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 38
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-29 05:46:07 PM
2 votes:

GilRuiz1: KiltedBastich: No, in fact you're showing yourself to be an partisan shill who attacks what he already doesn't like regardless of facts.


I have never expressed my opinion about global warming, so you're ascribing opinions to me based on your own prejudices, not facts.

What I find funny about this entire exercise is that if the study results had gone the other way, FARK would have exploded in denunciatory wharrrgarbl accusing the study of being crap because of who funded it. Since the results are acceptable, then the issue of the coal billionaire who footed the bill miraculously becomes irrelevant and the study is great.

I think that's funny, is all.


Bullshiat. You've been in any number of threads about science and the scientific method, and you know damn well that there is a huge difference between the mindset of the partisan and the mindset of the scientist.

The reason there was never any reason for the pro-global warming crowd to have any concern over Muller's work is that all our arguments were already based on sound methodology and ethics. We've been saying that all along, and pointing out that in every case where bad science has been discovered and denounced, it was by other scientists. Not conservative partisan hacks.

Muller's work vindicated the claims of the other climate scientists, and we're now all saying a big round of "I told you so" because this is exactly what we expected based on the existing methodology and best practices that have gone into the research that has already been done.

And yet, you instead try and pretend this is all a matter of opinion and partisan vindictiveness, as opposed to legitimate anger and exasperation at seeing decades of sound science that points out a really huge problem that all human society needs to address questioned by idiots and venal partisans for purely political and profit motives.

So no. You don't get to play that game. It's transparent and contemptible, and it's a huge lie that if you were as devout as you claimed, you would never have even considered making. Fark off.
2012-07-29 05:03:54 PM
2 votes:

GilRuiz1: The funding for the project included $150,000 from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation, set up by the billionaire US coal magnate and key backer of the climate-sceptic Heartland Institute thinktank.


Nothing but junk science bought and paid for by planet-hating billionaire assho... wait, we like the results? Well, then this is fantastic and pure science that was in no way tainted by the funding!

/amaidoinitrite


No, in fact you're showing yourself to be an partisan shill who attacks what he already doesn't like regardless of facts.

The whole point was that Muller used that money to do science properly. The fact that he used sound methodology and ethical disclosure practices is what's important. The fact that the money was provided by partisans who were expecting him to manufacture evidence that matched their ulterior motives regardless of the truth is just gravy.
2012-07-29 04:28:26 PM
2 votes:

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 03:56:42 PM
2 votes:

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

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.
2012-07-29 03:45:03 PM
2 votes:

GAT_00: IIRC this is the second study paid for by the Kochs that has found global warming to be real.


It's part of the same study. Part 1 confirmed the warming itself, while this followup dealt with finding the environmental change(s) responsible for the observed warming. Everything was ruled out except for CO2 levels.

And the goalposts are on the move. FTA:

"When the Best project was announced last year, the prominent climate sceptic blogger Anthony Watts was consulted on the methodology. He stated at the time: 'I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.' However, tensions have since arisen between Watts and Muller."
2012-07-29 02:05:47 PM
2 votes:
No one is ever going to be convinced who has a vested interest in not being convinced.
2012-07-29 01:16:13 PM
2 votes:

Kevin72: Even if we are warming, it is not CO2 and therefore a "carbon tax" and any of the other suggestions Warmingistas offer will not help. The warming weather is being affected by the sun and a spot in the galaxy our solar system is moving through. You would have better luck fixing global warming praying to God to fix the sun than for carbon taxes, carbon credits, chemtrailing, or what do the Global Warming is Real Crowd say is the second step after the first step of admitting that GW is real?


God you sound pretty stupid. Listen to yourself.
2012-07-30 12:12:34 PM
1 votes:

dready zim: There is a new paper 'in press' in Geophysical Research Letters by Eichler et al entitled, 'Temperature response in the Altai region lags solar forcing.'


I browse the PIP articles on GRL if not daily, then certainly weekly. I didn't remember seeing such a paper, so I did the logical thing and Googled the title. It turns out that the paper isn't "new" or "in press", but rather was published in 2009. So I'm guessing that part of your post was straight copypasta from some "skeptic" email forward or blog post. Given the tone, I would suspect Roger Pielke Sr. but I am too lazy to check this.

I actually read the paper, and they found that there was basically no correlation between solar variability and temperature in other similar local/regional proxies. Futher, they found:

all regional and NH temperature records (except the Belukha record) do not show a significant correlation with [solar proxies] for the preindustrial period

They then further write that while their single local/regional proxy shows correlation with solar over the preindustrial record, this relationship collapses as the GHG influence on climate during the industrial revolution and beyond becomes dominant:

solar activity changes are a main driver for the temperature variation in the Altai region during the pre-industrial time. However, during the industrial period (1850-2000) solar forcing became less important and only the CO2 concentrations show a significant correlation with the temperature record.

So, congratulations. It looks like there is a single local/regional proxy that shows a correlation with solar when you allow the lag to vary over decades. But the implication of you citing it is completely unjustified, and the paper goes out of its way to say that its findings aren't applicable over larger spatial scales.

Here`s my citation, where`s yours? You must have loads to be so sure of yourself...

Let's establish some things. One, that's not "your citation". Two, you didn't actually read the paper you're claiming to cite. Three, it does not support the claim you are implying it does (that a lag of ~40 years is plausible for solar-driven globally-averaged temperature change during the period of modern global warming).

What is the point of this charade?
2012-07-30 10:52:29 AM
1 votes:

Dr. Mojo PhD: Lernaeus: When f*cking Al Gore stands there and tells you you're being a sh*thead because of your "carbon footprint," but that he can absolve you of that sin if you'll buy "carbon credits" from a company on whose board he sits, tell me you nod your vacant-staring head in agreement with his message of environmental awareness.

Oh look, another moron that thinks carbon credits are like plenary indulgences. Wow, big shock. Here's how carbon credits work:

1. Entity A needs to stop emitting at least 100 quanta of CO2 to be within their emissions limit.
2. Entity A cannot meet 100 quanta of CO2 and stay solvent.
3. Entity B can meet reductions of 100 quanta of CO2 and stay solvent.
4. Entity A pays a broker to compensate Entity B for reducing their emissions by the amount Entity A should have.
5. Total emissions reduction: 100 or more. Since the atmosphere doesn't give a flying fark who the emissions are coming from, the net effect on the climate is identical to Entity A meeting their emissions standards.
6. Economic effect: The market incentivizes innovative thought to fulfill mankind's needs, keeps old businesses in business and generates new business. The economy is actually better.

Wow. So hard to understand, isn't it? It's exactly like selling indulgences if, you know, sins were quantifiable things, climatology was a religion, climatology was a religion that believed that CO2 emissions should only be forgiven if you're sincerely sorry like Catholicism, and climatology's interest was in who was producing the CO2 and not how much was being produced overall.

B-B-BUT IF THE NET EFFECT IS THE SAME THEN ALGORE... I can hear you thinking, and don't. Just stop. You've embarrassed the entire species enough; you've gone from rambling about genocide to failing math and religious studies and economics forever. Good for you. Bad for us, but really... good for you.



Whenever some lunatic starts rambling on about carbon credits, I think it's a good idea to bring up the EPA's Acid Rain Program, which did the same exact thing with Sulfur Dioxide emissions. This program had a proven beneficial impact on the world, seeing over 40% drop in SO2 emissions in just one decade, and a corresponding drop of 65% in Acid Rain over the same time period.

Credit systems work. It's proven. If a person is against them, they are either misinformed of the facts, or an idiot.

/Which is why I inform them of the facts, after which if they still retain the same viewpoint they become idiots.
2012-07-30 06:34:22 AM
1 votes:
I'm not skeptical of climate change .. never was. Climates change; I'm not sure what they'd be if they didn't. What do you call a table with no surface?

What I am skeptical of is politicians and their pull-peddlers using climate change as an excuse to act like little dictators by imposing taxes on people and businesses who aren't "green" enough, drawing up onerous regulations that add massive expenses to the cost of doing business, offering tax credits to people who buy "green" products from companies that whore for political favor, using environmental zoning to prevent construction on land until a sufficient source of tax revenue wants to build there, and basically the thousands of other corrupt things these people do, NONE of which creates a permanent sunny, breezy 78 degrees all the time.

Yeah, the climate changes. Maybe people have had an effect. Unless you plan on dismantling every industrial nation and killing about 90% of the human race, there's not much your stupid laws and regulations will accomplish except to maintain the careers and line the pockets of professional con artists and dictator wannabes.
2012-07-29 09:57:22 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Judging by the number of buttmads in this thread, I'd say that I'm not the one failing. I said what I said in my initial comment, but to some, it's someoneisbeingwrongontheinternet.jpg

I mean, this is an internet argument. What are you going to do? Capslock me to death or something? After all is said and done, I can get up and walk away from the keyboard. But here you'll still be, sputtering.


Ah, nice. On to red herring arguments, now, are you? Distract away from your failure to argue your point all you want. It's pathetic and transparent.

You made a shiat argument, it got torn apart and you got laughed at for it, and now you're trying to make yourself feel better by proclaiming how awesome you are at making people mad. Uh huh.

Dude, this is Fark. It's not the first time some loser has tried that particular pathetic tact after losing badly. Heck, it's not even the hundredth, or even the thousandth. It's not going to work here in this thread any more than it has worked before. We're all still going to laugh at you for your pathetic attempt to deflect.

Better luck next time. Maybe you'll manage to at least come out looking like a competent adult on your next attempt.
2012-07-29 09:24:01 PM
1 votes:

Kevin72: "IT APPEARS LIKELY". That is hypothesis, speculation, and all too often wrong as so many scientific breakthroughs came from a counterintuitive truth.


Hahaha, oh wow, you are anti-science to your very core. It appears likely is the foundation of science. There is no 100% proven truth. The fact that you display zero functional understanding of that should tell every undecided third party to immediately reject your ideas and opinions out of hand.

Rather than pointing out that they a) didn't form a hypothesis based on observation and deduction, b) test that hypothesis, c) incorrectly gathered their data, or d) misread their data and arrived at the incorrect conclusion (because you know you can't), you simply decide that because they correctly did steps a, b, c, and d, they must be wrong!

Wow. You're a real genius. Tell us more about science, please.
2012-07-29 09:08:36 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: KiltedBastich: TV's Vinnie: LAWL! It sure is easy to rustle a Planeteer's jimmies in this thread!

So you got nothing, and therefore try to resort to bare mockery and claims of victory for having made people upset? What are you, twelve?

Grow up.

Please..........
[viralnfection1.files.wordpress.com image 468x312]
Tell me some more about how upset you are.


See above, where you are going on about how you "rustle a Planeteer's jimmies". That's you saying that, not me. You're the one talking about how easy it is to get people upset. And it would be vaguely funny to laugh at you for that if it wasn't so predictably stupid.

So let me spell it out for you. I'm not upset with you; you really aren't worth caring about that much. What I'm feeling is dismissive contempt. As in, you got nothing but juvenile antics, so I dismiss you and hold you in contempt for your behaviour.

Do try to keep it straight, hmm? No matter how much you try, you can't make yourself a winner by claiming you planned to fail in this manner.
2012-07-29 07:29:27 PM
1 votes:

WillieWildcat: cameroncrazy1984: WillieWildcat: here's a difference between temperature measurement and inferring a temperature through indirect measurement.

See the above post where scientists construct historical temperature-measuring devices and compare them to the readings of modern devices, and enjoy continuing to be completely and utterly wrong.

I don't see the post you're referring to. Also, please note the difference between being wrong and being unconvinced. I don't have this idea that "oh, this shiat is crazy," it's that now that I've seen how peer-reviewed journals are ran and how politics drives who or what is published or receives funding for research, I'm much more cynical of modern publications.

But, you know, keep hurling insults. That'll eventually convince me.


So, now that the "intruments are unreliable" tack isn't working you'll try, "politicization of science!" Try something new and relevant to the topic. Or maybe you didn't read Muller's analysis which annihilates the claim that the scientific consensus on warming being driven by anthropogenic causes is due to politics in the field.
2012-07-29 06:56:10 PM
1 votes:
Maybe if anti-science and ant-intellectualism wasn't so connected with conservationism for other reasons, people would take them more seriously when the conservatives came out against this.
2012-07-29 06:43:16 PM
1 votes:

WillieWildcat: cameroncrazy1984: WillieWildcat: but I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other.

Here's a hint: listen to those who DO know enough to say one way or another. They all agree that we are causing the world to get warmer.

So anyone who offers information opposing your point doesn't know what they're talking about? I didn't realize this was the politics thread.


No, anyone who offers information opposing my point while claiming they don't know enough about the topic, doesn't know what they are talking about. You said so yourself.
2012-07-29 06:42:49 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: LAWL! It sure is easy to rustle a Planeteer's jimmies in this thread!


So you got nothing, and therefore try to resort to bare mockery and claims of victory for having made people upset? What are you, twelve?

Grow up.
2012-07-29 06:36:07 PM
1 votes:

WillieWildcat: but I don't know enough about that to say one way or the other.


Here's a hint: listen to those who DO know enough to say one way or another. They all agree that we are causing the world to get warmer.
2012-07-29 06:34:59 PM
1 votes:

WillieWildcat: 2) When it comes to temperature, how do we know that our thermometer calibration has not floated in the past 250 years?


Because we can measure temperature in other ways without using thermometers. Seriously, all of this stuff is built into the calculations. You don't think that people who do this type of research figured that out already?
2012-07-29 06:05:36 PM
1 votes:

maxheck: Disingenuous cherrypicker is disingenuous.


"Hey this larger chart which is a spec in the global time line supports what I say, but this other guy is a cherry picker"

For some reason its not letting me link my chart going back 400,000 years but you sit over there and beat your chest about how somebody picked a "small" time scale.
2012-07-29 06:00:49 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: Find me an "alternative energy source" that ALSO isn't being accused of being harmful. Some people even b*tch and whine about wind turbines in their community.


How about a thorium reactor? Or a pebble-bed uranium reactor? You know, the kinds of fission reactors that can't melt down? How about hydro power, or geothermal, or solar? How about findind a good way to store hydrogen for fuel instead of using fossil fuels?

Here's a clue for you. The problem is not whether something is "harmful" in some way or not. It's whether the potential risks can be mitigated in a way that do not lead to cumulative long term consequences that will destabilize the whole farking ecosystem that all human society is dependent on.

And instead of investing and focusing on those kinds of solutions, you'd rather throw your hands up in the air and do nothing. Tell me, if you doctor were to tell you to change your lifestyle, and take certain medication in order to, oh I don't know, not die within a short timeframe, would you just ignore him and say, "Oh well, we all gotta go sometimes!"

TV's Vinnie: And, I'd love to see someone think of an alternative to the airliner (Hint: it's not gonna be airships). Until you can come up with an engine that has the horsepower of a jet or turbofan, don't hold your breath, Planeteers.


Umm, why should we need to replace an airliner? All you need to do is find another means to power it. Hint: practical hydrogen fuel cells with sufficient energy density could do that. We just need to do the work to develop them, instead of ignoring the farking problem.
2012-07-29 05:38:19 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: verbal_jizm: TV's Vinnie: So, what's the alternative? Culling the human population down to a meager two million via extermination centers and then marching the naked survivors into caves to shiver without heat (fire BAD!), forbidding them to ingest anything but their own dung and piss (I'm sure some kooks will then start saying that poop and pee is causing greenhouse gasses and demanding that no one be allowed to go potty)?

Seriously here. Until we can find some solution that ISN'T some Pol Pot fantasy, we're not going to listen.

You need to read more. These are not the options being presented.

These are the end results. There's a lot of whackadoos out there who want to see humanity 99% wiped out as a form of :saving the environment". Of course, they want to be exempt from such cullings because they want to be alive to be the new rulers of this green utopia of their's.

Haven't seen a "solution" offered yet that DIDN'T entail curtailing civilization or depriving people from something.


So alternative energy sources and cutting down on CO2 emissions is a Pol Pot fantasy now? Lowering birth rates by raising standard of living using sustainable techniques is culling 99% of humanity? Really?

Whatever drugs you are smoking, I advise you to quit. They are causing you to develop psychosis and hallucinations.
2012-07-29 05:00:37 PM
1 votes:

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.


Hey dumbass, when you start your line on a known outlier like 1998, the warmest year on record, mere regression toward the mean will skew the resulting trend and make it unreliable.

That's basic Stats 101 - which you clearly failed. You're either a complete moron with no idea what he's doing, or a lying shill deliberately trying to fool people for partisan purposes. Which is it? Idiot or jackass?

Tell you what, dum-dum. Prove us all wrong. Do a graph for the last 13 years, starting at 1999 and leaving out 1998, and then tell us again about the cooling trend.
2012-07-29 04:58:44 PM
1 votes:

TV's Vinnie: So, what's the alternative? Culling the human population down to a meager two million via extermination centers and then marching the naked survivors into caves to shiver without heat (fire BAD!), forbidding them to ingest anything but their own dung and piss (I'm sure some kooks will then start saying that poop and pee is causing greenhouse gasses and demanding that no one be allowed to go potty)?

Seriously here. Until we can find some solution that ISN'T some Pol Pot fantasy, we're not going to listen.


You need to read more. These are not the options being presented.
2012-07-29 04:55:42 PM
1 votes:
Oh fer chrissake. One troll was bad enough. Now there's GilRuiz1? Jeebus crispies, if you assholes need attention so badly, why don't you go to that one part of town (you know the one) with fifty bucks and a condom.
2012-07-29 04:53:14 PM
1 votes:
So, what's the alternative? Culling the human population down to a meager two million via extermination centers and then marching the naked survivors into caves to shiver without heat (fire BAD!), forbidding them to ingest anything but their own dung and piss (I'm sure some kooks will then start saying that poop and pee is causing greenhouse gasses and demanding that no one be allowed to go potty)?

Seriously here. Until we can find some solution that ISN'T some Pol Pot fantasy, we're not going to listen.
2012-07-29 04:50:52 PM
1 votes:

SevenizGud: verbal_jizm: You could answer a lot of your questions by doing some actual reading.

Yeah, start with NASA GISS Head, and major IPCC domo, Dr. James Hansen's piece in The Guardian. I'll give you some google search terms to look for:

Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature

Get to reading, you genocidal maniacs.


Look, I know that the underpants on your head are smelly and the little flecks of cotton get in your nose from time to time. In the summer, you can feel the heat the underpants trap. No matter where you go, people point and stare. "Hey! There's the guy with the underpants on his head!" The label can chafe your neck if you move too fast. Once in a while, you even have a close call walking on the sidewalk because your peripheral vision is blocked.

Please...even if you just do it for yourself...know that you CAN take those underpants off your head. But it has to be your choice and it takes a lot of work.
2012-07-29 04:38:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:06 PM
1 votes:

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 04:23:51 PM
1 votes:
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 04:23:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:17:18 PM
1 votes:
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 04:15:40 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:00:40 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:13 PM
1 votes:

Smidge204: SevenizGud: The scientists have cherrypicked stations, cherrypicked reference datum, cherrypicked outlier method, cherrypicked homogeneity, cherrypicked smoother

And you're cherrypicking the last 14.9 years. Why 14.9 years, SevenizGud? What is the significance of 14.9 years?



www.gossipsauce.com
Because it's devastating to my case!
2012-07-29 03:33:14 PM
1 votes:

dahmers love zombie: Kevin72: Even if we are warming, it is not CO2 and therefore a "carbon tax" and any of the other suggestions Warmingistas offer will not help. The warming weather is being affected by the sun and a spot in the galaxy our solar system is moving through. You would have better luck fixing global warming praying to God to fix the sun than for carbon taxes, carbon credits, chemtrailing, or what do the Global Warming is Real Crowd say is the second step after the first step of admitting that GW is real?

This is satire, folks. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is that pants-on-head retarded.


That's the best one yet! It's like our solar system is swimming through a spot in the pool where someone jut peed.
2012-07-29 11:32:51 AM
1 votes:
I'm pretty sure that the oil companies will not be swayed by anything as insignificant as "evidence".
 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report