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.

(Crooks & Liars)   Bloomberg Businessweek editor Josh Tyrangiel: "Our cover story this week may generate controversy, but only among the stupid"   (occupyamerica.crooksandliars.com) divider line 88
    More: Obvious, Josh Tyrangiel, Environmental Defense Fund, economic loss, climate change denial, Frank Leahy, tweeters, Ladies in White  
•       •       •

4632 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Nov 2012 at 10:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-02 10:21:47 AM
As Northeastern, I am fine with Global Warming. Sure, we'll have to deal with hurricanes, but with our socialist state governments taking all our tax money we can build our infrastructure to support it. The plus side to Global Warming is that the Northeast will get more rain, which means no droughts and lots of excess water, which we can then sell to the Global Warming-denier states in the south and midwest. However since we believe in the free market, the price for water will be high. Which will help fund out Bible burns, gay marriages, and abortion factories.
 
2012-11-02 10:23:04 AM
Sounds pretty accurate to me.
 
2012-11-02 10:25:50 AM

WTF Indeed: As Northeastern, I am fine with Global Warming. Sure, we'll have to deal with hurricanes, but with our socialist state governments taking all our tax money we can build our infrastructure to support it. The plus side to Global Warming is that the Northeast will get more rain, which means no droughts and lots of excess water, which we can then sell to the Global Warming-denier states in the south and midwest. However since we believe in the free market, the price for water will be high. Which will help fund out Bible burns, gay marriages, and abortion factories.


You got a spare room? Sounds like you've got this all figured out.

Of course, you might need something from the southern states like... umm... well... Hmm... err... Limes?
 
2012-11-02 10:34:52 AM

Vodka Zombie: Of course, you might need something from the southern states like... umm... well... Hmm... err... Limes?


That's what greenhouses are for.
 
2012-11-02 10:36:33 AM

WTF Indeed: As Northeastern, I am fine with Global Warming. Sure, we'll have to deal with hurricanes, but with our socialist state governments taking all our tax money we can build our infrastructure to support it. The plus side to Global Warming is that the Northeast will get more rain, which means no droughts and lots of excess water, which we can then sell to the Global Warming-denier states in the south and midwest. However since we believe in the free market, the price for water will be high. Which will help fund out Bible burns, gay marriages, and abortion factories.


As a Canadian resigned to the idea that little of substance is going to change, I'm highly supportive of profiteering mode. The upside is that you won't feel any guilt at all when you're assraping those people, it was wholly consensual.
 
2012-11-02 10:40:43 AM
To be fair, not all global warming deniers are stupid. Some are fine with f*cking over everyone else in order to make more money on oil and coal.
 
2012-11-02 10:41:07 AM

unyon: WTF Indeed: As Northeastern, I am fine with Global Warming. Sure, we'll have to deal with hurricanes, but with our socialist state governments taking all our tax money we can build our infrastructure to support it. The plus side to Global Warming is that the Northeast will get more rain, which means no droughts and lots of excess water, which we can then sell to the Global Warming-denier states in the south and midwest. However since we believe in the free market, the price for water will be high. Which will help fund out Bible burns, gay marriages, and abortion factories.

As a Canadian resigned to the idea that little of substance is going to change, I'm highly supportive of profiteering mode. The upside is that you won't feel any guilt at all when you're assraping those people, it was wholly consensual.


Doesn't matter. If it's done under the free market, it's legitimate business, so it must be illegitimate rape.
 
2012-11-02 10:41:31 AM
As someone who felt gypped out of a nice Winter last year, I would welcome a full-blown, Snowmiser on Bath Salts kind of Winter this season.
 
2012-11-02 10:43:40 AM
Global warming? I thought we decided to go with "climate change."

Great, Bloomberg. Now I have to listen to my neighbor's "thanks a lot, Al Gore" every time the temperature dips below 20.
 
2012-11-02 10:44:09 AM
Global warming thread? Better than yet another poll thread I guess.
 
2012-11-02 10:46:24 AM
FTA: Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. More than 15,000 flights grounded. Factories, stores, and hospitals shut. Lower Manhattan dark, silent, and underwater.

is it any surprise that LOWER manhatten was flooded more than UPPER manhatten? i mean really water flows down guys
 
2012-11-02 10:47:06 AM

TV's Vinnie: As someone who felt gypped out of a nice Winter last year, I would welcome a full-blown, Snowmiser on Bath Salts kind of Winter this season.


As someone who put a new carburetor on his snow blower last fall and needed to use it a grand total of once last winter, I agree.
 
2012-11-02 10:47:51 AM

sweetmelissa31: To be fair, not all global warming deniers are stupid. Some are fine with f*cking over everyone else in order to make more money on oil and coal.


Some people just love f*ckin.
 
2012-11-02 10:50:24 AM
Let the states decide on global warming.
 
2012-11-02 10:52:01 AM

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: To be fair, not all global warming deniers are stupid. Some are fine with f*cking over everyone else in order to make more money on oil and coal.

Some people just love f*ckin.


Bend over and vote for America's Come Back team. Don't worry, they will give you a towel.
 
2012-11-02 10:53:03 AM
I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.
 
2012-11-02 10:53:20 AM

sprawl15: FTA: Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. More than 15,000 flights grounded. Factories, stores, and hospitals shut. Lower Manhattan dark, silent, and underwater.

is it any surprise that LOWER manhatten was flooded more than UPPER manhatten? i mean really water flows down guys


Manhattan is one big Santa Cruz Mystery Spot
 
2012-11-02 10:53:49 AM
Great, Bloomberg. Now I have to listen to my neighbor's "thanks a lot, Al Gore" every time we have a tornado in Massachusetts or a disastrous hurricane every year.
 
2012-11-02 10:54:34 AM

Silly Jesus: I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.


pretty sure we're done here
 
2012-11-02 10:56:33 AM
Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power.

So if it struck a little farther north, into Maine, instead of into New York City, then it wouldn't have been global warming, stupid?
 
2012-11-02 10:58:44 AM

skullkrusher: sprawl15: FTA: Clarity, however, is not beyond reach. Hurricane Sandy demands it: At least 40 U.S. deaths. Economic losses expected to climb as high as $50 billion. Eight million homes without power. Hundreds of thousands of people evacuated. More than 15,000 flights grounded. Factories, stores, and hospitals shut. Lower Manhattan dark, silent, and underwater.

is it any surprise that LOWER manhatten was flooded more than UPPER manhatten? i mean really water flows down guys

Manhattan is one big Santa Cruz Mystery Spot


guys the ground floor flooded before the sixth floor

must be global warming
 
2012-11-02 11:00:14 AM

Silly Jesus: I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.


NOAA and NPR obviously in the pocket of Big Oil and the Koch Brothers, STUPID!
 
2012-11-02 11:02:08 AM

jigger: Silly Jesus: I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.

NOAA and NPR obviously in the pocket of Big Oil and the Koch Brothers, STUPID!


Bloomberg based his endorsement of BO on BO's stance on climate change in the wake of the storm. When reminded that there was no correlation he corrected himself and said that it is just an important issue for him. I guess his editor didn't get the memo that his boss was amongst the stupid.
 
2012-11-02 11:02:16 AM

WTF Indeed: As Northeastern, I am fine with Global Warming. Sure, we'll have to deal with hurricanes, but with our socialist state governments taking all our tax money we can build our infrastructure to support it. The plus side to Global Warming is that the Northeast will get more rain, which means no droughts and lots of excess water, which we can then sell to the Global Warming-denier states in the south and midwest. However since we believe in the free market, the price for water will be high. Which will help fund out Bible burns, gay marriages, and abortion factories.


I actually spoke to somebody at the ACE about reversing the flow of the Red River in Minnesota, so that water that was flooding Winnipeg would go South down the Mississippi instead of North ito the Arctic. It's definitely possible, but they aren't going to do it. Oh well.
 
2012-11-02 11:03:41 AM

WTF Indeed: As Northeastern, I am fine with Global Warming. Sure, we'll have to deal with hurricanes, but with our socialist state governments taking all our tax money we can build our infrastructure to support it. The plus side to Global Warming is that the Northeast will get more rain, which means no droughts and lots of excess water, which we can then sell to the Global Warming-denier states in the south and midwest. However since we believe in the free market, the price for water will be high. Which will help fund out Bible burns, gay marriages, and abortion factories.


I'd be interested in reading your newsletter.

/off to emit some carbon
 
2012-11-02 11:04:33 AM
Michael Bloomberg just annouced his endorsment of Obama based on Obama's reaction to the storm and stand on Global Warming.

Coincidently, his magazine Bloombergs Business Weeks runs a front page story "It's the Climate Stupid"


Huh. I thought it was the Economy.
 
2012-11-02 11:08:20 AM

skullkrusher: jigger: Silly Jesus: I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.

NOAA and NPR obviously in the pocket of Big Oil and the Koch Brothers, STUPID!

Bloomberg based his endorsement of BO on BO's stance on climate change in the wake of the storm. When reminded that there was no correlation he corrected himself and said that it is just an important issue for him. I guess his editor didn't get the memo that his boss was amongst the stupid.


I'm not sure who you mean by BO but I think you mean President of the United States of America, Barrack Hussein Obama, right?

/Why do you hate America by disrespecting it so much?
 
2012-11-02 11:12:32 AM
You know what's even more stupid, Josh? Blaming weather on climate change.

Why is it acceptable to cite odd weather patterns as claims FOR climate change, but when opponents says 'hur dur, it's snowing, there ain't no global warming!' they are derided?
 
2012-11-02 11:13:08 AM
Climate change didn't create hurricane Sandy. It did create the warmer waters which lead to a higher storm surge, and it did create the excessive ice melt in the arctic that led to the blast of arctic air which caused the storm to make a hard left into Teaneck New Joysey. SO no, it didn;t create the storm, it just made it worse and it made it hit us.
 
2012-11-02 11:17:37 AM

Silly Jesus: I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.


But the Dr. says so herself that the waters along the eastern seaboard were warmer than normal.

If global warming continues to happen, the eastern seaboard will have warmer waters, and thus more powerful hurricanes since they will not lose strength as they travel north.

It seems like the good doctor is politely saying that there isnt enough data to suggest that sandy = global warming. But the explanation points to more weird weather for parts of the country that dont usually get it.
 
2012-11-02 11:17:53 AM
Disagreeing with our governments reaction and policies in regards to global warming is politics.......being anti-intellectual and refusing to admit there is a problem so you don't have to take a stance is Republican.
 
2012-11-02 11:20:01 AM

AnonAmbientLight: Silly Jesus: I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.

But the Dr. says so herself that the waters along the eastern seaboard were warmer than normal.

If global warming continues to happen, the eastern seaboard will have warmer waters, and thus more powerful hurricanes since they will not lose strength as they travel north.

It seems like the good doctor is politely saying that there isnt enough data to suggest that sandy = global warming. But the explanation points to more weird weather for parts of the country that dont usually get it.


We read it differently I guess. The way I read it the Dr. was pretty clear that there's no evidence of global warming effecting the severity or frequency of hurricanes.
 
2012-11-02 11:20:37 AM

CPennypacker: Climate change didn't create hurricane Sandy. It did create the warmer waters which lead to a higher storm surge, and it did create the excessive ice melt in the arctic that led to the blast of arctic air which caused the storm to make a hard left into Teaneck New Joysey. SO no, it didn;t create the storm, it just made it worse and it made it hit us.


NOAA disagrees.
 
2012-11-02 11:23:19 AM

physt: skullkrusher: jigger: Silly Jesus: I wholeheartedly believe in climate change / global warming / whatever the polls say to call it this week....connecting it to Sandy, though, has no scientific basis.

"There is really low confidence that climate change has affected the frequency or intensity, or tracks of these disturbances." - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on NPR.

NOAA and NPR obviously in the pocket of Big Oil and the Koch Brothers, STUPID!

Bloomberg based his endorsement of BO on BO's stance on climate change in the wake of the storm. When reminded that there was no correlation he corrected himself and said that it is just an important issue for him. I guess his editor didn't get the memo that his boss was amongst the stupid.

I'm not sure who you mean by BO but I think you mean President of the United States of America, Barrack Hussein Obama, right?

/Why do you hate America by disrespecting it so much?


notsureifserious
 
2012-11-02 11:24:20 AM

Citrate1007: Disagreeing with our governments reaction and policies in regards to global warming is politics.......being anti-intellectual and refusing to admit there is a problem so you don't have to take a stance is Republican.


blaming Sandy on global warming is irrational sensationalism. We miss anything?
 
2012-11-02 11:24:39 AM
I work for a utility, and yesterday we had a meeting where we talked about sales and rates, things like that. Someone asked how climate change will affect sales. I watched two engineers look at each other and do the "Rolling my eyes and sighing because someone in the room things global warming is real" act to each other.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I hate those douchebags.
 
2012-11-02 11:25:30 AM

skullkrusher: Citrate1007: Disagreeing with our governments reaction and policies in regards to global warming is politics.......being anti-intellectual and refusing to admit there is a problem so you don't have to take a stance is Republican.

blaming Sandy on global warming is irrational sensationalism. We miss anything?


While your statement is true, it does not discredit mine.
 
2012-11-02 11:26:44 AM

Citrate1007: skullkrusher: Citrate1007: Disagreeing with our governments reaction and policies in regards to global warming is politics.......being anti-intellectual and refusing to admit there is a problem so you don't have to take a stance is Republican.

blaming Sandy on global warming is irrational sensationalism. We miss anything?

While your statement is true, it does not discredit mine.


wasn't my intention - it was on topic for the thread though and in line with making declarative statements so I went for it
 
2012-11-02 11:27:34 AM
Sorry, Bloomlibberg, but I only get business news from the keenest business minds, like Larry Kudlow and Jim Cramer.
 
2012-11-02 11:29:00 AM

Silly Jesus: CPennypacker: Climate change didn't create hurricane Sandy. It did create the warmer waters which lead to a higher storm surge, and it did create the excessive ice melt in the arctic that led to the blast of arctic air which caused the storm to make a hard left into Teaneck New Joysey. SO no, it didn;t create the storm, it just made it worse and it made it hit us.

NOAA disagrees.


Well, Martin Hoerling disagrees, which is fine, but he is also the climatologist that said the 2009-2010 snowstorms weren't caused by climate change and a lot of climatologists disagreed with him. Am I a claimatologist? No, but if we're setting records all over the place maybe we need to consider the cumulative effects climate change has on intensifying already existing weather patterns.
 
2012-11-02 11:31:57 AM

CPennypacker: Silly Jesus: CPennypacker: Climate change didn't create hurricane Sandy. It did create the warmer waters which lead to a higher storm surge, and it did create the excessive ice melt in the arctic that led to the blast of arctic air which caused the storm to make a hard left into Teaneck New Joysey. SO no, it didn;t create the storm, it just made it worse and it made it hit us.

NOAA disagrees.

Well, Martin Hoerling disagrees, which is fine, but he is also the climatologist that said the 2009-2010 snowstorms weren't caused by climate change and a lot of climatologists disagreed with him. Am I a claimatologist? No, but if we're setting records all over the place maybe we need to consider the cumulative effects climate change has on intensifying already existing weather patterns.


He's probably considered that.
 
2012-11-02 11:37:08 AM

Silly Jesus: CPennypacker: Silly Jesus: CPennypacker: Climate change didn't create hurricane Sandy. It did create the warmer waters which lead to a higher storm surge, and it did create the excessive ice melt in the arctic that led to the blast of arctic air which caused the storm to make a hard left into Teaneck New Joysey. SO no, it didn;t create the storm, it just made it worse and it made it hit us.

NOAA disagrees.

Well, Martin Hoerling disagrees, which is fine, but he is also the climatologist that said the 2009-2010 snowstorms weren't caused by climate change and a lot of climatologists disagreed with him. Am I a claimatologist? No, but if we're setting records all over the place maybe we need to consider the cumulative effects climate change has on intensifying already existing weather patterns.

He's probably considered that.


A lot of the damage was caused by flooding, and the sea level is a foot higher than it was during the storm he cites from 150 years ago to prove Sandy isn't "unprecedented"
 
2012-11-02 11:39:47 AM
This conversation needs to happen and not just with global warming. We need to start acknowledging that some people base their positions not on a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of the facts, but instead on a set of "facts" and speculation that has no basis in reality.

Americans need to stop being so sensitive and be willing to call people stupid. If you do not acknowledge that climate change is occurring, you are stupid. Plain and simple. We need to stop pandering to stupid people and stop pretending that their idiotic delusions are in any way equal to actual facts and rational analysis.
 
2012-11-02 11:43:14 AM

imontheinternet: This conversation needs to happen and not just with global warming. We need to start acknowledging that some people base their positions not on a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of the facts, but instead on a set of "facts" and speculation that has no basis in reality.

Americans need to stop being so sensitive and be willing to call people stupid. If you do not acknowledge that climate change is occurring, you are stupid. Plain and simple. We need to stop pandering to stupid people and stop pretending that their idiotic delusions are in any way equal to actual facts and rational analysis.


we've started by calling the editor of Businessweek stupid
 
2012-11-02 11:46:33 AM

skullkrusher: imontheinternet: This conversation needs to happen and not just with global warming. We need to start acknowledging that some people base their positions not on a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of the facts, but instead on a set of "facts" and speculation that has no basis in reality.

Americans need to stop being so sensitive and be willing to call people stupid. If you do not acknowledge that climate change is occurring, you are stupid. Plain and simple. We need to stop pandering to stupid people and stop pretending that their idiotic delusions are in any way equal to actual facts and rational analysis.

we've started by calling the editor of Businessweek stupid


FTFA: Men and women in white lab coats tell us-and they're right-that many factors contribute to each severe weather episode. Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all.

He acknowledged that climate change didn't create Sandy, and then he said that isn't a good rationale for disregarding the fact that storms are noticeably intensifying. What's stupid about that, exactly?
 
2012-11-02 11:50:48 AM

imontheinternet: skullkrusher: imontheinternet: This conversation needs to happen and not just with global warming. We need to start acknowledging that some people base their positions not on a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of the facts, but instead on a set of "facts" and speculation that has no basis in reality.

Americans need to stop being so sensitive and be willing to call people stupid. If you do not acknowledge that climate change is occurring, you are stupid. Plain and simple. We need to stop pandering to stupid people and stop pretending that their idiotic delusions are in any way equal to actual facts and rational analysis.

we've started by calling the editor of Businessweek stupid

FTFA: Men and women in white lab coats tell us-and they're right-that many factors contribute to each severe weather episode. Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all.

He acknowledged that climate change didn't create Sandy, and then he said that isn't a good rationale for disregarding the fact that storms are noticeably intensifying. What's stupid about that, exactly?


farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-11-02 11:52:23 AM

skullkrusher: imontheinternet: skullkrusher: imontheinternet: This conversation needs to happen and not just with global warming. We need to start acknowledging that some people base their positions not on a difference of opinion or a different interpretation of the facts, but instead on a set of "facts" and speculation that has no basis in reality.

Americans need to stop being so sensitive and be willing to call people stupid. If you do not acknowledge that climate change is occurring, you are stupid. Plain and simple. We need to stop pandering to stupid people and stop pretending that their idiotic delusions are in any way equal to actual facts and rational analysis.

we've started by calling the editor of Businessweek stupid

FTFA: Men and women in white lab coats tell us-and they're right-that many factors contribute to each severe weather episode. Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all.

He acknowledged that climate change didn't create Sandy, and then he said that isn't a good rationale for disregarding the fact that storms are noticeably intensifying. What's stupid about that, exactly?

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 375x500]


He's stupid because you looked at the cover without reading the article?
 
2012-11-02 11:57:04 AM
Meteorologist Dan Satterfield makes the following points in his most recent post:

1. Oceans are over a degree Celsius warmer than a century ago (and rising) and the planet is a degree Celsius warmer than a century ago (and rising), so the atmosphere is holding 5-7 percent more water vapor (and that's rising too).

2. There have been record warm waters, 2-3 degrees Celsius above normal, off the East Coast of North America for the last few months months.

3. Sea level rise and sinking coastlines in Delaware and Virginia mean the water level is more than 18 inches higher than 60 years ago. "Ask someone in Jersey who has a foot of water in their house if it would have been better if the water was 18 inches lower," wrote Satterfield.

4. Put the three previous points together and you can reason that if a twin of Sandy were to have occurred October of 1912, it would have been less wet and had a lower storm surge. Likewise, a twin of Sandy in the year 2100 will be much wetter, with water levels from 24 to 48 inches higher.

5. But that's not all. Here's the Arctic ice part: A huge, rare late October high pressure area over Greenland caused Sandy to take a hard left turn towards the coast. "The track of Sandy was very RARE," wrote Satterfield. "Nearly unheard of actually, especially for this time of year."
 
2012-11-02 12:03:20 PM

talan123: Meteorologist Dan Satterfield makes the following points in his most recent post:

1. Oceans are over a degree Celsius warmer than a century ago (and rising) and the planet is a degree Celsius warmer than a century ago (and rising), so the atmosphere is holding 5-7 percent more water vapor (and that's rising too).

2. There have been record warm waters, 2-3 degrees Celsius above normal, off the East Coast of North America for the last few months months.

3. Sea level rise and sinking coastlines in Delaware and Virginia mean the water level is more than 18 inches higher than 60 years ago. "Ask someone in Jersey who has a foot of water in their house if it would have been better if the water was 18 inches lower," wrote Satterfield.

4. Put the three previous points together and you can reason that if a twin of Sandy were to have occurred October of 1912, it would have been less wet and had a lower storm surge. Likewise, a twin of Sandy in the year 2100 will be much wetter, with water levels from 24 to 48 inches higher.

5. But that's not all. Here's the Arctic ice part: A huge, rare late October high pressure area over Greenland caused Sandy to take a hard left turn towards the coast. "The track of Sandy was very RARE," wrote Satterfield. "Nearly unheard of actually, especially for this time of year."


I would like to subscribe to your Climatology blog...you should also send subscriptions to the other climatologists because you are WAY ahead of them.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-02 12:06:17 PM

moanerific: You know what's even more stupid, Josh? Blaming weather on climate change.

Why is it acceptable to cite odd weather patterns as claims FOR climate change, but when opponents says 'hur dur, it's snowing, there ain't no global warming!' they are derided?


Because patterns of weather and isolated instances of weather are two different things?

This thread seems to have generated some controversy among some people.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report