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.

(Popular Science)   Meet the climate change denier who also just happens to be Wikipedia's expert on Hurricane Sandy   (popsci.com) divider line 342
    More: Interesting, climate change deniers, Ken Mampel, police scanner, popsci, not proven, Danny Boy, Wikipedia, Joe Blow  
•       •       •

10982 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Nov 2012 at 2:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-03 02:34:01 AM
Does he post in green text on fark?
 
2012-11-03 02:35:20 AM

BronyMedic: Does he post in green text on fark?


LoL ; )
 
2012-11-03 02:36:52 AM
Or, you could add a section expressing your concerns/reservations/alternate thoughts
 
2012-11-03 02:37:41 AM
You can deny AGCC without being a GCC denier.
 
2012-11-03 02:38:49 AM
Actually, after reading this article, this guy strikes me as having some sort of mental illness. Based on what's in the article, he sounds a LOT like someone suffering a manic episode in Bipolar Disorder.

This man is completely untrained and unqualified to make any kind of scientific or technical report about the incident, and has been known to work on this one article constantly for days at a time without getting sleep?
 
2012-11-03 02:40:05 AM
Interesting article about how Wikipedia works and how one determined person can really derail an important and topical conversation. I'm sure that never happens on Fark.

FTA:

Ken Mampel does not believe in climate change. (He referred to himself as a libertarian, by my count, six separate times during one phone call. I never asked about his political leanings.)

Yeah, bad news, Libertarians of all stripes. It's over. Your ideology is now officially a vast depot for embarrassed Republicans.
 
2012-11-03 02:40:22 AM
"All I am is a contributor. I have no title, I'm just a Joe Blow."

i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-03 02:40:58 AM
tl;dr

Looks like some reporter with an agenda picked one wingnut out of many who have made edits to a Wikipedia entry. Shall I do an in-depth interview on the country's self-styled leading expert on how Ronald Reagan was secretly a part-time pro-wrestler?
 
2012-11-03 02:43:07 AM

Coelacanth: "All I am is a contributor. I have no title, I'm just a Joe Blow."


Hey JOEY BAG-A-DONUTS!
 
2012-11-03 02:43:57 AM

BronyMedic: This man is completely untrained and unqualified to make any kind of scientific or technical report about the incident, and has been known to work on this one article constantly for days at a time without getting sleep?


So he's like every other wikipedia editor?

Honestly, it astonishes me how reliable wikipedia is, considering how farking crazy most of their editors are.
 
2012-11-03 02:44:41 AM

BronyMedic: Actually, after reading this article, this guy strikes me as having some sort of mental illness. Based on what's in the article, he sounds a LOT like someone suffering a manic episode in Bipolar Disorder.

This man is completely untrained and unqualified to make any kind of scientific or technical report about the incident, and has been known to work on this one article constantly for days at a time without getting sleep?


you just described most of the heads of state, CEO's of most corporations and most of todays society...
and a large portion of Fark posters....

i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-03 02:45:38 AM

HotWingAgenda: tl;dr

Looks like some reporter with an agenda picked one wingnut out of many who have made edits to a Wikipedia entry. Shall I do an in-depth interview on the country's self-styled leading expert on how Ronald Reagan was secretly a part-time pro-wrestler?


YES PLEASE!!!
 
2012-11-03 02:48:33 AM
Is he a good witch or a bad witch?
 
2012-11-03 02:49:17 AM

red5ish: Is he a good witch or a bad witch?


only bad witches are ugly
 
2012-11-03 02:49:22 AM

BronyMedic: This man is completely untrained and unqualified to make any kind of scientific or technical report about the incident


That never stops AGW deniers from chiming in.

I'll just leave this here.

whowhatwhy.com
 
2012-11-03 02:50:23 AM

HotWingAgenda: tl;dr

Looks like some reporter with an agenda picked one wingnut out of many who have made edits to a Wikipedia entry. Shall I do an in-depth interview on the country's self-styled leading expert on how Ronald Reagan was secretly a part-time pro-wrestler?


I'd read it.
 
2012-11-03 02:53:25 AM
He kept confusing Popular Science with Popular Mechanics, which, to be fair, also happens to people who haven't been sleeplessly editing Wikipedia articles. "I stayed up for 24 hours at one point, I don't remember when," he told me, "and then slept for five hours and then got up and got right back to it. I'm very much into this."

Seriously dude, WHY? It's not that important, give it a rest. You will have all day tomorrow to remove the liberal conspiracy from the page. You're a control freak moronic asshole who really needs another hobby. Who the fark made YOU the king of the open-source public encyclopedia anyway? FFS, wrap your head around the concept that in this country other people are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours, and unless you own Wikipedia, you need to allow other people to post. You aren't the only person who knows about hurricanes, and you sure as shiat aren't an expert on anything, except maybe for sitting around in your jockeys riding a power trip.

What a prick. Guy needs to be cock punched, just for deciding that he was somehow king of the farking internet.

I knew Wikipedia was doomed the day I heard about it. You can't trust 75% of the people to be unbiased in a free form sandbox, 23% of the people don't WANT to edit this shiat, just read it, and the other 2% keep putting in legitimate shiat that gets removed by the first 75%.

I just don't understand climate change deniers. While some of the numbers might be puffed up, the core idea remains: Greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere. PUmping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere retains more heat and raises global temperatures. Period. The most important point is that whether or not humans are 100% responsible, pumping ANY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than we have to isn't a smart idea. Why do people have trouble grasping this concept? The funny part is; the people who are having trouble understanding it are just fine wrapping their minds around the concept of a sky wizard that created "everything", yet just sort of popped into existence entirely on his own one day. Yeah, THERE'S logic for ya...
 
2012-11-03 02:54:24 AM
cn1.kaboodle.com

Except in the case of AGW of course.
 
2012-11-03 02:55:01 AM
What a wonderful piece of character assassination.
 
2012-11-03 02:56:00 AM

HotWingAgenda: tl;dr

Looks like some reporter with an agenda picked one wingnut out of many who have made edits to a Wikipedia entry. Shall I do an in-depth interview on the country's self-styled leading expert on how Ronald Reagan was secretly a part-time pro-wrestler?


If you didn't read it, how can you make an assessment like this? R.I.F., try it some time. There are plenty of programs out there for teaching older people the wonders of literacy. Until then, maybe you shouldn't comment about "agendas" on fark. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about here.
 
2012-11-03 02:56:38 AM
Florida tag?
 
2012-11-03 02:57:48 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: What a wonderful piece of character assassination.


Butthurt much?
 
2012-11-03 03:00:08 AM

Mikey1969: He kept confusing Popular Science with Popular Mechanics, which, to be fair, also happens to people who haven't been sleeplessly editing Wikipedia articles. "I stayed up for 24 hours at one point, I don't remember when," he told me, "and then slept for five hours and then got up and got right back to it. I'm very much into this."

Seriously dude, WHY? It's not that important, give it a rest. You will have all day tomorrow to remove the liberal conspiracy from the page. You're a control freak moronic asshole who really needs another hobby. Who the fark made YOU the king of the open-source public encyclopedia anyway? FFS, wrap your head around the concept that in this country other people are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours, and unless you own Wikipedia, you need to allow other people to post. You aren't the only person who knows about hurricanes, and you sure as shiat aren't an expert on anything, except maybe for sitting around in your jockeys riding a power trip.

What a prick. Guy needs to be cock punched, just for deciding that he was somehow king of the farking internet.

I knew Wikipedia was doomed the day I heard about it. You can't trust 75% of the people to be unbiased in a free form sandbox, 23% of the people don't WANT to edit this shiat, just read it, and the other 2% keep putting in legitimate shiat that gets removed by the first 75%.

I just don't understand climate change deniers. While some of the numbers might be puffed up, the core idea remains: Greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere. PUmping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere retains more heat and raises global temperatures. Period. The most important point is that whether or not humans are 100% responsible, pumping ANY more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere than we have to isn't a smart idea. Why do people have trouble grasping this concept? The funny part is; the people who are having trouble understanding it are just fine wrapping their minds around the concept of a ...


francis.....
 
2012-11-03 03:00:42 AM

TomD9938: [cn1.kaboodle.com image 240x240]

Except in the case of AGW of course.


Or how flat the earth is.
 
2012-11-03 03:00:43 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: What a wonderful piece of character assassination.


Sorry, but this gentlemen opened himself up to it by being the most prolific contributer to a major event on a major internet website, and demonstrating an obvious bias in editing the article.

Gunther: Honestly, it astonishes me how reliable wikipedia is, considering how farking crazy most of their editors are


I believe it was in 2007 when it came out that many of the prolific editors on topics related to child sexual abuse, pedophilia, child pornography, and the associated legal issues were convicted child sexual offenders or members of pro-pedo organizations.

The Alt Med community is also guilty of using shills and biased editors to ensure that articles about their quackery stay phrased in a pro-AltMed tone. Whale.to, the infamous quackery website which Scopie's Law was created from, was actually banned from Wikipedia for doing this.
 
2012-11-03 03:00:50 AM
Wait a sec....I've always heard "climate is climate" and "weather is weather" to counteract arguments when someone says "Wow, it's F-ing cold out how about that global warming?" Why all the sudden is "weather now climate"?

/Just curious
 
2012-11-03 03:04:01 AM

TomD9938: [cn1.kaboodle.com image 240x240]

Except in the case of AGW of course.


Who is the "Authority" figure in your fantasy?

whowhatwhy.com
 
2012-11-03 03:06:19 AM
from the article:
even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy

Is there somewhere else that explains how climate change caused the hurricane? My understanding was that a bunch of normal weather patterns happened to interact in an improbable way.
 
2012-11-03 03:07:53 AM

DeathByGeekSquad: What a wonderful piece of character assassination.


the guy would have to have some character to assassinate no?

let's see if i get this straight:

-professional rubbernecker with three police scanners in his car.
-child prodigy who wrote the great gatsby at 13...lol..oh sorry, copywriter LOL
-currently unemployed
-opinionated to the point of being unreasonable about it...
-zero credentials
-wife beater in a chain restaurant
-stays up for days and days posting on wiki...for the purpose of editing and micromanaging it...

what a hero.
they guy is a douche..and douchetards like this need to get outed.
like mr "wall street is flooding!"

he's part of the indignant and entitled uninformed who are unable to understand logic, ethics, interpersonal relationships etc...

look at him...you want him driving the schoolbus?
 
2012-11-03 03:08:26 AM
Of course he's a denier. If climate change was real he'd have to take off that sweater.

Wait...
 
2012-11-03 03:09:24 AM
Subby, you forgot the quotes around the word "expert."
 
2012-11-03 03:10:32 AM

BronyMedic: Sorry, but this gentlemen opened himself up to it by being the most prolific contributer to a major event on a major internet website, and demonstrating an obvious bias in editing the article.


Seriously, this. Regardless of whether or not the rest of the world is ready for a consensus on catastrophic manmade global warming, this particular guy comes across as unhinged and unreasonable about his view on it.

HoagieBoy: Wait a sec....I've always heard "climate is climate" and "weather is weather" to counteract arguments when someone says "Wow, it's F-ing cold out how about that global warming?" Why all the sudden is "weather now climate"?

/Just curious


Because the article was written by someone that is a proponent of the global warming hypothesis, and a big f'ing hurricane would support him. The same article by a right-wing journalist would be slanted towards the other extreme, to equal detriment.
 
2012-11-03 03:13:11 AM

100 Watt Walrus: TomD9938: [cn1.kaboodle.com image 240x240]

Except in the case of AGW of course.

Who is the "Authority" figure in your fantasy?

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]


Your USA Today flow-chart aside, I mark the authorities as those in government, either as elected officials or those entrenched in the bureaucracies across the world, who wish to use what may be real climate change (unrelated to humans, especially American humans) as a lever for power over the individual.
 
2012-11-03 03:14:37 AM

elk-tamer: from the article:
even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy

Is there somewhere else that explains how climate change caused the hurricane? My understanding was that a bunch of normal weather patterns happened to interact in an improbable way.


The issue is not that normal weather patterns "interacted" in an improbible way, the issue is that climate shift has made those interactions more violent and energetic. I'll defer to someone who's an actual climate scientist versus my amature understanding of the matter to explain further.

HoagieBoy: Wait a sec....I've always heard "climate is climate" and "weather is weather" to counteract arguments when someone says "Wow, it's F-ing cold out how about that global warming?" Why all the sudden is "weather now climate"?

/Just curious


That statement has to do with the people who post cute little pictures of snow falling in New York and claim it disproves global warming. Local weather patterns do not disprove global climate change, and they instead reflect the subtle changes that encompass it. While someone may indeed still get snow and cold weather in November, climate change means that weather is colder, and the snow is more pronounced, and that cold season is shorter.

Climate change is not going to make Manitoba into a desert, and the Gobi into a tundra, and people seem to think that's the only way it could occur.
 
2012-11-03 03:15:17 AM

elk-tamer: from the article:
even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy

Is there somewhere else that explains how climate change caused the hurricane? My understanding was that a bunch of normal weather patterns happened to interact in an improbable way.


The water in the Atlantic is registered as warmer than it normally has been at this time of year. Sandy spent a lot of time hovering over this warm water, sucking up energy. Higher sea levels contributed (as did a full moon). And it seems an arctic front cutting through - which is becoming more common as older climate patterns erode - changed its course and added its own effects.

Your use of Google skills could probably serve you well for deeper examinations of the topic.
 
2012-11-03 03:15:45 AM

elk-tamer: from the article:
even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy

Is there somewhere else that explains how climate change caused the hurricane? My understanding was that a bunch of normal weather patterns happened to interact in an improbable way.


Cool weather and calm weather is never evidence against climate change. It's just weather.

Warm weather, droughts, and storms are never just weather. They're evidence of the effect of climate change.

Has anyone considered that maybe God just hates polar bears, and that's all there is to it?
 
2012-11-03 03:15:46 AM
FTFA: Ken Mampel, an unemployed, 56-year-old Floridian

Maybe he should spend all that time looking for a farking job.
 
2012-11-03 03:16:47 AM

Cathedralmaster: FTFA: Ken Mampel, an unemployed, 56-year-old Floridian

Maybe he should spend all that time looking for a farking job.


The sad thing is that if he sought help for his mental illness, he'd be eligable for Florida Medicaid, Medicare, and SSI Disability
 
2012-11-03 03:18:09 AM

TomD9938: 100 Watt Walrus: TomD9938: [cn1.kaboodle.com image 240x240]

Except in the case of AGW of course.

Who is the "Authority" figure in your fantasy?

[whowhatwhy.com image 600x800]

Your USA Today flow-chart aside, I mark the authorities as those in government, either as elected officials or those entrenched in the bureaucracies across the world, who wish to use what may be real climate change (unrelated to humans, especially American humans) as a lever for power over the individual.


these "government officials" like the media shills that support them are bought and paid for by the same companies.
it's a company town .
the US government is an impotent front for big business, regardless of what clownshow happens to be president or what party they represent.

and they could care less about the individual, they care about statistics in relation to sales.
the "collateral damage" is as irrelevant as the human beings that make up the integers in their stats...

4 bucks good, two bucks bad....

/everybody knows.
 
mjg
2012-11-03 03:20:46 AM
Any Farkers wish to start a Ken Mampel Wiki page?
 
2012-11-03 03:20:48 AM

elk-tamer: from the article:
even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy

Is there somewhere else that explains how climate change caused the hurricane? My understanding was that a bunch of normal weather patterns happened to interact in an improbable way.


You SHUT UP!

We're bad and everything we do is bad for the environment!@!@#!!!
 
2012-11-03 03:21:15 AM

opiumpoopy: elk-tamer: from the article:
even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy

Is there somewhere else that explains how climate change caused the hurricane? My understanding was that a bunch of normal weather patterns happened to interact in an improbable way.

Cool weather and calm weather is never evidence against climate change. It's just weather.

Warm weather, droughts, and storms are never just weather. They're evidence of the effect of climate change.

Has anyone considered that maybe God just hates polar bears, and that's all there is to it?


when can i see you at the comedy store?
 
2012-11-03 03:21:29 AM

BronyMedic: DeathByGeekSquad: What a wonderful piece of character assassination.

Sorry, but this gentlemen opened himself up to it by being the most prolific contributer to a major event on a major internet website, and demonstrating an obvious bias in editing the article.

Gunther: Honestly, it astonishes me how reliable wikipedia is, considering how farking crazy most of their editors are

I believe it was in 2007 when it came out that many of the prolific editors on topics related to child sexual abuse, pedophilia, child pornography, and the associated legal issues were convicted child sexual offenders or members of pro-pedo organizations.

The Alt Med community is also guilty of using shills and biased editors to ensure that articles about their quackery stay phrased in a pro-AltMed tone. Whale.to, the infamous quackery website which Scopie's Law was created from, was actually banned from Wikipedia for doing this.


Yeah, the Holocaust deniers do something similar. Rather than just insert bias (which would obviously get quickly changed back), they remove information that debunks common denier claims on flimsy justifications (they'll claim "relevance" or "citation needed" for stuff that is obviously well cited and relevant to the topic) so that it's harder for people to fact check their claims on other sites. I'm actually surprised other quacks don't do it as well; it's so much easier to get away with removing stuff from wiki than it is adding it.
 
2012-11-03 03:22:26 AM
www.popsci.com

Heh, and yet someone had the audacity to tag they yeti article as unlikely.
 
2012-11-03 03:22:38 AM
zippythepinhead.com
 
2012-11-03 03:23:02 AM
Study it out.
 
2012-11-03 03:24:36 AM
Why doesn't Kenny-boy just go to Conservapeda?
 
2012-11-03 03:24:58 AM
He's also largely responsible for the Wikipedia article about Hurricane Sandy. If it isn't already, that article will eventually become the single most-viewed document about the hurricane. On the entire internet.

But for days, the internet's most authoritative article on a major tropical storm system in 2012 was written by a man with no meteorological training who thinks climate change is unproven and fought to remove any mention of it.


Popular ≠ authoritative. Nothing on Wikipedia is authoritative. Standards there are no more enforced than "the loudest bloke in the pub is the one who is right."

1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
 
2012-11-03 03:25:06 AM
Clearly hurricane Sandy was caused by something that isn't happening.

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2012-11-03 03:26:18 AM

elk-tamer: from the article:
even though there is no doubt that it's a systemic cause of hurricane Sandy

Is there somewhere else that explains how climate change caused the hurricane? My understanding was that a bunch of normal weather patterns happened to interact in an improbable way.


You'll see it in many news stories about Sandy: a warming climate causes warmer, moister air. Warmer, moister air increases the intensity of storms.

If you accept that the climate is warming, as even most ACG deniers do, and if you accept that warmer weather increases storm intensity, then you probably have to accept that a warming climate causes more intense weather events.

Also, you may have come across this allegory: We can't point to any one of Barry Bonds' home runs and say it was made possible by steroids, but we do say that steroids caused him to hit more home runs more frequently.

Climate scientists predicted an increase in severe weather events. That is something that can be quantified, and it appears to be happening. In the science world, predictions that come true are a validation.

And to address the main point of TFA, excluding any mention of the possible connection between climate change and an epic storm event in any serious discussion is irresponsible.
 
Displayed 50 of 342 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report