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.

(Yahoo)   The fact that global warming is "an unproven theory pushed by tree-huggers" hasn't stopped the five nations bordering the Arctic from preparing their militaries to seize the Northwest Passage the moment it thaws   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 354
    More: Scary, ice caps, Naval War College, highest mountains, aircraft crashed, C-130, political debates, shipping lanes, countries by natural gas proven reserves  
•       •       •

11205 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2012 at 10:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-16 02:41:11 PM  

washington-babylon: An interesting article for you (new window). This gentleman pulls together a nice list of citations, suggesting that volcanic activity releases more carbon gases than humans produce ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.


Hey, wow! Some guy wrote a blog post! That makes him as qualified as Timecube guy., or the Creationist blog-arguments you like to paste.

Maybe he should publish his findings in a professional journal. You know, where he'd actually have to defend his claims.
 
2012-04-16 02:41:37 PM  

Lokkii: So, like one night the sea level is just going jump up with no warning? There won't be any time to prepare?

Bummer.


Storm surge from a hurricane? We might have a day maybe.
 
2012-04-16 02:42:49 PM  

guyinjeep16: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: guyinjeep16:
Surely you have considered that 97% of climate scientists have considered your view on natural changes?


argumentum ad populum verecundiam

30 Helens agree that this is a bad way to argue your point. (mostly because you're arguing that the people who get paid when they claim that there are problems agree that there are problems)

/please note that I did not attack your appeal to peer reviewed journals. I assume that there would be measurements in those papers.

The issue isnt that 97% of climate scientists agree, its that people arguing against the science behind these issues dont realize how strong the argument is, much less understand the first thing about climate science.

So no matter how much you want to argue semantics, you cant get away from the fact that those arguing against these issues dont comprehend the science behind it, and its not because they are stupid. Its just because they dont take the time to do so.


My point was that saying "97% of climate scientists say you're wrong" is the equivalent of saying "my dad can beat up your dad".

Put up the graphs, charts, and especially raw data and methodology, then you don't have to worry about backing the right science gang. Post links, synopses, articles, journals, etc. And please, please, please, consider the source before linking these.

So these charts going back 2 years to prove that there isn't a 200 year warming trend? Yeah, busted.
 
2012-04-16 02:42:54 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: You're not only wrong, but you're confidently wrong by orders of magnitude. Color me shocked that one of our resident Creationists (new window) is wrong about science yet again.

Again, a search of that link for THE GREAT NAME shows no hits. As a climate propagandist, you are easily defeated using as little as a simple search. You are a poor specimen, chimp ninja.


washington-babylon remains incorrect even if you white-knight your fellow scientifically illiterate blog-paster.
 
2012-04-16 02:44:35 PM  

THE GREAT NAME:
Citation please!


Sure ... not that I expect you to read it or to change your talking point. You're new here so anything is possible ... but I've never seen a denier change its stripes when presented with evidence that contradicts their talking points. In fact, I've never even seen one stop using the debunked talking point.

In my quick search I did not come up with the connection to the Bush administration ... I may have another look when I get home. Since there was no formal change (just an administration policy decision) it may be difficult to locate.

This article (new window) from NASA documents the first creation of the term Global Climate Change in 1975. The article describes why NASA chooses to use GCC instead of GW ... not because GW is wrong but because GCC includes GW and the effects of GW. Here is a relevant quote:

In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
- from "The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979"
(the article doesn't link to the actual paper ... I'm sure you can find it yourself)

One paper using both terms in 1979.
 
2012-04-16 02:46:37 PM  

chimp_ninja: washington-babylon: An interesting article for you (new window). This gentleman pulls together a nice list of citations, suggesting that volcanic activity releases more carbon gases than humans produce ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

Hey, wow! Some guy wrote a blog post! That makes him as qualified as Timecube guy., or the Creationist blog-arguments you like to paste.

Maybe he should publish his findings in a professional journal. You know, where he'd actually have to defend his claims.


As you know from the climate-gate emails, the peer review process was "redefined".

Therefore it is unlikely that these climate-alarmist's papers you cite were ever forced to defend their claims. On the other hand, anybody who contributes real science is debarred and censured for daring to question the neo-bolshevik "climate consensus".
 
2012-04-16 02:48:16 PM  

Farking Canuck: This article (new window) from NASA documents the first creation of the term Global Climate Change in 1975. The article describes why NASA chooses to use GCC instead of GW ... not because GW is wrong but because GCC includes GW and the effects of GW. Here is a relevant quote:


Here is Carl Sagan writing about anthropogenic climate change in 1979. (new window)

"Climate change" has always been the standard in the professional literature. "Global warming" is the layman's term intended to convey one aspect of its results.
 
2012-04-16 02:48:48 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

chuckufarlie: my bad, hit the wrong button

Hee hee.


what are you, six years old?
 
2012-04-16 02:49:14 PM  

chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: You're not only wrong, but you're confidently wrong by orders of magnitude. Color me shocked that one of our resident Creationists (new window) is wrong about science yet again.

Again, a search of that link for THE GREAT NAME shows no hits. As a climate propagandist, you are easily defeated using as little as a simple search. You are a poor specimen, chimp ninja.

washington-babylon remains incorrect even if you white-knight your fellow scientifically illiterate blog-paster.


chimp, notwithstanding that your arguments never really made sense at any time today, I must note that lately even your sentences are becoming somewhat, how should one put it, random.
 
2012-04-16 02:49:57 PM  

chimp_ninja: Farking Canuck: This article (new window) from NASA documents the first creation of the term Global Climate Change in 1975. The article describes why NASA chooses to use GCC instead of GW ... not because GW is wrong but because GCC includes GW and the effects of GW. Here is a relevant quote:

Here is Carl Sagan writing about anthropogenic climate change in 1979. (new window)

"Climate change" has always been the standard in the professional literature. "Global warming" is the layman's term intended to convey one aspect of its results.



You seem to be losing your arguments. Maybe it is time to login under one of your other IDs so you can support your argument.
 
2012-04-16 02:50:09 PM  
For those whose minds are open to considering analysis of some of the claims being made regarding man-caused global warming or climate change, I refer you to a site named: Wattsupwiththat. Attempts are made to analyze papers and news reports regarding climate change. I'd provide the actual link but my Nook doesn't like doing that.

One of the interesting articles is from a scientist who has just studied the temperature records in the US for the past 50 years or so. The records have been adjusted to account for various factors (urban heat islands, multiple stations close together in some areas, low coverage in others, et al). This is not an unusal practice for any thing where you have large sample of data of varying quality. However when all the 'corrections' that are applied to the data are removed, there is no evidence of warming for the past 50 years.

So, has there been warming or are the assumptions behind the adjustments wrong?
 
2012-04-16 02:51:00 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: As you know from the climate-gate emails, the peer review process was "redefined".


Every investigation of the "Climategate emails" has revealed zero cases of scientific misconduct. Nice try at taking yet another page from the Creationists' handbook and trying to attack science in general.

Oops. Your talking points software needs to be updated.
 
2012-04-16 02:51:59 PM  

washington-babylon: An interesting article for you (new window). This gentleman pulls together a nice list of citations, suggesting that volcanic activity releases more carbon gases than humans produce ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.


Adobe wouldn't let me copy the text:
i.imgur.com (new window)
 
2012-04-16 02:55:17 PM  

Lokkii: For those whose minds are open to considering analysis of some of the claims being made regarding man-caused global warming or climate change, I refer you to a site named: Wattsupwiththat.


Hey, wow! Reading a weatherman's blog is sure easier than using actual science! I wonder what he has to say about J-Lo!

Lokkii: One of the interesting articles is from a scientist who has just studied the temperature records in the US for the past 50 years or so. The records have been adjusted to account for various factors (urban heat islands, multiple stations close together in some areas, low coverage in others, et al). This is not an unusal practice for any thing where you have large sample of data of varying quality. However when all the 'corrections' that are applied to the data are removed, there is no evidence of warming for the past 50 years.


Ooh! A global conspiracy! I've never heard that before on a blog! I wonder why "urban heat islands, multiple stations close together in some areas, low coverage in others" all result in exactly the same trend in the satellite data. Hrm. Maybe there's an air conditioner parked right next to the satellites, and some guy has a cell phone camera picture to prove the conspiracy!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-04-16 02:55:44 PM  

make me some tea: washington-babylon: An interesting article for you (new window). This gentleman pulls together a nice list of citations, suggesting that volcanic activity releases more carbon gases than humans produce ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

Adobe wouldn't let me copy the text:
[i.imgur.com image 640x245] (new window)


Here's another that may be a little easier to read: Link (new window, PDF)
 
2012-04-16 02:59:00 PM  

make me some tea: Here's another that may be a little easier to read: Link (new window, PDF)


Heh. That covers "B-b-but big eruption!" pretty well: "For example, scaling up the 0.05-gigaton CO2 release of the 15 June 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm to the current anthropogenic CO2 emission level requires 700 equivalent paroxysms annually. Accordingly, Pinatubo's explosively erupted magma, which amounts to about 5 cubic kilometers (see the online supplement), would scale to 3500 cubic kilometers of magma-enough annually for about eight supereruptions, defined as eruptions yielding more than 450 cubic kilometers of magma [Self, 2006]."

Humanity's annual emissions = 700 Pinatubos per year.
 
2012-04-16 02:59:15 PM  

chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: As you know from the climate-gate emails, the peer review process was "redefined".

Every investigation of the "Climategate emails" has revealed zero cases of scientific misconduct. Nice try at taking yet another page from the Creationists' handbook and trying to attack science in general.

Oops. Your talking points software needs to be updated.


Here is where you and science part company.

Scientists believe primarily what they see. A real scientist would just look at the emails, see the misconduct right there in front of him, and accept it.

You on the other hand are principally a political animal, not scientific. It is natural to you to ignore what is there to be seen in reality, and instead seek hegemony through association with elites - no matter how corrupt.

The committees who conducted those reports were cherry picked by a government that had already bet its mandate on supporting climatism. As have you. And for this reason, you appeal to thir authority.

Coming back to real science, real scientists are mavericks follow the scientific method regardless of what the incumbent authorities want people to think. Today, most scientists are coming out against AGW when they retire, and can no longer be bullied by corrupted academic institutions run by politicking failed scientists and leftists loons such as yourself, chimp.
 
2012-04-16 02:59:32 PM  

make me some tea: make me some tea: washington-babylon: An interesting article for you (new window). This gentleman pulls together a nice list of citations, suggesting that volcanic activity releases more carbon gases than humans produce ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

Adobe wouldn't let me copy the text:
[i.imgur.com image 640x245] (new window)

Here's another that may be a little easier to read: Link (new window, PDF)


Another one from the USGS: Link (new window)
 
2012-04-16 03:00:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

chuckufarlie: my bad, hit the wrong button

Hee hee.

what are you, six years old?


I think people of all ages can laugh at the ineptitude of someone asking "Do you ever get tired of being wrong?" and then realizing he's asking the wrong person about the wrong topic.

Hee hee.
 
2012-04-16 03:03:33 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

chuckufarlie: my bad, hit the wrong button

Hee hee.

what are you, six years old?

I think people of all ages can laugh at the ineptitude of someone asking "Do you ever get tired of being wrong?" and then realizing he's asking the wrong person about the wrong topic.

Hee hee.


yes, and you come across like a six year old girl with that "hee hee" BS
 
2012-04-16 03:04:00 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Today, most scientists are coming out against AGW when they retire, and can no longer be bullied by corrupted academic institutions run by politicking failed scientists and leftists loons such as yourself, chimp.


What in the hell are you talking about?
 
2012-04-16 03:07:05 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Scientists believe primarily what they see. A real scientist would just look at the emails, see the misconduct right there in front of him, and accept it.


I've read the emails. There's not a damn thing in there that would constitute scientific misconduct. The writers come off rude and dismissive, but that's largely because they're dealing with disingenuous lying assholes like you too often. More importantly, their findings have been corroborated by other professional research groups (new window). Simple example:

www.pnas.org

Chart is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
2012-04-16 03:07:18 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: As you know from the climate-gate emails, the peer review process was "redefined".

Every investigation of the "Climategate emails" has revealed zero cases of scientific misconduct. Nice try at taking yet another page from the Creationists' handbook and trying to attack science in general.

Oops. Your talking points software needs to be updated.

Here is where you and science part company.

Scientists believe primarily what they see. A real scientist would just look at the emails, see the misconduct right there in front of him, and accept it.

You on the other hand are principally a political animal, not scientific. It is natural to you to ignore what is there to be seen in reality, and instead seek hegemony through association with elites - no matter how corrupt.

The committees who conducted those reports were cherry picked by a government that had already bet its mandate on supporting climatism. As have you. And for this reason, you appeal to thir authority.

Coming back to real science, real scientists are mavericks follow the scientific method regardless of what the incumbent authorities want people to think. Today, most scientists are coming out against AGW when they retire, and can no longer be bullied by corrupted academic institutions run by politicking failed scientists and leftists loons such as yourself, chimp.


Monkey boy is not in this for the science. He knows nothing about science beyond what he is told. His real interest in this is because he believes that it will lead to a better world full of rainbows and unicorns. He has some rather strange ideas on how to improve this planet. My favorite is his desire that girls all over the planet be given the chance to go to school. While I have no problem with the notion, the idea that it could ever be achieved is insane.

hmmmm, maybe "he" is a six year old girl.
 
2012-04-16 03:10:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: He has some rather strange ideas on how to improve this planet. My favorite is his desire that girls all over the planet be given the chance to go to school.


Wow. You sure got me there.

Yes, I'm in favor of universal education and suffrage, and I believe progress towards this will also have profound ecological benefits in terms of curbing population growth without compulsion.

If that's the craziest belief you can ascribe to me, go nuts.
 
2012-04-16 03:11:19 PM  

chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: Scientists believe primarily what they see. A real scientist would just look at the emails, see the misconduct right there in front of him, and accept it.

I've read the emails. There's not a damn thing in there that would constitute scientific misconduct. The writers come off rude and dismissive, but that's largely because they're dealing with disingenuous lying assholes like you too often. More importantly, their findings have been corroborated by other professional research groups (new window). Simple example:

[www.pnas.org image 424x440]

Chart is from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.


Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.

But you are not interested in the validity of the science, you just really, really, really want to make it a better planet.
 
2012-04-16 03:12:42 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: He has some rather strange ideas on how to improve this planet. My favorite is his desire that girls all over the planet be given the chance to go to school.

Wow. You sure got me there.

Yes, I'm in favor of universal education and suffrage, and I believe progress towards this will also have profound ecological benefits in terms of curbing population growth without compulsion.

If that's the craziest belief you can ascribe to me, go nuts.


You might as well put all of your energies into getting a unicorn.
 
2012-04-16 03:14:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.


And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.
 
2012-04-16 03:14:29 PM  

chimp_ninja: make me some tea: Here's another that may be a little easier to read: Link (new window, PDF)

Heh. That covers "B-b-but big eruption!" pretty well: "For example, scaling up the 0.05-gigaton CO2 release of the 15 June 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm to the current anthropogenic CO2 emission level requires 700 equivalent paroxysms annually. Accordingly, Pinatubo's explosively erupted magma, which amounts to about 5 cubic kilometers (see the online supplement), would scale to 3500 cubic kilometers of magma-enough annually for about eight supereruptions, defined as eruptions yielding more than 450 cubic kilometers of magma [Self, 2006]."

Humanity's annual emissions = 700 Pinatubos per year.


Thing of it is, there just isn't a whole lot of carbon in the mantle. Most of it is in the crust in the form of crustal life and fossil deposits, frozen methane at the botton of the oceans, and the atmosphere. The bulk of the atmosphere is contained in only about 30 miles of area above the surface. Compare that to the entire size of the planet and it's about the width of the membrane of a basketball-sized soap bubble. When you look at it that way, it's not too hard to imagine that altering the chemistry of the atmosphere is entirely doable if humans work hard enough at it, and by golly we are busting our ass doing exactly that.
 
2012-04-16 03:14:57 PM  

chimp_ninja: washington-babylon: One word can destroy the self-righteous throne of wisdom you have constructed for yourself. One name. Krakatoa. Just ONE volcanic eruption (albeit a big one), and it released more emissions than the entire emissions history of the human race. So where is your "proof" of human-centric "Climate Change" now? Hello? what's that? another volcano erupted? Damn, guess we have to go blame the humans again. after all, blaming a mountain called Grimmsvotn, or one called Nyamulagira just sounds silly doesn't it? They couldn't have POSSIBLY had anything to do with it!

This talking point has been debunked so many times that the United States Geological Survey actually assembled a special webpage debunking it (new window).
"Do the Earth's volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, "No." Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world's degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth's subaerial terrain ...


I notice your Source page harps on CO2 emissions. I stated "emissions in general" without the specific use of CO2. FOR EXAMPLE: I have a bag of marbles, some of which are blue. you possess a smaller bag of marbles that is MOSTLY blue. Your statement is that I said that the bag I had contained more blue marbles than yours did. this would indeed be a false statement on my part. I actually stated that my bag of marbles contained more marbles (total) than yours did. This statement is true.

You have done nothing but play into some very skillful propaganda maneuvering by the USGS. They using a carefully placed "straw man" in this case.
/Next?
Next?
 
2012-04-16 03:17:28 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.

And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.


Just how exactly are you defining "independent"?
 
2012-04-16 03:19:32 PM  
Nobody disputes the climate is getting warmer, what is unproven is the human role.

Since the earth heats and cools in 400 year cycles, and we are at the peak of a hot phase, it is no surprise it is warmer. 400 years ago it was so cold it was called "The Little Ice Age:" Battles were lost and won because people assumed rivers would never freeze solid enough for armies to cross, crops failed, many people starved due to a shortened growing season.

400 years before that, it was warmer than it is now, and Viking longboats successfully traversed the Northwest Passage, a feat not duplicated intil 1901--1903.

When all else fails, read a little science, it won't kill you.
 
2012-04-16 03:19:52 PM  

No Such Agency: You cannot "blow" a bald eagle, they do not have a true penis. Most male birds mate using a cloacal expansion, though some, for example emus, ducks and swans, have evolved a penis.


Dammit, I can pretend can't I?
 
2012-04-16 03:19:55 PM  

washington-babylon: You have done nothing but play into some very skillful propaganda maneuvering by the USGS.


That's one of the weirder conspiracy theories I've heard today. The USGS?

washington-babylon: I notice your Source page harps on CO2 emissions. I stated "emissions in general" without the specific use of CO2.


What else were you talking about? Spell it out, or just admit you blatantly lied and are trying to weasel out of being called on it.

(Difficulty: You think evolution is a hoax, so we'll start by saying that saying "emissions of Jesus spirits" is not a testable hypothesis.)
 
2012-04-16 03:24:16 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.

And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.

Just how exactly are you defining "independent"?


For example, the Office of the Inspector General of the NSF. From their website:

"Each federal agency has an Office of Inspector General (OIG) that provides independent oversight of the agency's programs and operations. The office is responsible for promoting efficiency and effectiveness in agency programs and for preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. By statute, the NSF OIG is independent from the agency, with the IG reporting directly to the National Science Board and the Congress. We consult NSF in developing our plans and obtain agency feedback on reports before they are issued. Semiannually, the OIG submits a summary report of its activities to the Congress, National Science Board, and NSF.

To promote efficiency and effectiveness, we assess internal controls, financial management, information technology, and other systems that affect the operation of NSF programs. By identifying individuals who attempt to abuse the public trust or defraud government programs, the OIG also enforces integrity in agency operations. Our office is staffed with auditors, investigators, attorneys, scientists, and other specialists. Close working relationships with NSF and its awardees help us focus our efforts on priority areas and facilitate our proactive educational efforts."

They investigated the "climategate" emails and found zero evidence of scientific misconduct. Findings are here. (new window)

How it closes: "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed."
 
2012-04-16 03:46:08 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.

And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.


what do you mean there was no evidence of the CRU tampering with the peer review process? Do I need to show you the emails that they sent that discussed such things?

I do not know if you are just extremely stupid or a liar.
 
2012-04-16 03:47:10 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: As you know from the climate-gate emails, the peer review process was "redefined".

Every investigation of the "Climategate emails" has revealed zero cases of scientific misconduct. Nice try at taking yet another page from the Creationists' handbook and trying to attack science in general.

Oops. Your talking points software needs to be updated.

Here is where you and science part company.

Scientists believe primarily what they see. A real scientist would just look at the emails, see the misconduct right there in front of him, and accept it.

You on the other hand are principally a political animal, not scientific. It is natural to you to ignore what is there to be seen in reality, and instead seek hegemony through association with elites - no matter how corrupt.

The committees who conducted those reports were cherry picked by a government that had already bet its mandate on supporting climatism. As have you. And for this reason, you appeal to thir authority.

Coming back to real science, real scientists are mavericks follow the scientific method regardless of what the incumbent authorities want people to think. Today, most scientists are coming out against AGW when they retire, and can no longer be bullied by corrupted academic institutions run by politicking failed scientists and leftists loons such as yourself, chimp.


It kinda hits the fan when your politicians and "scientists" don't stay bought.
AGW campers are gonna need a bigger bribe.

Betcha weren't planning on and did not budget for reditributing your wealth.
 
2012-04-16 03:48:00 PM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.

And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.

what do you mean there was no evidence of the CRU tampering with the peer review process? Do I need to show you the emails that they sent that discussed such things?

I do not know if you are just extremely stupid or a liar.


FTW; BOTH!
 
2012-04-16 03:49:37 PM  
We really need to go back to the day when a lie was a lie.
Nowawhen, most take shelter in feeling it is not a lie, when they are paid to say it.
 
2012-04-16 03:51:43 PM  

chimp_ninja: That's one of the weirder conspiracy theories I've heard today. The USGS?


Don't you understand? THE CONSPIRACY IS UBIQUITOUS
 
2012-04-16 03:51:54 PM  

chuckufarlie: what do you mean there was no evidence of the CRU tampering with the peer review process? Do I need to show you the emails that they sent that discussed such things?


Yes. Because at least seven independent bodies confirmed what I read-- zero evidence of scientific misconduct. You might want to cc: the Inspector General of the NSF.
 
2012-04-16 03:52:07 PM  

make me some tea: washington-babylon: An interesting article for you (new window). This gentleman pulls together a nice list of citations, suggesting that volcanic activity releases more carbon gases than humans produce ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

Adobe wouldn't let me copy the text:
[i.imgur.com image 640x245] (new window)


Just wish to note... the section you are referring to talks about subarial volcanic activity, not Total volcanic activity. It refers to a subset, not the entire set of data. Try a little reading comprehension :)

Also, Chimp_ninja, Ad Hominem attacks are cute ways to undermine yourself. If you wish to retain any sense of legitimacy in your arguments it would be best to stay away from them.
 
2012-04-16 03:52:27 PM  

chimp_ninja: THE GREAT NAME: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.

And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.

Just how exactly are you defining "independent"?

For example, the Office of the Inspector General of the NSF. From their website:

"Each federal agency has an Office of Inspector General (OIG) that provides independent oversight of the agency's programs and operations. The office is responsible for promoting efficiency and effectiveness in agency programs and for preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse. By statute, the NSF OIG is independent from the agency, with the IG reporting directly to the National Science Board and the Congress. We consult NSF in developing our plans and obtain agency feedback on reports before they are issued. Semiannually, the OIG submits a summary report of its activities to the Congress, National Science Board, and NSF.

To promote efficiency and effectiveness, we assess internal controls, financial management, information technology, and other systems that affect the operation of NSF programs. By identifying individuals who attempt to abuse the public trust or defraud government programs, the OIG also enforces integrity in agency operations. Our office is staffed with auditors, investigators, attorneys, scientists, and other specialists. Close working relationships with NSF and its awardees help us focus our efforts on priority areas and facilitate our proactive educational efforts."

They investigated the "climategate" emails and found zero evidence of scientific misconduct. Findings are here. (new window)

How it closes: "Finding no research misconduct or other matter r ...


No evidence of scientific misconduct" that is a great phrase to hide behind because it does not even address some of the things that the CRU did that was not considered "scientific" and was therefore NOT judged one way or the other. The corrupting of the peer review process would be one such incident that was not looked at.

All it means is that the CRU was not guilty of completing rewriting the data that they had collected. Of course, they did not seem to believe there was anything wrong with destroying the original data (it cannot be reproduced), they did not find anything wrong with closing certain reporting stations (even though it did have a remarkable influence on those averages) and they did not find anything wrong with that little debate about hiding the truth because the truth did not fit their agenda.
 
2012-04-16 03:54:10 PM  

make me some tea: chimp_ninja: That's one of the weirder conspiracy theories I've heard today. The USGS?

Don't you understand? THE CONSPIRACY IS UBIQUITOUS


Plate tectonics is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their 6,000-year-old calendar.
 
2012-04-16 03:55:53 PM  

washington-babylon: Also, Chimp_ninja, Ad Hominem attacks are cute ways to undermine yourself. If you wish to retain any sense of legitimacy in your arguments it would be best to stay away from them.


Being a Creationist is a much, much more effective way to undermine your "legitimacy" in any field of understanding, though. I don't apologize for mocking people like you.
 
2012-04-16 03:55:57 PM  

snocone: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Do you even know how the process of corroborating the work of others has been corrupted? As things stand, if one wants to get published then one has to go along with the prominent idea at the time. And seeing how your friends at the CRU are part of that corruption process, I am sure that you are aware of it.

And yet at least seven investigations by independent bodies have failed to find any evidence of this. Oops.

what do you mean there was no evidence of the CRU tampering with the peer review process? Do I need to show you the emails that they sent that discussed such things?

I do not know if you are just extremely stupid or a liar.

FTW; BOTH!


I have considered that possibility.
 
2012-04-16 03:56:39 PM  

chimp_ninja: make me some tea: chimp_ninja: That's one of the weirder conspiracy theories I've heard today. The USGS?

Don't you understand? THE CONSPIRACY IS UBIQUITOUS

Plate tectonics is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their 6,000-year-old calendar.


If you would just use even a 6,000 year calendar(or better), we would not be hearing from you.
 
2012-04-16 03:57:10 PM  
You say global warming like it is a bad thing
www.funnyearth.com
I see more beaches
lh3.ggpht.com
Instead of having to walk up the moutain of Rio you can now just stay on boat and see the sights.
t1.gstatic.com
I vote for change
funnylifestyle.com
 
2012-04-16 03:58:31 PM  

chimp_ninja: make me some tea: chimp_ninja: That's one of the weirder conspiracy theories I've heard today. The USGS?

Don't you understand? THE CONSPIRACY IS UBIQUITOUS

Plate tectonics is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their 6,000-year-old calendar.


Atheists do not have a 6000 year old calendar. That would be creationists. And creationists certainly do not go along with the idea of plate tectonics.

Mark up another one for you, monkey-boy.

Seriously, you need to switch IDs soon. You are in over your head.
 
2012-04-16 04:00:35 PM  

chuckufarlie: No evidence of scientific misconduct" that is a great phrase to hide behind because it does not even address some of the things that the CRU did that was not considered "scientific" and was therefore NOT judged one way or the other. The corrupting of the peer review process would be one such incident that was not looked at.

All it means is that the CRU was not guilty of completing rewriting the data that they had collected. Of course, they did not seem to believe there was anything wrong with destroying the original data (it cannot be reproduced), they did not find anything wrong with closing certain reporting stations (even though it did have a remarkable influence on those averages) and they did not find anything wrong with that little debate about hiding the truth because the truth did not fit their agenda.


In other words, you believe that Mann being found innocent by the Inspector General of the NSF only makes him more guilty. The only evidence you'll accept is if Glenn Beck checks Mann's data with a Bible in one hand and his long-form birf certificate in the other, all while balancing a chicken-wire cage that proves 9/11 was an inside job on his head, while humming the theme song to Sarah Palin's reality show. And after that, President Obama has to be the caddy for the CEO of Exxon-Mobil and Donald Trump is automatically President.

This is why you and your ilk are called "deniers" and not skeptics.

I'm sorry reality doesn't fit with your conspiracy theory. Take it up with the IG of the NSF.
 
2012-04-16 04:03:00 PM  

snocone: If you would just use even a 6,000 year calendar(or better), we would not be hearing from you.


chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: make me some tea: chimp_ninja: That's one of the weirder conspiracy theories I've heard today. The USGS?

Don't you understand? THE CONSPIRACY IS UBIQUITOUS

Plate tectonics is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their 6,000-year-old calendar.

Atheists do not have a 6000 year old calendar. That would be creationists. And creationists certainly do not go along with the idea of plate tectonics.


Hee hee. Swing and a miss.
 
Displayed 50 of 354 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