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.

(Mother Nature Network)   If you want to survive climate change, you better start embracing floating homes and underground cities now   (mnn.com) divider line 110
    More: Obvious, climate change, vertical farms  
•       •       •

4939 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2012 at 10:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-10 12:04:26 PM

dittybopper: Two words: Hunter/gatherer.


More efficient use of time: Hunt gatherers.
 
2012-08-10 12:07:50 PM
Beach front property in Philly and New Jersey is now inhabited by Sponge Bob and he is banging Snooki.

//sounds awesome
 
2012-08-10 12:09:10 PM

Launch Code: Seasons change, that's how the earth works. Summer can be hot and winter can be cold.
The global warming hoax, brought to you by the offspring of the global freezing wackos from the '70s.


You mean that myth you are willingly suckered by?
 
2012-08-10 12:18:36 PM
All of these techniques are nice and all, but they're rather glibly ignoring the real dangers of climate change. Sure, you might be able to build a house partially underground or get farmers to change the types of crops they grow (eventually,) but none of that is going to help when you've suddenly got millions of hungry people who weren't able to relocate or adapt fast enough. We've had the technology to deal with hotter temperatures and more violent weather for a very long time, but not everyone can afford it, and it's not going to help if you can't deploy it fast enough.

If you break down and admit that we're in for some severe climate change, dealing with the results is a social/economic problem more than technological. Of course, right now a good fraction of the country thinks that even spending money on education and infrastructure is socialist tyranny, so when we're finally forced to confront the human effects of climate change, we're in for a drain on the economy that will make the current slump seem as trivial as an extra coke on your bar tab.
 
2012-08-10 12:24:43 PM

sufferpuppet: To survive climate change do the following immediately:

1. Make sammich. Have your woman make you a sammich
2. Eat sammich.

Congratulations, you're now a survivor. Return to your normal life.


FTFY
 
2012-08-10 12:27:09 PM

hitlersbrain: How do I convince you that bullets fired from a pistol placed against your head can't possibly hurt you? I'm sure it can't be hard.


It's done by a simple magical ritual, that involves waving a sacrificial dagger in the face of a uniformed and armed police officer while screaming the incantation "GONNA KILL YOU PIG" as loudly as you can.

/be sure to record it for YouTube
//so I can explain how you performed the ritual wrong, resulting in me only being convinced that you are stupid
 
2012-08-10 12:27:13 PM

Martian_Astronomer: All of these techniques are nice and all, but they're rather glibly ignoring the real dangers of climate change. Sure, you might be able to build a house partially underground or get farmers to change the types of crops they grow (eventually,) but none of that is going to help when you've suddenly got millions of hungry people who weren't able to relocate or adapt fast enough. We've had the technology to deal with hotter temperatures and more violent weather for a very long time, but not everyone can afford it, and it's not going to help if you can't deploy it fast enough.

If you break down and admit that we're in for some severe climate change, dealing with the results is a social/economic problem more than technological. Of course, right now a good fraction of the country thinks that even spending money on education and infrastructure is socialist tyranny, so when we're finally forced to confront the human effects of climate change, we're in for a drain on the economy that will make the current slump seem as trivial as an extra coke on your bar tab.


I don't consider an extra coke on my bar to be trivial at all. That shiat makes me very angry. Srsly - it's not like being a waiter, waitress, or bartender is particularly difficult. Write down what I want, relay that information, bring it to me when prepared, and then bring the check when I ask. If you can't get that right, even with that Masters in Philosophy, you need to become an hero or at least do something to remove your failed genes from the gene pool.
 
2012-08-10 12:48:50 PM

the money is in the banana stand: hitlersbrain: STRYPERSWINE: The climate has never NOT changed. Adapt.

There is no climate change...

Okay there is but man did not cause it...

Okay man caused it but it's no big deal... a few million people die horribly... big deal.

so... much... stupid...

How do I convince you that bullets fired from a pistol placed against your head can't possibly hurt you? I'm sure it can't be hard.

Few million people die? How did you arrive at this number? If you are dying from exposure or heat you are probably homeless in which case you run the risk of dying without any sort of climate change.


See, the problem here is not such huge changes in temperature that people are dieing from exposure. The problem is that it takes relatively tiny changes in climate to mess with the food supply. That huge drought in the midwest now is, potentially, a reflection of that.

Perhaps things will go back to normal, and you guys can all say "See? I told you so!", but if they don't a lot of people are going to go hungry, and higher food prices are going to hurt a lot of people already struggling in this economy. You may be fine with that, but most people with a shred of humanitarian or traditional Christian virtue should be very concerned about the impact this will have on the poor and hungry.
 
2012-08-10 01:02:09 PM

Joe Blowme: lennavan: Joe Blowme: lennavan: AverageAmericanGuy: Global warming means worse weather. Not the end to all civilization and the dawn of Morlocks.

Humans have weathered ice ages and warming periods. Things went pretty well.

We'll be okay here on the surface.

I can't tell you how relieved I am to read this post coming from a well established climatologist such as yourself. I forget, where did you get your PhD and do your postdoctoral work?

Right, because climate has never changed in the past and we all know humans can not adapt to a changing environment.

/save the cheerleader, save the world

Yes, we are all qualified to make assessments on how much the climate has changed in the past, how much it is changing now and what the environmental ramifications of each will be. This is all common knowledge.

By the way, how much did the climate change in the past, what was its effect on the environment and where did you get that information from? Wait I know this one already: "A lot" "no effect at all" and "my gut."

1. When did you take me off your ignore list? I feel special.
2. Ice cores tell some of the tales but its all guess work as we have not first hand accounts right?
3. Its called reading and edumication. I know its hard for you to believe but we have had ice ages in the past along with warm periods where we had verry little ice. We have even had ice ages with co2 ppm at 1400. But you stick with your "gut" feelings about science, it worked so well durring the 70s global cooling fad.



1. You're probably mistaking me with someone else. My ignore list is empty and has been for as long as I can remember.
2. No need for guess work, lots of the first hand accounts are published in rigorous peer reviewed journals. Which ones do you read?
3. You didn't answer my question. Where did you get your reading and edumication? It was wikipedia wasn't it. Admit it you sillypants you!
 
2012-08-10 01:04:32 PM

quantum_csc: lennavan: AverageAmericanGuy: Global warming means worse weather. Not the end to all civilization and the dawn of Morlocks.

Humans have weathered ice ages and warming periods. Things went pretty well.

We'll be okay here on the surface.

I can't tell you how relieved I am to read this post coming from a well established climatologist such as yourself. I forget, where did you get your PhD and do your postdoctoral work?

You don't have to have a Phd in anything to be reasonably certain that climate changes will not force people underground (unless the Earth turns into Venus, or Mars).



So you took the Morlocks comment literally? Alright. I guess you two have debunked every single person in the history of the world who has claimed global warming will turn us into Morlocks. Every last one.
 
2012-08-10 01:28:59 PM

Launch Code: Another way to prepare is to remember what most 4 and 5 yearolds are taught. Seasons change, that's how the earth works. Summer can be hot and winter can be cold.
The global warming hoax, brought to you by the offspring of the global freezing wackos from the '70s.



They updated the book for this year:

oi47.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-10 01:33:26 PM
Wait wait wait. It's 2012. How is it we haven't started building underwater cities and begun to mine the oceans? I mean, ffs, it's not like we don't have the technology...
 
2012-08-10 01:53:56 PM

Kit Fister: Wait wait wait. It's 2012. How is it we haven't started building underwater cities and begun to mine the oceans? I mean, ffs, it's not like we don't have the technology...


*cough* deepwater horizon *cough*
 
2012-08-10 01:56:46 PM

Jim.Casy: the money is in the banana stand: hitlersbrain: STRYPERSWINE: The climate has never NOT changed. Adapt.

There is no climate change...

Okay there is but man did not cause it...

Okay man caused it but it's no big deal... a few million people die horribly... big deal.

so... much... stupid...

How do I convince you that bullets fired from a pistol placed against your head can't possibly hurt you? I'm sure it can't be hard.

Few million people die? How did you arrive at this number? If you are dying from exposure or heat you are probably homeless in which case you run the risk of dying without any sort of climate change.

See, the problem here is not such huge changes in temperature that people are dieing from exposure. The problem is that it takes relatively tiny changes in climate to mess with the food supply. That huge drought in the midwest now is, potentially, a reflection of that.

Perhaps things will go back to normal, and you guys can all say "See? I told you so!", but if they don't a lot of people are going to go hungry, and higher food prices are going to hurt a lot of people already struggling in this economy. You may be fine with that, but most people with a shred of humanitarian or traditional Christian virtue should be very concerned about the impact this will have on the poor and hungry.


Concerned sure, but it still won't change anything and there is no real way to "prevent" or "stop it" from occurring. The most you can do is mitigate it, and lend aid to those desperate souls in need. I am not a disbeliever in climate change, and global problems are global problems. Without a united effort, the states will just end up with ridiculous regulations and taxes to try to carry the burden of the world on its back, but really will just be another money grabbing scheme done under the guise of charity.
 
2012-08-10 02:12:06 PM

jbtilley: Launch Code: Another way to prepare is to remember what most 4 and 5 yearolds are taught. Seasons change, that's how the earth works. Summer can be hot and winter can be cold.
The global warming hoax, brought to you by the offspring of the global freezing wackos from the '70s.


They updated the book for this year:

[oi47.tinypic.com image 381x500]


Bull. Everyone knows the four seasons are turkey season, trout season, deer season, and Christmas.
 
2012-08-10 03:07:25 PM
Wow, if somehow human beings were capable of adapting to their environment we'd be saved.... Oh wait nvm.
 
2012-08-10 03:30:00 PM
Wouldn't be the first time humans had to live underground. Derinkuyu Turkey
tourcappadocia.com
 
2012-08-10 04:10:14 PM

Deep Contact: Derinkuyu Turkey


Derink yourself.
 
2012-08-10 04:10:24 PM
Well, except China and India. They're exempt.
 
2012-08-10 04:37:35 PM
Can't we all just agree that climates only make sudden, sharp changes when a catastrophic event (read asteroid / volcano ect) occurs? Can't the warm weather be a part of the cycle and not indicative of a pants-shiating change?

/ if i remember correctly; the warmest year before this one was in the thirties; I guess all the SUVs they had caused it; and it is not just a part of the climate cycle.
 
2012-08-10 04:39:55 PM

Joe Blowme: PunGent: Joe Blowme: LarryDan43: This is why we need to tax the middle class more so myself and fellow 1%ers can get a tax break on our cave homes and yachts

Thats where Obama Care comes in, your new taxes will be here shortly and the 1% will continue to pay 71% of the bills


/jealousy and sloth, how does it work?

Of course, if they own 80% of the property and earn 80% of the income, they're UNDER taxed...

FAIR SHARE!!!!


Yep. No more...but no less, either. Amazing how many people think that's "class warfare."
 
2012-08-10 04:45:03 PM

iheartscotch: Can't we all just agree that climates only make sudden, sharp changes when a catastrophic event (read asteroid / volcano ect) occurs?.


Incorrect. Read up on tipping points.

You ARE correct that the current drought can't be directly tied to global warming.
 
2012-08-10 04:56:47 PM
Believing humans can create enough energy to heat the Earth up is akin to believing that we can cool it back down by opening our doors and cranking the AC.
 
2012-08-10 05:03:12 PM

sprd: Believing humans can create enough energy to heat the Earth up is akin to believing that we can cool it back down by opening our doors and cranking the AC.


Want to know how I know you didn't pass High School physics or chemistry?
 
2012-08-10 07:52:59 PM

sprd: Believing humans can create enough energy to heat the Earth up is akin to believing that we can cool it back down by opening our doors and cranking the AC.


Hmmm. I think I have a spare cat brain around here if you want to borrow it. It would be an improvement.

Either that, or IHBT. Masterful.
 
2012-08-11 03:51:08 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: sprd: Believing humans can create enough energy to heat the Earth up is akin to believing that we can cool it back down by opening our doors and cranking the AC.

Hmmm. I think I have a spare cat brain around here if you want to borrow it. It would be an improvement.

Either that, or IHBT. Masterful.


Dude you keep cat brains around?

lifeofdad.com
 
2012-08-11 06:32:48 AM
It's OK. Jesus will protect us.
 
2012-08-11 08:39:21 AM
I have always wanted a underground home... All my computer gear is kept in my basement, when its 95 outside.. basement is 70... when its 25 outside.. basement is 65.. I have always wondered how much energy would be saved if we had homes with 1 floor above ground and like 2 below (overcoming flood issues of course) when i used to keep my computer crap in my top floor.. 80 outside... 90+ upstairs with AC running non stop...
 
2012-08-11 10:41:10 AM
cirby:
Of course.

That way, in 88 years, you're going to be ready for when the oceans are ONE FOOT HIGHER than they are right now. Maybe. Could be lower.

/scary
//current IPCC predictions

New paper shows sea level rise of less than 7 inches per century with no acceleration
 
2012-08-11 11:17:54 AM
Launch Code:
The global warming hoax, brought to you by the offspring of the global freezing wackos from the '70s.

Nah, it's the SAME wacko: James Hansen.
U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (Full article for pay)

Discussion:
U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming
The Washington Post, Date: Jul 9, 1971

The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia University says ...

The Post reported that Rasool, writing in Science, argued that in "the next 50 years" fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.

Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, Rasool claimed, "could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

Aiding Rasool's research, the Post reported, was a "computer program developed by Dr. James Hansen"

"They found no need to worry about the carbon dioxide fuel-burning puts in the atmosphere"

Original article abstract: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate

 
2012-08-11 11:31:22 AM
Ned Stark:
Launch Code: Another way to prepare is to remember what most 4 and 5 yearolds are taught. Seasons change, that's how the earth works. Summer can be hot and winter can be cold.
The global warming hoax, brought to you by the offspring of the global freezing wackos from the '70s.

Yes, a consensus amongst 90%+ of all qualified scientists with thousands of pages of peer reviewed research is exactly the same as a single speculative article in a magazine.

When you consider that "peer-reviewed science" put out by the IPCC includes many instances of the insertion of environmental activist propaganda, and that the articles are edited AFTER the "peer-review," yeah, they ARE just about the same.

Altered data -- not science
Cherry-picked data -- not science
"Lost" data -- not science
"Secret" methods -- not science
"Proprietary" programs to process data -- not science
Unfalsifiable hypotheses -- not science

It's not that warmer alarmist "science" is bad science, it's simply NOT science.
 
2012-08-11 11:43:12 AM
Jim.Casy:
Perhaps things will go back to normal, and you guys can all say "See? I told you so!", but if they don't a lot of people are going to go hungry, and higher food prices are going to hurt a lot of people already struggling in this economy. You may be fine with that, but most people with a shred of humanitarian or traditional Christian virtue should be very concerned about the impact this will have on the poor and hungry.

Warmer climate means more food. More carbon dioxide means more food. What we DO have to worry about -- for all the good it will do -- is that we ARE going to be in a major glaciation, probably in about 1500 years. THAT will negatively impact food production, and we will be unable to support our billions, barring food production in space, or similar future technology indistinguishable from magic.

And, as USED to be known, carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere have incredibly little effect on temperature. That doesn't fit the agenda. Bullshiat artists aside, the SCIENCE does not support alarmism over AGW, and that is what counts.
 
2012-08-11 12:44:46 PM

GeneralJim: Ned Stark: Launch Code: Another way to prepare is to remember what most 4 and 5 yearolds are taught. Seasons change, that's how the earth works. Summer can be hot and winter can be cold.
The global warming hoax, brought to you by the offspring of the global freezing wackos from the '70s.

Yes, a consensus amongst 90%+ of all qualified scientists with thousands of pages of peer reviewed research is exactly the same as a single speculative article in a magazine.
When you consider that "peer-reviewed science" put out by the IPCC includes many instances of the insertion of environmental activist propaganda, and that the articles are edited AFTER the "peer-review," yeah, they ARE just about the same.

Altered data -- not science
Cherry-picked data -- not science
"Lost" data -- not science
"Secret" methods -- not science
"Proprietary" programs to process data -- not science
Unfalsifiable hypotheses -- not science

It's not that warmer alarmist "science" is bad science, it's simply NOT science.



spamming a message board with lies in green text -- NOT science
 
2012-08-11 04:29:27 PM
iheartscotch:
Can't we all just agree that climates only make sudden, sharp changes when a catastrophic event (read asteroid / volcano ect) occurs? Can't the warm weather be a part of the cycle and not indicative of a pants-shiating change?

/ if i remember correctly; the warmest year before this one was in the thirties; I guess all the SUVs they had caused it; and it is not just a part of the climate cycle.

You are correct. Here's a table of the original data:

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com


And, even with all the known problems with the data set, here's the U.S. temperature map for this century:


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
Note that the "real" temperature matches James Hansen's graph... from 1990.


And, finally....

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
Here you can see the brutal warming of the 20th Century...
Oh, wait,
This graph is the "adjustments" that have been made to the
instrument readings since 1990 - for the two altered sets.
 
2012-08-11 04:33:44 PM
Doesn't really matter, even if global warming is real, the only tactic the environmentalists will let us use to stop it (extermination of most of the human race) is pretty much the same thing that global warming will do. Only difference is who gets to be chooser of the slain, and I'd rather that not be a human organization, simply because they tend to base their genocides on religious belief rather than natural selection.

/it's really a war between those who see global warming as an opportunity to impose their absolute moral authority over the entire world, and "deniers" who see it as a problem to be fixed regardless of religious beliefs
 
2012-08-11 05:01:09 PM

Tatterdemalian: Doesn't really matter, even if global warming is real, the only tactic the environmentalists will let us use to stop it (extermination of most of the human race) is pretty much the same thing that global warming will do. Only difference is who gets to be chooser of the slain, and I'd rather that not be a human organization, simply because they tend to base their genocides on religious belief rather than natural selection.

/it's really a war between those who see global warming as an opportunity to impose their absolute moral authority over the entire world, and "deniers" who see it as a problem to be fixed regardless of religious beliefs


So what you're saying is that people who deny that there is a problem at all actually want to fix the problem that they say is not happening.

It must be nice to live in such a white and black world.


/That might be dumber than anything GeneralJim has said in the last six months, which is quite an accomplishment.
 
2012-08-11 05:05:22 PM
There are quite a few stupid things about the panic variety of anthropogenic global warming (AGW.) Among them:
o The planet has been warming steadily since before the industrial revolution.
- The atmospheric carbon dioxide level FOLLOWS the temperature, and therefore is not the controller.
- Looking long term, it has been 450 million years since it has been this cold.
- Looking a bit shorter term, we have been cooling for the last 8,000 years, and still are.
- Warmer temperatures will allow MORE food production, not less.
- The "science" behind AGW has been shown to be corrupted time and again.
- Carbon dioxide levels are at historic lows, and have been 20x greater.
- Increasing carbon dioxide levels will allow more food production.

The claim is often made here that these stupidities are somehow exclusive. That is, people complain that there is not one consistent gripe with AGW. It is presented as if it were somehow dishonest to point out the multiple problems with a hypothesis. Meanwhile, here in reality, the more problems with a hypothesis, the more likely it is to be incorrect.
 
2012-08-11 05:10:01 PM

GeneralJim: There are quite a few stupid things about the panic variety of anthropogenic global warming (AGW.) Among them:o The planet has been warming steadily since before the industrial revolution.
- The atmospheric carbon dioxide level FOLLOWS the temperature, and therefore is not the controller.
- Looking long term, it has been 450 million years since it has been this cold.
- Looking a bit shorter term, we have been cooling for the last 8,000 years, and still are.
- Warmer temperatures will allow MORE food production, not less.
- The "science" behind AGW has been shown to be corrupted time and again.
- Carbon dioxide levels are at historic lows, and have been 20x greater.
- Increasing carbon dioxide levels will allow more food production.
The claim is often made here that these stupidities are somehow exclusive. That is, people complain that there is not one consistent gripe with AGW. It is presented as if it were somehow dishonest to point out the multiple problems with a hypothesis. Meanwhile, here in reality, the more problems with a hypothesis, the more likely it is to be incorrect.


Wow. You're actually on the right track. Those are all stupid things to say.
 
2012-08-11 05:22:46 PM
HighZoolander:
spamming a message board with lies in green text -- NOT science

Of COURSE it's not science. But you don't seem to get what types of things ARE science. The "science" of polling scientists is no more science than my posts in this thread are. And it's not even informative if you load the questions, as Oreskes has done. By HER count, I would be one of the "consensus" that GW is real, and man-made. And that's a crock, obviously.

The corrupt U.N. "science" of the IPCC is likewise not science. Neither is peer-review which allows papers with secret methods and irreproducible data to pass and be published, or a survey of more than a dozen studies, each of which shows the medieval warm period, which says there is no evidence of the MWP. Neither is lowering old data points and raising newer ones to "show" warming. None of that crap is science. But you eat all THAT up.
 
2012-08-11 05:24:16 PM
HighZoolander:
Wow. You're actually on the right track. Those are all stupid things to say.

Okay, Mr. Wizard... How about you explain why altering decades-old historical data to "show" what you want to show is science?
 
2012-08-11 05:34:17 PM

GeneralJim: By HER count, I would be one of the "consensus" that GW is real, and man-made. And that's a crock, obviously.


Is that really a crock? In multiple recent threads you've stipulated that man made global warming is happening, but you've disputed the degree of the effects. You've claimed that an observational study suggests that the warming will be about a degree or so, in contrast to the models which predict warming greater than 2 degrees.

So are you really arguing about science, or are you mostly concerned about political conspiracy theories that the IPCC and UN plan to bankrupt the first world for their own enrichment (however that works)?
 
2012-08-11 05:39:12 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Wow. You're actually on the right track. Those are all stupid things to say.
Okay, Mr. Wizard... How about you explain why altering decades-old historical data to "show" what you want to show is science?


How about you explain why you and a handful of crackpot bloggers and political hacks are the only ones who believe that that's what happened?

It's been explained to you a lot, and yet you would rather believe in evil agendas and weird conspiracies than a rational, scientific explanation.
 
2012-08-11 09:31:18 PM
HighZoolander:
So are you really arguing about science, or are you mostly concerned about political conspiracy theories that the IPCC and UN plan to bankrupt the first world for their own enrichment (however that works)?

I wouldn't call it an argument about science, per se. It's an argument about the non-scientific crap that gets thrown in with the science and pollutes it.

First and foremost of those bits of crap is modeling. Modeling can be quite useful, but the output of a model is NOT evidence. A prediction of a model is, in essence, the working out of the hypotheses which were used to make it. When reality falls outside of what the model predicts, it's time to re-evaluate the model. I have seen scientific papers in which it was assumed that data readings were in error, simply because they did not match the model. It's as if Stephen Wright were a climatologist... ("Why are the letters of the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?")

When observations taken appropriately disagree with model output, it means that assumptions used in the model are incorrect. And, incidentally, the proper approach is to FIX THE MODEL, not alter the data so it fits the model better. Climatology has been bass-ackwards for about twenty years. And you're not helping.
 
2012-08-11 10:11:18 PM
HighZoolander:
It's been explained to you a lot, and yet you would rather believe in evil agendas and weird conspiracies than a rational, scientific explanation.

Just because a hoaxer claims nothing bad went on, why do you refer to that as "a rational, scientific explanation?

The chart above shows the difference between the original figures, and the current figures. When you plot the difference, it looks like this:


wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com


Okay, you see the two curves? What rational, scientific explanation is there for lowering older temperatures, and raising more recent temperatures? And, why weren't the temperatures for the 1930s adjusted in the 1930s, or even the 1940s instead of waiting until the 1990s to start pushing the numbers around?

Also, why do the NASA GISS and Hadleycrut data show statistically certain signs of being manipulated by humans, rather than being straight readings? This methodology is valid evidence of tampering with numbers in court. Why do you think it doesn't matter if it is scientists diddling the numbers instead of pension fund managers?

And finally, what do you think Ottmar Edenhofer meant when he said "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."?
 
2012-08-11 10:30:37 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: So are you really arguing about science, or are you mostly concerned about political conspiracy theories that the IPCC and UN plan to bankrupt the first world for their own enrichment (however that works)?
I wouldn't call it an argument about science, per se. It's an argument about the non-scientific crap that gets thrown in with the science and pollutes it.

First and foremost of those bits of crap is modeling. Modeling can be quite useful, but the output of a model is NOT evidence. A prediction of a model is, in essence, the working out of the hypotheses which were used to make it. When reality falls outside of what the model predicts, it's time to re-evaluate the model. I have seen scientific papers in which it was assumed that data readings were in error, simply because they did not match the model. It's as if Stephen Wright were a climatologist... ("Why are the letters of the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?")

When observations taken appropriately disagree with model output, it means that assumptions used in the model are incorrect. And, incidentally, the proper approach is to FIX THE MODEL, not alter the data so it fits the model better. Climatology has been bass-ackwards for about twenty years. And you're not helping.


I honestly don't believe that you are really concerned with doing good science, and you're certainly not expert enough to tell the difference.

You're trying to convince people that the warming effect is nothing to panic over, at the same time you're clearly concerned about the politics of climate change. If that political fear is what motivates you to post, you must be just about scared shiatless that the UN is going to personally sell your house to the third world.

So you argue hard to try to discredit the science by any means necessary (including casting completely unfounded aspersions about data manipulation), because you're in a panic over the politics. And if the science can be discredited the political problem goes away.

But really, if the political issues are what really concern you, go after the politicians. The science is what it is, and the only thing you've accomplished by trying to argue the science over the internet is to persuade everyone that you're crazy (which I'd bet is not the outcome you were hoping for).
 
2012-08-11 11:07:39 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: It's been explained to you a lot, and yet you would rather believe in evil agendas and weird conspiracies than a rational, scientific explanation.
Just because a hoaxer claims nothing bad went on, why do you refer to that as "a rational, scientific explanation?

The chart above shows the difference between the original figures, and the current figures. When you plot the difference, it looks like this:

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 382x314]

Okay, you see the two curves? What rational, scientific explanation is there for lowering older temperatures, and raising more recent temperatures? And, why weren't the temperatures for the 1930s adjusted in the 1930s, or even the 1940s instead of waiting until the 1990s to start pushing the numbers around?

Also, why do the NASA GISS and Hadleycrut data show statistically certain signs of being manipulated by humans, rather than being straight readings? This methodology is valid evidence of tampering with numbers in court. Why do you think it doesn't matter if it is scientists diddling the numbers instead of pension fund managers?

And finally, what do you think Ottmar Edenhofer meant when he said "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."?


What rational scientific explanation can possibly convince you, when you've already made up your mind that any such explanation is a hoax or worse?

I have no idea what you're getting at with respect to the GISS and Hadleycrut data being manipulated (and I'm not sure what 'methodology' in court you're talking about, unless you mean comparing graphs?). But I can tell you this - of course the data has been statistically maniputed, you bozo.

How the hell can you compute a temperature anomaly without calculating something? A thermometer doesn't tell you that today it was 0.2 degrees warmer than the period from 1960-1990, why would a satellite?

I don't know where those graphs came from that you posted (too lazy to dig), but of course as better statistical methods are applied to the data, the numbers may change. I'm not sure what you know about world politics, but it might have been dicey to get temperature readings immediately for the whole globe in the 1930s and 1940s. Even if the mail wasn't interrupted by, you know, the world war and all.

As for Otttmar, why do you believe that the *goal* is to impoverish wealthy nations, and that he would be so stupid as to say this in public if it were the case? Is he really a cartoon villain to you? Does he twirl his outrageously large mustache in your head when you hear this quote?

Here is the full interview with Ottmar (in German)

and a google translation below (it's crude, but I couldn't find a full English translation, and a search for one came up mostly with small quotes only from freeper-esque blogs that made my humanity hurt)

To me, it sounds like he is talking about the need to link climate policy with economic policy, and not in a sinister fashion. But then again, I'm not paranoid, and I see a wealthy Africa as a more stable political situation than an impoverished Africa. That doesn't mean that we give them all our money, but that we aid them in development in ways that are mutually beneficial.

translation ----------

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, on climate change all demand a reduction of emissions. They now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What is it?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far as economic growth goes hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent means one percent more emissions growth. The historic memory of mankind is burned: Who is rich burnt, for coal, oil or gas. And that is why the emerging markets are afraid of emission limits.

In climate protection but should all join in, otherwise it does not work.

It's easy to say. But most of all the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Since you can not expect India or China that find that this is a great idea. And it gets even worse: we are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, as oil and gas have become more expensive, but not coal. The emerging markets are working for the next 70 years their cities and power plants, as if there would be no permanent high CO 2 prices.

What is new about your proposal for a global deal, the emphasis on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of development aid to charity.

This will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens per head of population, then Africa is the big winner, and it flows a lot of money there. This has enormous implications for development policy. And there will arise the question of how these countries can deal with so much money at all useful.

That does not sound more like the climate policy, we know.

Basically it is a big mistake, climate policy is separated from the major themes of globalization discussed. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month, no climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11 000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet - and we can settle only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere, if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that a large proportion of fossil fuel reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, the expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First off we have the atmosphere of industrial countries of the world community virtually expropriated. But one must say clearly that we distribute to the climate policy de facto, the world's wealth. That the owners of coal and oil which are not enthusiastic about is obvious. One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or ozone hole, almost nothing.

Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change - especially in the south.

There will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa to climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased - and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But then we need to see that successful climate policy just needs another global trade and financial policy.

The great misunderstanding of the UN summit in Rio in 1992 is repeated in the Climate Policy: The industrialized countries are talking about the environment, the development of developing countries.

It is even more complicated. In the eighties, our local environmental problems in developing countries is a luxury problem. Who is already sick and driving car that can get worked up about acid rain. For China, however, it was a question of how to get 600 million Chinese people in the middle class. Whether there is a coal-fired power plant or coal mines in the low social standards, that was the first subordinated - as here in the 19th Century.

But the world has become smaller.

Now comes something new: It's no longer just our luxury, our environment. Developing countries is clear that the causes lie in the north and the consequences in the South. And in developed countries, we realize that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions yet sufficient life style change. The people here in Europe, the grotesque notion that shopping in the health food store or electric cars solved the problem. It is arrogant because of the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has increased over the past 30 years, despite the eco-movement.

They say, for a successful climate policy is a high degree of international cooperation necessary. Especially the one sees not.

I share the skepticism. But we have an alternative? Currently there are three ideas on how to handle the difficult cooperation: It is engaged in unsafe experiments such as the geo-engineering, focusing on the development of cleaner and safer energy, or by relying on regional and local solutions. However, there is no indication that any of these ideas solves the problem. We need the cooperation that is to work together as one for the regulation of financial markets needs.

But unlike the financial crisis in a country benefits of climate policy, if not join in it.

The financial crisis was an emergency operation - in the face of danger we behave more cooperative. Such a thing will not give in climate, because it remains questionable whether a specific event like a flood, a climate phenomenon. But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one can not solve the climate problem alone, but it must connect with other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2 taxes and technology transfer.

In your new book is much talk of ethics. Does it play a role in the climate negotiations?

Ethics always plays a role when it comes to power. China and Latin America, for example, always emphasizing the historical responsibility of developed countries for climate change. This responsibility is not to deny, but it is also a strategic argument of the countries. I would accept responsibility for the period since 1995, since then because we know what causes the greenhouse effect. The responsibilities extend to the industrial revolution is not ethically justified.

Is it possible to use the ethics in order to break the gridlock?

The book contains a parable: A group of hikers, the world community is, on the road in the desert. The industrialized nations drink of the water in half and then say generously: "You can not do it, you have the water already half empty: '! Now we share the rest of" As the others say. We talk now about your time historical responsibility "We believe. If we argue only about the water supply because we can not agree on the ethical principles may be, we die of thirst. Look what we have is an oasis that is the carbon-free world economy. It's about the common departure for this oasis.
 
2012-08-12 07:57:36 PM
HighZoolander:
I honestly don't believe that you are really concerned with doing good science, and you're certainly not expert enough to tell the difference.

You're okay with maunfacturing data, as long as they support "your" cause, and I'm not interested in doing good science? You seem to be speaking out the wrong orifice.

You're trying to convince people that the warming effect is nothing to panic over, at the same time you're clearly concerned about the politics of climate change. If that political fear is what motivates you to post, you must be just about scared shiatless that the UN is going to personally sell your house to the third world.

Let's say someone wanted to spend trillions of dollars a year to stomp out communism in America. Let's also say you were against that bullshiat idea. Would it only be through fear? People who fear carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should be even MORE against the risible actions of the U.N. in "climate" legislation. For, while they, too, can see that the plans involve sending massive wealth from productive nations to the third world, if they fear carbon dioxide the fact that the U.N. plan would have carbon dioxide increase every single year should ALSO give them a rash. That bit of info doesn't bother me, as I know carbon dioxide to be beneficial up to a level MANY times the current level.

I am in favor of personal freedom, against statism, and am aware that humanity has always performed at its best when people are allowed to do what they want, as long as they are not harming others. The growth of bureaucracy ALWAYS stifles prosperity. That is not fear. Your myopic viewpoint may suggest to you that what motivates me is fear, but that is simple projection.

The leftist (or statist) fear is that someone, somewhere, may be successful without a government program. But, just like the fact that deaths by handgun are greatest where the laws are the strictest, the fewer programs in place to protect people from the vagaries of life, the better life treats the society. An individual does not, CAN not, get rich by spending every available dime on insurance against loss; individuals get rich by investing in instruments or activities which can make money. Likewise, societies do not make progress by spending every available dime on "safety nets," but by taking actions which advance business and industry.

The downfall of statism is inherent in its properties, and what amounts to economic natural law: If you are willing to pay for something, people will deliver it, if it is at all possible. The statist is willing to pay for nothing but support, a vote. So, millions of people are willing to provide nothing but their vote, as long as it pays. The weight of people doing nothing but support the state that gives them money eventually drowns the statist government.

Even on Fark, there are people who voice the opinion that collecting money from people who make money, either by producing wealth, or by working for people who produce wealth, and giving that money to people who will do nothing with it but consume, is good for the economy. Ignorance that profound cannot be argued with.
 
2012-08-12 09:55:48 PM
HighZoolander:
I don't know where those graphs came from that you posted (too lazy to dig), but of course as better statistical methods are applied to the data, the numbers may change. I'm not sure what you know about world politics, but it might have been dicey to get temperature readings immediately for the whole globe in the 1930s and 1940s. Even if the mail wasn't interrupted by, you know, the world war and all.

A truly ignorant comment. Better statistical methods won't cool the planet. So, what is your cognitive difficulty? Do you think that suddenly, after the U.N. decides to push for redistribution of wealth that the numbers for the 1930s and 1940s suddenly became available? If they didn't have the numbers in 1989, why in 1990?

Are you under the impression that scientists don't lie? Do you worship science, or scientists? There is hardly an attitude that is LESS scientific than that.
 
2012-08-13 12:43:52 AM
HighZoolander:
I have no idea what you're getting at with respect to the GISS and Hadleycrut data being manipulated (and I'm not sure what 'methodology' in court you're talking about, unless you mean comparing graphs?). But I can tell you this - of course the data has been statistically maniputed, you bozo.

Not statistically manipulated, you ignoramus. Look, just because you are ignorant of (yet another) idea does not mean that it is not valid.

People SUCK at making up random numbers. If you fill a chart with numbers you make up, statistical analysis of those numbers will show that a human manufactured them, as opposed to being recorded data or random numbers from a true random number generator. Read about it in the first of the following links:

Data Manipulation Fraud

Accounting auditing brought to bear on climate data. It is discovered that NASA's GISS data and the Hadley CRU's data have been manufactured. That is, faked. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data Again. Article HERE. (new window)

Google Warming: Google Sponsors Student To Fabricate "Global Warming" Temperatures For NASA. Article Google Warming: Google Sponsors Student To Fabricate "Global Warming" Temperatures For NASA" Article HERE.

New Report: Why NOAA and NASA Proclamations Should Be Ignored. Article HERE.

Data Corruption At GISS. Article HERE. (new window)

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal - NOAA Disgraced. Article HERE. (new window)

Pre-Climategate: "Unprecedented" Data Purge At CRU. Article HERE. (new window)

Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones: the Secret Agent in Hawaii. Article HERE. (new window)

Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P. Article HERE. (new window)

Scientia Climate Non Gradus Anus Rodentum!
 
2012-08-13 01:33:32 AM

GeneralJim: Also, why do the NASA GISS and Hadleycrut data show statistically certain signs of being manipulated by humans, rather than being straight readings?


GeneralJim: Not statistically manipulated, you ignoramus



I'm sure even you can understand why it's difficult for people to know what the hell you're talking about.

That said, it is endlessly amusing to see how gullible you are when you read something that fits with what you want to believe about climate change.

For the first link re accounting auditing, you say "discovered ...data have been manufactured" as if it were a fact, and there was no doubt at all about it.

First, read the last paragraph of what you linked: "At this stage I am in exploratory mode. The chi-square test is prone to produce false positives for small samples. Also, there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected. However, the tests are very sensitive. Even if arithmetic operations are performed on data after the manipulations, the 'fingerprint' of human intervention can remain." (I bolded the parts you're ignoring)

Second, provide an argument that Benford's law applies beyond accounting, to climate data specifically. For example, here is an argument that it is *useless* for the determination of fraud in elections: Link. You want to make the claim that it applies to climate data, back it up.

It's also interesting that the Office of Research Integrity offered this kind of analysis in the case of Imanishi-Kari, trying to establish that her data had been faked. Link (note the many problems which could easily trap someone applying this technique to climate data) In fact, Imanishi-Kari's data hadn't been faked, the analysis was bullshiat, and she was (eventually) cleared of all charges, once the investigators actually told her what she had been accused of and allowed her to provide a defense. But you would have been perfectly happy to put her innocent head on a stick and destroy her career, because you lack critical thinking skills.

Third, explain why the GISS, CRU, UAH (and other) datasets give exactly the same result, if some were manipulated and the other (UAH) wasn't (as your link claims). Link

I'm not going to take the time to go through the other crap you linked, but I'll apply Jon Snow's law: Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report