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.

(BBC)   Scientists declare planetary emergency, demand deployment of cloud-whitening technology to arctic   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 377
    More: Scary, Edinburgh University, Arctic methane, Faroe Islands, Bering Strait, sea ice, permafrost, original idea, Arctic  
•       •       •

9916 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2012 at 9:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-20 10:19:07 AM  

GeneralJim: Because the only alternative is a freaking Democrat who wants to take my money and give it to the slut because the two-for-a-buck condoms are bankrupting her.


That's a keeper. No wonder you're alone. I'll file it next to the Greatest Urantia Quote Ever.
 
2012-03-20 10:21:11 AM  
i40.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-20 10:23:55 AM  
Does you sci-fi bible tell you to be so dense GeneralJim? Every point you bring up has been proven wrong over and over but as soon as people stop commenting for a while you shiat green text walls of lies and insults all over the thread again. You are in a tiny minority of people who believe your lies. Get medicated dude. Or at least see a shrink. You need help.
 
2012-03-20 10:24:56 AM  
Farking Canuck:
Thread's completely quieted down. So here come the walls of green lies and paranoia ... right on schedule.

To anyone new: The green thread-shiatter's lies cannot hold up against any close scrutiny so he posts them after the thread dies down so they go unchallenged. Notice how he tried a few posts early on, they were completely debunked, so he disappeared until everyone was gone? This is his standard MO.

Well, you're still here, obviously. Why don't you explain how all of the peer-reviewed and published research has been "debunked" because their observations don't match what the models predict. I'm waiting.
 
2012-03-20 10:29:05 AM  
chimp_ninja:
GeneralJim: Peer-Reviewed literature showing that:

Let's replace your standard and thoroughly debunked copypasta list of papers that don't say what you claim they say with something more funny:

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.

By the way, you might want to read the papers you link to, GeneralJim.

Whoopsie. I think you forgot which alt you're using. Wrong line for the Monkey Boy. Speaking of which, it's kind of strange... I always think of this as the primary, and the others as alts, since I dealt with "you" first. It's odd.

And, wonderful how you go immediately for the hate speech and religious bigotry. Wonderful stuff.
 
2012-03-20 10:32:30 AM  
chimp_ninja:
By the way, you might want to read the papers you link to, GeneralJim.

I have. You should, too. Of course, it does kind of falsify your faith, but, what the hey?
 
2012-03-20 10:35:12 AM  
chimp_ninja:
It's kind of sad how transparent it is. He's hurling pages and pages of copypasta in response to... nothing. Offhand comments posted several days ago.

It's not copypasta, you jerk. You keep thinking that everyone is as spineless and dishonest as you are -- and it trips you up on a regular basis. I've got things to do, basement dweller.
 
2012-03-20 10:37:17 AM  
chimp_ninja:
GeneralJim: Because the only alternative is a freaking Democrat who wants to take my money and give it to the slut because the two-for-a-buck condoms are bankrupting her.

That's a keeper. No wonder you're alone. I'll file it next to the Greatest Urantia Quote Ever.

That IS what she said, you know...
 
2012-03-20 10:39:00 AM  

GeneralJim: DarwiOdrade: common sense is an oxymoron: CygnusDarius: My God. This thread is the reason there can't be a reasonable scientific discussion on Fark.

I was hoping your post would stand as a fitting conclusion to the thread.

*sigh*

What? No AGW thread is complete without he-who-posts-in-green coming in at the end and laying a fresh, steaming turd.
I hope you both remembered forks...


At least you admit what you post is pure shiat.
 
2012-03-20 10:43:02 AM  
lokisbong:
Does you sci-fi bible tell you to be so dense GeneralJim? Every point you bring up has been proven wrong over and over but as soon as people stop commenting for a while you shiat green text walls of lies and insults all over the thread again. You are in a tiny minority of people who believe your lies. Get medicated dude. Or at least see a shrink. You need help.

You know what? I'm going to have to see proof. You and the rest of the chimp farm keep claiming that all of those peer-reviewed and published papers have been "debunked," whatever you think that means. Show me, for all of them, how they have been debunked. Apparently you're working on some theory that "I debunk thee, I debunk thee, I debunk thee" is what counts. NOBODY has "debunked" any of them, as far as I can tell, and they are all observational data, which in science, trumps model predictions. So, bring it, dumbass. You don't have to do it yourself, just point to one of those many times it has been debunked, where the debunking takes place rather than just saying it is debunked.
 
2012-03-20 10:44:41 AM  

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Because the only alternative is a freaking Democrat who wants to take my money and give it to the slut because the two-for-a-buck condoms are bankrupting her.

That's a keeper. No wonder you're alone. I'll file it next to the Greatest Urantia Quote Ever.
That IS what she said, you know...


Yet more lies. This time proving you are a bigoted asshole and a liar. You shouldn't believe everything that windbag Rush says. He lies almost as much as you do.
 
2012-03-20 10:49:01 AM  

GeneralJim: lokisbong: Does you sci-fi bible tell you to be so dense GeneralJim? Every point you bring up has been proven wrong over and over but as soon as people stop commenting for a while you shiat green text walls of lies and insults all over the thread again. You are in a tiny minority of people who believe your lies. Get medicated dude. Or at least see a shrink. You need help.
You know what? I'm going to have to see proof. You and the rest of the chimp farm keep claiming that all of those peer-reviewed and published papers have been "debunked," whatever you think that means. Show me, for all of them, how they have been debunked. Apparently you're working on some theory that "I debunk thee, I debunk thee, I debunk thee" is what counts. NOBODY has "debunked" any of them, as far as I can tell, and they are all observational data, which in science, trumps model predictions. So, bring it, dumbass. You don't have to do it yourself, just point to one of those many times it has been debunked, where the debunking takes place rather than just saying it is debunked.


Go back and read any of the last half dozen discussions about Climate change and people have posted reliable science articles proving you copy pasted lies as exactly that. I don't need to anymore. You have dug your hole of lies so deep you can't even see how wrong you are.
 
2012-03-20 10:51:50 AM  

GeneralJim: Well, you're still here, obviously. Why don't you explain how all of the peer-reviewed and published research has been "debunked" because their observations don't match what the models predict. I'm waiting.


Why?? They have all been debunked literally hundreds of times in the past. No matter how decisively they are disproved you will still post them as facts again next thread.

You are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. Occasionally pointing out your more ridiculous posts and blatant lies is enough to let new people know what you are about. There is absolutely no benefit to actually debating with you.
 
2012-03-20 10:52:33 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: indarwinsshadow: It's funny how the ones screaming about global warming and how it's devastating the planet are the ones still driving around, using modern conveniences and taking vacations on nasty old jet fueled planes.

Well, if you're an American you're pretty much automatically a hypocrite on multiple levels, but that's another fish to fry. I normally drive a vehicle to my vacations, then take them on foot, usually by walking an average of 85 miles per week. I haven't owned a car since 2009, and that was a Civic DX that got 36 miles per gallon. It was paid for. I drove that for a decade. Before that I had another Honda Civic hatchback that was 12 years old. It was paid for. As of today, I haven't taken a vacation in more than 700 days, so yeah, go ahead and tell me all about what I believe and how I live my life.
Dumbass.

Kool-Aid drinker: "Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a metaphor commonly used in the United States and Canada that refers to a person or group's unquestioning belief in an ideology, argument, or philosophy without critical examination. (new window)


pawsru.org

Whatever you say coward. Whatever you say.
 
2012-03-20 11:13:44 AM  
DarwiOdrade:
At least you admit what you post is pure shiat.


i42.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-20 11:15:48 AM  

GeneralJim: Denier derp? Oh, you mean peer-reviewed and published papers showing that the amount of warming we can expect from doubling carbon dioxide tops out at about 1.1 K, meaning that, even by IPCC standards, there's no cause for alarm? THAT kind of derp? Okay, have some more....

Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum


From it: 'Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K)'

Here is a link to the climate sensitivity estimates from the most recent IPCC report.

In it, you'll see a range of estimates from 2.1K to 4.4K, across 19 different methods of calculating it. In Chapter 10, they write:
"Most of the results confirm that climate sensitivity is very unlikely below 1.5°C. The upper bound is more difficult to constrain because of a nonlinear relationship between climate sensitivity and the observed transient response, and is further hampered by the limited length of the observational record and uncertainties in the observations, which are particularly large for ocean heat uptake and for the magnitude of the aerosol radiative forcing. Studies that take all the important known uncertainties in observed historical trends into account cannot rule out the possibility that the climate sensitivity exceeds 4.5°C, although such high values are consistently found to be less likely than values of around 2.0°C to 3.5°C."

All you're doing is citing one value (cherry-picked to be on the low end) without acknowledging the range of projections and what the causes of that range are. But to be clear, nothing about an estimate of +2.3K contradicts anything written by the IPCC.

www.ipcc.ch

One example of many about how you lie about everything.
 
2012-03-20 11:15:58 AM  
lokisbong:
Yet more lies. This time proving you are a bigoted asshole and a liar. You shouldn't believe everything that windbag Rush says. He lies almost as much as you do.

So, you admit that all of your previous claims of my lying were, in fact, lies. Nice.
 
2012-03-20 11:19:12 AM  

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Peer-Reviewed literature showing that:

Let's replace your standard and thoroughly debunked copypasta list of papers that don't say what you claim they say with something more funny:

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.

By the way, you might want to read the papers you link to, GeneralJim.
Whoopsie. I think you forgot which alt you're using. Wrong line for the Monkey Boy. Speaking of which, it's kind of strange... I always think of this as the primary, and the others as alts, since I dealt with "you" first. It's odd.

And, wonderful how you go immediately for the hate speech and religious bigotry. Wonderful stuff.


As an aside, if laughing at this belief is "hate speech", you better inform the mods, because I plan to keep laughing:

i40.tinypic.com

Speaking of mods, I don't use any alts. If you believe I'm lying, please take it up with the moderators, as I'm confident that they would frown on me using multiple accounts to astroturf a thread. Please go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.

(Also, the appearance of multiple accounts is probably just an optical illusion from time-traveling Exploding Jesus Photons.)
 
2012-03-20 11:23:02 AM  
GeneralJim:

Speaking of mods, I don't use any alts. If you believe I'm lying, please take it up with the moderators, as I'm confident that they would frown on me using multiple accounts to astroturf a thread. Please go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.

Ummm... What exactly are we talking about again?

I can understand if you have a guilty conscience and made a slip there, but I don't recall saying you were an alt.

Do you have something you'd like to confess?
 
2012-03-20 11:26:20 AM  

General Jim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash.

Hmmm......

GeneralJim: Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests


GeneralJim: Those are all peer-reviewed and published scientific papers.


GeneralJim: one of you fools was even brash enough to say that taking readings, published in peer-reviewed journals, doesn't count


Was it you?
 
2012-03-20 11:40:53 AM  

maxheck: GeneralJim:

Speaking of mods, I don't use any alts. If you believe I'm lying, please take it up with the moderators, as I'm confident that they would frown on me using multiple accounts to astroturf a thread. Please go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.

Ummm... What exactly are we talking about again?

I can understand if you have a guilty conscience and made a slip there, but I don't recall saying you were an alt.

Do you have something you'd like to confess?


You're quoting text I wrote, chief. :) GeneralJim routinely accuses all the people who point and laugh at his UFO-cultist pseudoscience of being the same person. See: 2012-03-20 10:29:05 AM, 2012-03-18 02:51:32 AM, 2012-03-18 07:17:19 AM, 2012-03-18 10:52:09 PM... just in this thread. If you add up all the people he thinks are alts of one another, you get into the dozens quickly.

Not surprising for someone who exhibits so many other signs of paranoia, however.
 
2012-03-20 11:51:54 AM  
lokisbong:
GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Because the only alternative is a freaking Democrat who wants to take my money and give it to the slut because the two-for-a-buck condoms are bankrupting her.

That's a keeper. No wonder you're alone. I'll file it next to the Greatest Urantia Quote Ever.

That IS what she said, you know...

Yet more lies. This time proving you are a bigoted asshole and a liar. You shouldn't believe everything that windbag Rush says. He lies almost as much as you do.

Wow. I hit one of your DNC talking point buttons, didn't I? Cool. Let's look at what Fluke actually said, shall we?

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy."

She has to be talking about condoms, because birth control pills are $4 for a 28 day supply at either Wal-Mart or Target. Safeway, too, but I don't think they have stores in D.C. Birth control pills would cost her only $144 for three full calendar years. She should look into that to save money -- or at least bulk-purchase the condoms ("Back it up, Virgil.")

$3,000 is 6,000 condoms, at the retail price. Even if she pays for ALL of them, all at retail, and her many "friends" never buy any of them, that is still enough for sex over five times a day, on average, for all three years of law school, including breaks. That's a LOT of banging. Or, if they go halfsies, that would be ten times a day.

She's getting her way paid through law school, and she complains bout how much condoms cost? She could simply demand that her "boys" have their own, or look elsewhere. I doubt that men would quail at the though of spending a half buck on a condom. I mean, a dinner at McDonald's costs at least $3.00, even if he makes her order from the Value Menu, so a half-buck more seems trivial. She could tell the next one, and he could pass it down the line. "The half-buck plops here." "No more free rides."

What you missed is that Fluke claims 40% of her fellow students are financially troubled by condom costs. It sure looks like Georgetown is THE place to go to law school. So, why aren't you griping at Fluke for calling a good percentage of her classmates sluts? It would be another thing if they were to get a White House handler, and make a public statement about it -- then she'd have every right to talk about their testimony, but she is impugning the character of these women who did NOT give their consent to public scrutiny.

And, oh bent out of shape one, pull up a Fark Palin thread from the last couple of years... What kind of things was SHE called, and without her discussing her sexual habits in the public record and all. Double standard much?
 
2012-03-20 11:52:46 AM  
chimp_ninja
maxheck: GeneralJim:

Speaking of mods, I don't use any alts. If you believe I'm lying, please take it up with the moderators, as I'm confident that they would frown on me using multiple accounts to astroturf a thread. Please go ahead and put your money where your mouth is.

Ummm... What exactly are we talking about again?

I can understand if you have a guilty conscience and made a slip there, but I don't recall saying you were an alt.

Do you have something you'd like to confess?

You're quoting text I wrote, chief. :) GeneralJim routinely accuses all the people who point and laugh at his UFO-cultist pseudoscience of being the same person. See: 2012-03-20 10:29:05 AM, 2012-03-18 02:51:32 AM, 2012-03-18 07:17:19 AM, 2012-03-18 10:52:09 PM... just in this thread. If you add up all the people he thinks are alts of one another, you get into the dozens quickly.

Not surprising for someone who exhibits so many other signs of paranoia, however.


Ah. Still kinda whacked out even once you understand that.

Well, I'm certain that you're happy to hear that you're not me, despite what some might say.
 
2012-03-20 11:56:51 AM  

maxheck: Well, I'm certain that you're happy to hear that you're not me, despite what some might say.


How would I have time to be you? According to GeneralJim, I'm about 6 other people just in this one thread.

Time-traveling Jesus photons be upon you, my brother.
 
2012-03-20 11:59:54 AM  
GeneralJim:

$3,000 is 6,000 condoms, at the retail price.

And tri-cyclen pills are condoms.

You just keep getting better and better with every post.
 
2012-03-20 12:00:54 PM  
lokisbong:
Go back and read any of the last half dozen discussions about Climate change and people have posted reliable science articles proving you copy pasted lies as exactly that. I don't need to anymore. You have dug your hole of lies so deep you can't even see how wrong you are.

Nope. Never happened.

And, what are you saying? That all of those peer-reviewed and published papers are LIES? Why, that would mean that there's a vast conspiracy in the field of climatology. Is that what you are claiming?

And, now, you are refusing to even point to one of the many (as you allege) places where someone has "debunked" the papers listed above? Really? If this is happening as often as you say, EVERY climate thread should have several. I know I post this list of peer-reviewed, published papers in just about every climate thread sooner or later. And, you can't find ONE? It must be because you are full of shiat.
 
2012-03-20 12:05:22 PM  

GeneralJim: lokisbong:
Go back and read any of the last half dozen discussions about Climate change and people have posted reliable science articles proving you copy pasted lies as exactly that. I don't need to anymore. You have dug your hole of lies so deep you can't even see how wrong you are.

Nope. Never happened.


Look everyone, I found a picture of GJ - he's on the right:
pull.imgfave.netdna-cdn.com
 
2012-03-20 12:06:44 PM  

GeneralJim: That all of those peer-reviewed and published papers are LIES?


Isn't that exactly what you said about all the peer-reviewed and published papers supporting theories that oppose yours? Looks like you're a complete and utter hypocrite.
 
2012-03-20 12:08:45 PM  
chimp_ninja:

maxheck: Well, I'm certain that you're happy to hear that you're not me, despite what some might say.

How would I have time to be you? According to GeneralJim, I'm about 6 other people just in this one thread.

Time-traveling Jesus photons be upon you, my brother.


Well, duh, that's how we do it. Except it's time-travelling ELECTRONS rather than photons, so as to have anyone who doesn't buy in to GeneralJim's line can post... in the future... in the past... in the immediate... Anything inconvenient to GeneralJim.

Just to piss a certain person off, I'm going to make sparkly-electron jazz hands and laugh maniacaly right now.
 
2012-03-20 12:16:09 PM  
Farking Canuck:
GeneralJim: Well, you're still here, obviously. Why don't you explain how all of the peer-reviewed and published research has been "debunked" because their observations don't match what the models predict. I'm waiting.

Why?? They have all been debunked literally hundreds of times in the past. No matter how decisively they are disproved you will still post them as facts again next thread.

You are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. Occasionally pointing out your more ridiculous posts and blatant lies is enough to let new people know what you are about. There is absolutely no benefit to actually debating with you.

I'm not asking for a debate -- asking you for a debate would be taunting the handicapped. Just point me to just ONE of the "literally hundreds" of places you claim that each of these peer-reviewed and published papers have been "debunked." The fact that everyone, so far, has refused to even point to one of the many, many times they claim the papers have been "debunked" makes me think that these magical posts that debunk the science are a lot like that Canadian Model Girlfriend I've heard about. As in, they don't farking exist.

You know what? I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that a post debunking each of those papers simply does not exist. You want to prove me wrong? It only takes eight links.

You are a lying ass. You are a tool of the oil companies, and do their bidding for free. You are denying science. You don't even know what the processes of science are. You are a useless idiot, whose only talent is copypasta from people who at least know something. And you hide this by hurling these same insults at anyone who doesn't buy your bullshiat. How's that working out for you?

/ Time for a new alt, meathead. This one's crispy.
 
2012-03-20 12:19:41 PM  

GeneralJim: I'm not asking for a debate


We know - you're asking us to believe all the peer-reviewed and published papers that support your pet theories, but ignore the myriad more peer-reviewed and published papers that contradict your pet theories.
 
2012-03-20 12:24:07 PM  

GeneralJim: lokisbong: Go back and read any of the last half dozen discussions about Climate change and people have posted reliable science articles proving you copy pasted lies as exactly that. I don't need to anymore. You have dug your hole of lies so deep you can't even see how wrong you are.
Nope. Never happened.

And, what are you saying? That all of those peer-reviewed and published papers are LIES? Why, that would mean that there's a vast conspiracy in the field of climatology. Is that what you are claiming?

And, now, you are refusing to even point to one of the many (as you allege) places where someone has "debunked" the papers listed above? Really? If this is happening as often as you say, EVERY climate thread should have several. I know I post this list of peer-reviewed, published papers in just about every climate thread sooner or later. And, you can't find ONE? It must be because you are full of shiat.



I'm afraid you're either flat out lying, or you've somehow missed posts where exactly that happened. Let's see what we can drag up. These are from just this thread and the last one:

Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts (new window)

Here's the link to the actual paper. This paper probably doesn't say what you think it does. as it talks about smaller shifts (~0.3K max) "superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend". Heck, for their analysis, they removed at 2K/century warming trend. In addition, an implication of this paper is that climate sensitivity may be higher than we think in that if climate is more sensitive than we think to internal forcings, such as those as this research speaks to, then it will be more sensitive to external forcings, such as those from CO2 concentration. After some digging, it looks like the first two authors of this paper explicitly make this exact point in a follow-up paper two years later:

"Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity."

In short, this paper demonstrates the opposite of what you think it does.


chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Denier derp? Oh, you mean peer-reviewed and published papers showing that the amount of warming we can expect from doubling carbon dioxide tops out at about 1.1 K, meaning that, even by IPCC standards, there's no cause for alarm? THAT kind of derp? Okay, have some more....

Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum

From it: 'Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K)'

Here is a link to the climate sensitivity estimates from the most recent IPCC report.

In it, you'll see a range of estimates from 2.1K to 4.4K, across 19 different methods of calculating it. In Chapter 10, they write:
"Most of the results confirm that climate sensitivity is very unlikely below 1.5°C. The upper bound is more difficult to constrain because of a nonlinear relationship between climate sensitivity and the observed transient response, and is further hampered by the limited length of the observational record and uncertainties in the observations, which are particularly large for ocean heat uptake and for the magnitude of the aerosol radiative forcing. Studies that take all the important known uncertainties in observed historical trends into account cannot rule out the possibility that the climate sensitivity exceeds 4.5°C, although such high values are consistently found to be less likely than values of around 2.0°C to 3.5°C."

All you're doing is citing one value (cherry-picked to be on the low end) without acknowledging the range of projections and what the causes of that range are. But to be clear, nothing about an estimate of +2.3K contradicts anything written by the IPCC.



One example of many about how you lie about everything.



There's definitely more out there. I'll keep looking.
 
2012-03-20 12:31:26 PM  

DarwiOdrade: GeneralJim: I'm not asking for a debate

We know - you're asking us to believe all the peer-reviewed and published papers that support your pet theories, but ignore the myriad more peer-reviewed and published papers that contradict your pet theories.


It's even worse than that - he's asking us to believe that he hasn't completely misunderstood the peer-reviewed and published papers that he claims support his pet theory, and ignore the fact that he has actually misunderstood them, and that they don't actually say what he thinks they say, as well as ignoring all the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.
 
2012-03-20 12:36:58 PM  

HighZoolander: DarwiOdrade: GeneralJim: I'm not asking for a debate

We know - you're asking us to believe all the peer-reviewed and published papers that support your pet theories, but ignore the myriad more peer-reviewed and published papers that contradict your pet theories.

It's even worse than that - he's asking us to believe that he hasn't completely misunderstood the peer-reviewed and published papers that he claims support his pet theory, and ignore the fact that he has actually misunderstood them, and that they don't actually say what he thinks they say, as well as ignoring all the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.


I'll take your word for it - I'm not up on all the literature. But it's impossible to miss GJ's obvious confirmation bias when it comes to scientific literature.
 
2012-03-20 01:09:51 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
By the way, Einstein didn't say that. Further, it is 180 degrees out from what he believed and practiced.

However, he DID say the following:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."



Well, I'm sure that proves that Einstein was on board with space-Jesus photon theory, and would have found no flaws in your reasoning.

/sarcasm
 
2012-03-20 01:10:13 PM  

DarwiOdrade: HighZoolander: DarwiOdrade: GeneralJim: I'm not asking for a debate

We know - you're asking us to believe all the peer-reviewed and published papers that support your pet theories, but ignore the myriad more peer-reviewed and published papers that contradict your pet theories.

It's even worse than that - he's asking us to believe that he hasn't completely misunderstood the peer-reviewed and published papers that he claims support his pet theory, and ignore the fact that he has actually misunderstood them, and that they don't actually say what he thinks they say, as well as ignoring all the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.

I'll take your word for it - I'm not up on all the literature. But it's impossible to miss GJ's obvious confirmation bias when it comes to scientific literature.


I think the best example is the paper he claims "proves that CO2 lags warming". It is a real paper and it does show a 1000 year lag of CO2 behind initial warming.

What the GJ completely ignores in his blatant, intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of this paper is the following:

- the authors clearly say is that this lag is from the warming due to the Milankovich cycles and these results do not apply to our current warming

- after the initial slight warming due to the Milankovich cycle, the released greenhouse gasses (including CO2) drive the majority of the warming

The green thread-shiatter claims this paper proves that CO2 does not cause warming because it lags the temperature increase. In reality this paper says the exact opposite.

This has been explained to him many, many times ... it is in black and white in the paper ... yet he keeps posting his distorted version of it.
 
2012-03-20 01:12:20 PM  
DarwiOdrade:
General Jim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash.

Hmmm......

GeneralJim: Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests

GeneralJim: Those are all peer-reviewed and published scientific papers.

GeneralJim: one of you fools was even brash enough to say that taking readings, published in peer-reviewed journals, doesn't count [OUT OF CONTEXT, DISHONEST]

Was it you?

Provide a link to that first quote, please. Context is important.

What is well-known about peer review in climatology is that it became what is called "pal-review." Michael Mann and Phil Jones put together a list of a few dozen reviewers who were, while not crooked, very "hot" on AGW, and who could be relied upon to stop any papers critical of AGW. In addition, they were very likely to pass any paper supporting AGW. In fact, Phil Jones says that in his twenty years of publishing, including many papers with secret data, unrevealed data massaging programs, and undelineated methodology, he was NEVER asked even for further information. This is, I would point out, not corruption on the part of the reviewers, but is, however clear evidence that they should not be reviewing papers.

In another example, Michael Mann's survey of proxy data sets, of course, lists all of the data sets he is surveying. He surveys them, and reports that, according to the data, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist, except in Europe. A problem with this is that every single data set, at least one from each continent, DO show the MWP, and all of them but one also show the little ice age (LIA) which Mann also denied existed. This conclusion, in stark contrast to the data used, goes unmentioned, and the paper is simply published.

By way of contrast, while Ferenc Miskolczi was working at NASA, he did a mathematical analysis of the climate models, and proved the errors in them. His peer-reviewed paper could not be published, because it showed AGW to be the sham it is, and he had to go home to Hungary to have it published. Svensmark also had to go through the wringer before he was published.

With the publicity brought down on climatology by Climategate, in which some few of the e-mails, and many of the programs, involved in the fraud were exposed, the peer-review process lightened up for those papers skeptical of the hoax, and more of them came out. As they do, they throw light on papers like Mann's, which can easily be debunked by nearly anyone. Also, "glaciergate" pointed out to many how faulty the IPCC process is. In the glaciergate scandal, environmental activist literature was simply copied into the IPCC report, and called peer-reviewed. The statements in that section, and others, are blatantly ridiculous, as political activist literature tends to be.

So, from this, we have two related problems. During the time of corruption, a period of roughly twenty years, we have literature passing peer review and being published in which essentially no review took place. All of those papers need to be re-evaluated. We also have a group of papers which were rejected irrespective of their quality. These papers also need to be re-evaluated, and some of them published. That's going to waste a lot of time. But, what's worse is the chilling effect the corruption had on research. Scientists in climatology noticed that papers critical of the AGW hypothesis simply died on the vine. Doing research known in advance to be unable to make it through the peer-review process is pointless to a scientist's career. So, a large number of studies that would have been done, were NOT done, because they might come to the "incorrect" conclusions.

Ironically, this, NOW, leads to the situation where a pro-AGW paper from the period of the corruption is, for all practical purposes, unreviewed, even though it might have been published. But, any paper that is skeptical of AGW has had to survive a harsh examination. So, the skeptical papers are much more reliable than the compliant papers, due to a much tougher screening process.

So, the hoaxers have left a huge mess to clean up. Worse, they have set back the research many years. Worst, when the full extent of the hoax is known to most people, the backlash against climatology will further set back research.

Quote mining, and taking phrases out of the sentence in which they appear can give the impression of things that were not said. But this is a tactic of dishonesty, and can be corrected. Here are some articles about the corruption of the peer-review process in climatology:

Climatology Peer-Review is Completely Corrupt

Climate Science Needs Light -- Climatology Peer Review Process Irreparably Broken. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Used Greenpeace Campaigner To Write 'Impartial' Report On Renewable Energy, and review his own work. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer Review Process Failure: "Impossible" Conclusions in alarmist paper pass peer-review; AAAS withdraws paper. Article HERE. (new window)

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. Article HERE. (new window)
 
2012-03-20 01:32:42 PM  

GeneralJim: Provide a link to that first quote, please. Context is important.


The link works fine, and universal quantifiers like "all" don't need context unless you want to backpedal.
 
2012-03-20 01:34:21 PM  
DarwiOdrade:
GeneralJim: That all of those peer-reviewed and published papers are LIES?

Isn't that exactly what you said about all the peer-reviewed and published papers supporting theories that oppose yours? Looks like you're a complete and utter hypocrite.

Nope. Actually, here, I am pointing out YOUR hypocrisy. A year or so ago, I was regularly informed that I was not allowed to think about things, because peer-reviewed papers said otherwise. End of story. Now that literature exists that falsifies AGW is becoming quite common, "oh, that doesn't matter" is the warmer BS du jour. It was literally claimed that one could not argue with peer-reviewed literature because, well, PEER-REVIEW. It was the be-all and end-all. Now it's "Oh, we debunked that."

And, I would note that I have never disregarded all literature, as you are all doing here. I have said, all along, that the people making the reports for the IPCC have perverted the litreature, such as Michael Mann, looking at a bunch of well-done studies, each of which clearly shows the MWP, and announcing that there is no evidence of the MWP. Just because Mann lied about the content (he does NOT have the excuse of ignorance) of those studies does not make the studies bad.

Mann's program that altered the data before printing the "hockey stick" graph did not invalidate the data, or the studies. It was an automated lie about the studies. Keith Briffa's "work" in finding those couple of trees that supported the AGW hypothesis did not invalidate the other studies. Just a couple of people at the choke point for the data, where science meets the IPCC, were able to prepare the data in such a way as to further the agenda. Unfortunately, since what they did screwed up the data repositories, the global records will have to be reconstructed from the original study data. Ick. Lots of work.
 
2012-03-20 01:36:22 PM  

GeneralJim: Nope. Actually, here, I am pointing out YOUR hypocrisy.


Right - everyone's a lying hypocrite except you. Delusions of grandeur much?
 
2012-03-20 01:36:31 PM  
DarwiOdrade:
I'll take your word for it - I'm not up on all the literature. But it's impossible to miss GJ's obvious confirmation bias when it comes to scientific literature.

Oh, like you DON'T have any? Thanks for the chuckle.
 
2012-03-20 01:38:18 PM  

GeneralJim: DarwiOdrade: I'll take your word for it - I'm not up on all the literature. But it's impossible to miss GJ's obvious confirmation bias when it comes to scientific literature.
Oh, like you DON'T have any? Thanks for the chuckle.


So you admit your confirmation bias - that's good. Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Now just try to work on your Tu Quoque, k?
 
2012-03-20 01:41:48 PM  
Well, I wasted a night. Again. It shows it's much easier to copypasta religious hate speech and make personal attacks that to present a case. Off to bed. Hopefully the thread will still be open when I get up. Start making your claims for a conspiracy if I do or if I don't make it in time.... avoid the rush. Because we all know that what is important about a post, is the timing, eh, Mojo? er, Monkey Boy. Which one are you? Lessee.... oh, the mental illness claimed is paranoia. That's Monkey Boy. Mojo would be narcissism. Handy.
 
2012-03-20 01:43:36 PM  
DarwiOdrade:
So you admit your confirmation bias - that's good. Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Now just try to work on your Tu Quoque, k?

I see you have NOT yet reached that level. G'night.
 
2012-03-20 01:46:45 PM  

GeneralJim: oh, the mental illness claimed is paranoia.


That's right - claim your demons and they will have less control over you. You're getting there. Keep up the good work.
 
2012-03-20 01:58:09 PM  

GeneralJim: Well, I wasted a night. Again. It shows it's much easier to copypasta religious hate speech and make personal attacks that to present a case. Off to bed. Hopefully the thread will still be open when I get up. Start making your claims for a conspiracy if I do or if I don't make it in time.... avoid the rush. Because we all know that what is important about a post, is the timing, eh, Mojo? er, Monkey Boy. Which one are you? Lessee.... oh, the mental illness claimed is paranoia. That's Monkey Boy. Mojo would be narcissism. Handy.


Notice that GeneralJim, just before bailing on the thread, skips the posts that show evidence that argues that's he's wrong, both about what he thinks some of the papers he cites says, and about the non-existence of those posts in the first place.

No personal attacks required here - this sort of lack of irrationality and intellectual dishonesty speaks for itself.
 
2012-03-20 03:27:26 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Well, I wasted a night. Again. It shows it's much easier to copypasta religious hate speech and make personal attacks that to present a case. Off to bed. Hopefully the thread will still be open when I get up. Start making your claims for a conspiracy if I do or if I don't make it in time.... avoid the rush. Because we all know that what is important about a post, is the timing, eh, Mojo? er, Monkey Boy. Which one are you? Lessee.... oh, the mental illness claimed is paranoia. That's Monkey Boy. Mojo would be narcissism. Handy.

Notice that GeneralJim, just before bailing on the thread, skips the posts that show evidence that argues that's he's wrong, both about what he thinks some of the papers he cites says, and about the non-existence of those posts in the first place.

No personal attacks required here - this sort of lack of irrationality and intellectual dishonesty speaks for itself.


I find it very funny that in his quote which I bolded he pretty much tells us his method of debate And at the same time lied about the rest of our methods. I may have copy n pasted some lines out of his sci-fi bible but I have never actually said anything hateful. maybe scornful of the bs but no hate speech. He claims we believers are derpy religious fanatics following as he says "the church of AGW dogma". And tends to run away when somebody pokes holes in his lies.
 
2012-03-20 03:32:05 PM  

GeneralJim: tBecause the only alternative is a freaking Democrat who wants to take my money and give it to the slut because the two-for-a-buck condoms are bankrupting her.


Why does this not surprise me? At least you're consistent; you have as much understanding of what Sandra Fluke actually said as you have about science in general and climatology in particular.
 
2012-03-20 03:58:31 PM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Once again, here (new window) is an explanation of water vapor's contribution to the greenhouse effect. You can observe this effect directly by comparing overnight temperature falls on clear nights with high versus low humidity. The relative humidity (proportional to water vapor content when corrected for temperature) can make a difference of 30 degrees (F) or more of radiative cooling over just a few hours, with increased humidity correlated with greater retained heat, i.e., a positive greenhouse effect.
You really DON'T understand this. Okay, one point at a time. Supply your own training wheels.

What you say about water vapor is correct here. Your copypasta source is a decent one. Save it. Water vapor is a GHG. THAT means that the idea of pumping more of it into the atmosphere to cool things is stupid. Got that?


1. The idea is to pump water DROPLETS (i.e., clouds) into the atmosphere, not water VAPOR. You keep confusing the two.
2. The first thing I posted in this thread was that I thought this idea was garbage.

Water vapor is a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK for other GHGs in the atmosphere. That does NOT mean that it doesn't act as a GHG. That also does not mean that water vapor cools the planet. Got that?

So let me get this straight: You approve of my source article but disagree with its basic premise that water vapor has a positive greenhouse effect which acts to amplify the effects of other greenhouse gases?

At any rate, your first sentence is wrong. The next two are basically correct (even if the reasoning behind them is not), but they also agree with what I've been saying all along, so I don't see what your point is.

What that means is that those things water vapor does in the atmosphere makes it act as a negative feedback to other GHGs. When levels of, say, carbon dioxide go UP, levels of water vapor go DOWN, at least partially offsetting the warming from the greater concentration of carbon dioxide. The total GHE is kept close to a constant. And, this is as simple as I can take this concept. If you can't understand it from this, I cannot help you, and you will need to seek a gifted teacher. Or, buy a tire swing, a pair of short red pants, and a large quantity of bananas. Your choice.

That's a bold claim, and one which should easily be proven...or disproven:

[image too large to fit; link here (new window).]

Well, look at that. Water vapor is actually increasing, as are both temperature and CO2 levels.

Try again?
 
2012-03-20 04:30:07 PM  

GeneralJim: Wow. I hit one of your DNC talking point buttons, didn't I? Cool. Let's look at what Fluke actually said, shall we?


I did look at the actual transcriptions. and listened to her speech. She never once says anything about condoms. She is talking about contraceptive pills that are useful for much more than just birth control. And according to a quick Google search for "prescription birth control pills costs" I am seeing a cost of at least 15 dollars a month up to 50. depending on insurance coverage and where you are able to get it. So yet more lies from

GeneralJim: because birth control pills are $4 for a 28 day supply at either Wal-Mart or Target

 
Displayed 50 of 377 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report