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.

(MSNBC)   Northeast to be assaulted by several inches of Global Warming. EVERYBODY PANIC   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 292
    More: Scary, Western Pennsylvania, Heavy rains, wind gust, weather services, East Coast, eastern United States, National Weather Service, Camp Springs  
•       •       •

13478 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2012 at 5:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 06:55:25 AM

Little.Alex: Yeah!!! Only Oil executives would deny the Religion of Al Gore and Jim Hansen!!!!11! Only Oil executives, and maybe dozens of scientists and astronauts from NASA:


Actually ExxonMobil admits that their products create greenhouse that are leading to the warming of the Earth.

And so does BP.

The science is settled. The former NASA astronauts are responding for purely political reasons. There are proper places to write scholarly articles. They are peer reviewed scientific journals. Signing a letter and sending it off to the National Review is not equivalent science to the thousands and thousands of research studies that have concluded that CO2 is causing global warming and climate change.

What we should do about CO2 emissions is still up for debate. Personally I think human beings are going to burn up every last drop of oil and burn every ounce of natural gas and all the coal on Earth over the next few hundred years, so there's really no point in creating huge taxes on these things as a means to limit their usage. I'd love to see us use more nuclear power here in America, but that appears to be another 20 years off into the future at least.
 
2012-04-23 06:55:45 AM

GeneralJim: And, which data do you want to study, anyway? The ones that show that temperature LEADS carbon dioxide, and doesn't follow it? Or is it the observational data that show, QUITE clearly, that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide are outrageously, even laughably high?


Do you also believe that cancer causes cellphones? The statistical correlation is certainly there.
 
2012-04-23 06:56:46 AM
publikenemy:
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp..,

I disagree -- Humans are TOTALLY responsible for the derp. Not the warming, but the derp.
 
2012-04-23 06:57:22 AM
And so does BP.

/dagnabbit
 
2012-04-23 06:59:30 AM
imgs.xkcd.com

The Inspiration for much of Climate Science?
Cheap lab coats...
 
2012-04-23 07:02:53 AM

Vivaldi: The science is settled. The former NASA astronauts are responding for purely political reasons..


Remember:

That paper was paid for by the gas company which runs this web site: http://www.plantsneedco2.org/

No bias there, then. Nope. None at all.
 
2012-04-23 07:11:00 AM
jmr61:
So that whole winter of NO SNOWFALL that most of the country saw means nothing to idiots like the submitter?

FARKING uneducated asshole.

Yeah, weather has nothing to do with climate, if it's cold weather. Warm weather, on the other hand, totally proves AGW.
 
2012-04-23 07:23:26 AM

GeneralJim: jmr61: So that whole winter of NO SNOWFALL that most of the country saw means nothing to idiots like the submitter?

FARKING uneducated asshole.
Yeah, weather has nothing to do with climate, if it's cold weather. Warm weather, on the other hand, totally proves AGW.


Are you being serious now? Or is this more Satire?

Because those who understand the science dont say this. But from your previous posts I believe you think they do.
 
2012-04-23 07:25:57 AM

GeneralJim: wademh: All of those assertions might be of interest if I didn't understand the physics and chemistry involved. However, as I do, I can bypass the conspiracy part and go straight to the data, the methods for collecting the data, and the models to fit the data. It's a far more decisive way to address the issues than weaving various conspiracy theories.
Keep being ignorant -- you wear it well.

So, you want to move straight to the data -- the ones shown to be manufactured by humans by the same auditing software whose output is accepted in court, and helped put Bernie Madoff behind bars? Or, the other data? Both are available.

The models -- you mean the models in which reality tracks below the predictions about three times the error bar allowances? Hey, what DOES it mean when the predictions based upon the "generally accepted" hypotheses are off three times what the uncertainties of data, collection methods, and math allow? The models with ALMOST two orders of magnitude more error than the null hypotheses, that temperature never changes? THOSE models?

And, which data do you want to study, anyway? The ones that show that temperature LEADS carbon dioxide, and doesn't follow it? Or is it the observational data that show, QUITE clearly, that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide are outrageously, even laughably high? Data like the data in the fourteen peer-reviewed papers I listed ABOVE?

And, you know what, dimwit? When someone ADMITS that the science was crooked, and that person is the head of the scientific unit that is the ONLY source of information for the U.N. IPCC, believing that person is hardly a "conspiracy theory." When time after time, James Hansen is caught altering the data, and when time and again the IPCC is caught inserting environmental activist group propaganda into IPCC reports, and calling it "peer-reviewed," that's not a theory, that's REPORTING. When Michael Mann produces fraudulent science so sloppily that a layper ...


Your retort is to what again? I didn't assert a particular interpretation but instead asserted that looking at the data itself in an informed manner is preferred over conspiracy theories. That rather generic platitude generated a rather hostile series of ad-hominem attacks. It would be interesting if it wasn't such a very well trodden pathway. If you need a fresh shovel, just give a holler. Clearly you are a dedicated digger though it may soon be hard for anyone to communicate with you unless they lower something into the well.
 
2012-04-23 07:41:50 AM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: meow76: The science is far from being settled.

The science is far from being completely settled in a multitude of fields, but that does not halt the implementation of the knowledge we do have from those fields. You'd be called a troll if you popped into a thread discussing gravity and declared that because we don't have a complete understanding of relativity that we should forgo implementation of the knowledge that we do have; why would you pop into a thread about climate and expect different? The use of the "the science isn't settled yet!" argument against a response to climate change or any other well established field that we don't understand literally everything about yet is typically (but not always) a signal flair from a person commenting from an uninformed or willfully ignorant position in search of a response from others; i.e. a troll. In other words, if you bring a troll's argument to the table, don't be surprised when people respond like you're trolling.




You know how I know you aren't a scientist? Seriously though, that's just disgustingly arrogant.

You are the one who is uninformed and willfully ignorant if you can't appreciate that there is a strong line of very good evidence to the contrary, conducted by very reputable scientists and published in excellent journals.

It's that kind of thinking that holds back science - all you can see is what you consider 'the consensus'. Did it ever cross your mind that there is a HUGE amount of money pumped in to universities and institutions to show that we are responsible for climate change? And no, that obviously doesn't come from oil companies, but it comes from governments and research bodies. This results in a strong publishing bias and a lot of self fulfilling prophecies.

It's so easy to go with the "consensus" isn't it? The problem is that researchers hate to admit that they are wrong, especially when they have built an entire career on it.

We should be viewing all sides of the issue - looking at the scientific counter-arguments (even if they are not the majority) when they are published in good journals. We have a lot of scientific fallacies that are still f-ing us over to this day - just look at the whole 'eating fat will make you fat' fallacy.

Try and think for yourself - it's a very useful skill.
 
2012-04-23 07:50:16 AM

indarwinsshadow: This isn't a real Global Warming thread.....there's no graphs. What happened to all the fark experts on global warming and their piles and piles of graphs?

I feel cheated.

.
..
...
Oh, and name calling, petty insults, juvenile taunts?


www.seanbonner.com
You're welcome.
 
2012-04-23 07:54:28 AM

GeneralJim: You also missed the major point: only warmer jerks, like you, do the "durr durr it was cold today so there's no global warmification, nope, nope."


So then subby is a "warmer jerk". Got it.
 
2012-04-23 08:10:57 AM
animal color:
GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: The believers have science for the most part to back them up. The deniers just have whatever they read on a blog.

Oh, really? Why not post to me from the skepticalscience blog why the following peer-reviewed papers (New and expanded list) are all garbage and worthless?

(followed by a 15 pounds of scientific bullshiat packed in a 3-pound sack. With links

Aren't you one of those guys who tells the people who actually believe the massive preponderance of research on the subject that science -- and especially climate research -- isn't a popularity contest?

Or is it just not a popularity contest when every other piece of research aside from the crap you just spewed all over Fark contests your faith that man isn't farking up the planet?

Boy, you take "not getting it" to a whole new level. No, science is not a popularity contest. The fact that I need to point that out is not encouraging for your prospects of EVER getting it.

Our best guesses at reality are based on the SCIENCE. That does NOT mean how many people in lab coats you can bully into not contradicting you. I would also point out that all it takes is ONE falsification to bring down a hypothesis. We have that in the fact that carbon dioxide FOLLOWS temperature normally. We also have that in the lack of correlation between large variations of carbon dioxide level over history, and global temperature.

But, somehow, you warmer alarmists insist upon flying in the face of science, and proving that mankind has released carbon dioxide, and that it has warmed over the last 150 years, and proving those two facts REALLY HARD, apparently in the hope that those two facts will make up for the fact that the link between them has been falsified. Well, sorry, it does not.

The links I provided are peer-reviewed papers showing that, even if one uses only models, the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming from doubling carbon dioxide rather impressively. And, if one goes to REALITY, to check the hypothesis against the real world, it's clear that the "science" involved in carbon sensitivity estimates was atrocious. The planet is NOT cooperating with the AGW hypothesis at all. And, it has cooled for the last fifteen years. Better science than AGW suggests that it will be cooling for decades, and cooling quite severely, possibly even to a "little ice age" level.

But the argument is not about the science -- it's about USING the science to justify massive taxes, wealth redistribution, and to gain government control over every aspect of human endeavor. Apparently, we're not descending into a grubby and poor totalitarian state rapidly enough to suit some. And, if it were announced, with great fanfare, that the doubling of carbon dioxide would produce probably less than a degree Celsius of warming... well, collecting trillions of dollars to send to the third world to "save the planet" would be orders of magnitude more difficult. And that just spoils the whole POINT.
 
2012-04-23 08:16:03 AM

wademh: [www.moviesbyrizzo.info image 300x376]


Lord of Grime Up In This biatch?
 
2012-04-23 08:32:53 AM

The_Time_Master: wademh: [www.moviesbyrizzo.info image 300x376]

Lord of Grime Up In This biatch?


Sometimes a cigar is just a _having_too_many_windows_up_and_screwing_up_with_the_cuty_and_pasty_.
 
2012-04-23 08:43:47 AM

meow76: You know how I know...


Presumably in the same way you've drawn the conclusion that "there is a strong line of very good evidence to the contrary, conducted by very reputable scientists and published in excellent journals." It sounds like you've "picked a side" based on what you've heard being kicked around in the media and have developed an emotional investment in your conclusion. The "strong line of good evidence" you refer to is a few percent of researchers that dissent from the overwhelming majority that nonetheless are published in high impact journals.

Since you employ the very useful skill of thinking for yourself, I'm certain that you've considered the fact that the body of researchers dissenting from the consensus in climate research today is very significantly smaller than the standard body of dissent you see when you work in most fields. For example, there are far more folks that dissent to the concept of paraphyletic clades being used as a taxonomical tool, but that's hardly a highly politicized topic that receives a lot of media attention and subsequently attracts an abundance of amateur sleuths with a high emotional investment in their side of the debate.

You can always fall back on the old faithful "it's a conspiracy!" and claim that there is only a consensus because "there is a HUGE amount of money pumped in to universities and institutions to show that we are responsible for climate change", but that would only show that you don't really have a working knowledge of how the grant process works, and that would bring us back to the problem from the last post: employing that argument would put you firmly in the camp with the trolls that flame through threads in colorful text arguing from an uninformed or willfully ignorant position.

Which raises another point: I never called you either of those things, in fact I was careful to point out that people using that argument are "usually (but not always)" arguing in that manner/trolling. Yet you certainly jumped to that conclusion rather quickly.
 
2012-04-23 08:58:17 AM
Vivaldi:
Little.Alex: When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled.

You are full of shiat. There were a couple of media scare articles that talked about a coming ice age, but even in the 1970s, the majority of scientific articles about changing climate were about how it was warming. Nobody lectured and lectured and lectured on the topic of coming ice ages in the 1970s.

That's not true. Read about it HERE.
 
2012-04-23 09:16:48 AM

Livingroom: p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?

uh, i know god exsists, but we won't get into that now, because you apparently dont. Global warming is all about money, and God doesnt have to be about money. you can worship him by yourself, for free. but you cannot agree with the global warming theory unless you're willing to part with an assload of money.


"The opposite of faith isn't doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty".
 
2012-04-23 09:22:00 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Rich Cream: [onfinite.com image 634x640]

Why is it only the warmer air gets warmer? Wouldn't the colder air also get warmer and therefore not extract as much moisture from the warmer air? Wouldn't there be a zero sum gain?

wat



Not that I'm arguing but my question was since a greater temperature variation causes more precip and the claim of warmer air (agw) causing more precip seems arguable when the temperature of the cold air also rises and the variation between the two should still be constant?
 
2012-04-23 09:39:41 AM

SevenizGud: But hey, it's only the entire surface of the planet over the last 15 years. Probably just weather, amirite?


www.edf.org
 
2012-04-23 09:41:44 AM

GeneralJim: Vivaldi: Little.Alex: When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled.

You are full of shiat. There were a couple of media scare articles that talked about a coming ice age, but even in the 1970s, the majority of scientific articles about changing climate were about how it was warming. Nobody lectured and lectured and lectured on the topic of coming ice ages in the 1970s.
That's not true. Read about it HERE.


Instead of reading random crappy blogs, you could read what the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published on this topic. Figure 1 from that paper:

img529.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-23 09:42:00 AM
People are here because the Earth is here.
The Earth will still be here, long, long after people are done with it.
Does not work in reverse.

Redistributing Wealth is an everyday human activity independant of the Earth.
Unfortunately, Stealing Redistribution of Wealth w/o an army has proven problematical in the past.
But, people are the ultimate confidence artists.
Just look at 'em.
 
2012-04-23 09:49:58 AM

chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Vivaldi: Little.Alex: When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled.

You are full of shiat. There were a couple of media scare articles that talked about a coming ice age, but even in the 1970s, the majority of scientific articles about changing climate were about how it was warming. Nobody lectured and lectured and lectured on the topic of coming ice ages in the 1970s.
That's not true. Read about it HERE.

Instead of reading random crappy blogs, you could read what the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published on this topic. Figure 1 from that paper:

[img529.imageshack.us image 640x526]



Instead of a crappy blog how about another eye witness? In the 70s we heard nothing except how we were headed into another ice age.

I'm not saying more papers were written one way or the other, only that we heard one thing. Cooling. Not sure why that was the hype and not the other.
 
2012-04-23 09:54:22 AM

Little.Alex: Joce678: Little.Alex:
Why such a short period, for such a big subject?

Thing is:

a) Temperature is related to atmospheric composition.
b) We're changing the atmospheric composition.
c) Since the last warm period in that graph we've built lots of cities by the sea.
d) Your happiness depends on those cities being above water, not below it.


But it illustrates that long before those big cities and cars, there were temperature variations. In fact, much larger variations than Al Gore has built his religion on.

And as to Ocean levels rising - I'm sceptical. Places where people have lived for 2000 years, like the Roman port of Ostia, have been on the water's edge during the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age, and the water level is the same.

I just think people are laughably anxious to use this wildly overstated theory to expand government.

When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled. And the ONLY THING THAT CAN SAVE MANKIND IS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE ECONOMY LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

Now they say the problem is the exact opposite; but the solution is exactly the same.

[extraordinaryintelligence.com image 509x340]

And all the European Reds, switched to being Greens when the Soviet Union fell apart. It makes it look like an excuse to get poorly educated people excited about socialism. Now that they can no longer make the case that it's a better life, they want you to believe it's socialism or death.

It's a hoax.


Yes, it is.
And it is perfectly normal human behavior.
Both the perpetrators and the believers are perfect examples of the human condition.

/fools. tools. and the herd
//only good news is the redistributed wealth only goes into pockets and is not used to further fark up your backyard
///and all the Wealth is already stole, maybe WHY the bankers siezed all the money before idiots could waste it??? get yer tinfoil head around that
 
2012-04-23 10:11:07 AM

Livingroom: uh, i know god exsists,

(sic)

But you have no proof. Try to keep up.

but we won't get into that now, because you apparently dont. Global warming is all about money, and God doesnt have to be about money.

Doesn't have to be, but for the vast majority of religions he is.

you can worship him by yourself, for free. but you cannot agree with the global warming theory unless you're willing to part with an assload of money.

Not true at all. I haven't spent any "global warming money" to partake in local recycling, drive a fuel efficient car (that actually saves me money) or run modern, efficient heating and cooling systems for my home (again, saving money).

Let's see how much incorrect information can you fit into your next post?
 
2012-04-23 10:36:58 AM

Rich Cream: Instead of a crappy blog how about another eye witness? In the 70s we heard nothing except how we were headed into another ice age.

I'm not saying more papers were written one way or the other, only that we heard one thing. Cooling. Not sure why that was the hype and not the other.


This is strictly a function of what media you got your information from. If you expected Time magazine or your local newspaper to get a technical story straight, you'd be surprised on a lot of issues. The news media of the 1970s also reported heavily on how rock music was converting the nation's youth to Satanism:

jespaa.files.wordpress.com

I'm citing the BAMS article above to show that regardless of what you heard, professional scientists overwhelmingly realized by 1965-1979 that greenhouse warming would overtake aerosol cooling.

The evidence from the professional literature gets stronger as you move forward. From the journal Science, looking at papers published from 1993 onwards:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."
 
2012-04-23 10:53:08 AM

chimp_ninja: This is strictly a function of what media you got your information from.



Mostly the public (indoctrination) school system. As stated by another, it was part of the great ecology enlightenment of the early 70s. I also have some memories of either news programs or documentaries discussing the coming ice age.

Again, I don't care how many papers were written one way or the other. It's where the public focus was [directed] at the time.
 
2012-04-23 12:22:41 PM

Rich Cream: Again, I don't care how many papers were written one way or the other. It's where the public focus was [directed] at the time.


You seem to be concerned more about your feelings than what was accurate. This is strange.

Rich Cream: Mostly the public (indoctrination) school system. As stated by another, it was part of the great ecology enlightenment of the early 70s.


Back when having clean air and water wasn't considered a partisan issue, and Nixon passed some of the most powerful environmental legislation in America's history. (You could also argue for Bush I's amendments, especially for the institution of cap-and-trade for sulfur, or Reagan's signature for the Montreal Protocols.) I guess you're longing for the asthma-tastic air of the 1960s, when one could bask by the glow of the burning river.

You know, before "conservative" and "conservationist" became antonyms.

blog.cleveland.com

Photo: The Cuyahoga river, before the devastating socialism of "Take individual responsibility for pollution you and your company produce." inflicted by Non-Real Americans, because they hate the freedoms of our job-creating demigods.
 
2012-04-23 12:35:36 PM

chimp_ninja: Rich Cream: Again, I don't care how many papers were written one way or the other. It's where the public focus was [directed] at the time.

You seem to be concerned more about your feelings than what was accurate. This is strange.



I stated what was accurate, not what I felt.

You're right, there were more papers written claiming warming, but that's not what we were told. Deal with it


//and I am pro-ecology
///it's how I feel
 
2012-04-23 01:32:44 PM
One of the things I love about living in Buffalo is when we get a dusting of snow that melts immediately, because the lake is almost 50 degrees and never was covered with ice this year AT ALL, and a lot of rain, and NOAA isn't predicting more than a trace of snow at best, and the weather channel map claims we're getting inches and inches.
/The Oasis Effect FTW
//They never even sent out salt trucks. They canceled the 'warning' and we didn't even get a frost.
 
2012-04-23 04:09:11 PM

guyinjeep16: Keizer_Ghidorah: guyinjeep16: publikenemy: Baryogenesis: publikenemy: I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp.., there is proof of long standing deserts that were once oceans, and vice-versa throughout earths history. Jungles and rain forests that were once barren plains.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks humans are responsible for forest fires. There's proof of lightning strikes and drought causing fires throughout Earth's history. There were certainly no cigarettes or sever camping output, so who was to blame for that?

Terrible analogy and comeback..meaningless. Usually if someone cannot come up with a sufficient answer, they ask a question as an answer.


It is actually a perfect analogy, just because something happened before doesnt mean that we cant be the cause of it now.

And if you dont believe humans cant change things on a large scale, you havent studied the dustbowl of the 1930's

Educate yourself.

The Dust Bowl's start was an unusually wet period that encouraged settlers to go into the Midwest and start farming. When a drought hit during the 30's, the cultivated topsoil dried up and blew away.

Humans didn't cause the climate shifts, we just tore up the ground.

Tearing up the ground, knocking down vegetation barriers, tearing up natural grass allowed dust storms to become far more powerfull then they would have otherwise become. It was so bad we had to come in at a government level, and guess what? We fixed the problem eventually.

But then again you could have googled all of this and saved your ignorant remark from being all over the internet.

So next time you hear someone say that we cant have an effect on the planet, change the weather on the planet, please smack them in the head for me.

/Thanks


Actually, I was paraphrasing the information on Wikipedia and that was in many documentaries that involved or touched on the Dust Bowl period. Please try to contain your rage next time, child. Humans did not cause the wet period that brought people to the Midwest or the drought that dried everything up, all we did was expose the ground for it to be blown away.
 
2012-04-23 05:01:58 PM
Vivaldi:
The science is settled. The former NASA astronauts are responding for purely political reasons. There are proper places to write scholarly articles. They are peer reviewed scientific journals. Signing a letter and sending it off to the National Review is not equivalent science to the thousands and thousands of research studies that have concluded that CO2 is causing global warming and climate change.

Ah, yes, "the science is settled." The call of great scientists everywhere because, you know, science is all about maintaining the status quo, and preventing improvement of our knowledge.

In some small way, that has a bit of truth in it -- we do know that increasing carbon dioxide in the air will warm the planet. The question is, "How MUCH will carbon dioxide warm the planet?" In terms of overall science, it really is a small matter that the original estimates were highly inflated. Scientifically, all one has to do is make the corrections, so that models have accurate relationships programmed into them, and things move on. No big deal. Putting the lie to your "the science is settled" laugher, science is ALWAYS refining our knowledge.

But, while the scientific hypothesis just needs a little tweak, the reality of the situation has utterly DESTROYED the political hypothesis. Science would have no trouble dealing with the fact that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide was over-estimated, but the political argument for massive taxation, wealth redistribution, and invasive government control of every tiny bit of energy used simply dies on the vine with a temperature increase of somewhere around 1.0 K. That amount is utterly useless for the purposes of panicking people into supporting massive government intervention. The argument would go nowhere...

"Temperatures will rise if we continue to put carbon dioxide in the air."
"Well, yeah, but probably less than a degree."
"That's a degree CELSIUS!"
"Oh! I think I just soiled myself."

As if. The political hypothesis, "You have to give us total control of industry, and a metric assload of money, so we can 'save the planet' from man's "original sin" of consuming" has been shown to be bullshiat, and utterly insufficient to raise an appropriate amount of panic for the job. That is why you have the warmers DENYING SCIENCE while claiming the "science is settled."

People aren't buying it. The political will to cripple our economies and lives to protect the planet from nearly a degree of warming simply does not exist.

And, in growing desperation, warmer jerks move more into threats of punishment for infidels, wild claims of apocalypse if the prophets are not heeded, and attacks upon the heretical ideas and science which have falsified their credo. They insult anyone who doesn't drink their Kook-Aid (heh. That was a typo, but I'm going with it.) as ignorant, and incapable of reading the portents as the priests do. But people do NOT need to know anything about science to know that AGW is a scam. While most people are not sufficiently educated to make a sound scientific judgment about AGW, they HAVE had sufficient exposure to various scams to be able to recognize one when they see it. They may not be able to accurately identify the points which are fraudulent, but they KNOW that fraud is being employed.

You have lost. You're only hope now is to reclaim your dignity on the way out of the door -- and you're blowing THAT. Good job. But, no matter HOW farked up this whole scam has become, you can take some comfort in the fact that you WILL be useful to science -- as a bad example -- showing the failure when politics mixes with science, and takes on the trappings of religion.
 
2012-04-23 05:09:30 PM
Joce678:
GeneralJim: And, which data do you want to study, anyway? The ones that show that temperature LEADS carbon dioxide, and doesn't follow it? Or is it the observational data that show, QUITE clearly, that the IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide are outrageously, even laughably high?

Do you also believe that cancer causes cellphones? The statistical correlation is certainly there.

Ah, another ignorant jackass unaware that in a highly positive feedback loop, as the warmer alarmists claim, a characteristic (planetary temperature) is not in the control of a characteristic (carbon dioxide levels) which trail it.

Ironically, YOUR claim that carbon dioxide is a major controller of temperature is, in fact, the claim that caner causes cellphones in your analogy. Unless, of course, you are claiming that carbon dioxide sends control into the future, so that the planet can start warming up for the carbon dioxide levels which will be going up in about 800 years... and, if that's the case, let me go get some popcorn for your explanation of THAT mechanism.
 
2012-04-23 05:24:59 PM

GeneralJim: And, in growing desperation, warmer jerks move more into threats of punishment for infidels, wild claims of apocalypse if the prophets are not heeded, and attacks upon the heretical ideas and science which have falsified their credo...



Threats of punishment for infidels! Wild claims of apocolypse! Attacks on science!:

GeneralJim: They [the UN/IPCC] have the ability to end up destroying civilization out of this, and sending us back to a new sort of hunter-gatherer society.


GeneralJim: many in the green movement DO want humanity eliminated


GeneralJim: This hard-left [Obama] administration will probably be making attempts soon to have dissent from the state religion be criminal, or at least proof of insanity. Nothing like locking up any opposition.


GeneralJim: those who set up the "green revolution" will find their heads on pikes as a warning to others, and the damage will be stemmed long before it reaches the state I describe above. Nonetheless, those initiating the legislation will be seen as more horrendous mass murderers than even Stalin, with his paltry 25 million kills.


GeneralJim: So, the IMPORTANT part of this is NOT the science, it's the politics. And, that's where the focus must be.


GeneralJim: All the peer-reviewed literature is trash


That's totally the other side saying all that stuff!
 
2012-04-23 06:01:04 PM

GeneralJim: And, in growing desperation, warmer jerks move more into threats of punishment for infidels, wild claims of apocalypse if the prophets are not heeded, and attacks upon the heretical ideas and science which have falsified their credo. They insult anyone who doesn't drink their Kook-Aid (heh. That was a typo, but I'm going with it.) as ignorant, and incapable of reading the portents as the priests do. But people do NOT need to know anything about science to know that AGW is a scam. While most people are not sufficiently educated to make a sound scientific judgment about AGW, they HAVE had sufficient exposure to various scams to be able to recognize one when they see it. They may not be able to accurately identify the points which are fraudulent, but they KNOW that fraud is being employed.

You have lost. You're only hope now is to reclaim your dignity on the way out of the door -- and you're blowing THAT. Good job. But, no matter HOW farked up this whole scam has become, you can take some comfort in the fact that you WILL be useful to science -- as a bad example -- showing the failure when politics mixes with science, and takes on the trappings of religion.


Hey, look! Completely unsupported assertions, mixed with a healthy dose of projection!

Hint: If you're going to try to claim that mainstream scientists are making "wild claims of apocalypse", you might not want to do so in a spit-flecked hysterical rant.

i40.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-23 06:17:19 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: GeneralJim: They [the UN/IPCC] have the ability to end up destroying civilization out of this, and sending us back to a new sort of hunter-gatherer society.


That's still my all-time favorite. One day, we put up some solar panels and windmills, the next, it's Lord of the Flies.

The most recent IPCC budget I could find is for 2007, and they expended 8.2 million Swiss Francs ($9.0M USD, using today's exchange rate). If the IPCC could direct the destruction of civilization on that budget, you'd have to sit back and admire their efficiency.

Even Bond villains have better-funded plans for world domination, and they get routinely foiled by one drunk, horny dude in a tuxedo.
 
2012-04-23 06:30:36 PM

guyinjeep16: GeneralJim: jmr61: So that whole winter of NO SNOWFALL that most of the country saw means nothing to idiots like the submitter?

FARKING uneducated asshole.

Yeah, weather has nothing to do with climate, if it's cold weather. Warm weather, on the other hand, totally proves AGW.

Are you being serious now? Or is this more Satire?

Because those who understand the science dont say this. But from your previous posts I believe you think they do.

Yes, I think they do. The reason I think they do is something you quoted in this post. I underlined it so you might catch it this time. Warmer jackasses say that kind of shiat ALL THE TIME. In this case, he not only says that weather is climate, he berates the trolling submitter for being ignorant for NOT believing that weather is climate. Kind of a perfect storm of ignorant warmer alarmist derp.

If you had a scientific mind, you might check this out for yourself. In YOUR case, you'll proabably find a guy in a lab coat, and follow him around for a while instead. But, if you want to explore a taste of how science works, find a thread about a cold weather event, and another one about a hot weather event. Take an arbitrary number, X, say, fifty or so, and look at the Boobiess of each thread. Count how many times "weather =/= climate" appears in those first X number of posts. For a more representative sample, use more threads. Discuss.
 
2012-04-23 06:31:50 PM

GeneralJim: Ah, another ignorant jackass unaware that in a highly positive feedback loop, as the warmer alarmists claim, a characteristic (planetary temperature) is not in the control of a characteristic (carbon dioxide levels) which trail it.

Someone

doesn't know how positive feedback works. Hint: There's a reason you used the word "loop".

Scenario 1 (Paleo): Orbital fluctuations initiate warming. Permafrost thaws, evaporation of water is enhanced, oceans degas, decomposition accelerates. As a result, greenhouse forcings amplify the orbitally-induced warming.

Scenario 2 (Modern): Greenhouse forcings produced by combustion initiate warming. As a result, permafrost thaws, evaporation of water is enhanced, oceans degas, decomposition accelerates. These greenhouse releases amplify the effect of the original combustion releases.

The 800-year lag you're alluding to was discovered by Caillon in 2003. Note what Caillon has to say about the effect:
"Finally, the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increase. As recently noted by Kump (38), we should distinguish between internal influences (such as the deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system. Although the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as a result of anthropogenic activities, it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to a climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present-day and future climate."

Please point out where Caillon has it wrong.

tl;dr: Courtesy of Krishna Ramanujan at NASA, just the water vapor segment of that loop:

www.nasa.gov
 
2012-04-23 06:32:56 PM

GeneralJim: Take an arbitrary number, X, say, fifty or so, and look at the Boobiess of each thread.


You have a weird fetish.
 
2012-04-23 06:47:40 PM
+1 Subby, just might have to get the headline t-shirt.
 
2012-04-23 07:06:38 PM
wademh:
Your retort is to what again? I didn't assert a particular interpretation but instead asserted that looking at the data itself in an informed manner is preferred over conspiracy theories. That rather generic platitude generated a rather hostile series of ad-hominem attacks. It would be interesting if it wasn't such a very well trodden pathway. If you need a fresh shovel, just give a holler. Clearly you are a dedicated digger though it may soon be hard for anyone to communicate with you unless they lower something into the well.

Yeah, yeah. Your bias is clear from your other posts in this thread. And, when there is hard evidence, including admissions of the perps, it's not a "conspiracy theory" any more. Do you get that? Take troofers, for instance. They don't have a shred of evidence. They have QUESTIONS about evidence, and jump to the assumption. That kind of thing is NOT what is going on in climate science. Government has simply paid for any research that shows what they want. And, the U.N. has been kind enough to simply TELL us what it is they are doing -- there's no need for the kind of "what they REALLY mean" or "what they are trying to do" bullshiat that ACTUAL conspiracy theorists spout.

So, with warmer climate scientist after warmer climate scientist being caught altering or destroying data, making programs to alter the way the data are presented, so as to enhance the perception of AGW, it SHOULD be clear to you that the data need to be cleaned up, rid of human intervention, and probably re-loaded from the original studies. That's a LOT of work -- thanks to the small handful of corrupt scientists. But, if you don't, the odds are that many of the data sets in use are fraudulent. One doesn't learn anything of significance from fraudulent data.
 
2012-04-23 07:20:29 PM
Lee Jackson Beauregard:
GeneralJim: You also missed the major point: only warmer jerks, like you, do the "durr durr it was cold today so there's no global warmification, nope, nope."

So then subby is a "warmer jerk". Got it.

Yes, Subby is a warmer, and NO, you missed it again. Damn.

Originally, I thought subby was being too obvious. Clearly, I was wrong. Teach me, Sensei Subby.


upload.wikimedia.org

Wildly Successful Troll
 
2012-04-23 07:25:04 PM
hypnoticus ceratophrys:
You can always fall back on the old faithful "it's a conspiracy!" and claim that there is only a consensus because "there is a HUGE amount of money pumped in to universities and institutions to show that we are responsible for climate change",

Oh, yeah, tens of billions of dollars from governments looking for a specific result has NO EFFECT on research, but a couple of dollars from an OIL COMPANY, and all the researchers roll on their backs and start tweaking their nipples. Right?
 
2012-04-23 07:49:17 PM

chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Vivaldi: Little.Alex: When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled.

You are full of shiat. There were a couple of media scare articles that talked about a coming ice age, but even in the 1970s, the majority of scientific articles about changing climate were about how it was warming. Nobody lectured and lectured and lectured on the topic of coming ice ages in the 1970s.

That's not true. Read about it HERE.

Instead of reading random crappy blogs, you could read what the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published on this topic. Figure 1 from that paper:

[img529.imageshack.us image 640x526]

Wow, Monkey Boy -- two lying / misleading graphs in a row. Impressive. After the big money poured in, and the climate stated to warm in the mid-1970s, the "market" was flooded with warmer papers. Before then, it was even, with a bias towards cooling. And, stacking up papers is a well-nigh retarded way to gauge opinion. You're big on denying anything that doesn't fit your pre-chosen conclusions, but if you were less of a shill, you might have READ some of that. It references many things, including:

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 - Washington Times - September 19, 2007

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 - September 29, 2009 - By John Tierney

So, are you saying that the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and Obama's AGW guru were all know-nothing alarmists about the coming ice age? If so, why should we believe them THIS time? And, if not, your argument is pretty well crap, isn't it?

And, as for your misleading graph about the recent cooling, nice cherry-picking of times. Here's what it looks like without any spin:


www.drroyspencer.com
The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel)
is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed
as having any predictive value whatsoever.
 
2012-04-23 09:08:28 PM

GeneralJim: Oh, yeah, tens of billions of dollars from governments looking for a specific result has NO EFFECT on research, but a couple of dollars from an OIL COMPANY, and all the researchers roll on their backs and start tweaking their nipples. Right?


US R&D budget for fiscal year 2011

If NASA, NSF, and NOAA went all in on the conspiracy and spent every last dime buying researchers, they'd have had slightly more than $10 billion to work with. No way anyone would find out about that with the enitrety of three large government organizations involved, totally a hush-hush conspiracy. Maybe that money would have MORE IMPACT if they spent it in ALL CAPS and they tweaked the nipples of any would be whistle blowers to keep them complacent. Dunno.
 
2012-04-23 10:05:23 PM

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: GeneralJim: Vivaldi: Little.Alex: When I was a kid in the 1970s: I was lectured and lectured and lectured on the Coming Ice Age. It was all brought on by Evil Corporations. And there was no room to debate the issue, because the science was settled.

You are full of shiat. There were a couple of media scare articles that talked about a coming ice age, but even in the 1970s, the majority of scientific articles about changing climate were about how it was warming. Nobody lectured and lectured and lectured on the topic of coming ice ages in the 1970s.

That's not true. Read about it HERE.

Instead of reading random crappy blogs, you could read what the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published on this topic. Figure 1 from that paper:

[img529.imageshack.us image 640x526]
Wow, Monkey Boy -- two lying / misleading graphs in a row. Impressive. After the big money poured in, and the climate stated to warm in the mid-1970s, the "market" was flooded with warmer papers. Before then, it was even, with a bias towards cooling. And, stacking up papers is a well-nigh retarded way to gauge opinion. You're big on denying anything that doesn't fit your pre-chosen conclusions, but if you were less of a shill, you might have READ some of that. It references many things, including:

National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 - Washington Times - September 19, 2007

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 - September 29, 2009 - By John Tierney

So, are you saying that the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, and Obama's AGW guru were all know-nothing alarmists about the coming ice age? If so, why should we believe them THIS time? And, if not, your argument is pretty well crap, isn't it?

And, as for your misleading graph about the recent cooling, nice cherry-picking of times. Here's what it lo ...


Looks like we've got a nice long-term sine-ish looking thing going on there... and it's on a downward trend. Hmmm...
 
2012-04-23 10:44:46 PM

GeneralJim: And, as for your misleading graph about the recent cooling, nice cherry-picking of times. Here's what it looks like without any spin:

www.drroyspencer.com
The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel)
is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed
as having any predictive value whatsoever.


A third order polynomial? Why a third order polynomial? Why pick on such a short time span?
Why not take a few science classes and learn about mathematical modeling so you avoid looking so grotesquely naive!
 
2012-04-23 11:06:53 PM
GnomePaladin:
Livingroom: uh, i know god exsists,(sic)

But you have no proof. Try to keep up.

but we won't get into that now, because you apparently dont. Global warming is all about money, and God doesnt have to be about money.

Doesn't have to be, but for the vast majority of religions he is.

you can worship him by yourself, for free. but you cannot agree with the global warming theory unless you're willing to part with an assload of money.

Not true at all. I haven't spent any "global warming money" to partake in local recycling, drive a fuel efficient car (that actually saves me money) or run modern, efficient heating and cooling systems for my home (again, saving money).

Let's see how much incorrect information can you fit into your next post?

Not to worry -- your record is safe. Yes, you DO spend money to partake in local recycling. The government agencies that collect trash in most places buy separate trucks for recycling, and hire new people to make the recycling rounds. And then, when they have collected all of your carefully sorted and washed garbage, in the majority of cases, they just throw it into a landfill with the "plebian" garbage. There is WAY more recycling collected than people are willing to buy.

And if your efficient car were a Chevy Volt, you would have used about a quarter MILLION dollars of government subsidy money to enable you to buy your car for, what, around $40K? And, there have been various subsidies all along the path of improving gas mileage. The government has bought large blocks of most American manufacturers, too.
 
2012-04-23 11:36:40 PM

GeneralJim: And then, when they have collected all of your carefully sorted and washed garbage, in the majority of cases, they just throw it into a landfill with the "plebian" garbage.


Ya 'cause there's like, no way they can find someone to sell old, freely acquired aluminum, plastic, or paper to at a profit. Much better economic sense to just dump it at a loss in all that extra landfill space. I mean, I hear the whole reason cities set up recycling centers is to get rid of spare money they have sitting around.

GeneralJim: And if your efficient car were a Chevy Volt, you would have used about a quarter MILLION dollars of government subsidy money...


...which is being paid back to the taxpayer as we speak, with GM posting record annual profits of almost $8 billion. The horror!
 
2012-04-24 12:53:19 AM
chimp_ninja:
The evidence from the professional literature gets stronger as you move forward. From the journal Science, looking at papers published from 1993 onwards:

This old chestnut again? There was NO literature contrary to the "fix" from 1993 to 2004? You know what? That's a simple lie. Oreskes had a rectal-cranial inversion. And, Monkey Boy, we've been over this before. The last time I debunked her crap, you claimed that questioning AGW was just as stupid as questioning evolution or gravity. I then gave you a list of peer-reviewed papers from the year before which, oh so shockingly, questioned the basics of either gravity or evolution. But, in an infant science, during a period in which some of the major forcings of this mathematically chaotic system were not even know, there were NO papers that were skeptical of a hypothesis that couldn't predict its way out of a paper bag?

You are an ignorant poser fool, Monkey Boy. The lack of papers questioning the major premise over that range of years is essentially PROOF that peer-review was corrupted, and only letting through friendly papers. But, you couldn't see that then, and I doubt you'll see it now. You can't fix stupid. And, the stuff that is not in the "when denier says" list at the skepticalscience blog is stuff you know absolutely nothing about.

However, since she Oreskes made this bizarre, clearly false claim, it is only necessary to show ONE skeptical paper from that time period to falsify her theory.

Calculating the Climatic Impacts of Increased CO2: The Issue of Model Validation

Excerpt:
Major changes are occurring in the global warming debate. Popular alarmist views are giving way to more balanced assessments of the situation. There is now greater emphasis on the lack of consensus among climatologists on fundamental scientific issues related to climate change.

ORESKES: FALSIFIED.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report