you explain to me how sending trillions of dollars to the third world, while letting what will very shortly be the top two polluters in the world continue to increase the carbon dioxide level? Could you do that?


You are one sad, ignorant little troll aren't you? Don't bother answering because it is really hard to read the green text on a darkest gray background. Crawl back under your denial rock and leave us alone. If you wont listen top reason why should we listen to you?
 
2012-02-20 04:14:12 AM  

GeneralJim: Carbon dioxide levels were once about twenty times what they are now, and sea life was fine with that. Look at carbon dioxide levels over a LONG time. We are at historic low levels. Normally, carbon dioxide levels have been many times what they are now:


Dr. Mojo PhD: Isn't it kinda weird how the AGW contrarians will call the pro-science crowd granola-munching Gaia-worshippers while simultaneously touting the how good AGW will be for the Earth without ever once explaining where we fit into that scenario? Seems a little odd that the pro-science argument can be boiled down to "we want to make sure humanity's habitat remains as undisturbed as possible", while the contrarian argument boils down to "MOTHER EARTH WILL REAP THE BENEFIT OF A RESURGENCE OF DINOSAURS!"


Is Jim predictable or what? Clearly we all want to live in the climate of 300x10^6 years ago. SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
 
2012-02-20 06:16:35 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: Kazan: cman: Where is the ice age promised to us in the 70s? I am still waiting for that.

In 1970 the vast majority of published papers predicted warming. (new window)
Interesting story about that. Yeah, the SCIENCE showed that the overall trend was warming. It still does. But there was a young computer modeller who insisted that current trends -- and there WAS cooling from around 1940 until about 1975 -- indicated that we were headed to an ice age. Our deforestation had raised the albedo of the planet, and we were going to trigger the next massive glaciation early by messing around. This guy was pretty good at getting people riled up with a doomsday story. When the next upwards temperature trend, started by the ocean oscillations, as the previous 30-year downward trend had been, our intrepid young modeller again saw the new trend as a continuous upward trend, rather than as part of a 60-year cycle, and changed his doomsday message from one of impending ice age to one of disastrous warming, a position he holds to this day.

The name of the young and ignorant modeller? James Hansen.

[citation needed]

Never mind. In the 1970s, James Hansen was indeed working with computer models of planetary climate...the planet Venus.

The more you Wiki (new window)...


Note that Venus has around 92 times the air pressure as does Earth and its day is longer than its year.
 
2012-02-20 06:24:42 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: Kazan: cman: Where is the ice age promised to us in the 70s? I am still waiting for that.

In 1970 the vast majority of published papers predicted warming. (new window)
Interesting story about that. Yeah, the SCIENCE showed that the overall trend was warming. It still does. But there was a young computer modeller who insisted that current trends -- and there WAS cooling from around 1940 until about 1975 -- indicated that we were headed to an ice age. Our deforestation had raised the albedo of the planet, and we were going to trigger the next massive glaciation early by messing around. This guy was pretty good at getting people riled up with a doomsday story. When the next upwards temperature trend, started by the ocean oscillations, as the previous 30-year downward trend had been, our intrepid young modeller again saw the new trend as a continuous upward trend, rather than as part of a 60-year cycle, and changed his doomsday message from one of impending ice age to one of disastrous warming, a position he holds to this day.

The name of the young and ignorant modeller? James Hansen.

Years ago a hardworking man took his family from New York State to Australia to take advantage of a work opportunity there. Part of this man's family was a handsome young son who had aspirations of joining the circus as a trapeze artist or an actor. This young fellow, biding his time until a circus job or even one as a stagehand came along, worked at the local shipyards which bordered on the worst section of town.

Walking home from work one evening, this young man was attacked by five thugs who wanted to rob him. Instead of just giving up his money the young fellow resisted. However they bested him easily and proceeded to beat him to a pulp. They mashed his face with their boots, and kicked and beat his body brutally with clubs, leaving him for dead. When the police happened to find him lying in the road they assumed he was dead and called for the Morgue Wagon.

On t ...


Let's check Snopes...

Claim: Mel Gibson was the inspiration for the film The Man Without a Face.
Status: False.
 
2012-02-20 06:28:43 AM  

lokisbong: GeneralJim: lokisbong: muck4doo: Moronic climate change denier like typing.

So you are smarter than the climate scientists who say this is a real problem and not just fear mongering like Faux news likes to spout all the time? They say ignorance is bliss. You must be on blissful Farker. The science is plain to anyone with even a limited knowledge of how to read and listen to intelligent people instead of just following Faux news. Are you afraid your oil company stocks will lose money or are you just not worried about the world we leave for future generations?
It matters not what "intelligent people" believe. What matters is if the hypothesis tests out -- and it does NOT. The planet doesn't believe in AGW, and that is sufficient. But, yes, you keep kneeling in front of the "intelligent people." You seem real eager to put on the yoke.

So, how about you explain to me how sending trillions of dollars to the third world, while letting what will very shortly be the top two polluters in the world continue to increase the carbon dioxide level? Could you do that?

You are one sad, ignorant little troll aren't you? Don't bother answering because it is really hard to read the green text on a darkest gray background. Crawl back under your denial rock and leave us alone. If you wont listen top reason why should we listen to you?


If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
-- Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
 
2012-02-20 06:31:13 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Baryogenesis: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: So, what science do you base your support of the Church of Global Warming? I mean, Vaxxers can point to at least a perceived correlation between autism and vaccination rates, but the correlation factor between carbon dioxide level changes and global temperature changes is in the mid-to-high twenties, and it goes in the wrong direction. That is, temperature leads carbon dioxide level changes. May I point out how unlikely it is to have a trailing factor be in control of a system?

You really don't know what "correlation" means, do you? Correlation is simply the degree to which two variables are related. It has nothing to do with causality. A negative correlation would mean that as CO2 goes up, temperatures go down, and/or vice versa. It does not mean that temperatures changes lead to CO2 changes.

Other than that, your talking points are old (and long since refuted) news.

Actually, General Jim is just using #12 on skeptical science's list (new window) of most used denier myths. More generally, he's pretending that the greenhouse effect, the science of which has been understood for over 150 years, doesn't exist.

But at one point in the last thread he was insisting that he was the one who accepted AGW (except for one minor quibble) and that I was denying that CO2 affected temperature. I don't think he understands the talking points he's posting at all.


Do you have a link to that thread? I need to see that exchange.
 
2012-02-20 06:43:41 AM  

GeneralJim: The planet doesn't believe in AGW, and that is sufficient.


The earlier springs, decreasing glacier and ice cover, shifting growth zones of plant life and longer growing seasons all disagree.
 
2012-02-20 10:06:49 AM  

GeneralJim: vygramul: This shade is known as "Attention Whore Green"

No connection to this thread.

Yet.
Only you, so far. So, you think I'm an attention whore? Well, then, thanks so much for making it all about *ME* before I even show up.

/ *SMOOCH*

[sparkboutik.com image 300x300]


Yes, honey, it is all about you. That's exactly what "attention whore" means.
 
2012-02-20 10:39:18 AM  

GeneralJim: Felgraf: Even if, for some reason, that's true, CHEMISTRY would have to be wrong for Ocean Acidification from increased CO2 to be false.
Ocean Acidification is the next phase of this scam, and will be trotted out once panic can no longer be induced by talking of AGW. It is also a scientific non-starter. Carbon dioxide levels were once about twenty times what they are now, and sea life was fine with that. Look at carbon dioxide levels over a LONG time. We are at historic low levels. Normally, carbon dioxide levels have been many times what they are now:

[i31.tinypic.com image 600x487]
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
Daniel H. Rothman (Massachusetts Institute of Technology),
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (7),
April 2, 2002, pp. 4167-4171.


So you disagree with fundamental chemistry enough to say that increasing atmospheric CO2 won't increase the acidity of the ocean? Maybe you can point out exactly where it's wrong.
As far as sea life in the past doing fine with higher pCO2, do you realize that those are different organisms then life in the oceans today? In the far distant past, life on earth was happy with very low levels of atmospheric oxygen. That doesn't mean that today's life would be. Look up aragonite/calcite seas. During periods of high CO2, the life in the oceans had different biochemistry to deal with the water chemistry. Today, they have an aragonite sea, where most sea life uses aragonite to make their skeletons, since it's easier to make. Unfortunately, it's not very resistant to acidity. In times of higher CO2, sea life had lower Mg skeletons, which deals with high acidity oceans better.
Basically, you're ignoring the fact that while life can adapt to different conditions, right now it is adapted to the current conditions. It doesn't matter how it lived in the past, because those organisms are extinct. We're dealing with the ones alive today.

Additionally, the graph you linked shows a rather significantly different pCO2 curve then your usual favorite:
i31.tinypic.com

www.geocraft.com

Which one is right? They show different relationships of CO2 and temperature.
 
2012-02-20 11:06:19 AM  

chimp_ninja: StokeyBob: Now that, that is solved we have one less thing to worry about.

Solved? Or just waiting for posting to die down for long, uninterrupted walls of spam?


My FARK-psychic powers are once again validated.

Tatterdemalian: Wrong, you just don't like the only possible answer: you'll have to go to war with China, India, and any other country trying to modernize its industry, and force them to stop producing greenhouse gases, killing as many people as necessary until they submit to your enlightened rule.


Gee, that's not at all what a person in an asylum would rant about.
 
2012-02-20 11:09:10 AM  

chimp_ninja:

Tatterdemalian: Wrong, you just don't like the only possible answer: you'll have to go to war with China, India, and any other country trying to modernize its industry, and force them to stop producing greenhouse gases, killing as many people as necessary until they submit to your enlightened rule.

Gee, that's not at all what a person in an asylum would rant about.


Sure isn't. No reptiles involved.
 
2012-02-20 11:47:02 AM  
epoc_tnac:
What really pisses me off is that global warming as an unproven issue is usurping the very real issue of polluting the planet with all kinds of shiat. I don't give a fark if giant factories are contributing to global warming if they are killing thousands of people today. I don't give a fark about my carbon footprint when people are being bombarded with lethal chemicals today.

Well, that's the problem with putting the focus on a harmless gas and doubling down on the derp every couple of months. The real problems are somehow ignored.
 
2012-02-20 11:55:33 AM  
heinekenftw:
Meant to add this to the end of my post

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

What if we destroy our world economy, and let the U.N. become a dictatorship, and they don't reduce carbon dioxide, and nothing happens?
 
2012-02-20 12:03:20 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Tatterdemalian: common sense is an oxymoron: And no, this doesn't answer your question, except to suggest that it might be unanswerable.

Wrong, you just don't like the only possible answer: you'll have to go to war with China, India, and any other country trying to modernize its industry, and force them to stop producing greenhouse gases, killing as many people as necessary until they submit to your enlightened rule. And you'd better do that before you go to war with the USA, because that's the only nation that not only has the military might to do it, but also could be taken over by the climatologists without resorting to violence.

/personally I'd rather wage war on terror than war on weather
//but majority rules, and if the majority are so scared of climate change they'll butcher the world to try to stop it, oh well

The original question was whether CO2 emissions controls could be achieved "in a fair, enforceable way." So you're either a troll or fail at reading comprehension.


"Fair" has been redefined as "whatever the UN, bastion of international law, supports." I bet if you could get Jimmy Carter on your side, they'd give any invasion the green light, and you would be able to continue feeling morally superior, which is really what all this is about.

Like it or not, war for the sake of the climate is where you're headed, and you're not going to effect a real climate change with China holding the world hostage until you work up the courage to bloody your hands down to your kneecaps.

/and on the plus side, once you're done with Asia you can use that same army to kill all the deniers once you bring them home
 
2012-02-20 12:04:42 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: lokisbong: Okay I'm done. Mr Wall of green text is here and he is the least likely to use or listen to reason.

Abusing him is fun as hell though. I mean, it's really just a pound of fun in a stripper-filled cake to flog the shiat out of him and watch him rage.


It sure was, until he started putting everyone on ignore. Ah well.
 
2012-02-20 12:17:37 PM  

LaughingRadish: Let's check Snopes...Claim: Mel Gibson was the inspiration for the film The Man Without a Face.Status: False.


Dr. Mojo declaring that LaughingRadish claimed Mel Gibson was the inspiration for the film "The Man Without a Face" and he didn't in 3.... 2...

/just like my supposed "accusation" that he worked for Pakistani intelligence
 
2012-02-20 12:36:25 PM  

GeneralJim: What if we destroy our world economy, and let the U.N. become a dictatorship, and they don't reduce carbon dioxide, and nothing happens?


I was going to rebut some of what you said upthread, but instead I think you should tell us more about these beliefs of yours :D
 
2012-02-20 12:44:20 PM  

GeneralJim: heinekenftw: Meant to add this to the end of my post

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]
What if we destroy our world economy, and let the U.N. become a dictatorship, and they don't reduce carbon dioxide, and nothing happens? Why should we bother trying since there's the possibility we might fail?


Fixed for honesty
 
2012-02-20 12:52:38 PM  

Tatterdemalian: "Fair" has been redefined as "whatever the UN, bastion of international law, supports." I bet if you could get Jimmy Carter on your side, they'd give any invasion the green light, and you would be able to continue feeling morally superior, which is really what all this is about.


Please, tell us more about your theory that environmentalists want to invade China. You sound very sane, and are clearly talking about normal things that normal people discuss. I am not just requesting more details for cheap laughs.

GeneralJim: What if we destroy our world economy, and let the U.N. become a dictatorship, and they don't reduce carbon dioxide, and nothing happens?


You forgot to add how climate scientists "have the ability to end up destroying civilization out of this, and sending us back to a new sort of hunter-gatherer society", which is a very normal fear that normal people have.

Also, please continue to show us what you consider "real" science:

GeneralJim: Once again, science begins to catch up with the Urantia Book:

(2024.1) 189:2.8 The mortal remains of Jesus underwent the same natural process of elemental disintegration as characterizes all human bodies on earth except that, in point of time, this natural mode of dissolution was greatly accelerated, hastened to that point where it became well-nigh instantaneous.

This would produce an image, as the time-shifted heat given off by oxidation would become ultra-violet, or perhaps higher frequency radiation, producing an image exactly like that on the shroud. Scientists, according to TFA, have reproduced the image composition with ultraviolet lasers.


My understanding is that while you are not saying this was aliens, it was aliens.
 
2012-02-20 01:02:26 PM  
Jim_Tressel's_O-Face:
Meanwhile, following the wettest year in recorded weather history here in northeast Ohio, we've now gone from fall straight to spring with maybe all of less than a week of winter.

But there is nothing to see here. Move along.

Weather =/= climate. You find a herd of warmers descending on anyone who suggests that a cold spell disproves AGW. But, it's mostly crickets if someone says a warm spell proves AGW. Could it be... partisan hackery?
 
2012-02-20 01:08:55 PM  
Kazan:
A) educating people in how to understand science
B) beating the media on the head every time they fark up science

It would also be nice to come down on pretend scientists like James Hansen, the computer modeller who started the "ice age panic" with one of his broke-assed models, and then started the global warming panic more than a decade later, apparently after people had forgotten his previous gaffe.

There may be several people who have started two phony panics, but I think Hansen just might be the only one to start two phony global panics on the same topic, in opposite directions. How the hell do you make a trifecta on THAT? Start a panic that global temperature might remain unchanged? Now THAT would be genius.
 
2012-02-20 01:13:22 PM  

LaughingRadish: If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
-- Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)


When he won't listen to those arguments answers and has been proven time and again to not understand things like simple chemistry I will call him a Sad, ignorant little troll and be done with it. You notice I spent several days talking to people who were at least part way willing to listen and comment civilly? I have put every answer I know how to put into words in this thread already and many other people have done way better jobs at it than me.
 
2012-02-20 01:40:57 PM  

Tatterdemalian: LaughingRadish: Let's check Snopes...Claim: Mel Gibson was the inspiration for the film The Man Without a Face.Status: False.

Dr. Mojo declaring that LaughingRadish claimed Mel Gibson was the inspiration for the film "The Man Without a Face" and he didn't in 3.... 2...


Why would I do that? it seems like LaughingRadish understood exactly what I was poking fun at; Jim's inane, babbling, Paul Harvey-esque "and now you know the rest of the story" jibber jabber. I suppose that through whatever looking glass you live in where climatologists plot with Pakistani intelligence operatives to take over the United States and go to war with India and China (Pakistan needs Earth women!) this makes sense.

Tatterdemalian: /just like my supposed "accusation" that he worked for Pakistani intelligence


Well you did explicitly state that (despite the fact that I was happy Osama bin Laden was dead) I was trying to "protect" Pakistan with a "smokescreen" to cover up the fact that Osama bin Laden was hiding there:

Tatterdemalian: His rants have become a lot nuttier since Osama bin Laden was assassinated (in spite of Pakistan's very vigorous decade-long condemnation of Al-Qaeda, too!). Makes me think he's sweating bullets over whoever he's protecting with his own smokescreen of hypersensitive and hyperselective outrage.

So I'm going to guess that that's concomitant with your jabbering about climatologists taking over America in a bloodless coup to start World War III. You know, a consistent behaviour of paranoid, disconnected-from-reality level gibberish.

Mmm, doesn't this look tasty, Tatter?
upload.wikimedia.org
Thorazine! A great dessert to have with your last meal before "they" get you! And look at these lovely four-point restraint accessories, everything a dashing Napoleon Bonaparte like you needs for a night on the town!
 
2012-02-20 01:44:23 PM  
dickfreckle:
I don't have a specific enough education to parse all the data, but I can choose who I listen to when it comes to issues like this, just as I don't need a medical degree to agree with my doctor when he explains my own body to me. Yeah, I can always get a second opinion, but when that second opinion runs counter to 99% of the medical establishment, why the fark would I choose to believe it unless I was motivated to 'prove' the first doctor(s) wrong? And that's what deniers are - people desperately seeking any perceived crack in the findings in order to bolster a preconceived and politically driven conclusion.

Congratulations. You're a tool. Science has shown that the planet has been warming, since before the industrial revolution, hence, before mankind started spewing carbon dioxide into the air. So, the fact that it is warming is clearly NOT due to mankind. So, to make AGW stick, one has to prove that the carbon dioxide released by mankind is causing the warming NOW, although it wasn't carbon dioxide BEFORE.

The thing is, there's no correlation (CF < 30). The Vaxxers are dumb because they are assuming that their perception of rising autism rates, coupled with an increase in vaccination rates, prove a causal relationship. But, correlation does not imply causation. On the other hand, warmers are apparently dumber than vaxxers, as there isn't even a correlation to speak of, unless one carefully cherry-picks the time involved, starting with the industrial revolution, and ASSUMES that the temperature rise starts there. It doesn't.

There is LITERALLY no reason to think carbon dioxide level changes have any significant effect on global temperature. And proving even HARDER that the temperature has risen part of a degree Celsius in the last hundred and fifty years, and proving even HARDER that mankind has increased the level of carbon dioxide, doesn't do anything to prove the link between them, which, to all indications does not exist in other than the tiniest factor.

Any scientist saying "Look, yeah, we're increasing carbon dioxide, but it doesn't seem to have any major effect on climate" is in reality saying "Yeah, you probably should quit the panic-funding of climate science. Yeah, to get back to previous levels, you should cut our funding by 95%." I can understand their reluctance.

And, a scientist causing "trouble" that way is bucking about a dozen crooked scientists at the top of his field, scientists who have far too much input into who becomes part of the peer-review process, and which articles are published, and which research gets funded. It's a tough battle, with personal career destruction a significant possibility. Most scientists manage to convince themselves that there is enough doubt that it's not worth the hassle, and I can't blame them. All they have to do to keep the research money flowing is to put a boilerplate paragraph into their conclusions about how the world as a whole has to act immediately to prevent the horror of global warming. Most are willing to do that, as shown by Michael Crichton in State Of Fear.
 
2012-02-20 02:02:53 PM  

GeneralJim: Most are willing to do that, as shown by Michael Crichton in State Of Fear.


In other news, you think Jurassic Park was a documentary.

GeneralJim: And, a scientist causing "trouble" that way is bucking about a dozen crooked scientists at the top of his field, scientists who have far too much input into who becomes part of the peer-review process, and which articles are published, and which research gets funded.


It's amazing how a mysterious cabal of 12 climate scientists can control hundreds of professional scientific journals, even though they are run by private companies, governments, professional organizations, and other groups. They'd have to control all the editors, all the reviewers, and all the funding agencies, completely enough that you'd see this: (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."

Please feel free to explain the evidence behind your contention that ~12 working scientists orchestrate complete control over the thousands of people who would need to collude with them in order to control every significant scientific journal in the world. Let me guess: You read it in the Book of Urantia, next to the part about how Jesus exploded into UV photons?

Hint: Blog posts aren't proof.
 
2012-02-20 02:03:33 PM  

chimp_ninja: Please, tell us more about your theory that environmentalists want to invade China.


Please, keep putting words in my mouth and pretending there's no difference between the phrases "have to" and "want to." Your increasing lunacy only makes me look more sane in comparison.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Thorazine! A great dessert to have with your last meal before "they" get you!


This is what it sounds like when a quote mine implodes.
 
2012-02-20 02:07:38 PM  

GeneralJim: It would also be nice to come down on pretend scientists like James Hansen, the computer modeller who started the "ice age panic" with one of his broke-assed models


What ice age panic did James Hansen start, Jim? When was this a thing that happened? I Googled "James Hansen" and "ice age" (doing your research for you, as usual) and you know what I found? Stuff like this:

...On July 9, 1971, the Post published a story headlined "U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming." It told of a prediction by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool. The culprit: man's use of fossil fuels.

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen," who was, according to his resume, a Columbia University research associate at the time...


So, just to be clear, in your estimation, if S.I. Rasool says something, that's the same thing as James Hansen saying it. You know, just because... just because that's a completely farking crazy thing to say, and you're a completely farking crazy person for thinking it.

You're going to notice something else. S.I. Rasool is talking about dust particles? You know what CO2 isn't? A dust particle. You know what dust particles in the atmosphere actually do do? Lower the temperature of the planet. You know what that makes S.I. Rasool? 100% right.

His only mistake, Jim, was not accounting for one thing in understanding how the climate would be affected. You know what that thing was? The overpowering effect of CO2 on global warming.

Yep, that's right folks, GeneralJim just tried to discredit James Hansen by using an accurate computer model he made and by putting somebody else entirely's words in his mouth, to discredit science by claiming the fact that CO2-caused anthropogenic global warming is completely, 100% right and was responsible for proving why the consideration of dust particles on their own would not be sufficient to cool the planet. Only in Jim-world could a thought like "CO2 WARMS THE PLANET! THEREFORE AGW IS FALSE!" be anything approaching a rational thought.

By the way, Jim... here's James Hansen's paper that S.I. Rasool used the model of. Notice something interesting? I'll give you a hint:
THE ATMOSPHERE AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF VENUS
A DUST INSULATION MODEL

THE ATMOSPHERE AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF VENUS
A DUST INSULATION MODEL
THE ATMOSPHERE AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE OF VENUS
A DUST INSULATION MODEL


LOOK AT THAT JAMES HANSEN GO, CAUSING AN ICE AGE PANIC WITH HIS DUST INSULATION MODEL OF VENUS!

The really interesting thing to remember here is, in all of Jim's lengthy history of long, insane rants, he never once brought up this claim previously. Like everything else in Jim-world, he likely very recently discovered this on some paranoid, anti-semetic "One World Government" blog and dove into it head first as some sort of "smoking gun" of his conspiracy, without ever once understanding what James Hansen was doing, what James Hansen's model was about (dust, not CO2), what planet James Hansen's model dealt with, etc., etc.

And, as usual, provided no citations beyond his (logically fallacious) proof-by-assertion (he'll scream that backing up his own arguments is "doing our work for us", burden of proof fallacy and all that) to obfuscate the fact that as usual, he's completely farking clueless.
 
2012-02-20 02:09:08 PM  

GeneralJim: Congratulations. You're a tool. Science has shown that the planet has been warming, since before the industrial revolution, hence, before mankind started spewing carbon dioxide into the air. So, the fact that it is warming is clearly NOT due to mankind.


I notice you have an uncited assertion. I guess one way you could check it is by taking the instrumental records, and overlaying 14 different ways to reconstruct global temperature records over the last millenium or two:

www.pnas.org
(Source is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
 
2012-02-20 02:14:01 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Dr. Mojo PhD: Thorazine! A great dessert to have with your last meal before "they" get you!

This is what it sounds like when a quote mine implodes.


A look at Tatter go, trying to claim I'm quote mining him by quote mining me. Isn't that cute? Just one problem. My quote of him?
i.imgur.com

Literally his entire post, verbatim.

Also of note: He's in emphatic agreement with an outed racist (outed in that very thread, no less, and the meltdown was absolutely epic). 9 out of 10 paranoid racists agree -- Pakistanis are "curry-smelling, oompa-loompa looking biatches" and Mojo works for their intelligence service!
 
2012-02-20 02:23:48 PM  
Dr. Mojo PhD

At some point, the people that go out of their way to post irrational and illogical rants directed towards you are going to realize that you document everything, and then my entertainment at their stumbling when you verbally dissect them shall wain.

Until that day:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

/I bet you cross reference all that also.
 
2012-02-20 02:25:01 PM  
That wain should have been wane. Damn wagons.
 
2012-02-20 02:28:52 PM  

GeneralJim: Science has shown that the planet has been warming, since before the industrial revolution, hence, before mankind started spewing carbon dioxide into the air. So, the fact that it is warming is clearly NOT due to mankind. So, to make AGW stick, one has to prove that the carbon dioxide released by mankind is causing the warming NOW, although it wasn't carbon dioxide BEFORE.

The thing is, there's no correlation (CF < 30). The Vaxxers are dumb because they are assuming that their perception of rising autism rates, coupled with an increase in vaccination rates, prove a causal relationship. But, correlation does not imply causation. On the other hand, warmers are apparently dumber than vaxxers, as there isn't even a correlation to speak of, unless one carefully cherry-picks the time involved, starting with the industrial revolution, and ASSUMES that the temperature rise starts there. It doesn't.


I'll give you a dollar for every climate scientist that you can find who is claiming that the entirety of global temperature increases are the sole result of mankind's CO2 production and that overall warming only started with the industrial revolution.

Of course, since climate scientists are actually pointing out that the rate at which the global temperature is rising has increased since humans started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and not that humans are the only reason it's warmer now than it was 200 years ago, I'll be holding on to my money.
 
2012-02-20 02:32:13 PM  

Teufelaffe: I'll give you a dollar for every climate scientist that you can find who is claiming that the entirety of global temperature increases are the sole result of mankind's CO2 production and that overall warming only started with the industrial revolution.


If you check the historical temperature trend, which chimp_ninja posted upthread a bit, his statement about warming prior to the industrial revolution is false anyway.
 
2012-02-20 02:36:55 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Literally his entire post, verbatim.


And still lacking in accusations that you worked for any Pakistani agency.

/oh, and you never even produced a direct quote from the supposed racist either
//everyone should read that thread, just to see how determined Dr. Mojo can get in his effort to rewrite other people's posts for his own ends
 
2012-02-20 02:39:28 PM  
heinekenftw:
Yes, that's it. Global Warming is nothing but a hoax to trick Americans into falling for our socialist trap! Clean air, clean water, clean food, these will all lead to our communist dream-world! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Truer than you might think. The U.N. is shamelessly using, and fanning, the panic to enact laws to send money to the third world, while crippling the first world. Their idea of "fair" is to make everyone live in a third world shiathole, rather than to lift up those currently there. Technically, that would be "fair," but it makes no sense.
 
2012-02-20 02:41:51 PM  

GeneralJim: Congratulations. You're a tool. Science has shown that the planet has been warming, since before the industrial revolution, hence, before mankind started spewing carbon dioxide into the air. So, the fact that it is warming is clearly NOT due to mankind.


Congratulations. You're a tool. Science has shown that people have been dying of heart attacks, since before the discovery of tobacco, hence, before mankind started smoking. So, the fact that heart attacks are happening is clearly NOT due to tobacco.

Congratulations. You're a tool. Science has shown that people have been getting cancer, since before using asbestos as a building material, hence before the great asbestos panic. So, the fact that cancer is real is clearly NOT due to asbestos.

Congratulations. You're a tool. Science has shown that life has been dying, since before the first primates, hence before mankind even existed. So, the fact that people die is clearly NOT due to war.
 
Displayed 50 of 802 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report