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.

(Daily Mail)   Global warming stopped 16 years ago, so fire up the Corvette and go out and have some fun laughing at the drivers of Smart Cars   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 214
    More: Interesting, Met Office, smart cars, corvettes, global warming, Phil Jones, climate variability, energy minister, temperatures  
•       •       •

5070 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Oct 2012 at 1:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-14 10:59:32 PM
I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.
 
2012-10-14 11:28:40 PM

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.


Believe me we have those types in the UK and Australia as well. They are usually cranky, old men who are very much in the mold of tea party style fanatics in the US.

In Australia there is even a local version of Rush Limbaugh, although he only broadcasts in Sydney. Alan Jones is always harping on about how climate change is a left wing conspiracy. Tragically, my own father is a disciple of Alan Jones. He has become more and more irrational since he started listening to Jones' radio show, and is now convinced that I am a communist. He believes that because I have more faith in the opinion of climate scientists than I do in some loud mouthed, bigoted shock jock.

The bizarre twist with this bigoted authoritarian dolt is that he is gay - none of his bigoted, homophobic audience seems to realize it though. Several years ago he was arrested in a London public toilet for lewd behavior. For some reason the charges were dropped. Perhaps he convinced the police he was only doing research.

chb.live.mediaspanonline.com
 
2012-10-14 11:41:22 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: >>>When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact.

Because the original science, courtesy of a guy named Aristotle, has established as a working theory the concept of objective reality. That fact is considered objectively real. AS opposed to, say, a Platonic theory which would assert that that "fact" is fluid, amorphous, changeable. That rock you measure might be 6 inches long. A week later, when the shadows of the "higher" reality shift, it might be 7 inches long.

The ultimate basis of science (going back several thousand years) are two branches of philosophy: epistemology (theory of knowledge - how we know what we know) and metaphysics (theory of reality - the nature of the existing universe). Facts are facts because the underlying philosophical/scientific theory that (1) reality is objective (metaphysics) and (2) that we can accurately measure it (epistemology).


Ok, now that I see what you're getting at, you no longer seem confused to me, and it's a good reminder.

/My general response to philosophy though is that I'd rather have a good blaster at my side.
//If I can't measure it at least I can blast it.
 
2012-10-14 11:44:45 PM

MayoSlather: I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.


You're actually kind of onto something, in that only a very small portion of the added radiative forcing we've contributed to the planetary energy imbalance through our increases in GHGs has gone into directly warming the surface air temperature. Although the amount going into melting ice isn't large either. Most of the extra energy is being dumped into the global ocean:

i.imgur.com

This is annual OHC (ocean heat content, in 1022 joules) from the upper 700 meters over the last 16 years. Compare to my plots of the surface air temperature above:

i.imgur.com

And the last 30:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-15 12:02:12 AM

Alleyoop: common sense is an oxymoron: Meanwhile...

www.skepticalscience.com

Can I play?

[i150.photobucket.com image 480x295] 

[www.climate-skeptic.com image 500x375]


If you want to play, you can start by explaining what it is you're trying to say by posting those graphs.
 
2012-10-15 12:09:47 AM

Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]


Your chart would be much scarier if you scaled it by .5 degrees Celsius....cause then the increase of .75 degrees Celsius would totally blast off the top of the chart like a rocket ship.

Of course if you scaled the rise to something noticeable ....for instance it usually takes a change of several degrees Fahrenheit before a person can tell a difference.... so to put that in Celsius language you might need a 5 degree change in cel to be noticeable to the average person. so a .75 degree change on a chart with a 5 degree scale could be called barely detectable.

So temperatures went up slightly for a while and have stabilized. If its something we did bully for us and go bug the Chinese. If its natural then sucks to be you and you need to find a better hobby. Maybe if climatologists stopped wasting internet wattage and AC wattage on hot air all the time we might be able to keep living a comfortable lifestyle a little while longer.
 
2012-10-15 12:11:15 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Alleyoop: common sense is an oxymoron: Meanwhile...

www.skepticalscience.com

Can I play?

[i150.photobucket.com image 480x295] 

[www.climate-skeptic.com image 500x375]

If you want to play, you can start by explaining what it is you're trying to say by posting those graphs.


That a small change in the way data is presented can mean billions of dollars in public money sent to alternative energy companies?
 
2012-10-15 12:13:20 AM

HighZoolander: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: >>>When I make a measurement of something, the result is a fact.

Because the original science, courtesy of a guy named Aristotle, has established as a working theory the concept of objective reality. That fact is considered objectively real. AS opposed to, say, a Platonic theory which would assert that that "fact" is fluid, amorphous, changeable. That rock you measure might be 6 inches long. A week later, when the shadows of the "higher" reality shift, it might be 7 inches long.

The ultimate basis of science (going back several thousand years) are two branches of philosophy: epistemology (theory of knowledge - how we know what we know) and metaphysics (theory of reality - the nature of the existing universe). Facts are facts because the underlying philosophical/scientific theory that (1) reality is objective (metaphysics) and (2) that we can accurately measure it (epistemology).

Ok, now that I see what you're getting at, you no longer seem confused to me, and it's a good reminder.

/My general response to philosophy though is that I'd rather have a good blaster at my side.
//If I can't measure it at least I can blast it.


LOL! What? No hokey religions and ancient weapons?
 
2012-10-15 12:17:08 AM

archichris: common sense is an oxymoron: Alleyoop: common sense is an oxymoron: Meanwhile...

www.skepticalscience.com

Can I play?

[i150.photobucket.com image 480x295] 

[www.climate-skeptic.com image 500x375]

If you want to play, you can start by explaining what it is you're trying to say by posting those graphs.

That a small change in the way data is presented can mean billions of dollars in public money sent to alternative energy companies?


Only if billions of dollars in public money is being sent to alternative energy companies based on a 0.2-degree shift in temperature records from Brisbane. Unfortunately for the deniers, it isn't.

BTW, "Climategate" was a nonevent. Link
 
2012-10-15 12:22:41 AM
I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?
 
2012-10-15 12:24:09 AM

GeneralJim: ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.
Yeah, go for it -- what's one more lie?

With the exception of the U.S. and G.B., most of the world is highly skeptical of AGW alarmism.

And, the planet is taking a dump on your pet hypothesis as we speak.


Greetings from Sydney, Australia General Jim. You're full of it.

The only people in Australia who are climate change deniers are ignorant authoritarians. Just like in the US.
 
2012-10-15 12:32:31 AM

cman: I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?


That "prediction" was based on a hypothetical question regarding the effects of DOUBLING atmospheric CO2 from 1988 levels; in other words, a CO2 level of close to 700 ppm as compared to the current 390 ppm or so. Naturally, the deniers got the context of Hansen's comment as wrong as they get the science.

Link
 
2012-10-15 12:40:18 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: cman: I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?

That "prediction" was based on a hypothetical question regarding the effects of DOUBLING atmospheric CO2 from 1988 levels; in other words, a CO2 level of close to 700 ppm as compared to the current 390 ppm or so. Naturally, the deniers got the context of Hansen's comment as wrong as they get the science.

Link


I dont dispute that global warming (or climate change) exists, what I do dispute is the psychology of those who push for laws to halt climate change. People are paranoid by nature. It is a survival skill passed on by our ancestors. Along with that, they also passed on to us a concept called abstract thought. People see something that they believe will affect their life they automatically assume the absolute very worse. 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.
 
2012-10-15 12:50:19 AM

kg2095: GeneralJim: ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.
Yeah, go for it -- what's one more lie?

With the exception of the U.S. and G.B., most of the world is highly skeptical of AGW alarmism.

And, the planet is taking a dump on your pet hypothesis as we speak.

Greetings from Sydney, Australia General Jim. You're full of it.

The only people in Australia who are climate change deniers are ignorant authoritarians. Just like in the US.


Or else they're rich and don't want to lose their precious money. Like that evil Gina Rinehart.

/I saw her at the Perth Royal Show
//Boy, was she pissed when the judge pinned the blue ribbon on her...
 
2012-10-15 12:55:10 AM
I came for graphs and charts no one gives a shiat about except for the people posting them and leaving satisfied.
 
2012-10-15 01:18:36 AM

cman: 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.


And I had you listed as one of the reasonable conservatives on Fark...

So much for that :(
 
2012-10-15 01:28:37 AM

cman: common sense is an oxymoron: cman: I keep on sayin this to Global Warming Apocalyptic Conspiracy theorists: fool me once, shame on you; fool me 34246 times, shame on me.

/Werent we supposed to have 10 more feet of water at NYC by now making it uninhabitable?

That "prediction" was based on a hypothetical question regarding the effects of DOUBLING atmospheric CO2 from 1988 levels; in other words, a CO2 level of close to 700 ppm as compared to the current 390 ppm or so. Naturally, the deniers got the context of Hansen's comment as wrong as they get the science.

Link

I dont dispute that global warming (or climate change) exists, what I do dispute is the psychology of those who push for laws to halt climate change. People are paranoid by nature. It is a survival skill passed on by our ancestors. Along with that, they also passed on to us a concept called abstract thought. People see something that they believe will affect their life they automatically assume the absolute very worse. 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.



The media telling us this are the same media that gave us OMG GLOBAL COOLING and KOHOUTEK WILL BE THE COMET OF THE CENTURY. The original sources, however, said things like "in the absence of any other factors beyond those operating in the past, the current interglacial period is likely nearing an end. However..." or "when the comet reaches its maximum predicted brightness, it will be too close to the sun to be visible [unless you're observing from SkyLab]."

As for whether or not we should do anything about climate change, its effects will be the same whether it's the result of human activity or not. We do our best to prepare for predicted storms, tsunamis, and even earthquakes; we pass laws against dumping pollutants into the air and water; so why should we not prepare for and/or attempt to place restrictions on the source of a predicted increase in assorted meteorological/ecological disasters?
 
2012-10-15 01:31:25 AM

GAT_00: [icons.wxug.com image 640x403]

Pay no attention to this year's record-shattering warmth in America, the planet is getting colder.


I know the answer to this one!! America =/= The World.
 
2012-10-15 01:38:26 AM

Nobodyn0se: cman: 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.

And I had you listed as one of the reasonable conservatives on Fark...

So much for that :(


I was once a truther. I believed that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. I bought into their paranoid bullshiat. It got so bad that I had a few bouts of mania (and I am not even bipolar.) I am not an expert in climate change, but I have been through the other side of the looking glass and took a good look at how I fell into it. I got a greater understanding of human nature from my reflections.
 
2012-10-15 01:51:15 AM

styckx: I came for graphs and charts no one gives a shiat about except for the people posting them and leaving satisfied.


2.bp.blogspot.com

/leaving satisfied
 
2012-10-15 02:39:21 AM

cman: I bought into their paranoid bullshiat.


In that case, I'll give you another chance. But you need to realize, anyone who told you:

cman: 40 years now we have been told that IF WE DONT ACT NOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING WE WILL DIE.


is full of paranoid bullshiat. Stop listening to them.
 
2012-10-15 05:04:13 AM

ghare: LewDux: Good try, Daily Comrade, but Global Warming is pure fabrication

Why is it that demialism is almost 100% an American evangelical belief? Other countries and non-evangelicals don't insist on denying climate change.



You answered your own question. Only in America, do bogus theories like man-made global warming or the efficacy/safety of vaccines get any traction from do-gooder Liberals in the first place. Be grateful for the deniers, 'cause otherwise we'd be nothing but a fully hood-winked nation wearing tin-foil hats.
 
2012-10-15 05:59:28 AM
Was assuming this thread would show up quickly.

Had already posted these on a small friends' forum when the Daily Fail link was mentioned, saying it all sounded very familiar and that I'd place good money on it all being related to what's in those videos.

Sadly no one had enough time to place bets.
 
2012-10-15 07:10:40 AM

dready zim: Bontesla: lulwat?

DRTFA because I'm hoping no one actually said what the headline suggests. Please be trolling. I'm liking humanity today - don't you ruin it.

It sounds like you WANT global warming?

Must say though that the numbers show rising temperatures did stop 16 years ago. Whether it`s a plateau or whatever reason, the warming has stopped according to the met office. 4 more years and it`s significant according to some.

headline and sub headlines :

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"


Of course it could mean that global efforts have made an impact so we should continue the efforts of limiting the emissions of greenhouse gasses.
 
2012-10-15 07:14:26 AM
How much you wanna bet that these same deniers are going to be here next year when the Arctic isn't going to melt as extremely as it did this year, parroting how ACC doesn't exist because of this?
 
2012-10-15 08:15:15 AM

Jon Snow: MayoSlather: I know the article is shiat, however it seems as the an aggregate world temperature would be misleading with the massive amount of ice melting in polar regions. Seems as though all that cold water would at least for a time cause other areas to be slightly cooler. Then again, I really have no idea what I'm talking about...just conjecture.

You're actually kind of onto something, in that only a very small portion of the added radiative forcing we've contributed to the planetary energy imbalance through our increases in GHGs has gone into directly warming the surface air temperature. Although the amount going into melting ice isn't large either. Most of the extra energy is being dumped into the global ocean:



This is annual OHC (ocean heat content, in 1022 joules) from the upper 700 meters over the last 16 years. Compare to my plots of the surface air temperature above:



And the last 30:


The bottom chart seems to indicate that the oceans went from a net energy consumer to a net energy producer in the late 1980s.

That seems terribly significant yet I've never heard of that before. Am I misreading something?
 
2012-10-15 08:28:35 AM

ryarger: The bottom chart seems to indicate that the oceans went from a net energy consumer to a net energy producer in the late 1980s.

That seems terribly significant yet I've never heard of that before. Am I misreading something?


Yes. Climatological data is typically expressed as an anomaly, i.e. departure from some averaged reference period, rather than an absolute value. For the OHC data, the reference period is 1957-1990. Negative values reflect less stored energy than for the reference period only, not actual negative values.

This is similar to plots of global temperature data anomalies relative to 1951-1980 or 1901-2000: negative numbers don't actually mean negative temperatures (the Earth didn't freeze), rather they reflect values cooler than the reference period.
 
2012-10-15 10:26:11 AM

Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article?

Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.
.

The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source. You are also full of crap.
 
2012-10-15 10:38:30 AM

chuckufarlie: The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source.


How did you get:

you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source

From this:

Jon Snow: Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.


Not being a crazy person myself, perhaps you can understand how I don't follow your train of thought. The actual data do not support the claim in question. The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim. 

Can you explain how, in your mind, that gets distorted into it being all about me thinking I personally know more than anyone else?

I just want to see the world through your spittle-flecked, urine-jar glasses, if only for a brief instant.
 
2012-10-15 12:26:17 PM

Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source.

How did you get:

you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source

From this:

Jon Snow: Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.

Not being a crazy person myself, perhaps you can understand how I don't follow your train of thought. The actual data do not support the claim in question. The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim. 

Can you explain how, in your mind, that gets distorted into it being all about me thinking I personally know more than anyone else?

I just want to see the world through your spittle-flecked, urine-jar glasses, if only for a brief instant.


your interpretation of the data, dumbass, your interpretation. Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody. I have always realized that you are not all that intelligent but this is a stretch, even for you. If you were even one fourth as intelligent as you think you are, you would understand what I posted. Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.
 
2012-10-15 12:51:05 PM

chuckufarlie: Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody


Jon Snow: The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim.


chuckufarlie: Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.

 
2012-10-15 01:03:37 PM

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: The idea is that you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source.

How did you get:

you seem to believe that you know more about this subject than anybody else! You are the ultimate source

From this:

Jon Snow: Because I looked at what the primary source cited by the article said (claim in question is bullshiat). Because I downloaded the data myself and performed a standard linear regression with them (the claim in question is bullshiat). Because I am passing familiar with basic information pertaining to the appropriate timescales of forced components of globally averaged temperature relative to natural variability arising from processes like ENSO (the claim in question is bullshiat).

You get the idea.

Not being a crazy person myself, perhaps you can understand how I don't follow your train of thought. The actual data do not support the claim in question. The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim. 

Can you explain how, in your mind, that gets distorted into it being all about me thinking I personally know more than anyone else?

I just want to see the world through your spittle-flecked, urine-jar glasses, if only for a brief instant.

your interpretation of the data, dumbass, your interpretation. Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody. I have always realized that you are not all that intelligent but this is a stretch, even for you. If you were even one fourth as intelligent as you think you are, you would understand what I posted. Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.



nicksteel: Those who attack the messenger because the message is uncomfortable are in fact making an understandable, though primitive, response. The mosquito stings so you slap the mosquito, the apple is sour so you fling it into the bushes, someone reeks of body odor while attempting to kiss you and you give them a shove. Push it away, the child's Weeners to something offending, with no further thought about repercussions. Adults, in human society, are supposed to be logical, entertain facts, digest, discuss, and conclude. They most often do none of this, but simply react, as a child, to the offending substance of message, rejecting it. These are not leaders of men, as this type of reaction makes them scarcely suitable for any life but swinging from trees, but as Internet access is granted to anyone, they write email and post their simplistic reactions on message board. "Go away, you're crazy, I don't want to hear it", they cry, and when the shift occurrs will be found huddled in some corner making these demands still.
 
2012-10-15 02:28:43 PM
Those actually interested in a better level of conversation on the topic might head over to the gorgon's website and read what she and her visitors have to say.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/14/pause-discussion-thread/#more-1019 3
 
2012-10-15 03:03:42 PM

Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody

Jon Snow: The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim.

chuckufarlie: Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.


does putting your lies in bold type somehow make them true? You have spent years telling lies on fark. Why would you stop now? You post links that do not address the point you are trying to make. You post links with tons of words and you hope that somebody will find something in all of that crap that might actually address the point.

You really need to go back to the warmer's meetings so they can teach you how this is supposed to be done. Your lies are no longer convincing. At this point, you might as well just fall to the floor, kick your feet and stomp your fists on the ground, screaming BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.
 
2012-10-15 03:16:05 PM

chuckufarlie: Jon Snow: chuckufarlie: Don't you get it, moron? You look at the data and you seem to think that you know better than anybody

Jon Snow: The actual source of those data, the source supposedly used by the person making the claim, refutes the claim.

chuckufarlie: Sadly, you are completely unaware of your own limitations.

does putting your lies in bold type somehow make them true? You have spent years telling lies on fark. Why would you stop now? You post links that do not address the point you are trying to make. You post links with tons of words and you hope that somebody will find something in all of that crap that might actually address the point.

You really need to go back to the warmer's meetings so they can teach you how this is supposed to be done. Your lies are no longer convincing. At this point, you might as well just fall to the floor, kick your feet and stomp your fists on the ground, screaming BECAUSE I SAID SO!

Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.



nicksteel: once again, you completely ignore what the man said and attack the man. If just once you would have the balls (or is it brains??) to try to discuss something honestly, you might get a bit of credibility. As it stands, you come off looking really weak.
 
2012-10-15 03:29:05 PM

chuckufarlie: Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.


Incorrect.

And already linked. And no doubt has been pointed out to you again and again in other threads.

New shtick, plz.
 
2012-10-15 05:09:32 PM

cthellis: chuckufarlie: Even the man in charge of the CRU went on the record stating that the warming stopped at least ten years ago. I suppose that you think that you are smarter than him? You're not.

Incorrect.

And already linked. And no doubt has been pointed out to you again and again in other threads.

New shtick, plz.


That video states that the source was the Daily Mail Too bad, the source was not the Daily Mail. It was an interview that Jones gave to the BBC. So now he is recanting what he said to the BBC. Then he can be discounted completely because he is now a proven liar,

Unless you want to attack the BBC.

When the BBC asked:

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

His reply:
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Link

At least we have firm evidence that the leading scientist heading up this scam is a proven liar. That really does not make your position any better than it was previously.

Every day, more and more of the lies created by the warmers are revealed. And since we know that Jones is a liar, everything he has said about the issue is worthless. Your effort to destroy my argument did not work. You just shined a light on the fact that he lies. I really do not need his statement that it has or has not stopped. Nothing he says matters.

We still have the latest report that states that the warming ended a long time ago. We still have the statements by qualified (non-lying) scientists who tell us the the models are flawed. We have statements that say that the scientists do not fully grasp all of the elements that impact climate.

Funny thing is, I have been saying the same thing here for years and I am not a scientist.

It's over. You may not think that is is over but your opinion does not count. The governments of the world are not going to spend trillions of dollars AND destroy western society based on a flawed model. That is all that I care about. You can go around screaming that this scam is real but who is going to listen to you? Life will go on as before, the western economy will not be destroyed so that some poor fool living in a mud hut can have a better life. I am all for helping that poor fool, but the price that you want is way too high.

The fat lady is singing.
 
2012-10-15 05:47:31 PM

styckx: I came for graphs and charts no one gives a shiat about except for the people posting them and leaving satisfied.


flowingdata.com
 
2012-10-15 07:51:03 PM
At it`s core, science makes testable predictions.
 
2012-10-15 09:45:21 PM
ohokyeah:
Also, as for the water vapor coming from the nuclear plants, water vapor is actually a potent greenhouse gas and is a larger contributor to greenhouse effect than CO2 is. Nuclear power will not work in all places due to it's large water requirements for cooling not to mention the challenge of taking care of spent rods.

Okay... just a couple... First, water vapor in the air is part of a complex system of control -- too much wv, and it rains. GHG levels self-regulate.

You don't need a nuke plant EVERYWHERE. There is a grid. They power it.

The spent rod problem is solved, except for politics: Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.
 
2012-10-15 10:09:12 PM
common sense is an oxymoron:
In just the last century, temperatures have increased enough to offset what is supposedly 8000 years of Holocene cooling. Funny how that doesn't show up on GeneralJim's graph.

Oh, one of THESE...

The reason: It didn't happen. We got that much warming in the last century because cheating bastidges have been lowering the older temperatures. Thanks, James Hansen, you twerp.

Also, longer scale temperature graphs do NOT show short-term cycles. Perhaps the science confuses you. Since the little ice age (LIA) ended, we have been warming at about 0.76 K / century. That exceeds the "total variability" of the Holocene period. But THAT type of information is averaged over MORE than several centuries, so a mere 300-year trend is likely to be averaged out.

When you cherry-pick to the last ENSO cycle, it looks worse, of course. Or, to the last 150 years, which is a good bit of the post-LIA warming has taken place. Just in time to have a NEW LIA start up, starting any year now. When averaged in, the LIA, the warm-back, and the new LIA will be averaged into a net close-to-nothing.
 
2012-10-15 10:10:48 PM
andersoncouncil42:
At this point, deniers are just a bunch of willfully ignorant arsewipes. Nothing more.

Another fine scientific argument -- one of the most logical of the warmers' crap-heap.
 
2012-10-15 10:20:02 PM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: Article says EXACTLY that. Proves it, too.


Hmm, I wonder what someone else had to say about proof in science...

The only area of science where actual proof of an idea is possible is in math

EVERYTHING in science can be, and SHOULD be, questioned on a regular basis. Only an anti-science moron would EVER suggest that anything in science is "settled."


/that about sums it up

Having dealt with you WAY too many times before, I KNOW you actually ARE that ignorant. The quotes above, as brilliant as they are, do NOT apply. This is NOT a statement of cause or projected effect, or an alleged proof of an idea, it is a simple examination of the DATA, which we can do productively, as long as some warmer jackass hasn't changed them to support his falsified hypothesis. Leave it to you to fail to understand this difference.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-15 10:23:27 PM
DrPainMD:
It's doubtful that global warming, in the long run, has stopped. We're coming out of an ice age.

In the "long run," we finished warming from the major glaciation about 8,000 years ago, and are now cooling off into the NEXT major glaciation.
 
2012-10-15 11:20:05 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
While the article does say that. It far from proves it. Instead of outright debunking this (and then having you most likely ignore it), let's try to foster some critical thinking here and ask how does this data presented prove it?

Hey, it's the guy who nit-picks the opposition, and ignores the outright fraud on "his" side. Data don't PROVE so much as SHOW. Like these:

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-15 11:41:24 PM
SevenizGud:
OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.

Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

www.powerlineblog.com
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

www.powerlineblog.com
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it
 
2012-10-15 11:53:04 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: While the article does say that. It far from proves it. Instead of outright debunking this (and then having you most likely ignore it), let's try to foster some critical thinking here and ask how does this data presented prove it?
Hey, it's the guy who nit-picks the opposition, and ignores the outright fraud on "his" side. Data don't PROVE so much as SHOW. Like these:

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x481]



No critical thinking in regards to TFA today, huh. Ah well, I'll give you the answer: you would be able to tell (on a superficial level) by actually looking at a linear regression line using that data - something that the graph in TFA does not provide. In addition the graph is misplotted in that it does not actually show "the beginning of 1997 until August 2012". What the data actually looks like, together with a linear trend:

woodfortrees.org


So when you say something like this:

GeneralJim: Article says EXACTLY that [global warming stopped 16 years ago]. Proves it, too.


about an article with a graph that even if it wasn't falsely plotted would not prove what you think it does, one has to wonder how much critical thought you're bringing to your reading.
 
2012-10-15 11:54:38 PM
Jon Snow:
The slope is positive, lies from TFA not withstanding.

Lies? Check out the NASA GISS lies above. And, here is our ONLY real set of truly global measurements, from the very start of them:

www.woodfortrees.org


Or, are you claiming that the satellites are lying?
 
2012-10-16 12:00:58 AM
chuckufarlie:
Why is it that you refuse to believe what is in the article? You continue to push your agenda even when the facts show that you are wrong. That is hardly intelligent.

Of all the people I've seen post in climate threads, Snowjob is the single most likely to be a shill.
 
2012-10-16 12:01:49 AM

GeneralJim: SevenizGud: OF COURSE the recent years are always the warmest. How could it be any other way when they inflate the current temperature and then downwardly revise it post-facto every year?

Look at 1998. It started as first report of anomaly of +1 or greater. Then a couple of years later it was .88, then it was .79, then it was .71. Pretty soon, 1998 will be FARKing sub-zero.

These numbers are fudged so bad they should be renamed Vioxx.
Yep. People look to NASA GISS for "official" temperature records. But, these records are "adjusted," which since James Hansen has been in charge is shorthand for "falsified to support my activist position on global warming. Here are the NASA GISS data, in two views:

[www.powerlineblog.com image 742x539]
First, "adjusted" data as presented by NASA GISS

[www.powerlineblog.com image 680x472]
And a simple plot of the raw data, without James Hansen altering it


Here's what the guy who created the second graph in your post had to say about it (bolded for 'whar statistics, whar?):

"A linear least squares trend line, created using the Excel trend line function (Red trace) shows a small temperature rise of 0.09C per century which is far less than the rise claimed by AGW supporters and clearly of no concern. However, the data shown in figure 5 bears little if any resemblance to a linear function. One can always fit a linear trend line to any data but that does not mean the fitted line has any significance. For example, if instead I fit a second order trend line (a parabolic) the result is extremely different. That suggests a temperature peak around 1950 with an underlying cooling trend since. Which trend line is the more significant one? If there was really a strong underlying linear rise over the time period it should have shown up in the 2nd order trend line as well. This suggests that it is questionable whether any relevant underlying trend can be determined from the data."

post is here

(GeneralJim's source is here, which misses the best text: Link

Yeah, I'm so thoroughly convinced! [/sarcasm]
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report