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.

(The Register)   Medieval Warming deniers dealt fatal blow as new evidence shows Medieval Warming happened in Antarctica and was global in extent   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 452
    More: Interesting, Medieval Warm Period, climate change denial, IPCC, Antarctica, tree rings, Little Ice Age, Antarctic Peninsula, ice cores  
•       •       •

4674 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Mar 2012 at 3:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-25 02:19:07 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: HighZoolander: Hm. Well, I was going to link to the thread where you claimed that the shroud of Turin so stiff that it would essentially hover over a body, but that thread appears to have been scrubbed or disappeared. That was a pretty serious conflation of religion and "science". (maybe someone has a link to the thread?)

Oh ye of little faith.


Thanks - I knew you'd have it :)

(somehow I missed it completely in myfark)
 
2012-03-25 02:21:08 PM

Mugato: These global warming deniers remind me of creationists. They'll accept any scientific theory they hear about because "well they're egghead scientists, they must know what they're talking about" until it conflicts with their religious beliefs or self interests. Then everyone's an armchair scientist and real scientists are just after grant money.

...although unless you're a large corporation worried about possible costly regulation I don't see why the deniers have a horse in this race.


Anyone who feels they have to resort to a word like "deniers" to characterize skepticism of their own beliefs is hardly someone who could be reasoned with anyway.

Until anyone can make a falsifiable predicition regarding the expected effect of those "costly regulations", I see no need to take them seriously.

Enjoy your religion.
 
2012-03-25 02:25:03 PM

HighZoolander: GeneralJim: HighZoolander: RoyBatty: President Obama believes in Jesus. I assume he can separate his bizzaro beliefs from his governance.

Obama certainly. GeneralJim, not so much.
Okay, you lying shiate. Show me ONE SENTENCE where I have conflated theology and climatology. JUST ONE. Doesn't exist, you lying fark. Lying is simply your way to argue, isn't it?

Not climatology, but I'm too lazy to sort out all your bullshiat.


Dr. Mojo's M.O. is to claim you said something you did not and then play "Yes you did", "No, I didn't" until you realize you have a life and he does not and he will continue indefinitely . ..
Believe me, I've been there.
 
2012-03-25 02:27:18 PM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: HighZoolander: RoyBatty: President Obama believes in Jesus. I assume he can separate his bizzaro beliefs from his governance.

Obama certainly. GeneralJim, not so much.
Okay, you lying shiate. Show me ONE SENTENCE where I have conflated theology and climatology. JUST ONE. Doesn't exist, you lying fark. Lying is simply your way to argue, isn't it?

Not climatology, but I'm too lazy to sort out all your bullshiat.

Dr. Mojo's M.O. is to claim you said something you did not and then play "Yes you did", "No, I didn't" until you realize you have a life and he does not and he will continue indefinitely . ..
Believe me, I've been there.


But just for fun, go ahead and ask him about his "PhD".
:-)
 
2012-03-25 02:36:28 PM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Mugato: These global warming deniers remind me of creationists. They'll accept any scientific theory they hear about because "well they're egghead scientists, they must know what they're talking about" until it conflicts with their religious beliefs or self interests. Then everyone's an armchair scientist and real scientists are just after grant money.

...although unless you're a large corporation worried about possible costly regulation I don't see why the deniers have a horse in this race.


As a bit of fun, and not to be taken too seriously, let's apply Mugato's idea to this post.


Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Anyone who feels they have to resort to a word like "deniers" to characterize skepticism of their own beliefs is hardly someone who could be reasoned with anyway.


CA012. Evolutionists are intellectual snobs.


Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Until anyone can make a falsifiable predicition regarding the expected effect of those "costly regulations", I see no need to take them seriously.


CA211. Evolution can not be falsified.


Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Enjoy your religion.


CA610. Evolution is a religion.
 
2012-03-25 02:44:45 PM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Dr. Mojo's M.O. is to claim you said something you did not and then play "Yes you did", "No, I didn't" until you realize you have a life and he does not and he will continue indefinitely . ..


Mmm, naturally. You have some evidence of this, I suppose. Do you have some evidence -- any evidence -- that I've claimed a person has uttered something they have not? You testify to it, so surely you must be able to provide an example of this, right freak fark? Or let me guess -- your pride is wounded and you're lashing out. It appears to me that this is so, as I do make an effort to back up what I say with citations.

Perhaps your passive-aggressive behaviour can truly convince the scientifically-minded HighZoolander that he is secretly not referring to a post backed up by evidence and explanation of said evidence (to which a link is provided, no less) and is instead referring to some bizarre gainsaying game I played. Oddly enough, it appears you're playing the same game right now.

What's with you sad, pathetic freaks trying to engage in some passive-aggressive talk to audiences utterly unsympathetic to your cause and unfounded beliefs giving your personal Voucher of Truth™ for behaviour which, while true (or so you assure us), you can cite no example of (or, more specifically, the only examples provided all oddly revolve around you engaging in the behaviour you decry)?

There is a logical reason for that, is there not?
 
2012-03-25 02:56:25 PM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Dr. Mojo's M.O. is to claim you said something you did not and then play "Yes you did", "No, I didn't" until you realize you have a life and he does not and he will continue indefinitely . ..


Out of curiosity, I fed "watching_epoxy_cure" "dr. mojo phd" site:fark.com into Google and came up with this (and only this):

Dr. Mojo PhD [TotalFark]
2010-12-04 12:24:36 AM

Mojo says by 2030 tomorrow, most of the posts here will be coloured green.

Watching_Epoxy_Cure
2010-12-04 12:25:54 AM

Cue Dr. Mojo

/or not. I imagine even an invested man knows a losing proposition when he sees it.


Wow, you're that butthurt that some years back you made yourself look like a complete idiot by typing out some hamfisted prediction that I wouldn't show up to the thread and I had the audacity to defy your prediction a minute and a half before you posted it. I notice the lame, churlish, passive-aggressive lashing out though, nice to see a year and some hasn't sobered your self-perspective any.

Well, either that or (I'm guessing, here, you truly aren't memorable to me in any way -- you should adopt a gimmick like Jim) the "invested man" comment means that you're one of foot soldiers in the idiot brigade I used to mock by offering a JREF-styled challenge to demonstrate the hoax for money. I suppose the feeling of being offered positive incentive to demonstrate your stated position, coupled with the lack of safety in anonymity such a public challenge would involve, and the general inkling in the back of your mind that you probably aren't as smart as you think you are just really causes the testicles-retracting-into-abdomen feeling to linger all those long, lonely months, quietly brooding on revenge, doesn't it?
 
2012-03-25 03:21:03 PM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Anyone who feels they have to resort to a word like "deniers" to characterize skepticism of their own beliefs is hardly someone who could be reasoned with anyway.


Skeptics can have their opinion swayed by evidence. Deniers are steadfast and their opinions unshakable no matter the weight of the evidence. If you've been in these global warming threads then you've seen the likes of Gen. Jim and nicksteel repeat lies ad nauseum and have every argument of theirs torn apart yet their conviction never wavers. That's a denier and the moniker is apt.
 
2012-03-25 03:22:45 PM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: HighZoolander: RoyBatty: President Obama believes in Jesus. I assume he can separate his bizzaro beliefs from his governance.

Obama certainly. GeneralJim, not so much.
Okay, you lying shiate. Show me ONE SENTENCE where I have conflated theology and climatology. JUST ONE. Doesn't exist, you lying fark. Lying is simply your way to argue, isn't it?

Not climatology, but I'm too lazy to sort out all your bullshiat.

Dr. Mojo's M.O. is to claim you said something you did not and then play "Yes you did", "No, I didn't" until you realize you have a life and he does not and he will continue indefinitely . ..
Believe me, I've been there.


You do realize that I was responding to GeneralJim, about something he actually said? I couldn't find that thread, which has some truly hilarious green posts, and DrMojo provided the link I was looking for, and had asked for.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, or why it came up just now.
 
2012-03-25 03:41:54 PM

HighZoolander: You do realize that I was responding to GeneralJim, about something he actually said? I couldn't find that thread, which has some truly hilarious green posts, and DrMojo provided the link I was looking for, and had asked for.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, or why it came up just now.


No, he doesn't realize this. What you need to remember is my extremely aggressive behaviour tends to drive these sniveling biatches out of woodwork. I really have no idea who in particular this person is, and the only interaction I can find between us is that hilarious "prediction" he made in December 2010. What happens is they're made to look foolish and stupid and nurse grudges for years (amusing that they remember me so well, and beyond the gimmick posters and the thread shiatters I have no idea who is who among them, so indistinguishable are they).

This is the inevitable response, especially when dealing with a site that has a registered user base equal to a small city -- not really an accurate measure, but enough to give an idea, anyway. The lazy, childish person vouches towards my vaguely defined moral turpitude, assurances on the offered on the "honour" of their meaningless and forgettable anonymous screen names that some time, long in the past, such-and-such a person was very mean to them and, despite their bizarre lack of evidence for the behaviour they swear they observed, we should all agree this is true.

Think biatchy junior high girls invested in, and taking their cues from, the catty 90210 prime time soap opera du jour, but somehow, almost supernaturally, more pathetic.
 
2012-03-25 04:11:43 PM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Anyone who feels they have to resort to a word like "deniers" to characterize skepticism of their own beliefs is hardly someone who could be reasoned with anyway.


When faced with the consensus of the scientific community and the evidence they present ______s still deny the existence of man-made global warming.

Feel free to fill in the blank with any word you like and I'll use it.

People who arbitrarily attribute "religion" to something that has nothing to do with religion simply to paint others as fanatics are hardly people who can be reasoned with anyway.
 
2012-03-25 04:13:05 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: Think biatchy junior high girls invested in, and taking their cues from, the catty 90210 prime time soap opera du jour, but somehow, almost supernaturally, more pathetic.


Now why did that remind me of this?

i290.photobucket.com
 
2012-03-25 04:44:56 PM

Mugato: Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Anyone who feels they have to resort to a word like "deniers" to characterize skepticism of their own beliefs is hardly someone who could be reasoned with anyway.

When faced with the consensus of the scientific community and the evidence they present ______s still deny the existence of man-made global warming.

Feel free to fill in the blank with any word you like and I'll use it.

People who arbitrarily attribute "religion" to something that has nothing to do with religion simply to paint others as fanatics are hardly people who can be reasoned with anyway.


It's what the contrarians try to do to gain validity. They attempt to couch their pseudoscience in what they believe appeals to the crowd they want to win over.

They aren't contrarians (a word I believe Jon Snow made an argument for that was much better than denier) because they're scientifically minded, they're contrarians because they aren't. They attempt to cloak themselves in the word "skeptic" to claim that their position is somehow equally valid or they're only questioning the data (as we've seen time and again, they lack this ability) and, from that, the use of the "religion" pejorative naturally evolves. It's that snotty, nose-tilted-at-the-sky "if you were a REAL skeptic, you'd blindly believe my position!" form of special pleading that makes it so hilarious and sad.

It's in their vested interest to do so, of course, as we do see, time and time again, that they're unable to argue science on the merits. In fact, they obviously barely comprehend the science, as evinced by the oft-repeated claim that "GLOBAL WARMING? B-B-BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS CALLED CLIMATE CHANGE NOW!", seemingly unable to understand that scientists do not couch a hypothesis on a two-word catch-all describing a large field, much like how the Big Bang was neither big nor a bang.

Instead they benefit from pointless back-and-forths like this:
"I'm a skeptic!"
"No, you aren't. You deny hard evidence in favour of pointless nonsense."
"I thought you science types enjoyed skepticism!"
"We do. You aren't a skeptic."
"Enjoy your religion!!!"

It allows them to avoid answering extremely difficult questions like "why are all the climatologists in the world pointlessly lying and not a single maverick is making a fortune winning accolades and Nobel prizes to disprove them, when climatologists would still have a job even if global warming were false, because lack of global warming does not mean the climate suddenly goes away."
 
2012-03-25 05:36:27 PM
Installed two new exterior light fixtures. Power-washed the driveway and both cars. Spread some new topsoil out over some low spots. Planted two small fruit trees.

So, I didn't talk about the weather.... I lived it, man.... Can you dig it?
 
2012-03-25 06:01:22 PM
Weaver95:

the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event.

Ok.

Stop right there and ask yourself if anyone of any relevance to the argument has ever said that, or is this just some imaginary eco-nut in your head talking.

Seriously. Do that. Did you read or hear anyone of consequence to the question actually say that?

This is a large part of why it's being argued, much like evolution. The whole concept of ACC is well known and accepted by people who actually work in the field and understand that. There exists a lobby to spread FUD, much as they did with tobacco vs cancer, much as they did with CFCs vs the ozone hole, indeed, it's often the same people. The whole ACC thing gets picked apart along the lines of "I found this article that said evolution isn't 100% sure, therefore God."

There might be a slight problem with that line of logic.

The third dumbest denier meme (after AL GORE IS FAT and RESEACHERS MAKE MAD BLING) is that "the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event"

Seriously, Weaver Back that up or back off of it. You should know better.
 
2012-03-25 06:08:33 PM

maxheck: The third dumbest denier meme (after AL GORE IS FAT and RESEACHERS MAKE MAD BLING) is that "the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event"


I'm pretty sure HAVEN'T YOU GUYS HEARD OF A LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED THE SUN factors in to the top three somewhere, in fact I'd argue it's the most idiotic of all the contrarian memes. Because herp derp we're seriously suggesting that somehow the planet would be warm if the sun went out, or something.
 
2012-03-25 06:09:16 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: HighZoolander: You do realize that I was responding to GeneralJim, about something he actually said? I couldn't find that thread, which has some truly hilarious green posts, and DrMojo provided the link I was looking for, and had asked for.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, or why it came up just now.

No, he doesn't realize this. What you need to remember is my extremely aggressive behaviour tends to drive these sniveling biatches out of woodwork. I really have no idea who in particular this person is, and the only interaction I can find between us is that hilarious "prediction" he made in December 2010. What happens is they're made to look foolish and stupid and nurse grudges for years (amusing that they remember me so well, and beyond the gimmick posters and the thread shiatters I have no idea who is who among them, so indistinguishable are they).

This is the inevitable response, especially when dealing with a site that has a registered user base equal to a small city -- not really an accurate measure, but enough to give an idea, anyway. The lazy, childish person vouches towards my vaguely defined moral turpitude, assurances on the offered on the "honour" of their meaningless and forgettable anonymous screen names that some time, long in the past, such-and-such a person was very mean to them and, despite their bizarre lack of evidence for the behaviour they swear they observed, we should all agree this is true.

Think biatchy junior high girls invested in, and taking their cues from, the catty 90210 prime time soap opera du jour, but somehow, almost supernaturally, more pathetic.


So basically he's been lurking here, nursing his wounds and plotting revenge, and he chose this particularly opportune moment to strike his fatal blow against you. Glorious.

clearly you messed with the wrong superior intellect :)
 
2012-03-25 06:12:14 PM

maxheck: The third dumbest denier meme (after AL GORE IS FAT and RESEACHERS MAKE MAD BLING) is that "the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event"


"It was foretold in the Book of Urantia" has to get some credit, good sir.
 
2012-03-25 06:19:04 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: maxheck: The third dumbest denier meme (after AL GORE IS FAT and RESEACHERS MAKE MAD BLING) is that "the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event"

I'm pretty sure HAVEN'T YOU GUYS HEARD OF A LITTLE SOMETHING CALLED THE SUN factors in to the top three somewhere, in fact I'd argue it's the most idiotic of all the contrarian memes. Because herp derp we're seriously suggesting that somehow the planet would be warm if the sun went out, or something.


Well you see the sun is a negative feedback mechanism, and is actually keeping the earth cool. Without it temperatures would skyrocket, and earth would no longer be in the so-called 'habitable zone,' but would be more like a hot Jupiter.
 
2012-03-25 06:31:05 PM
Namatad:

The one thing which I KNOW for certain is that your models/theories must be able to PREDICT or your science is just a lot of hot air. I was taught that science was about making predictions and then TESTING to validate those predictions. Revise your models/theory, make new predictions, rinse and repeat.

Except you'd be wrong.

There are entire industries built on statistical prediction.

Your car insurance company can't tell you what car will be stolen or will get in an accident. They can tell you with some precision how many cars will get stolen or will get in an accident in a given period of time.

Are they full of it, and just making up numbers?

I can see I'm going to have to make a list of "really annoying things people don't get as regards ACC" which would include "I want science to be like high-school geometry proofs."
 
2012-03-25 06:33:58 PM

HighZoolander: So basically he's been lurking here, nursing his wounds and plotting revenge, and he chose this particularly opportune moment to strike his fatal blow against you. Glorious.


Yeah, more or less. More like an Aspie lashing out in impotent rage at whatever frustrated them, but more or less the ticket. If you make a name for yourself rattling cages, you can observe some extremely amusing behaviour from these chuckleheads. Something funny about watching racists claim they're persecuted, or having two people in total agreement with each other that you're a total monster (one because he thinks you're in the bag for Muslims, the other because he thinks you're in the bag for Jews), then pointing this out to each them and watching them try to find a way to reconcile their hatred with you for their hatred with each other's opinions, trying to figure out which one they despise more.

I discovered years ago that you aren't going to sway people with facts or reason on the Interbutts. It just doesn't happen. This is a place where every crank gets a soapbox. I figured I may as well just use mine to invite everybody to remember to stick around and listen for the strange anti-Semitic ramblings that occasionally crop up in the pep talks of that guy on the soapbox just around the corner.
 
2012-03-25 07:08:03 PM
I'll say this about GeneralJim.

No matter what else he believes in,

Yeah,he believes this:

i40.tinypic.com

NTTATWWT.
 
2012-03-25 07:34:20 PM

HighZoolander: GeneralJim: HighZoolander: RoyBatty: President Obama believes in Jesus. I assume he can separate his bizzaro beliefs from his governance.

Obama certainly. GeneralJim, not so much.
Okay, you lying shiate. Show me ONE SENTENCE where I have conflated theology and climatology. JUST ONE. Doesn't exist, you lying fark. Lying is simply your way to argue, isn't it?

Hm. Well, I was going to link to the thread where you claimed that the shroud of Turin so stiff that it would essentially hover over a body, but that thread appears to have been scrubbed or disappeared. That was a pretty serious conflation of religion and "science". (maybe someone has a link to the thread?)


You know, I just realized you could have rightly pointed out all the times he's conflated climatology and theology by claiming AGW was a religious belief.
 
2012-03-25 08:06:34 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: HighZoolander: RoyBatty: President Obama believes in Jesus. I assume he can separate his bizzaro beliefs from his governance.

Obama certainly. GeneralJim, not so much.
Okay, you lying shiate. Show me ONE SENTENCE where I have conflated theology and climatology. JUST ONE. Doesn't exist, you lying fark. Lying is simply your way to argue, isn't it?

Hm. Well, I was going to link to the thread where you claimed that the shroud of Turin so stiff that it would essentially hover over a body, but that thread appears to have been scrubbed or disappeared. That was a pretty serious conflation of religion and "science". (maybe someone has a link to the thread?)

You know, I just realized you could have rightly pointed out all the times he's conflated climatology and theology by claiming AGW was a religious belief.


Good point - like
here: "When it comes to climate, YOUR side is believing contrary to all evidence, which makes it CLOSER to faith than science" (new window)

or here: "...I'm curious as to how you justify this faith in AGW scientifically" (new window)

or here: "Carry on with mind-reading acts and character assassinations of those not of your religion." (new window)

This one is good: "This is straightforward enough that anyone not blinded by religious dogma should be able to understand it. AGW fail. (new window)

Here he argues that religion is a necessary component of science (new window)

/ok, that's more than one anyway - once again, GeneralJim just can't stop lying.
 
2012-03-25 08:11:40 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: RoyBatty: President Obama believes in Jesus. I assume he can separate his bizzaro beliefs from his governance.

Obama certainly. GeneralJim, not so much.
Okay, you lying shiate. Show me ONE SENTENCE where I have conflated theology and climatology. JUST ONE. Doesn't exist, you lying fark. Lying is simply your way to argue, isn't it?


I found five (look up), and four of those just in the past month. You're like one of those people on TV who get caught lying because they didn't realize they were being recorded.

So you suck at lying too.

It's rather impressive how many things you fail at here.
 
2012-03-25 09:05:53 PM
wjllope:


Installed two new exterior light fixtures. Power-washed the driveway and both cars. Spread some new topsoil out over some low spots. Planted two small fruit trees.

So, I didn't talk about the weather.... I lived it, man.... Can you dig it?


Got out the digital camera, it was a gorgeous evening, heck, I could send you pictures, it's really beautiful here right now. As in, green that the Irish would envy.
 
2012-03-25 09:16:59 PM
chimp_ninja

maxheck: The third dumbest denier meme (after AL GORE IS FAT and RESEACHERS MAKE MAD BLING) is that "the eco nuts believe that global warming is only and entirely a man made event"

"It was foretold in the Book of Urantia" has to get some credit, good sir.


If there were more than one person what used The Book Of Urantia as a text, I might.

Lots more people doing the other stuff, sadly.
 
2012-03-25 09:52:37 PM

maxheck: As in, green that the Irish would envy.


[thatsracist.gif]
 
2012-03-26 12:51:36 AM
Wow...looks like I've got some catching up to do. I'll try not to be too obsessive about it.

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: "Weak" is a relative term. The vast majority of the evidence points to some degree of positive correlation between CO2 and temperature; and if we do nothing about it, CO2 will eventually reach the point where even a "weak" correlation will have strong effects.

No. Again you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the basics. Correlation is not improved by LOTS of it. Correlation is the relationship between the two, which is "almost nothing". Changes in carbon dioxide level have very little effect on temperature.


No, the degree of correlation isn't increased by quantity, but given a positive correlation between A and B (even your assumed value of around 0.28 for CO2 and temperature), if you keep on increasing A, B will continue to increase as well, just not very smoothly. Either way, though, a large change in B can be caused by enough of A; it just takes more of A if the correlation is lower.
 
2012-03-26 01:02:55 AM

GeneralJim: But, since you bring up the whole list, here it is. TA-DAH!


Bravo! For now, I'll look at just one of the new ones:

The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

It's interesting how, when I scroll down past the hype and click on the link that says, "The poll referenced is located here," I get a "Forbidden" error. Why would the actual poll data be blocked? And when I try to find out how "The 97% Consensus is only 75 anonymous self-selected climatologists," I'm informed that "Firefox doesn't know how to open this address, because the protocol (opera) isn't associated with any program."

Are the rest of your new links as full of fail as this one?
 
2012-03-26 01:21:17 AM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Umm, no. While there are feedback effects, and while some feedback effects are indeed negative (cloud cover, for one), there is ZERO evidence showing that the sum total of feedback effects related to CO2 has a net negative value.

Say, aren't you the, um, uneducated fellow who thought negative feedback would mean that carbon dioxide would cool the planet? How'd that work out for you?

I acknowledge my errors of oversimplification and make an effort to be more clear in the future. You ignore your errors and make an effort to repeat them in every thread you visit. How's that working out for you?
Nice try at a dodge, considering how little room you have. No, saying that a negative feedback would make carbon dioxide increases reduce planetary temperature is NOT an "oversimplification error". It is a simple failure to understand what a feedback is. That is the result of simply parroting crap from your "when denier says" list. Like Monkey Boy, you make HORRIFIC errors when you think the question at hand is simple, and you wing it, and sometimes, when you ARE doing the copypasta thing, you will misunderstand the objection, and copy the wrong pasta. MAMA MIA!

You really should refund anything you've been paid. You're useless, and you're hurting your own cause. And, of course, you haven't answered the real SCIENCE above. Scary, huh? Go ahead, take a swing... and a miss.


Come on now. For the longest time, you yourself didn't acknowledge that CO2 concentration and temperature represents a positive feedback loop, and as far as I remember, never acknowledged that you had made an error in this regard.

common sense is an oxymoron is a few steps ahead of you in terms of actually learning from mistakes instead of simply repeating them ad nauseam.


If anything, I'm learning that my research skills far, far outweigh my ability to communicate clearly. Maybe I'm hypersensitive to childhood complaints of excessive wordiness (today that would be cause for an ASD workup; back then it was something to be corrected), but I try to keep things brief, and too often I miss.

Meanwhile, research is good exercise for the mind and brain, and I have nothing better to do for now, so why not?
 
2012-03-26 02:02:28 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: maxheck: As in, green that the Irish would envy.

[thatsracist.gif]


Wow. I don't know how much time

Dr. Mojo PhD: HighZoolander: You do realize that I was responding to GeneralJim, about something he actually said? I couldn't find that thread, which has some truly hilarious green posts, and DrMojo provided the link I was looking for, and had asked for.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about, or why it came up just now.

No, he doesn't realize this. What you need to remember is my extremely aggressive behaviour tends to drive these sniveling biatches out of woodwork. I really have no idea who in particular this person is, and the only interaction I can find between us is that hilarious "prediction" he made in December 2010. What happens is they're made to look foolish and stupid and nurse grudges for years (amusing that they remember me so well, and beyond the gimmick posters and the thread shiatters I have no idea who is who among them, so indistinguishable are they).

This is the inevitable response, especially when dealing with a site that has a registered user base equal to a small city -- not really an accurate measure, but enough to give an idea, anyway. The lazy, childish person vouches towards my vaguely defined moral turpitude, assurances on the offered on the "honour" of their meaningless and forgettable anonymous screen names that some time, long in the past, such-and-such a person was very mean to them and, despite their bizarre lack of evidence for the behaviour they swear they observed, we should all agree this is true.

Think biatchy junior high girls invested in, and taking their cues from, the catty 90210 prime time soap opera du jour, but somehow, almost supernaturally, more pathetic.


I think you have demonstrated my point.

Why are you so easy to bait?
Why Dr. Mojo, why?
 
2012-03-26 02:06:24 AM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Temperature is clearly a negative feedback system, since it regulates to a reasonably fixed value. A positive feedback system would engender wild swings as the norm.

Pure, unadulterated bullshiat. Venus has been described as the result of a "runaway greenhouse effect." Does that mean that Venusian temperatures are constantly increasing? Of course not. Temperatures regulate to a mean value determined by the balance between incoming and outgoing energy as affected by, among other things, solar output, atmospheric composition, and albedo. Even a strong positive (or negative) feedback mechanism can't force temperature changes beyond a certain point.

I think I've located your problem. You consider yelling "BULLSHIAT" some kind of refutation, and that the point has been addressed. Your response after your thrilling cry, however, once again illustrates your total lack of understanding of the concepts of positive and negative feedback. Thanks for playing, but we're out of our home game, so please accept this "Home Cockpunch" game instead. I hope you use it time and again.


Once again, you're quick to accuse me of being wrong. Once again, I'm asking you to explain how I'm wrong. Otherwise, I'll accept that you don't know what you're talking about, and you can go back to your toy lab.
 
2012-03-26 02:15:40 AM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Miskolczi again. What's missing, of course, is any direct comparison between semi-transparent and semi-infinite models of Earth's atmosphere and actual observed data. Retrospective model testing is a standard verification technique. Where are the retrospective tests of Miskolczi's hypothesis?
Right frigging HERE. (new window) This is a good teaching paper that compares Miskolczi's theory with the AGW hypothesis. The first bit of the conclusions:
Conclusions
1 It is clear now, that radio sonde and satellite measurements do not support the standard theory of "Anthropogenic Global Warming". The new theory of Miskolczi, based on those atmospheric profiles under very different circumstances, does support those empirical results. His theory contains no parameters that are "fitted" to historic climate trends and greenhouse gas concentration trends. The only thing that is different, is that other, more experimentally founded, boundary conditions are taken in solving the differential equations describing radiation equilibrium:. . .

That paper relies upon the following, which has now earned a place on my list, thus INCREASING the length of the list:

From the paper "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" (new window)
Abstract

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 'Climate of the 20th Century' model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.
Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society


Since the crux of the AGW argument is based on surface data, citing inconsistencies in the 5- and 8-km layers (especially when the discrepancies tend in opposite directions, reducing the chance that there is some one-sided bias in the models) as evidence against AGW is, once again, misleading. Whether you're the misleader or the misled is another question entirely.
 
2012-03-26 02:22:57 AM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (new window)

FTA: The corresponding range of present temperature increase due to increased CO2 alone is 1.0 to 2.3 K, the difference relative to the observed temperature increase (~0.6 K) being due mainly to cooling by anthropogenic aerosols. Relaxation of the perturbation to GMST [global mean surface temperature] due to enhanced greenhouse gases requires a much longer time, being governed mainly by the decay of excess CO2, which occurs on the time scale of centuries.

So, according to your source, not only is AGW real and only partially offset by negative feedbacks, but it will take centuries for CO2 to return to a nonanthropogenic equilibrium.
I know you're not so good with reading comprehension, but, *I* have been saying that AGW is "real," if you are talking about the fact that releasing carbon dioxide warms the planet. I have also been saying that what is important is BY HOW MUCH, and that the warmer alarmists, like you, have gotten that totally hosed. And, that's what negative feedbacks ARE, FFS: partial offsets of some effect.

Read what they wrote again. The carbon dioxide ALONE, according to them, should have raised the temperature. 1.0 to 2.3 K. Okay? That means, using IPCC estimates of feedback, the range of increase SHOULD be 3.0 to 6.9 K. But, it's not. It's about 0.6K. That is to say about 5 to 11 TIMES more warming is predicted by the models than is seen. That's about right. And, that's a pretty strong negative feedback, too.



You read what they wrote: "The corresponding range of present temperature increase due to increased CO2 alone is 1.0 to 2.3 K, the difference relative to the observed temperature increase (~0.6 K) being due mainly to cooling by anthropogenic aerosols."

Anthropogenic aerosols. Not negative feedback, strong or otherwise. That's what they wrote.

Once again, you accuse me of what you yourself are guilty of.
 
2012-03-26 02:24:27 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Whether you're the misleader or the misled is another question entirely.


Don't sell him short - I'm sure he could be both if he multitasks as well as he does everything else.


/oh wait...
 
2012-03-26 02:31:46 AM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: I'll ask you the same question I asked some other "CO2 is a trace component" denier: If 390 ppm is insignificant, would you eat a 50-gram serving of fugu with the understanding that it contained "only" 50 ppm of tetrodotoxin?

Also, ad hominem.
Well, if heating is so bad, why not live in a freezer? Stupid point deserves stupid retort. Carbon dioxide is not a poison, despite the Chicken Little claims of the EPA.

And, you can add "ad hominem" to the long list of simple things you don't understand. "You are an ass" is not an ad hominem argument. "What you say doesn't count because you believe in God" IS. Ad hominem means discounting an argument because of characteristics of the maker of that argument. Calling you a dumbass is merely an insult -- and the result of the truth in advertising laws, of course.


I suppose, then, that you called me an ass for no reason at all, rather than because I think your posts are useless as anything more than practice dummies for my Google-fu. As if random insults were an improvement...although, in your case, this may be true.
 
2012-03-26 02:37:43 AM

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: Apparently, deniers believe the world ended in the 1980s. Once again, you try to show the correlation between solar output and temperature by deleting the last few decades' worth of data because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Apparently, warmer alarmists think the world was created in 1850. And, try to grasp this. I didn't "delete" anything. I referenced a chart.


You referenced a chart, knowing that it depicted an incomplete dataset. You've also been shown a similar graph extending to the present time, and you therefore know that it shows a decoupling of solar output and temperature after your chart ends. But you persist in posting a chart which omits relevant data. Why, if not to be misleading?
 
2012-03-26 02:44:50 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

Yes yes yes yes yes! I'm so glad the psycho loser UFO cultist copy-pasted this link again. It is my favourite link he's ever posted...


Nice!
 
2012-03-26 03:05:23 AM

RolandGunner: common sense is an oxymoron: Except that solar irradiance is directly correlated to solar magnetic activity, which is what affects the cosmic-ray flux reaching the earth, which is the crux of the Svensmark-Miskolczi hypothesis...which itself is disproven by the increasing decoupling of temperature from solar output over the last few decades.



Cosmic ray flux at Earth is governed by Solar magnetism, not solar TSI. Saying that two things are correlated does not mean they are interchangeable proxies. If you want to argue the cosmic ray flux theory then why would you use a proxy rather than solar magnetism itself? Solar cycle length governs how long the Earth is subjected to the effects of various solar effects such as protection from cosmic rays and minor fluctuations in TSI, and is correlated with climate on Earth.


In the case of cosmic-ray flux vs. solar output, the correlation is very high. I couldn't find any JPGs to post, but this link (new window) explains and illustrates the correlation.

As for the correlation between solar cycle length/cosmic-ray flux and climate, more than one person has posted graphs showing that the close correlation became decoupled around 1980. Both CO2 levels and temperatures have continued to increase, while solar output has not. (Of interest, though, is that the recent plateau in temperatures has coincided with an unusually deep solar minimum. The correlation is real, it's just that a small variation in solar output/cosmic-ray flux has less of an effect on temperatures than a large variation in CO2.)
 
2012-03-26 03:10:29 AM

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: I am usually quite careful about what I write, but while I can explain it to you

No you can't. We've just caught you repeating a several lies from a year ago
"We?" The Imperial 'We' now? We are not amused. Actually, we are. Does using that make you feel more like you're in a group of some sort? You're funny. Not in the "ha-ha" way, more the "OMG, will that lock hold?" kind of funny.

Bullshiat, by the way. You think you do a lot more proving than you do. I remember a few times where you "proved" something by listing all sorts of message timings, and honestly, I never did figure out what you were trying to prove, other than that you are a psycho stalker, which you prove just fine. And what's the deal with your alts? Aren't you willing to go full retard with those?

Ah, whatever, dude. You have yet to have a single positive thing to offer, so I'm not even reading your spittle-flecked posts, only skimming. I don't have anyone on ignore any more, but that doesn't mean I'm paying attention to your crap. It's probably not healthy to read it. So, blather on, you magnificent psychotic stalker. The world is your oyster, except for the months with an "R" in them.


Yes, "we." There's actually more than one person who thinks your posts are about as welcome as kudzu and deserve the same treatment. Unless you're going to go on about alts again--oh, wait. You did.
 
2012-03-26 08:27:35 AM

Watching_Epoxy_Cure: Why are you so easy to bait?
Why Dr. Mojo, why?


Because it's in my interest to do so? Do I really have to explain to whole panem et circenses thing again? Listen. Everybody tries the master puppeteer line. You aren't special or unique. If it's in my interest to shoot you in the face, and you break cover for me to do so, you can mewl "why are you so easy to commit suicide by?" all you want. So long as doing so doesn't simultaneously compromise my goals, what you gain from it is immaterial to me.
 
2012-03-26 08:44:26 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Dr. Mojo PhD: GeneralJim: The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

Yes yes yes yes yes! I'm so glad the psycho loser UFO cultist copy-pasted this link again. It is my favourite link he's ever posted...

Nice!


Ha, you like that as much as me, huh? I dunno what my favourite response to this is, either this one:

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD:

So what did you manage to come up with? Three op-eds, two of which flat out lied about their content, and a political science professor from Germany.

At least it's higher quality than the Oreskes study...


Oreskes' study gives 97% consensus. Jim claims 34.7% consensus. The survey he links to provides a consensus of 83.51%, and he claims this is the superior result. In Jim's mind, his position is superior to Oreskes because Oreskes is off by 13.49%, and he's off by 48.81%. I'd like to live on whatever planet he lives on where doing something nearly four times worse as somebody else makes you "better".

Or this one:

GeneralJim: re-hashing years-old posts that he didn't get then, and doesn't get now, forming convoluted conspiracy theories he justifies to himself with detailed notes on everything I've ever written.


Where he cries because he posts things from a year ago and I post my response from a year ago in return, pointing out he's entirely invented numbers. To insulate his fragile ego, he claims that "Jim, your link is full of shiat and you're lying about what the survey says" is, to him, some bizarre and mysterious "conspiracy" I'm accusing him of, or that somehow I don't "get" it.

I wonder what, exactly, he thinks there is to "get" when I go to the survey he references and the numbers he claim appear nowhere, and nowhere is there any data to support a conclusion anywhere near his numbers. He won't explain this though. He'll just assure us that I don't get it (so he's right, and will share that with all of us, his assurances on his word that I'm missing something very easy to point out that he will never, ever explain to us) before explaining it's bedtime for bonzo.
 
2012-03-26 12:10:49 PM
Nonono, it is YOU who is rehashing posts from a year ago, you psycho-stalker! Not him! He changed a comma!
 
2012-03-26 12:34:45 PM

cthellis: Nonono, it is YOU who is rehashing posts from a year ago, you psycho-stalker! Not him! He changed a comma!


Don't you see that just proves he's in league with the Rosicrucians!
 
2012-03-26 01:07:06 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: cthellis: Nonono, it is YOU who is rehashing posts from a year ago, you psycho-stalker! Not him! He changed a comma!

Don't you see that just proves he's in league with the Rosicrucians!


They're just a front for the Lizard People, anyway. SOROS handles the UFO logistics, as has been foretold in GeneralJim's science textbook:

(2076.5) 195:5.14 Uversa, the headquarters of Orvonton, your superuniverse, is immediately surrounded by the seven higher universities of advanced spiritual training for ascending will creatures. Each of these seven clusters of wonder spheres consists of seventy specialized worlds containing thousands upon thousands of replete institutions and organizations devoted to universe training and spirit culture wherein the pilgrims of time are re-educated and re-examined preparatory to their long flight to Havona. The arriving pilgrims of time are always received on these associated worlds, but the departing graduates are always dispatched for Havona direct from the shores of Uversa.

"Every ascending will pilgrim of time should attend space university? What intergalactic snobs." - Rick Santorum
 
2012-03-26 02:17:58 PM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Yep. I caught you repeating the same lie I found you to be making a year ago. You lied then -- you presented a false argument as a true one -- and, despite being made aware that this was a falsehood, chose to repeat it anyway. You can say "nope" all you want, but that's just you distorting reality again.

Thanks. Nope. It's not my fault you apparently don't know the meaning of the word "lie."

Now, I'm officially informing you that climate sensitivity is between 0.24 K and 1.10 K. Any time in the future at which you refer to "Global Warming," by whatever name you care to give it, in which you state, infer, or imply that warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be a problem, you will be LYING, because I have informed you that this is incorrect.

If you can do it, so can I.
 
2012-03-26 02:33:06 PM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
What does catching you lying have to do with science, Jim? You were found to be uttering falsehoods. That's not scientific, that's merely a statement of fact.

Bullshiat, Monkey Boy. Who made YOU the judge? Too bad you can't argue the science as effectively as you promote your bizarre conspiracy theories about my (and other people's) posts. Oh, wait, you DO argue that badly about the science, as well. Just keep denying the science...
 
2012-03-26 02:33:43 PM

GeneralJim: Now, I'm officially informing you that climate sensitivity is between 0.24 K and 1.10 K. Any time in the future at which you refer to "Global Warming," by whatever name you care to give it, in which you state, infer, or imply that warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide will be a problem, you will be LYING, because I have informed you that this is incorrect.


That contradicts the source you cite above under "Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests". The source you cite is this one:

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum (new window)

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) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability)."

Of course, your heading is itself a lie. Here is Chapter 10 of the Physical Science Basis of the most recent IPCC report. (new window)

From it: "Basing our assessment on a combination of several independent lines of evidence, as summarised in Box 10.2 Figures 1 and 2, including observed climate change and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in GCMs, we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or 'equilibrium climate sensitivity', is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.

For fundamental physical reasons as well as data limitations, values substantially higher than 4.5°C still cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations and proxy data is generally worse for those high values than for values in the 2°C to 4.5°C range."


www.ipcc.ch

In other words, the source you chose contradicts your claims, but is within the range of values given by the IPCC. You've cherry-picked one on the low side, of course, but there's no contradiction between the paper you cite and the IPCC projection.

(Do the UFOs ask you to keep lying?)
 
2012-03-26 02:37:29 PM
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Oh Jim, you're such an angry, lying, projecting, delusional, farked up, insane person.

Yeah, right. I mean, when you are on a lying streak, just go for it, no holds barred. You can pack enough lies into one sentence that it would take pages to refute them. That is, if you were worth that. You're not.

So, lie to me again about how 97%+ of scientists believe in dangerous AGW... That's my FAVORITE fairy tale.
 
Displayed 50 of 452 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report