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.

(Guardian)   Even the skeptics are finding it difficult to ignore climate change   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 305
    More: Obvious, climate change, skeptics  
•       •       •

5431 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Jul 2012 at 3:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-29 03:57:01 PM  
Who cares?

Thanks to 30+ years of heel-dragging, denial, greed, and short-sightedness, it may be too late to do anything about it - get used to slowly shifting climatic zones, and the corresponding shift in wealth & resources. It'll be fun - I'm looking forward to Washington enjoying the climate of Northern California during my retirement. The Pacific Northwest will have its own "Little Optimum."

The local wines are going to be wonderful.
 
2012-07-29 03:58:38 PM  

vygramul: Note Sevenizgud's post. The goalposts do, indeed, move.


Yeah, I am well-known on FARK for the bewildering variation of my posts. No two alike.
 
2012-07-29 03:59:44 PM  

SevenizGud: vygramul: You haven't been in threads with GeneralJim or SevenizGud I take it?

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? I won't speak for the General, but I have NEVER said that earth has never warmed. That's absurd. The idea that the earth has never warmed is tantamount to saying that it is now as COLD as it has ever been.

In fact, the WHOLE POINT of my posting in these threads, which I have stated explicitly in many instances, is to point out to retards and knuckleheads LIKE YOU that there is a difference between these statements:

A. The world has never warmed.
B. The world is not PRESENTLY warming.

You do realize that those two statements have different meaning, don't you? If course you don't, because you are as smart as a schizomycophyta.

That's why it is so stupid to post temperature data from 1880. NOBODY is arguing that the world NEVER warmed. And temperature from 1880 has NOTHING to do with what's happening now, which is 15 years of cooling, as my above graph, taken straight from HADCRUT3 data shows.


Do you really know that little about statistical trends?
 
2012-07-29 04:00:40 PM  

SevenizGud: When Fartbongo and the rest of the dumbocraps start talking about reversing the crotch-fruit dropping tax break, and replacing it with a TAX PENALTY for having children, then I'll at least consider taking them seriously


And no one takes anyone seriously who uses puerile name calling puns in their regular speech.
 
2012-07-29 04:03:59 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Do you really know that little about statistical trends?


Yeah, after all, it is only 15 years, amirite? Couldn't be statistically significant.
 
2012-07-29 04:04:19 PM  

FormlessOne: Thanks to 30+ years of heel-dragging, denial, greed, and short-sightedness, it may be too late to do anything about it - get used to slowly shifting climatic zones, and the corresponding shift in wealth & resources. It'll be fun - I'm looking forward to Washington enjoying the climate of Northern California during my retirement. The Pacific Northwest will have its own "Little Optimum."


I'm resigned to dealing with Texas-like temperatures here in Beantown after I left Texas to get away from them.

Texas, of course, will slowly convert to desert, at least the parts that won't become subtropical rainforest.
 
2012-07-29 04:05:16 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: SevenizGud: vygramul: You haven't been in threads with GeneralJim or SevenizGud I take it?

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it? I won't speak for the General, but I have NEVER said that earth has never warmed. That's absurd. The idea that the earth has never warmed is tantamount to saying that it is now as COLD as it has ever been.

In fact, the WHOLE POINT of my posting in these threads, which I have stated explicitly in many instances, is to point out to retards and knuckleheads LIKE YOU that there is a difference between these statements:

A. The world has never warmed.
B. The world is not PRESENTLY warming.

You do realize that those two statements have different meaning, don't you? If course you don't, because you are as smart as a schizomycophyta.

That's why it is so stupid to post temperature data from 1880. NOBODY is arguing that the world NEVER warmed. And temperature from 1880 has NOTHING to do with what's happening now, which is 15 years of cooling, as my above graph, taken straight from HADCRUT3 data shows.

Do you really know that little about statistical trends?


I think that SevenizGud has demonstrated he has no command of any scientific or logical principles at all.

///I love your Fark handle. Donkey Donkey.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-29 04:05:39 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, I am well-known on FARK for the bewildering variation of my posts.


Yep, that's what you're known for. The bewildering variation of your posts. Yeah, that's it.
 
2012-07-29 04:05:43 PM  
Let's face it: Who are you going to trust for your scientific info, actual climatologists with Ph.D's who have devoted their lives to studying this topic, or Republicans, who think science is some shifty anti-Bible talk.

I know where I'm going. Sorry Republicans but to be honest, science is one of the many topics you have zero credibility towards. I know this must hurt you. But go find a web page to read and reassure yourselves that you're smarter than those darn liberal scienticians! I'm sure you will!
 
2012-07-29 04:05:44 PM  

SevenizGud: Smidge204: Justify using only the last 179 samples when we have over a century of direct records.

I notice you never asked for justification in station dropping, or justification in reference datum selection, or justification in a homogenizing methods or other fudge-factoring.

Nothing says "science" like a patent double-standard.


FTA, again:

"Unlike previous efforts, the temperature data from various sources was not homogenised by hand - a key criticism by climate sceptics. Instead, the statistical analysis was 'completely automated to reduce human bias'. The Best team concluded that, despite their deeper analysis, their own findings closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, 'but with reduced uncertainty'."

Nothing says "I didn't read the article" like ignoring the main point of the study, the very reason it was initially endorsed by the same denialists (well, some of them) who are now desperately trying to find some reason to criticize what they wanted in the first place.
 
2012-07-29 04:07:03 PM  

SevenizGud: machodonkeywrestler: Do you really know that little about statistical trends?

Yeah, after all, it is only 15 years, amirite? Couldn't be statistically significant.


Agreed! The planet has been around for 6004 years. I think it will be okay.
 
2012-07-29 04:07:59 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: The Best team concluded that, despite their deeper analysis, their own findings closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, 'but with reduced uncertainty'."


LOL. They went looking for error, and managed to produce identical results with less. Hoist on their own petard.
 
2012-07-29 04:09:02 PM  

SevenizGud: machodonkeywrestler: Do you really know that little about statistical trends?

Yeah, after all, it is only 15 years, amirite? Couldn't be statistically significant.


Ok, I see now. You are either willfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant.
 
2012-07-29 04:09:50 PM  
I don't think a lot of grown adult Americans are capable of admitting they were wrong about this topic all these years. It simply cannot happen. They will go to their graves swearing it was a liberal conspiracy, because we know how mature Republicans are.
 
2012-07-29 04:09:59 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Ok, I see now. You are either willfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant.


Just wait for Mr. Wall O' Green Text to show up.
 
2012-07-29 04:10:01 PM  
Hey, looks like brockway is back with a new alt!


abstract-productions.net
 
2012-07-29 04:10:54 PM  

SevenizGud: vygramul: Note Sevenizgud's post. The goalposts do, indeed, move.

Yeah, I am well-known on FARK for the bewildering variation of my posts. No two alike.


No, they're definitely all profoundly ignorant.
 
2012-07-29 04:12:15 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: "Unlike previous efforts, the temperature data from various sources was not homogenised by hand - a key criticism by climate sceptics. Instead, the statistical analysis was 'completely automated to reduce human bias'. The Best team concluded that, despite their deeper analysis, their own findings closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, 'but with reduced uncertainty'."

Nothing says "I didn't read the article" like ignoring the main point of the study, the very reason it was initially endorsed by the same denialists (well, some of them) who are now desperately trying to find some reason to criticize what they wanted in the first place.


Uhm, I wasn't talking about this unpublished opinion piece. I was talking about how the Chicken Littles clamor over justification of every element of counterpoint while all the while when it comes to justification of the original assertions its....cricket cricket.

Nothing says a person is open to unbiased view of the data in support better than requiring justification for EVERYTHING from one side, and NOTHING from the other.

/double-standards...they just work, biatches.
 
2012-07-29 04:15:33 PM  
Y'all getting trolled. But you knew that.
 
2012-07-29 04:15:40 PM  

SevenizGud: Nothing says a person is open to unbiased view of the data in support better than requiring justification for EVERYTHING from one side, and NOTHING from the other.


In the actual scientific world, there's not two sides. That's like asking biologists to debate with creationists for "their side."

Ignorance is not a "side."
 
2012-07-29 04:16:09 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: You are either willfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant.


Yeah, because nothing says "ignorant" like posting the last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data with its corresponding linear trend.
 
2012-07-29 04:16:56 PM  

FormlessOne: Who cares?

Thanks to 30+ years of heel-dragging, denial, greed, and short-sightedness, it may be too late to do anything about it - get used to slowly shifting climatic zones, and the corresponding shift in wealth & resources. It'll be fun - I'm looking forward to Washington enjoying the climate of Northern California during my retirement. The Pacific Northwest will have its own "Little Optimum."

The local wines are going to be wonderful.


No farking shiat. The recent cool summers are looking more and more like a long-term shift in the seasonal jet stream, i.e., climate change.

Rainier cherries at the end of July? Works for me. Increased costs for most foods because corn will no longer grow in the (ex-) Corn Belt without irrigation? Not so much.
 
2012-07-29 04:17:18 PM  
The Earth has been through many significant changes in climate. Many of these changes happened long before man was an impact. I think it would be awfully silly to think that climate change would stop, just because humans started paying attention.

For me, the question isn't whether or not climate change is happening. That's kind of obvious. Of course it is. It has been and will continue to be.

The question for me is whether or not man is causing climate change and, if so, by what means are we doing it. Also, if we accept that it has been both hotter and colder; it stands to reason that there is a possibility that the current climate isn't the idea one. If we can impact the global climate - what should our target be? I'd expect individual countries to take positions based on what they'd personally benefit from.

Sadly, whenever I try to look into the issue myself, I'm flooded with research I don't trust by too many people who seem to have a vested interest or seem to be convinced of the answer. I'm not a climateologist. I don't want to become one. So, sadly, I'm not going to go out of my way to change my day to day activities until someone can give me some pretty compelling evidence to show that my day to day actions....

1.) Contribute to climate change
2.) That contribution is not beneficial
 
2012-07-29 04:18:47 PM  

SevenizGud: machodonkeywrestler: You are either willfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant.

Yeah, because nothing says "ignorant" like posting the last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data with its corresponding linear trend.


You're not helping your case. You willfully ignored the other data and compilations of data that show that the 15 years you "cherry picked" (your words, not mine) is well within the statistical deviations of the larger data set.
 
2012-07-29 04:19:24 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: What climate change?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

The scientists have cherrypicked stations, cherrypicked reference datum, cherrypicked outlier method, cherrypicked homogeneity, cherrypicked smoother...in short cherrypicked liked a Lundhal 400 diesel...

and they STILL can't show warming. What a joke!

[wotsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 640x480]

Also, re the BEST report, the same denialists who signed off on their methodology are suddenly having second thoughts, but only after the results have been posted. That's not science. And formal publication in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't matter quite so much when all of the data is freely available to anyone who wants to see if it's cherrypicked or not.

Your argument IS invalid.


icons-ak.wxug.com

and climatologists laugh at your silly timeline.
We have been in uniquely stable period the last 10k years and will shortly return to the YO-YO of normal climate swings.
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

/seriously, "the two mile time machine" is freaking me out more than the "panic global warming/change/whatever" people ever have. The real climatologists are assuming that at some point this stable period ends and the rapid changes will be back!!
 
2012-07-29 04:22:57 PM  

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: "Unlike previous efforts, the temperature data from various sources was not homogenised by hand - a key criticism by climate sceptics. Instead, the statistical analysis was 'completely automated to reduce human bias'. The Best team concluded that, despite their deeper analysis, their own findings closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, 'but with reduced uncertainty'."

Nothing says "I didn't read the article" like ignoring the main point of the study, the very reason it was initially endorsed by the same denialists (well, some of them) who are now desperately trying to find some reason to criticize what they wanted in the first place.

Uhm, I wasn't talking about this unpublished opinion piece. I was talking about how the Chicken Littles clamor over justification of every element of counterpoint while all the while when it comes to justification of the original assertions its....cricket cricket.

Nothing says a person is open to unbiased view of the data in support better than requiring justification for EVERYTHING from one side, and NOTHING from the other.

/double-standards...they just work, biatches.


So now the denialist-endorsed study, the one they were certain would expose the pro-warming bias of human data massagers, is an "unpublished opinion piece."

Image of the day, it seems:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-29 04:23:04 PM  

SevenizGud: machodonkeywrestler: You are either willfully ignorant, or just plain ignorant.

Yeah, because nothing says "ignorant" like posting the last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data with its corresponding linear trend.


Sorry, man. You have no credibility. The others have pointed out that you're at best uninformed and at worst lying.
 
2012-07-29 04:23:51 PM  
This is pretty much the last nail in the "Skeptic" coffin.

They had people who wanted to not believe it (Koch bothers) fund this study, with some guy who didn't believe in it, checking all the thing they said they other studies "got wrong" and tested against all their other hypothesis and the came up with the same answers that man is the reason for climate change.
 
2012-07-29 04:23:58 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: You're not helping your case. You willfully ignored the other data and compilations of data that show that the 15 years you "cherry picked" (your words, not mine) is well within the statistical deviations of the larger data set.


Oh gosh, how terrible. I guess I'll just have to cling to that little bit about, you know, the worldwide average surface temperature trending down over the last 15 years according to the HADCRUT3 data....boy so devastating to my case. So, so devastating for it to be a mere, jot, the iota, the scintilla of ONLY 15 YEARS OF COOLING TREND.
 
2012-07-29 04:25:38 PM  
www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-07-29 04:25:49 PM  

SevenizGud: machodonkeywrestler: You're not helping your case. You willfully ignored the other data and compilations of data that show that the 15 years you "cherry picked" (your words, not mine) is well within the statistical deviations of the larger data set.

Oh gosh, how terrible. I guess I'll just have to cling to that little bit about, you know, the worldwide average surface temperature trending down over the last 15 years according to the HADCRUT3 data....boy so devastating to my case. So, so devastating for it to be a mere, jot, the iota, the scintilla of ONLY 15 YEARS OF COOLING TREND.


Ok, so you don't understand statistical analysis. Also, acting like a four year old doesn't help.
 
2012-07-29 04:26:12 PM  

gimmegimme: Sorry, man. You have no credibility


Oh, I know. Nothing says incredible like the linear trend for the last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data showing cooling, amirite? So incredible.
 
2012-07-29 04:27:39 PM  
I love the guy posting 15 years of data complaining about cherry picked results when posting the last 1000 years of data is ignored.
 
2012-07-29 04:28:26 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: The Earth has been through many significant changes in climate. Many of these changes happened long before man was an impact. I think it would be awfully silly to think that climate change would stop, just because humans started paying attention.

For me, the question isn't whether or not climate change is happening. That's kind of obvious. Of course it is. It has been and will continue to be.

The question for me is whether or not man is causing climate change and, if so, by what means are we doing it. Also, if we accept that it has been both hotter and colder; it stands to reason that there is a possibility that the current climate isn't the idea one. If we can impact the global climate - what should our target be? I'd expect individual countries to take positions based on what they'd personally benefit from.

Sadly, whenever I try to look into the issue myself, I'm flooded with research I don't trust by too many people who seem to have a vested interest or seem to be convinced of the answer. I'm not a climateologist. I don't want to become one. So, sadly, I'm not going to go out of my way to change my day to day activities until someone can give me some pretty compelling evidence to show that my day to day actions....

1.) Contribute to climate change
2.) That contribution is not beneficial


You looked hard?

That's all right here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/



It's right farking there. Have you ever been to that site? I have a hard time believing you that you think those answers don't exist when an entire web site an organization exists purely to inform people of that information.

Have you ever gone there?
 
2012-07-29 04:28:39 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Ok, so you don't understand statistical analysis


Oh, I know. I am sure someone will show up in this thread soon and show how a negative slope linear trend for 15 years...is statistically warming.
 
2012-07-29 04:28:49 PM  

SevenizGud: gimmegimme: Sorry, man. You have no credibility

Oh, I know. Nothing says incredible like the linear trend for the last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data showing cooling, amirite? So incredible.


But it's 17 years of warming.
 
2012-07-29 04:29:16 PM  
Ya I fart a lot, gotta problem?
 
2012-07-29 04:30:06 PM  

SevenizGud: gimmegimme: Sorry, man. You have no credibility

Oh, I know. Nothing says incredible like the linear trend for the last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data showing cooling, amirite? So incredible.


You're not responding to the several posters who are pointing out the flaw in your thinking and you're repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say. Perhaps you would benefit if you took a remedial science class at a community college near you. The prices are reasonable and they will help you learn how not to sound crazy and stupid.
 
2012-07-29 04:30:14 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: So now the denialist-endorsed study, the one they were certain would expose the pro-warming bias of human data massagers, is an "unpublished opinion piece."


Uhm, what peer-reviewed journal was this published in again? Oh, that's what I thought.
 
2012-07-29 04:32:11 PM  

SevenizGud: machodonkeywrestler: Ok, so you don't understand statistical analysis

Oh, I know. I am sure someone will show up in this thread soon and show how a negative slope linear trend for 15 years...is statistically warming.


So, that's a no.
 
2012-07-29 04:32:49 PM  

Confabulat: God, Republicans are stupid. Even if you thought there was a 20% chance that manmade climate change was real (the real data is far more convincing) wouldn't a wise person at least PLAN for that? The Republicans just grumble and insist it's all a giant liberal conspiracy across the globe that has affected all the world's best scientists, because everyone hates America.

USA USA USA!

Idiots.


Who's an idiot?
There is no plan, no treaty, no technology that is going to ween society off fossil fuels in the near future. None. Spending trillions and crippling your economy isn't the way to combat it, and you're not going to stop a billion Chinese from wanting the same life you have. Whether the Earth is warming or not, you aren't going to stop it unless you invent fusion power plants.

/I live in Estonia. It's cold here anyway, so I welcome the rise.
 
2012-07-29 04:33:40 PM  

gimmegimme: You're not responding to the several posters who are pointing out the flaw in your thinking and you're repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say.


Oh really? You think maybe saying that the temperature trend for 15 years has been for cooling *IS* what I have to say? You think? Maybe?


Perhaps you would benefit if you took a remedial science class at a community college near you.


Perhaps you would benefit from a pedophiles anonymous group at a psychiatric center near you.
 
2012-07-29 04:35:06 PM  
Today on Fear Factor:Republicans face the reality of the world they actually live in.
 
2012-07-29 04:36:46 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: So, that's a no.


Well, I am glad you agreed with me that "that's a no" nobody has come in and shown warming for the last 15 years.
 
2012-07-29 04:38:07 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: The Earth has been through many significant changes in climate. Many of these changes happened long before man was an impact. I think it would be awfully silly to think that climate change would stop, just because humans started paying attention.

For me, the question isn't whether or not climate change is happening. That's kind of obvious. Of course it is. It has been and will continue to be.

The question for me is whether or not man is causing climate change and, if so, by what means are we doing it. Also, if we accept that it has been both hotter and colder; it stands to reason that there is a possibility that the current climate isn't the idea one. If we can impact the global climate - what should our target be? I'd expect individual countries to take positions based on what they'd personally benefit from.

Sadly, whenever I try to look into the issue myself, I'm flooded with research I don't trust by too many people who seem to have a vested interest or seem to be convinced of the answer. I'm not a climateologist. I don't want to become one. So, sadly, I'm not going to go out of my way to change my day to day activities until someone can give me some pretty compelling evidence to show that my day to day actions....

1.) Contribute to climate change
2.) That contribution is not beneficial


You could answer a lot of your questions by doing some actual reading.
 
2012-07-29 04:41:17 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, after all, it is only 15 years, amirite? Couldn't be statistically significant.


Yeah, why only 15 years SevenizGud? Stop sidestepping the question. Just answer it, it should be very easy to do.

I don't care about the reasons why other people allegedly did other things - it's not relevant here.

Why are you using only the last 179 samples?
=Smidge=
 
2012-07-29 04:42:03 PM  

SevenizGud: gimmegimme: You're not responding to the several posters who are pointing out the flaw in your thinking and you're repeating yourself because you have nothing else to say.

Oh really? You think maybe saying that the temperature trend for 15 years has been for cooling *IS* what I have to say? You think? Maybe?


Perhaps you would benefit if you took a remedial science class at a community college near you.

Perhaps you would benefit from a pedophiles anonymous group at a psychiatric center near you.


Wow, you seem really insecure about your inability to understand science. This is an opportunity to look within yourself. You don't have to have those underpants on your head. You can take them off, but you must work very hard to get the education you were denied earlier in your life. The first step is admitting how dumb you are, even if it's not your fault.

dangermonk.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-29 04:44:02 PM  

SevenizGud: machodonkeywrestler: So, that's a no.

Well, I am glad you agreed with me that "that's a no" nobody has come in and shown warming for the last 15 years.


OK, then. If that's how you wan't to play it. I can't help the fact that you choose neither to read, nor refute any of my statements about the statistical relevance of your "cherry picked" set of data, or how the data show that the deviation of the data in your graph is well within the standard deviation of the larger data set. But your constant puerile attacks on the others in this thread show just how worthless you really are in the grand scheme of things. I hope you enjoy your miserable existence and realize that it is your horrible personality that made your life so shiatty.
 
2012-07-29 04:44:16 PM  
If you ignore data and scientific consensus then your not being very skeptical... based on the data with all its biases included, for some time now, I would have thought that a skeptic ought to come to the conclusion that climate change is probably happening and happening from human causes. The reason skeptics are skeptics and separate from other folks is because they still have the ability to change their mind when the evidence demands it.

Again, you -have- to be able to change your mind to really be skeptical about something.

/keep politics away from the science, if you don't like what people are doing -because- of the data, then focus on what their doing, not ignoring the most reasonable explanation
 
2012-07-29 04:44:50 PM  
Why do people even bother arguing about the last 15-100 years when we have ice core samples from Antarctica that show CO2 levels are at their highest ever in the last 800,000?

You know who keeps great climate records? NATURE
 
Displayed 50 of 305 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report