Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NewsBusters)   NY Gov. Cuomo: Look at these past two years, we have had back to back once a century storm, see global warming. Facts: Ooh we had three worse ones in 1954 alone, and dozens over the past 200 years   ( newsbusters.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Andrew Cuomo, New York, global warming, Battery Park, hurricanes, Jesse Jackson, New London, Tim Carney  
•       •       •

907 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



398 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-11 09:19:08 AM  
Hey hey now- don't stand in the way of a politician misrepresenting facts to increase their power over the masses.

/move along citizen. nothing to question here.
 
2012-11-11 09:24:05 AM  
Well then, there's obviously no need to do anything

/I'm sure the repeated devastation is much more cost effective in the long run
 
2012-11-11 09:24:53 AM  
Cool. So, we should just ignore it then.

Got it.
 
2012-11-11 09:26:03 AM  
More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.
 
2012-11-11 09:26:20 AM  
I loooove cherry picking time!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 10:20:32 AM  

dead: Hey hey now- don't stand in the way of a politician misrepresenting facts to increase their power over the masses.

/move along citizen. nothing to question here.


Or a derp blog misrepresenting facts to manipulate the ignorant?

Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.
 
2012-11-11 11:10:38 AM  
Good lord. I swear, if flash smog incidents started occurring again, Republicans would claim that they were natural because they occurred in the 40s-60s.
 
2012-11-11 11:14:51 AM  

vpb: Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.


Well, of course. NewsBusters is like the Onion, but, y'know, significantly less funny.
 
2012-11-11 11:15:43 AM  
The Statue of Liberty could be knee-deep in New York Harbor and deniers would claim it's just seasonal variation.
 
2012-11-11 11:34:12 AM  
Stronger hurricanes != worse storms. What made Sandy unprecedented was not that it was a hurricane of unprecedented strength (in fact, by the time it hit NY, it wasn't a hurricane, or even a tropical storm - that's why people are calling it 'superstorm Sandy'). What made it unprecedented was the storm surge and the resulting flood damage.

Also, comparing damage and casualties from this storm to damage and casualties from storms in the 1930s and 1950s is meaningless. We have better storm tracking and communications (allowing more people to be warned and have the opportunity to evacuate), and improved building codes (regulations, oh noes!).
 
2012-11-11 11:39:30 AM  
NewsBusters might be derp (never been there, can't say) but I have some faith in NPR, which published this story shortly after Sandy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/31/163960418/americas-most-exp e nsive-storms?live=1%3Futm_source%3DNPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaig n=20121031

If you want to do something, don't allow people to build as densely and as expensively close to a hurricane or strong storm zone. But if you do, realize that you're going to go though periods of expensive cleanup and death. Ask yourself the question, "does the reward outweigh the risk?"

6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).

The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control. What can we do to control the climate (which is not weather- a common misconception) to prevent this in the future? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps it would be easier to control weather before we tried to control the climate.
 
2012-11-11 11:40:22 AM  
those storms were LAST century. Sandy was THIS century. if we are going to play semantic games?
 
2012-11-11 11:51:04 AM  

dead: NewsBusters might be derp (never been there, can't say) but I have some faith in NPR, which published this story shortly after Sandy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/31/163960418/americas-most-exp e nsive-storms?live=1%3Futm_source%3DNPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaig n=20121031

If you want to do something, don't allow people to build as densely and as expensively close to a hurricane or strong storm zone. But if you do, realize that you're going to go though periods of expensive cleanup and death. Ask yourself the question, "does the reward outweigh the risk?"

6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).

The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control. What can we do to control the climate (which is not weather- a common misconception) to prevent this in the future? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps it would be easier to control weather before we tried to control the climate.


1. More expensive storms in the past, adjusted for inflation, does not account for weaker structures. Older homes were much less able to withstand severe weather events.
2. NYC's flood defenses are better today than they have been in the past and they saw worse floods than any time in recorded history. The Battery Tunnel has no flood barriers partly because it had never needed them before.
3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.
 
2012-11-11 12:04:09 PM  

GAT_00: dead: NewsBusters might be derp (never been there, can't say) but I have some faith in NPR, which published this story shortly after Sandy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/31/163960418/americas-most-exp e nsive-storms?live=1%3Futm_source%3DNPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaig n=20121031

If you want to do something, don't allow people to build as densely and as expensively close to a hurricane or strong storm zone. But if you do, realize that you're going to go though periods of expensive cleanup and death. Ask yourself the question, "does the reward outweigh the risk?"

6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).

The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control. What can we do to control the climate (which is not weather- a common misconception) to prevent this in the future? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps it would be easier to control weather before we tried to control the climate.

1. More expensive storms in the past, adjusted for inflation, does not account for weaker structures. Older homes were much less able to withstand severe weather events.
2. NYC's flood defenses are better today than they have been in the past and they saw worse floods than any time in recorded history. The Battery Tunnel has no flood barriers partly because it had never needed them before.
3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.


Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.

That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.

Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.

You're entitle to your opinion, but it's worth nothing.
 
2012-11-11 12:21:33 PM  
Somewhat off topic but I heard Cuomo being interviewed after the storm, and frankly he sounds like he has a bit of a strange Italian accent.
 
2012-11-11 12:38:21 PM  

t3knomanser: vpb: Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.

Well, of course. NewsBusters is like the Onion, but, y'know, significantly less funny. true.


FTFY
 
2012-11-11 01:35:01 PM  

El_Perro: Stronger hurricanes != worse storms. What made Sandy unprecedented was not that it was a hurricane of unprecedented strength (in fact, by the time it hit NY, it wasn't a hurricane, or even a tropical storm - that's why people are calling it 'superstorm Sandy'). What made it unprecedented was the storm surge and the resulting flood damage.

Also, comparing damage and casualties from this storm to damage and casualties from storms in the 1930s and 1950s is meaningless. We have better storm tracking and communications (allowing more people to be warned and have the opportunity to evacuate), and improved building codes (regulations, oh noes!).


But why was the surge so huge? Because Sandy was unusually LARGE. There was something unique to it. It was a relatively low-intensity hurricane, but intensity isn't everything.

dead: That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.


Go away.
 
2012-11-11 01:36:25 PM  

GAT_00: 3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.


To be fair he did say "global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's)"
 
2012-11-11 01:36:50 PM  
abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.
 
2012-11-11 01:40:42 PM  

mahuika: Good lord. I swear, if flash smog incidents started occurring again, Republicans would claim that they were natural because they occurred in the 40s-60s.


Godless socialists and Kenyanism are taking away Real America's natural, God-given weather patterns and replacing them with Global Warming superstorms so Obama can win elections?
 
2012-11-11 01:40:51 PM  
0.tqn.comView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 01:41:12 PM  
When you have to go back more than half a century to prove your point, you might be on shaky ground. Yes, even in matters of climate and weather events.
 
2012-11-11 01:43:15 PM  
Libertarians don't understand positive liberty.
 
2012-11-11 01:43:41 PM  

dead: Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.


Because a weekly magazine like Time never picks up on fringe stories and never gets things wrong. Never.

/and you are the one arguing over government control. we are arguing over the very real changes in climate.
 
2012-11-11 01:44:30 PM  
We didn"t listen!
 
2012-11-11 01:45:49 PM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comView Full Size
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 01:45:51 PM  
Then global warming must be fake. That solves it. Move along, nothing to see here.
 
2012-11-11 01:46:20 PM  

culebra: When you have to go back more than half a century to prove your point, you might be on shaky ground. Yes, even in matters of climate and weather events.


images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.orgView Full Size


Pfft, it's one of the cooler periods in Earth's recent history, temperature change even trends downwards! Global warming is fake!
 
2012-11-11 01:47:59 PM  
No other country has so many people who believe global warming is fake than this theocratic, anti-knowledge country.

Of course, we are tops in believing in angels, so it makes sense.

MUST...FIGHT...FACTS!!!
 
2012-11-11 01:49:00 PM  

Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.


I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak my interest.
 
2012-11-11 01:49:59 PM  

mediablitz: No other country has so many people who believe global warming is fake than this theocratic, anti-knowledge country.

Of course, we are tops in believing in angels, so it makes sense.

MUST...FIGHT...FACTS!!!


Facts are the cudgel liberals use to beat the Conservative cause into submission.
 
2012-11-11 01:50:50 PM  

deschinc: Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.

I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak peeve my interest.


FTFY

/Pet pique
 
2012-11-11 01:52:53 PM  

Lochsteppe: deschinc: Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.

I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak peeve my interest.

FTFY

/Pet pique


I was just, JUST reviewing a writeup for a non-profit that had "peeked our interest" in it. From a "professional" writer...
 
2012-11-11 01:54:23 PM  

GAT_00: More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.


I don't think the actual land cared if it flooded before people moved there.

I don't have to be in the woods to know that a tree falls. I don't believe that no tree has ever fallen unless I'm there.
 
2012-11-11 01:55:28 PM  

dead: The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control.


You mean like the decades of analysis and consensus?

Abdicating your rights? Talk about a pants wetting whiny statement. "Their going to put me in a camp!!!"

Jesus. You are one gigantic pussy.
 
2012-11-11 01:56:40 PM  

Mrbogey: GAT_00: More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.

I don't think the actual land cared if it flooded before people moved there.

I don't have to be in the woods to know that a tree falls. I don't believe that no tree has ever fallen unless I'm there.


And you don't believe in scientific consensus, built from decades of study.

So we get it. You ENJOY willful ignorance...
 
2012-11-11 01:56:59 PM  

dead: Hey hey now- don't stand in the way of a politician misrepresenting facts to increase their power over the masses.

/move along citizen. nothing to question here.


Ummm, assuming the headline is correct, in conjunction with your statement, Cuomo is *underplaying* the severity of the issue. Underplaying is not how politicians increase power.
 
2012-11-11 01:58:54 PM  

dead: That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.


You're convinced that the government is using climate change as a tool to take control of our lives and we're the scared ones?  Projection, you has it.
 
2012-11-11 02:00:29 PM  

mediablitz: And you don't believe in scientific consensus, built from decades of study.


"Global climate change made this storm worse" is the "it's cold outside... where global warming" championed by slightly smarter people.

The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional. It's a crapshoot that eventually paid off for Mother Nature.
 
2012-11-11 02:01:06 PM  
NEW YORK CITY: Because five million people living effectively on the beach is a GREAT IDEA!

Yee-haw, idiot humans. Yee-haw.
 
2012-11-11 02:03:10 PM  

dead: 6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).


This paragraph, alone, is evidence enough to discount anything you say in the future on anything. Ever.
 
2012-11-11 02:03:15 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428485/80618495#c80618495" target="_blank">dead</a>:</b> <i>Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.</i>

Sometimes.

There have been a LOT of advances in building design over the last few decades, particularly in regards to residential construction designed to resist wind loads.

The only house in a subdivision designed to resist cat 5 hurricane wind loads:

<img src="http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/article-105 5660-02a87a8d00000578-263_468x7052.jpg">

Two outwardly identical houses in a full scale wind test. The house that survived used a couple hundred dollars of hardware installed during construction and some minor detailing changed.

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXF44jBBwxU">Link</a>
 
2012-11-11 02:03:33 PM  

Mrbogey: mediablitz: And you don't believe in scientific consensus, built from decades of study.

"Global climate change made this storm worse" is the "it's cold outside... where global warming" championed by slightly smarter people.

The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional. It's a crapshoot that eventually paid off for Mother Nature.


Are you denying the scientific consensus regarding global climate change is real?
 
2012-11-11 02:05:42 PM  

Mrbogey: The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional.


So even THIS is a lie? The climatologists saying the conditions WERE exceptional are lying? You know better? Can I ask where you received your degree? Can I see some of your published work?
 
2012-11-11 02:05:48 PM  

dead:
Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.


Sometimes.

There have been a LOT of advances in building design over the last few decades, particularly in regards to residential construction designed to resist wind loads.

The only house in a subdivision designed to resist cat 5 hurricane wind loads:

dvorak.orgView Full Size


Two outwardly identical houses in a full scale wind test. The house that survived used a couple hundred dollars of hardware installed during construction and some minor detailing changed.

Link
 
2012-11-11 02:05:53 PM  
We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it.
 
2012-11-11 02:06:24 PM  

Lochsteppe: deschinc: Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.

I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak peeve my interest.

FTFY

/Pet pique


I don't have any use for them damn sissy French words. This is 'Murika and I'll peak if I damn well please.

/You know who else was a grammar Nazi....
 
2012-11-11 02:07:52 PM  

dead: Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think


For good buildings, which is like saying that just because we can build a house that can withstand a Cat-3 today means all buildings can. But the easiest proof of this is earthquake-proofing. Old structures can't handle earthquakes.
 
2012-11-11 02:08:14 PM  
One would think at this point, they would perhaps take a second look at "facts" and see if maaaaybe they were right.
 
2012-11-11 02:12:50 PM  
dead: That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.

3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


STFU.
 
2012-11-11 02:16:51 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it. Study it out


FTFY
 
2012-11-11 02:21:41 PM  

El_Perro: in fact, by the time it hit NY, it wasn't a hurricane, or even a tropical storm


Point of information: I thought it was a Category 1 when it made landfall in NJ. The Wikipedia article seems to support calling it a "Hurricane".
 
2012-11-11 02:23:07 PM  
In case you did not know it...
A hundred-year event is NOT defined as one that only happens once every hundred years!!!
 
2012-11-11 02:23:25 PM  

Teufelaffe: HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it. Study it out

FTFY


You hate facts, don't you?
 
2012-11-11 02:25:17 PM  

pootsie: In case you did not know it...
A hundred-year event is NOT defined as one that only happens once every hundred years!!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-year_flood

FYI
 
2012-11-11 02:27:02 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Teufelaffe: HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it. Study it out

FTFY

You hate facts, don't you?


At least we pay attention to facts. Go get more talking points from unskewedclimate.com, where math is optional.
 
2012-11-11 02:28:06 PM  

Unknown_Poltroon: HotIgneous Intruder: Teufelaffe: HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it. Study it out

FTFY

You hate facts, don't you?

At least we pay attention to facts. Go get more talking points from unskewedclimate.com, where math is optional.


Google and university science courses are your friends. IF it's not too late.
 
2012-11-11 02:28:38 PM  

Arkanaut: El_Perro: in fact, by the time it hit NY, it wasn't a hurricane, or even a tropical storm

Point of information: I thought it was a Category 1 when it made landfall in NJ. The Wikipedia article seems to support calling it a "Hurricane".


It was declared extratropical at landfall and by satellite images, it made the transition approximately two or three hours before landfall. However, since the NHC does not update constantly, it was technically a hurricane when it made landfall.
 
2012-11-11 02:29:28 PM  
Why is this in the Politics tab? If Newsbusters has its facts straight, subby should submit this to the Geek tab for the nerds to study it out.
 
2012-11-11 02:30:16 PM  
How am I misrepresenting reality?
Are we not in an interglacial warming period?
Has the climate not been warming for 13,000 years?
Did the Chesapeake Bay not form when glacial meltwater raised sea levels?

Answer these questions and show your work, please.

Derpity.
 
2012-11-11 02:31:54 PM  

gingerjet: dead: Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.
Because a weekly magazine like Time never picks up on fringe stories and never gets things wrong. Never.
/and you are the one arguing over government control. we are arguing over the very real changes in climate.


Oh this story?

socioecohistory.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


Which was actually this story:

img.timeinc.netView Full Size


yeah, that's a fake cover. And yet it's been cited as "proof" that somehow everybody everywhere is wrong about global warming. A fuking photoshop. Nobody even has the smarts to check and see if it's real, even though they have the internet right in front of them.

I''m sure I can trust people who need to make photoshops of popular magazine covers to prove their point over every climate scientist, ever.
 
2012-11-11 02:34:17 PM  

dead:
Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.


The only houses left standing built in 1900 are the houses that were built strong enough to stand the test of time. All the others are already gone.
 
2012-11-11 02:38:26 PM  

pootsie: In case you did not know it...
A hundred-year event is NOT defined as one that only happens once every hundred years!!!


You're right. You have to harmonize the statisticals.
 
2012-11-11 02:39:21 PM  

cryinoutloud: yeah, that's a fake cover. And yet it's been cited as "proof" that somehow everybody everywhere is wrong about global warming. A fuking photoshop. Nobody even has the smarts to check and see if it's real, even though they have the internet right in front of them.

I''m sure I can trust people who need to make photoshops of popular magazine covers to prove their point over every climate scientist, ever.


How can people actually believe that was an actual cover? Time magazine covers didn't even look like that in the 1970's and the photoshop was so badly done that it's obvious that it was a photoshop.

How can...ughh...(bangs head on desk)
 
2012-11-11 02:41:12 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: NEW YORK CITY: Because five million people living effectively on the beach is a GREAT IDEA!

Yee-haw, idiot humans. Yee-haw.


Could be worse....could be Texans denying that the earth's so damn dry anything could start a wildfire that would engulf half the state.
 
2012-11-11 02:43:18 PM  
Ah yes...the weekly climate change thread. I get to play my favorite game:

Spot the Derptard GOPers Who Have Never Taken a College-level Chemistry, Physics, or Meteorology Class.

Some folks would say that the dumbest people around are 9-11 "Truthers" or "Birthers." I say it's the Climate Change Denialists.
 
2012-11-11 02:47:33 PM  
Remember: the people insisting there is no global warming are the same people who cited unskewed polls and called Nate Silver a stupid hack.
 
2012-11-11 02:48:47 PM  
Grown men also cry.

i50.tinypic.comView Full Size


Grown men also cry.
 
2012-11-11 02:49:22 PM  

derpy: Grown men also cry.

[i50.tinypic.com image 475x256]

Grown men also cry.


ooops wrong thread. but I like it.
 
2012-11-11 02:52:09 PM  

mediablitz: So even THIS is a lie? The climatologists saying the conditions WERE exceptional are lying? You know better? Can I ask where you received your degree? Can I see some of your published work?


Whoa calm down you hysterical little thing.

Dr. Martin Hoerling said that the conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional. Link

Let's say you took away every possible addition that climate change added to Sandy, you still have a massive storm that caused catastrophic damage. The storm of 1821 was still larger.
 
2012-11-11 02:52:20 PM  

Rwa2play: HotIgneous Intruder: NEW YORK CITY: Because five million people living effectively on the beach is a GREAT IDEA!

Yee-haw, idiot humans. Yee-haw.

Could be worse....could be Texans denying that the earth's so damn dry anything could start a wildfire that would engulf half the state.


I don't think it was half, but yeah. And who would have anticipated the idiot governor of Texas cutting fund for wildland firefighting? Remember, it's all god's will.

If global warming didn't exist, people would have to invent invisible sky beings to blame for everything. Hey, wait...
 
2012-11-11 02:54:23 PM  

Mrbogey: Let's say you took away every possible addition that climate change added to Sandy, you still have a massive storm that caused catastrophic damage. The storm of 1821 was still larger.


Let's not forget that "damage" is a measure of impact on human beings and their property in dollar terms. Any major dude will tell you.
 
2012-11-11 02:58:18 PM  

Unknown_Poltroon: unskewedclimate.com


lol!
 
2012-11-11 02:59:46 PM  
And the glaciers aren't actually disappearing. They're playing peek-a-boo.
 
2012-11-11 03:09:20 PM  
Why does bullshiat always collapse under any kind of scrutiny? Can't we build bullshiat that is strong enough? Damn you all to hell Bullshiat!
 
2012-11-11 03:14:56 PM  
Sandy got the attention of the nation and woke up the Eastern seaboard concerning the risks of global climate change. This turkey is a done deal in public opinion now. Sure, it will be slow at first, but this is equivalent to the gun debate now. The left lost that debate, and the right has lost the climate change debate. Get over it.
 
2012-11-11 03:18:48 PM  

Mrbogey: Let's say you took away every possible addition that climate change added to Sandy, you still have a massive storm that caused catastrophic damage. The storm of 1821 was still larger.


Yeah, there was a bigger storm almost two hundred years ago ergo no such thing as climate change.
 
2012-11-11 03:20:24 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Yeah, there was a bigger storm almost two hundred years ago ergo no such thing as climate change.


People were killed before guns ergo guns don't exist.

Way to not understand an argument.
 
2012-11-11 03:26:02 PM  
ITT: people who don't understand (or willfully ignore) rate of change.
 
2012-11-11 03:29:17 PM  

LewDux: GAT_00: 3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.

To be fair he did say "global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's)"


No, that's not fair. The only consensus on global cooling is the media's consensus that it would sell more magazines.
 
2012-11-11 03:30:52 PM  
Yeah, this happened now, instead of 15 years ago because of all the global warming we've had in the last 15 years:

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size


Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
 
2012-11-11 03:33:29 PM  

Arkanaut: Why is this in the Politics tab? If Newsbusters has its facts straight, subby should submit this to the Geek tab for the nerds to study it out.


Uh, there's your answer.
 
2012-11-11 03:36:11 PM  

cryinoutloud: gingerjet: dead: Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.
Because a weekly magazine like Time never picks up on fringe stories and never gets things wrong. Never.
/and you are the one arguing over government control. we are arguing over the very real changes in climate.

Oh this story?

[socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com image 300x404]

Which was actually this story:

[img.timeinc.net image 400x538]

yeah, that's a fake cover. And yet it's been cited as "proof" that somehow everybody everywhere is wrong about global warming. A fuking photoshop. Nobody even has the smarts to check and see if it's real, even though they have the internet right in front of them.

I''m sure I can trust people who need to make photoshops of popular magazine covers to prove their point over every climate scientist, ever.


...uhm, just because someone PSed a magazine cover about it doesn't mean Time wasn't talking about it.

/If you have the June 24, 1974 issue, you'll find an article entitled "Another Ice Age?"
//It's just not on the cover.
 
2012-11-11 03:37:44 PM  
I don't want to click. Is this written by that snow monkey-faced ass ratchet? Funky Winkertits or whatever his name is?
 
2012-11-11 03:42:58 PM  

IlGreven: ...uhm, just because someone PSed a magazine cover about it doesn't mean Time wasn't talking about it.

/If you have the June 24, 1974 issue, you'll find an article entitled "Another Ice Age?"
//It's just not on the cover.


The point still stands. Why the forgeries? Surely if it was more than just a one-off Time BS article (because Time is such a respected scientific publication) there should be plenty of evidence that such a narrative was being pushed en masse.
 
2012-11-11 03:43:04 PM  

thamike: I don't want to click. Is this written by that snow monkey-faced ass ratchet? Funky Winkertits or whatever his name is?


You mean that goddamn Finkelstein shiat kid? That son of a biatch?
 
2012-11-11 03:44:42 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, this happened now, instead of 15 years ago because of all the global warming we've had in the last 15 years:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


Why do you post that graph after it being repeatedly demonstrated to you that it is completely false?

Why have you never answered those criticisms?
 
2012-11-11 03:47:56 PM  

Mrbogey: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Yeah, there was a bigger storm almost two hundred years ago ergo no such thing as climate change.

People were killed before guns ergo guns don't exist.

Way to not understand an argument.


I understand your "argument", I just don't think it's worth treating seriously.
 
2012-11-11 03:51:18 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Why do you post that graph after it being repeatedly demonstrated to you that it is completely false?


Completely false as in "data copied directly from HADCRUT3"?

Not only is it not completely false, it is EXACTLY the last 15 years of hadcrut3 data WITHOUT ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

If you disagree with that, then YOU POST the last 15 years of HARDCRUT3 data, and point out the differences.

Oh yeah, that's right. There aren't any differences, because that's the actual data.

But feel free to keep calling data that you don't like "false".
 
2012-11-11 03:52:15 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Why do you post that graph after it being repeatedly demonstrated to you that it is completely false?

Completely false as in "data copied directly from HADCRUT3"?

Not only is it not completely false, it is EXACTLY the last 15 years of hadcrut3 data WITHOUT ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

If you disagree with that, then YOU POST the last 15 years of HARDCRUT3 data, and point out the differences.

Oh yeah, that's right. There aren't any differences, because that's the actual data.

But feel free to keep calling data that you don't like "false".


If you think a "best fit" line is data, you need to go back to school. I recommend starting in 1st grade.
 
2012-11-11 03:53:17 PM  

SevenizGud: .


p.s.

why do you refuse to answer my question, about why you keep posting that graph despite being REPEATEDLY shown, over and over, that it isn't correct?
 
2012-11-11 03:55:30 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, this happened now, instead of 15 years ago because of all the global warming we've had in the last 15 years:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


skepticalscience.comView Full Size


From this link
 
2012-11-11 03:56:03 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: why do you refuse to answer my question, about why you keep posting that graph despite being REPEATEDLY shown, over and over, that it isn't correct?


Why do you keep claiming that it isn't correct? Again, if you believe it isn't correct, then post the correct HADCRUT3 numbers or else STFU.
 
2012-11-11 03:56:15 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: thamike: I don't want to click. Is this written by that snow monkey-faced ass ratchet? Funky Winkertits or whatever his name is?

You mean that goddamn Finkelstein shiat kid? That son of a biatch?


That's the one.

quixoticgames.comView Full Size
bustingnewsbusters.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


With and without goggles.
 
2012-11-11 03:57:15 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: why do you refuse to answer my question, about why you keep posting that graph despite being REPEATEDLY shown, over and over, that it isn't correct?

Why do you keep claiming that it isn't correct? Again, if you believe it isn't correct, then post the correct HADCRUT3 numbers or else STFU.


you didn't even answer MY criticism.

The numbers aren't false.
your interpretation vis-a-vis a best fit line IS false.
 
2012-11-11 03:57:26 PM  
 
2012-11-11 03:57:50 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: why do you refuse to answer my question, about why you keep posting that graph despite being REPEATEDLY shown, over and over, that it isn't correct?

Why do you keep claiming that it isn't correct? Again, if you believe it isn't correct, then post the correct HADCRUT3 numbers or else STFU.


I bet you won't even respond to the post RIGHT ABOVE YOURS.
 
2012-11-11 03:58:49 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: your interpretation vis-a-vis a best fit line IS false.


Draw a better best fit line, then, or STFU.
 
2012-11-11 03:59:02 PM  
Since you haven't answered, I repeat: why do you continue to post that graph despite repeatedly being shown... and NOT BY ME even... that it is false?
 
2012-11-11 03:59:52 PM  

James F. Campbell: Libertarians don't understand positive liberty much of anything.


/fx'd
 
2012-11-11 03:59:55 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: your interpretation vis-a-vis a best fit line IS false.

Draw a better best fit line, then, or STFU.


that's not even the point. the interpretation itself is wrong.

you think you've found someone else you can argue with? I've seen you before, jerkoff. you've been owned in every single thread you've been in. And in this thread already.

Go away.
 
2012-11-11 04:00:07 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Why do you post that graph after it being repeatedly demonstrated to you that it is completely false?

Completely false as in "data copied directly from HADCRUT3"?

Not only is it not completely false, it is EXACTLY the last 15 years of hadcrut3 data WITHOUT ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

If you disagree with that, then YOU POST the last 15 years of HARDCRUT3 data, and point out the differences.

Oh yeah, that's right. There aren't any differences, because that's the actual data.

But feel free to keep calling data that you don't like "false".


cru.uea.ac.ukView Full Size


Guess where I found this?

/you must be one of those guys who goes out to shovel his driveway and nags his entire neighborhood about "global warming am I right haharrhyarr!"
 
2012-11-11 04:01:11 PM  

IntertubeUser: Ah yes...the weekly climate change thread. I get to play my favorite game:

Spot the Derptard GOPers Who Have Never Taken a College-level Chemistry, Physics, or Meteorology Class.

Some folks would say that the dumbest people around are 9-11 "Truthers" or "Birthers." I say it's the Climate Change Denialists.


Explain my father-in-law, then.
Man has a BS (haha) in engineering and a minor in crystallography (i think)
and is a denier.

But, he's catholic. Which doesn't quite explain it, but...

{santorumbaptistcatholicnotcatholiccatholic.jpeg}
 
2012-11-11 04:03:10 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: you've been owned in every single thread you've been in


Yeah, I'm showing the actual HADCRUT3 data, without any changes AT ALL by me, and somehow I'm "being owned". Sure.

Nothing says "getting owned" like posting the, you know, actual last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data without any changes from those reported by Hadley Center themselves.

Cry about it.
 
2012-11-11 04:04:22 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: you've been owned in every single thread you've been in

Yeah, I'm showing the actual HADCRUT3 data, without any changes AT ALL by me, and somehow I'm "being owned". Sure.

Nothing says "getting owned" like posting the, you know, actual last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data without any changes from those reported by Hadley Center themselves.

Cry about it.


Is there a specific reason you are hung up on the past 15 years?
 
2012-11-11 04:04:32 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: you've been owned in every single thread you've been in

Yeah, I'm showing the actual HADCRUT3 data, without any changes AT ALL by me, and somehow I'm "being owned". Sure.

Nothing says "getting owned" like posting the, you know, actual last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data without any changes from those reported by Hadley Center themselves.

Cry about it.


you keep insisting that a best fit line is "data".

Not only that, you conflate your interpretation of said line with "data".

you continue to be wrong about that.

Why don't you explain this graph?

skepticalscience.comView Full Size


Please. Tell me your interpretation of this graph.

I'm waiting.
 
2012-11-11 04:05:16 PM  

thamike: SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: you've been owned in every single thread you've been in

Yeah, I'm showing the actual HADCRUT3 data, without any changes AT ALL by me, and somehow I'm "being owned". Sure.

Nothing says "getting owned" like posting the, you know, actual last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data without any changes from those reported by Hadley Center themselves.

Cry about it.

Is there a specific reason you are hung up on the past 15 years?


Because he's an amoral shill who masquerades as an armchair scientist.
 
2012-11-11 04:06:04 PM  

Bontesla: I loooove cherry picking time!


So do I! I prefer Bing cherries, but even pie cherries are okay.

/I also love apricot picking time.
 
2012-11-11 04:06:12 PM  

thamike: you must be one of those guys who goes out to shovel his driveway and nags his entire neighborhood about "global warming am I right


Okay, first of all, even your own chart shows on the rightward side that temperature have been dropping for years...

As far as the driveway goes...yeah, it's just 15+ years. Probably just weather, amirite? Arrrrr.
 
2012-11-11 04:06:33 PM  
Bottom line is, why the hell do some people fight so hard when the very worst that could happen is that we clean up our ecosystem a little bit? We just want to live in a hospitable place.
 
2012-11-11 04:07:29 PM  

thamike: Bottom line is, why the hell do some people fight so hard when the very worst that could happen is that we clean up our ecosystem a little bit? We just want to live in a hospitable place.


Because some people will lose a lot of money because their business model is based on NOT changing.

Those people pay other people to spout bullshiat.
 
2012-11-11 04:07:33 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: you've been owned in every single thread you've been in

Yeah, I'm showing the actual HADCRUT3 data, without any changes AT ALL by me, and somehow I'm "being owned". Sure.

Nothing says "getting owned" like posting the, you know, actual last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data without any changes from those reported by Hadley Center themselves.

Cry about it.


The bolded part is why you're out of your depth in this discussion.
 
2012-11-11 04:08:41 PM  

SevenizGud: Okay, first of all, even your own chart shows on the rightward side that temperature have been dropping for years...

As far as the driveway goes...yeah, it's just 15+ years. Probably just weather, amirite? Arrrrr.


Care to take a stab at why the temperature has more or less stopped spiking over the last 15 years?
 
2012-11-11 04:09:08 PM  

GAT_00: More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.


More how? In terms of cost? In terms of area flooded? Are you implying global warming can be confirmed by a dollar amount on damage?

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Please. Tell me your interpretation of this graph.


I think it starts in 1970.
 
2012-11-11 04:09:13 PM  
skepticalscience.comView Full Size


This is the third time this graph has been posted.

That is plenty of time for a certain douchebag to make up some defense.

why hasn't he.
 
2012-11-11 04:09:42 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: you keep insisting that a best fit line is "data".


Dude, stop crying. The underlying URL of the picture itself will tell you that it is the trend line. And the trend line for what, you may sob and boo-hoo? The trend line for the, you know, data.
 
2012-11-11 04:10:31 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Those people pay other people to spout bullshiat.


This numbskull's doing it for free.Otherwise he would at least be slightly better at it.
 
2012-11-11 04:10:36 PM  

s2s2s2: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Please. Tell me your interpretation of this graph.

I think it starts in 1970.


ooh, so close. The years 1970-1972 were actually a collective hallucination throughout our society. Therefore, the graph starts in 1973
 
2012-11-11 04:10:51 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: [www.skepticalscience.com image 500x340]

This is the third time this graph has been posted.

That is plenty of time for a certain douchebag to make up some defense.

why hasn't he.


are you going to get upset over such a small level of increase?

Do you know for a fact what has caused this tiny increase?
 
2012-11-11 04:11:11 PM  

thamike: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Those people pay other people to spout bullshiat.

This numbskull's doing it for free.Otherwise he would at least be slightly better at it.


Nobody can be that stupid.
 
2012-11-11 04:11:32 PM  

SevenizGud: Dude, stop crying. The underlying URL of the picture itself will tell you that it is the trend line. And the trend line for what, you may sob and boo-hoo?


The bolded part indicates why you are out of your depth on this issue.
 
2012-11-11 04:12:20 PM  

thamike: The bolded part indicates why you are out of your depth on this issue.


you might as well bold every comment he makes.
 
2012-11-11 04:13:25 PM  
imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 04:14:32 PM  
SevenizGud:

Why haven't you said a single word about the graph that has been posted 3 times already?
 
2012-11-11 04:15:35 PM  

thamike: The bolded part indicates why you are out of your depth on this issue.


Yeah, nothing says "out of your depth" more than posting the, you know, actual data.
 
2012-11-11 04:17:11 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it.


So this unprecedented rise in CO2 is completely natural? Can I see your published papers that back this up?
 
2012-11-11 04:18:04 PM  

SevenizGud: thamike: The bolded part indicates why you are out of your depth on this issue.

Yeah, nothing says "out of your depth" more than posting the, you know, actual data.


And then misinterpreting it, purposely limiting your graph to 15 years of the data.

Why haven't you said a single word about the graph that shows 40 years of data?
 
2012-11-11 04:18:35 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: SevenizGud:

Why haven't you said a single word about the graph that has been posted 3 times already?


Because it completely destroys the narrative that he's trying to make?
 
2012-11-11 04:18:55 PM  

thamike: Bottom line is, why the hell do some people fight so hard when the very worst that could happen is that we clean up our ecosystem a little bit? We just want to live in a hospitable place.


Maybe because that is not the worst that could happen. You really need to look into this issue before you make such stupid statements. IF this AGW thing was real (it is not), it is a global problem. A global problem requires a global answer. The United Nations has been put in charge of coming up with the answer. The answer they have come up with is to gut the economies of the western world while not touching what is going on in places like China and India.

And keep in mind that people who know (John R. Christy, PhD Alabama State Climatologist) have testified before Congress that the solution proposed by the UN will do nothing to solve the "problem". He also said:

'Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation'

'These recent U.S. 'extremes' were exceeded in previous decades' - 'The expression of 'worse than we thought' climate change as documented in [James] Hansen's OpEd does not stand up to scrutiny'

Are you under the impression that this "problem" can be solved by recycling and getting a car that has better gas mileage? You are naive.
 
2012-11-11 04:19:33 PM  

Mrtraveler01: The All-Powerful Atheismo: SevenizGud:

Why haven't you said a single word about the graph that has been posted 3 times already?

Because it completely destroys the narrative that he's trying to make?


Obviously. The more it gets pointed out though, the more pathetic it makes him look.
 
2012-11-11 04:20:48 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Mrtraveler01: The All-Powerful Atheismo: SevenizGud:

Why haven't you said a single word about the graph that has been posted 3 times already?

Because it completely destroys the narrative that he's trying to make?

Obviously. The more it gets pointed out though, the more pathetic it makes him look.


I dunno. I'm kind of enjoying watching him twist in the wind with his spin.
 
2012-11-11 04:20:49 PM  
If it's happening every few years then they're not once-in-a-hundred-year storms. You can't have it both ways.
 
2012-11-11 04:21:05 PM  

SevenizGud: thamike: The bolded part indicates why you are out of your depth on this issue.

Yeah, nothing says "out of your depth" more than posting the, you know, actual data.


Why do you keep picking the last 15 years? Oh yeah, because if you show more significant data samplings, your moronic argument falls apart.

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size
 

So, there's the, you know, actual data.
 
2012-11-11 04:21:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: IF this AGW thing was real (it is not),


Well, I'm convinced.
 
2012-11-11 04:21:54 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I understand your "argument", I just don't think it's worth treating seriously.


Yes, I understand how anti-intellectualism works. I make an argument, you say it sucks and you then take laps declaring your victory.
 
2012-11-11 04:21:59 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Why haven't you said a single word about the graph that shows 40 years of data?


Oh, but when the temperature drops from 1940 to 1980 (similarly 40 years), and then Hansen goes to congress and talks about a rise of 8 years that's okay, amirite?

So it is okay for Hansen to talk of 8 years, and you don't question the 40 prior in that case, but when I almost double the duration of the reversal of trend, THAT'S when it becomes a problem, amirite?

Well, at least you don't have a double-standard about it. Good to know your aren't, you know, a totally biased shill for the watermelons.
 
2012-11-11 04:24:00 PM  

SevenizGud: Well, at least you don't have a double-standard about it. Good to know your aren't, you know, a totally biased shill for the watermelons.


The irony is strong in this one.
 
2012-11-11 04:24:13 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Why haven't you said a single word about the graph that shows 40 years of data?

Oh, but when the temperature drops from 1940 to 1980 (similarly 40 years), and then Hansen goes to congress and talks about a rise of 8 years that's okay, amirite?

So it is okay for Hansen to talk of 8 years, and you don't question the 40 prior in that case, but when I almost double the duration of the reversal of trend, THAT'S when it becomes a problem, amirite?

Well, at least you don't have a double-standard about it. Good to know your aren't, you know, a totally biased shill for the watermelons.


tamino.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


This drop?

If you think that the data shows that temperatures are not rising, you are a fool.
 
2012-11-11 04:24:21 PM  
John R. Christy, PhD
Alabama State Climatologist
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
House Energy and Power Subcommittee
20 September 2012

Selected Excerpts: To put it simply, Andreadis and Lettenmaier (2006) found that for the Midwest, "Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century." In other words, droughts have always happened in the Midwest and they are not getting worse.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Another extreme metric is the all-time record high temperature for each state. The occurrence of the records by decade (Figure 1.1 below) makes it obvious that the 1930s were the most extreme decade and that since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade. The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency. The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. So, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

About 75 percent of the states recorded their hottest temperature prior to 1955, and, over 50 percent of the states experienced their record cold temperatures after 1940. Overall, only a third of the records (hot or cold) have been set in the second half of the whole period. One could conclude, if they were so inclined, that the climate of the US is becoming less extreme because the occurrence of state extremes of hot and cold has diminished dramatically since 1955. Since 100 of anything appears to be a fairly large sample (2 values for each of 50 states), this on the surface seems a reasonable conclusion.

want to read the entire thing? Link 

Not that the facts mean anything warmers.
 
2012-11-11 04:24:21 PM  

thamike: Care to take a stab at why the temperature has more or less stopped spiking over the last 15 years?


The great thing about a glass of ice water is that you can put it out in the sun on a warm day and it will stay at precisely the same temperature while the ice melts. The heat being added by the sun and the warm air isn't disappearing, it's busy driving the phase transition for the ice.

It takes a lot of energy to warm the oceans and melt that polar ice. Don't worry, it will start climbing again once all that methane locked up under the polar ice and in the permafrost starts to let loose.
 
2012-11-11 04:25:19 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, nothing says "out of your depth" more than posting cherry picking the, you know, actual data.


This is why you're being laughed at.
 
2012-11-11 04:25:29 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Because it completely destroys the narrative that he's trying to make?


Yeah, because it's possible to destroy the narrative of posting the last 15 years of data. Temperature in 1971 or 1888 has so much to do with the last 15 years, amirite?

But hey, guys, it's only 15 years, maybe at some point in the future it will change and you will all get the increase in temperature that you crave.
 
2012-11-11 04:25:57 PM  
chuckufarlie:

What do the other 99.99% of climate scientists say?

Are you going to cite them too?
 
2012-11-11 04:26:40 PM  
"The story of Earth's geological history is a story of continuous change..."

/Change, how werk it.
//Derpderpderp.
 
2012-11-11 04:27:18 PM  

SevenizGud: Mrtraveler01: Because it completely destroys the narrative that he's trying to make?

Yeah, because it's possible to destroy the narrative of posting the last 15 years of data. Temperature in 1971 or 1888 has so much to do with the last 15 years, amirite?

But hey, guys, it's only 15 years, maybe at some point in the future it will change and you will all get the increase in temperature that you crave.


Yeah, but as you just taught us, all we need to do is cherrypick the data in a way to make ourselves feel better about it like you just did. ;)
 
2012-11-11 04:27:34 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: This is why you're being laughed at.


Yeah, because there's nothing more laughable than posting the last 15 years of, you know, the actual data.
 
2012-11-11 04:28:30 PM  
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.netView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 04:28:39 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, because it's possible to destroy the narrative of posting the last 15 years of data. Temperature in 1971 or 1888 has so much to do with the last 15 years, amirite?


When it comes to basing trends based on climate? Uh...duh!

The fact you don't get that makes it very hard for me to take you seriously on this topic anymore.
 
2012-11-11 04:28:57 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: thamike: Care to take a stab at why the temperature has more or less stopped spiking over the last 15 years?

The great thing about a glass of ice water is that you can put it out in the sun on a warm day and it will stay at precisely the same temperature while the ice melts. The heat being added by the sun and the warm air isn't disappearing, it's busy driving the phase transition for the ice.

It takes a lot of energy to warm the oceans and melt that polar ice. Don't worry, it will start climbing again once all that methane locked up under the polar ice and in the permafrost starts to let loose.


Ooogah-BOOGAH-BOOH!
 
2012-11-11 04:29:35 PM  

SevenizGud: Monkeyhouse Zendo: This is why you're being laughed at.

Yeah, because there's nothing more laughable than posting the last 15 years of, you know, the actual data.


And ignoring all the data prior to that in order to come up with a trend line to suit your narrative.

At least be honest with us about your intellectual dishonesty.
 
2012-11-11 04:29:47 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: chuckufarlie: IF this AGW thing was real (it is not),

Well, I'm convinced.


no, you are a religious zealot who pays no attention to the facts. Somebody told you something and you bought into it without doing any real research of your own.


Climatologist Dr. John Christy: 'I've often stated that climate science is a 'murky' science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do' - 'As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science'


opinions?
arguments-from-authority?
fuzzy notions?

Isn't that the same reason that you do not believe in god?
 
2012-11-11 04:29:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: When it comes to basing trends based on climate? Uh...duh!

The fact you don't get that makes it very hard for me to take you seriously on this topic anymore.


Oh, okay, then please tell me how the last 15 years of temperature data would be different if it hadn't have been for 1888.
 
2012-11-11 04:30:15 PM  

NYCNative: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 518x387]


you had to bring baseball into this :(

/recovering Bonds fan
 
2012-11-11 04:30:47 PM  
The Earth has warmed in the past.

Therefore, man cannot affect climate.

Checkmate, libs.
 
2012-11-11 04:31:20 PM  

SevenizGud: Monkeyhouse Zendo: This is why you're being laughed at.

Yeah, because there's nothing more laughable than posting the last 15 years of, you know, the actual data.


Well, there's the fact that you choose to ignore a hundred years of data before that since it doesn't support your premise. That's pretty funny.

It's okay, I don't think for a moment that you're actually posting this ridiculous line of reasoning in good faith. I'm not sure what you get out of pushing an idea that is so easily refuted but I hope it meets whatever needs you're trying to fulfill.
 
2012-11-11 04:32:18 PM  

dead: Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.


Wrong. Given a choice between a house built in 1900 that is still standing today and a house built in 1970 still standing today, I will probably choose the house built in 1900. The difference being that the house still standing today from 1900 was built for somebody wealthy and out of building materials that can not be put into the average house today because of cost. The average home of 1900 is not standing today, the one from 1970 is.
 
2012-11-11 04:32:48 PM  

chuckufarlie: ...

Climatologist Well know quack Dr. John Christy: ...


If that's what you got to hang your argument on, well son, you lose.
 
2012-11-11 04:33:16 PM  

Mrtraveler01: And ignoring all the data prior to that in order to come up with a trend line to suit your narrative


It always amazes me how you Chicken Littles can't distinguish between the two following statements:

1. It has NEVER warmed.
2. It is not warming CURRENTLY.

I don't know anyone who is arguing that it has NEVER warmed. The question is whether it is CURRENTLY warming. Do you see the difference between the two.

/of course you don't
 
2012-11-11 04:33:18 PM  
chuckufarlie:

I'm actually an engineer who works on environmental projects, so I guarantee you that I've read more studies than you have, and that I understand them better than you.

But that doesn't even matter. 97% of SCIENTISTS... actual ones... say you are full of shiat.
 
2012-11-11 04:35:00 PM  

NYCNative: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 518x387]


Pooley is a journalist. He has no credentials to make such a statement.

However, Professor Christy has all of the credentials needed to make this statement:

My point is that extreme events are poor metrics to use for detecting climate change. Indeed, because of their rarity (by definition) using extreme events to bolster a claim about any type of climate change (warming or cooling) runs the risk of setting up the classic "non-falsifiable hypothesis." For example, we were told by the IPCC that "milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms" (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4). After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, "Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely" (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowsto rmsmore-likely-0506.html).
 
2012-11-11 04:35:22 PM  

SevenizGud: ... The question is whether it is CURRENTLY warming....


The answer is yes. And the vast majority of it is caused by humans. As the Koch-brothers-funded study proved.
 
2012-11-11 04:35:39 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: If you think that the data shows that temperatures are not rising, you are a fool.


Uhm-hmmm

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 39 41 55 44 53 47 54 48 51 47 66 51 50 47 35 51 49 55 2001
2002 71 71 89 57 58 49 58 47 54 52 51 38 58 59 65 68 52 52 2002
2003 68 51 54 50 53 42 50 65 61 68 50 69 57 54 52 52 52 60 2003
2004 54 67 59 53 36 35 21 43 49 60 67 47 49 51 63 49 33 58 2004
2005 69 55 69 63 56 59 55 58 68 73 64 64 63 61 57 62 57 69 2005
2006 48 64 59 45 42 56 43 64 55 60 65 72 56 55 59 48 54 60 2006
2007 89 64 65 68 62 54 56 57 53 55 49 40 59 62 75 65 56 52 2007
2008 17 26 66 44 41 35 54 37 53 56 58 49 45 44 28 50 42 56 2008
2009 55 46 48 49 54 62 67 56 66 60 66 60 57 57 50 50 62 64 2009
2010 69 75 85 77 66 57 51 55 54 63 72 45 64 65 68 76 54 63 2010
2011 46 44 57 56 43 51 66 66 50 55 47 43 52 52 45 52 61 50 2011
2012 32 37 45 55 67 56 46 58 61 69********** ********* 38 56 53***** 2012
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON
 
2012-11-11 04:35:50 PM  

SevenizGud: Oh, okay, then please tell me how the last 15 years of temperature data would be different if it hadn't have been for 1888.


Why are you so worked up on the last 15 years and not the last 40 years?
 
2012-11-11 04:37:00 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SevenizGud: Oh, okay, then please tell me how the last 15 years of temperature data would be different if it hadn't have been for 1888.

Why are you so worked up on the last 15 years and not the last 40 years?


Heck, looks to me like he's only worked up about 11 years.
 
2012-11-11 04:37:20 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Well, there's the fact that you choose to ignore a hundred years of data before that since it doesn't support your premise


Another Chicken Little who can't distinguish between

1. It has never warmed

and

2. It is not CURRENTLY warming
 
2012-11-11 04:38:07 PM  
SevenizGud:

Now you've limited yourself to 10 years of data?

In the next thread, are you going to limit yourself to the temperature between 5 and 11am?
 
2012-11-11 04:38:27 PM  

ghare: As the Koch-brothers-funded study proved.


Looks like the HADCRUT3 data didn't get the Koch brothers' memo.
 
2012-11-11 04:38:42 PM  

SevenizGud: I don't know anyone who is arguing that it has NEVER warmed. The question is whether it is CURRENTLY warming. Do you see the difference between the two.


So its not warmer now that it was 100 years ago?
 
2012-11-11 04:38:43 PM  
"it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

-John Christy, PhD
 
2012-11-11 04:41:00 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Now you've limited yourself to 10 years of data?


1998 55 84 60 57 68 73 66 65 44 41 45 52 59 60 66 62 68 43 1998
1999 43 60 29 26 23 36 32 30 31 34 31 35 34 35 52 26 32 32 1999
2000 18 53 51 54 31 39 37 40 36 20 29 25 36 37 36 45 39 28 2000

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year
2001 39 41 55 44 53 47 54 48 51 47 66 51 50 47 35 51 49 55 2001
2002 71 71 89 57 58 49 58 47 54 52 51 38 58 59 65 68 52 52 2002
2003 68 51 54 50 53 42 50 65 61 68 50 69 57 54 52 52 52 60 2003
2004 54 67 59 53 36 35 21 43 49 60 67 47 49 51 63 49 33 58 2004
2005 69 55 69 63 56 59 55 58 68 73 64 64 63 61 57 62 57 69 2005
2006 48 64 59 45 42 56 43 64 55 60 65 72 56 55 59 48 54 60 2006
2007 89 64 65 68 62 54 56 57 53 55 49 40 59 62 75 65 56 52 2007
2008 17 26 66 44 41 35 54 37 53 56 58 49 45 44 28 50 42 56 2008
2009 55 46 48 49 54 62 67 56 66 60 66 60 57 57 50 50 62 64 2009
2010 69 75 85 77 66 57 51 55 54 63 72 45 64 65 68 76 54 63 2010
2011 46 44 57 56 43 51 66 66 50 55 47 43 52 52 45 52 61 50 2011
2012 32 37 45 55 67 56 46 58 61 69********** ********* 38 56 53***** 2012
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J-D D-N DJF MAM JJA SON Year

Feel better? I changed from HADCRUT3 to GISS because of your graph. I started with a different year because I didn't want to include the paragraph break in this data for display reasons.

But please, by all means, please continue to pretend that non-inclusion of paragraph breaks is the downfall of the data display, Einstein.
 
2012-11-11 04:41:39 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Ooogah-BOOGAH-BOOH!


Not trying to scare you, just pointing out that the energy is going somewhere.

I've pretty much given up on reasoning with people who don't understand even a high school level treatment of thermodynamics. Things like what constitutes a thermodynamically closed system just don't figure into their understanding of the world.

Please understand, I'm not saying that you're stupid. I'm saying that you don't have the necessary tools to think about the problem in any useful manner.
 
2012-11-11 04:41:47 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: chuckufarlie:

I'm actually an engineer who works on environmental projects, so I guarantee you that I've read more studies than you have, and that I understand them better than you.

But that doesn't even matter. 97% of SCIENTISTS... actual ones... say you are full of shiat.


First of all, science is NOT a popularity contest. It does not matter what percentage of scientists agree. Einstein was in the minority when he started explaining relativity back in the 1930s.

Second, there actual is no consensus.


Your credentials mean nothing. I prefer to listen to a person with real credentials - Professor John Christy

Widely publicized consensus reports by "thousands" of scientists rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for "Red Teams" of credentialed investigators, who study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens.
 
2012-11-11 04:41:57 PM  
SevenizGud:

still have yet to explain why you limit yourself to 15 years.
 
2012-11-11 04:42:37 PM  

SevenizGud: 2. It is not warming CURRENTLY.


SevenizGud: Looks like the HADCRUT3 data didn't get the Koch brothers' memo


woodfortrees.orgView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 04:43:23 PM  
I love the fact that a grand total of ZERO of you laughable Chicken Littles has come in here and said, "No, it HAS warmed over the last 15 years. LOL.

It's all a bunch of bbbbbut 1885...bbbb but 1941.

Show some CURRENT warming, geniuses.
 
2012-11-11 04:44:09 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

-John Christy, PhD

'Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation'

-John Christy, PhD


'These recent U.S. 'extremes' were exceeded in previous decades' - 'The expression of 'worse than we thought' climate change as documented in [James] Hansen's OpEd does not stand up to scrutiny'

-John Christy, PhD

To put it simply, Andreadis and Lettenmaier (2006) found that for the Midwest, "Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller portion of the country over the last century." In other words, droughts have always happened in the Midwest and they are not getting worse.

-John Christy, PhD

 
2012-11-11 04:45:15 PM  
chuckufarlie:
You think John Christy is an Einstein, raging against the prevailing scientific winds?

What's hilarious is that the one time Einstein actually did that... he was protesting the tenets of quantum mechanics, one of the most well defined theories of all time.

you'll never guess who ended up being wrong on that one.

have fun with your inanity. I have other shiat to do.
 
2012-11-11 04:45:29 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: still have yet to explain why you limit yourself to 15 years.


You've yet to explain why you aren't showing me how much is has really warmed in the last 15 years.

Why don't you just gut the main argument, and, you know, show that it really has warmed in the last 15 years?
 
2012-11-11 04:45:31 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: HotIgneous Intruder: Ooogah-BOOGAH-BOOH!

Not trying to scare you, just pointing out that the energy is going somewhere.

I've pretty much given up on reasoning with people who don't understand even a high school level treatment of thermodynamics. Things like what constitutes a thermodynamically closed system just don't figure into their understanding of the world.

Please understand, I'm not saying that you're stupid. I'm saying that you don't have the necessary tools to think about the problem in any useful manner.


I imagine you think the Earth is a closed system, as well.
Amirite?
 
2012-11-11 04:46:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: SevenizGud: 2. It is not warming CURRENTLY.

SevenizGud: Looks like the HADCRUT3 data didn't get the Koch brothers' memo

[woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Chart showing last 15 years didn't warm. Congrats on supporting my case.
 
2012-11-11 04:47:13 PM  

SevenizGud: I love the fact that a grand total of ZERO of you laughable Chicken Littles has come in here and said, "No, it HAS warmed over the last 15 years. LOL.

It's all a bunch of bbbbbut 1885...bbbb but 1941.

Show some CURRENT warming, geniuses.


This is just a sad and pathetic attempt to spin this.

Most climatology trends are based on more than 10-15 years dumbass.
 
2012-11-11 04:47:53 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: SevenizGud:

Now you've limited yourself to 10 years of data?

In the next thread, are you going to limit yourself to the temperature between 5 and 11am?


New discoveries explain part of the warming found in popular surface temperature datasets which is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the stations. This means popular surface datasets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming.

Prof. Christy
 
2012-11-11 04:48:55 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: still have yet to explain why you limit yourself to 15 years.

You've yet to explain why you aren't showing me how much is has really warmed in the last 15 years.

Why don't you just gut the main argument, and, you know, show that it really has warmed in the last 15 years?


Because it doesn't farking matter what happened in any single 15 year period, you tool. What farking matters is what humans are doing overall in the course of our interference with the environment.

Oh and nevermind the fact that in these past 15 years, the temperatures were still the highest ever recorded.
 
2012-11-11 04:49:04 PM  

SevenizGud: Chart showing last 15 years didn't warm. Congrats on supporting my case.


What are you so fixated on 15 years? Other than it supporting your narrative of course.

Because going past 15 years completely destroys the narrative you're trying to make.
 
2012-11-11 04:49:39 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: chuckufarlie:
You think John Christy is an Einstein, raging against the prevailing scientific winds?

What's hilarious is that the one time Einstein actually did that... he was protesting the tenets of quantum mechanics, one of the most well defined theories of all time.

you'll never guess who ended up being wrong on that one.

have fun with your inanity. I have other shiat to do.


run away, loser. RUN AWAY.
 
2012-11-11 04:49:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Most climatology trends are based on more than 10-15 years dumbass.


So you'd say Hansen was wrong for testifying to congress in 1988 about warming, because it was only 8 years of trend reversal after 40 years of trend?

Or is it the case that 15 years is wrong for me to do, but 8 years is fine for Hansen to do?

Take your pick.

/at least you don't have a double-standard about it, amirite?
 
2012-11-11 04:51:06 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: still have yet to explain why you limit yourself to 15 years.

You've yet to explain why you aren't showing me how much is has really warmed in the last 15 years.

Why don't you just gut the main argument, and, you know, show that it really has warmed in the last 15 years?

Because it doesn't farking matter what happened in any single 15 year period, you tool. What farking matters is what humans are doing overall in the course of our interference with the environment.

Oh and nevermind the fact that in these past 15 years, the temperatures were still the highest ever recorded.


The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. So, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s.

Prof. Christy


Another extreme metric is the all-time record high temperature for each state. The occurrence of the records by decade (Figure 1.1 below) makes it obvious that the 1930s were the most extreme decade and that since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.

Prof. Christy
 
2012-11-11 04:51:44 PM  

chuckufarlie: run away, loser. RUN AWAY.


I'm pretty sure that the one sitting here putting faith in ONE scientists while discounting the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of actual science... and spending all sunday doing so... is the loser.

Just promise me one thing. Promise me you will still have this FARK login in 10 years, so that we can laugh at you as temperature continues to increase.
 
2012-11-11 04:51:46 PM  

SevenizGud: Mrtraveler01: Most climatology trends are based on more than 10-15 years dumbass.

So you'd say Hansen was wrong for testifying to congress in 1988 about warming, because it was only 8 years of trend reversal after 40 years of trend?

Or is it the case that 15 years is wrong for me to do, but 8 years is fine for Hansen to do?

Take your pick.

/at least you don't have a double-standard about it, amirite?


8 years is too short of a time frame as well as 15 years when it comes to climate.

What do I win?
 
2012-11-11 04:52:17 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

-John Christy, PhD


I'm always amazed that more people in these threads don't quote him given his other views on climate change.
 
2012-11-11 04:52:33 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I imagine you think the Earth is a closed system, as well.
Amirite?


I think the Earth-Sun system comprises a functionally closed system. Sure, we get some gamma rays and charged particles from other solar systems and some radio frequency energy from Jupiter and Saturn but that is largely negligible. If you want to be a stickler you have to account for black swan events like meteor impacts but significantly large meteor impacts are pretty rare.
 
2012-11-11 04:52:41 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: still have yet to explain why you limit yourself to 15 years.

You've yet to explain why you aren't showing me how much is has really warmed in the last 15 years.

Why don't you just gut the main argument, and, you know, show that it really has warmed in the last 15 years?



Well, you could use the more-complete HadCRUT4 instead of HadCRUT3:

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size


You're also dodging the point that The All-Powerful Atheismo. Why have you chosen just 15 years? It's a simple question.
 
2012-11-11 04:53:17 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Oh and nevermind the fact that in these past 15 years, the temperatures were still the highest ever recorded.


Another Chicken Little who can't distinguish between the concept of "never warmed" versus "currently warming".

If it is warming so much currently, why isn't it warming?

Here's another one for you, tell me how much it would really be warming if it were, you know, actually warming.
 
2012-11-11 04:54:24 PM  

SevenizGud: Mrtraveler01: Most climatology trends are based on more than 10-15 years dumbass.

So you'd say Hansen was wrong for testifying to congress in 1988 about warming, because it was only 8 years of trend reversal after 40 years of trend?

Or is it the case that 15 years is wrong for me to do, but 8 years is fine for Hansen to do?

Take your pick.

/at least you don't have a double-standard about it, amirite?



You'll have to back this up in some way. Also realize that simple least-squares regression isn't what's used in this sort of analysis.
 
2012-11-11 04:54:55 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 8 years is too short of a time frame as well as 15 years when it comes to climate


So then we agree that Hansen was wrong. I knew you'd come around.
 
2012-11-11 04:55:17 PM  

James F. Campbell: [0.tqn.com image 500x334]


if you enjoy it a little is it still rape?
 
2012-11-11 04:56:11 PM  

SevenizGud: Mrtraveler01: 8 years is too short of a time frame as well as 15 years when it comes to climate

So then we agree that Hansen was wrong. I knew you'd come around.


Yep, and 15 years is an incredibly stupid timeframe to use when discussing climate trends.

We couldn't agree more. ;)
 
2012-11-11 04:56:19 PM  

GAT_00: The All-Powerful Atheismo: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

-John Christy, PhD

I'm always amazed that more people in these threads don't quote him given his other views on climate change.


He is not a believer in AGW. You take one little statement and think that he believes in it. I provided a link to an entire document that was his testimony in front of Congress. Not only does he not believe in AGW, he does not believe in global warming and his testimony stated that His credentials far outweigh any douchebag warmer.
 
2012-11-11 04:57:48 PM  

SevenizGud: Another Chicken Little who can't distinguish between the concept of "never warmed" versus "currently warming".

If it is warming so much currently, why isn't it warming?


images.flatworldknowledge.comView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 04:58:21 PM  

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Oh and nevermind the fact that in these past 15 years, the temperatures were still the highest ever recorded.

Another Chicken Little who can't distinguish between the concept of "never warmed" versus "currently warming".

If it is warming so much currently, why isn't it warming?

Here's another one for you, tell me how much it would really be warming if it were, you know, actually warming.



The problem you're running into is what is considered "current". If you're not willing to consider the argument (that has been pointed out to you repeatedly) that 15 years isn't enough time to be able to tell, why not, say, the last 5 years:

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 04:58:48 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Also realize that simple least-squares regression isn't what's used in this sort of analysis.


Oh, I know. It's what's used by the Chicken Littles until it doesn't work any more, at which point they change to something else.

It's just like
global warming
global climate change
global climate disruption

global son-of-a-biatch some other term that is finally sufficiently nebulous that it is unmeasurable, and therefore unfalsifiable!! There, that should settle it!
 
2012-11-11 05:01:44 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: SevenizGud: Another Chicken Little who can't distinguish between the concept of "never warmed" versus "currently warming".

If it is warming so much currently, why isn't it warming?

[images.flatworldknowledge.com image 850x488]


Oh, that's helpful. I had no idea that the articles of latent heats of phase changes was just introduced 15 years ago.

How useful it would have been in 1985 to have ice floating in water at equilibrium of 37C, just imagine all the fancy cooking I could have done.
 
2012-11-11 05:03:10 PM  
pensee-unique.frView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 05:05:23 PM  
Even if global warming is fake, which 97% of scientists say isn't the case, can one of you derpers please tell me why anyone without a big fat corporate dick up their ass would oppose measures to stem it?

Clean the environment, stimulate the economy with non-outsourcable jobs and stop relying on countries that want to purge us from the earth with holy fire so we can power our cars with dead dinosaurs. Sounds good to me. Who gives a fark if its real?
 
2012-11-11 05:06:11 PM  

SevenizGud: I love the fact that a grand total of ZERO of you laughable Chicken Littles has come in here and said, "No, it HAS warmed over the last 15 years. LOL.

It's all a bunch of bbbbbut 1885...bbbb but 1941.

Show some CURRENT warming, geniuses.



I see you've stopped using the "I'M MALIA OBAMA AND THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN MY ENTIRE LIFE" graph. I wonder why. Could it be that your cherry-picked plateau has ceased to exist over that time frame?
 
2012-11-11 05:06:22 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: The problem you're running into is what is considered "current". If you're not willing to consider the argument (that has been pointed out to you repeatedly) that 15 years isn't enough time to be able to tell, why not, say, the last 5 years:


C'mon, we're talking current here.

We need to base it off of 1 day.
 
2012-11-11 05:07:41 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: Also realize that simple least-squares regression isn't what's used in this sort of analysis.

Oh, I know. It's what's used by the Chicken Littles until it doesn't work any more, at which point they change to something else.

It's just like
global warming
global climate change
global climate disruption
global son-of-a-biatch some other term that is finally sufficiently nebulous that it is unmeasurable, and therefore unfalsifiable!! There, that should settle it!



You're contradicting yourself here. You know that least-squares regression isn't used and you're accusing " the Chicken Littles" of using it - these seem to be somewhat mutually exclusive. You're also dodging what I asked:

SevenizGud: Or is it the case that 15 years is wrong for me to do, but 8 years is fine for Hansen to do?


Can you back up this statement in some way? 

As for the discussion about nomenclature, note that different terms have different meaning, and to different groups. We can get deeper into it if you wish, but don't conflate that terms are "sufficiently nebulous" to you means that they are to others. More importantly, such a perceived nebulous quality dot not mean that climate change is somehow "unmeasurable, and therefore unfalsifiable".
 
2012-11-11 05:08:20 PM  

CPennypacker: Even if global warming is fake, which 97% of scientists say isn't the case, can one of you derpers please tell me why anyone without a big fat corporate dick up their ass would oppose measures to stem it?


Can one of you chicken littles tell me why if your political party is really interested in the problem, why have they not suggested child-bearing curbs in the tax code, for example, seeing as how population growth is the single biggest factor in CO2 output BY FAR going forward.

Oh yeah, I remember now, it's a political football, nothing to address seriously.
 
2012-11-11 05:08:24 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: chuckufarlie: run away, loser. RUN AWAY.

I'm pretty sure that the one sitting here putting faith in ONE scientists while discounting the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of actual science... and spending all sunday doing so... is the loser.

Just promise me one thing. Promise me you will still have this FARK login in 10 years, so that we can laugh at you as temperature continues to increase.


What part of SCIENCE IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST do you not understand.

What part of THERE IS NO CONSENSUS do you not understand? That is just propaganda. It is not proven. It is a lie.

One man with facts beats the hell out of the crap spewing from you. You have no credentials, Christy has a boatload.

pensee-unique.frView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 05:09:24 PM  
Something like climate change should never, NEVER be brought into politics. Politics will only obscure the facts.
 
2012-11-11 05:09:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: GAT_00: The All-Powerful Atheismo: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

-John Christy, PhD

I'm always amazed that more people in these threads don't quote him given his other views on climate change.

He is not a believer in AGW. You take one little statement and think that he believes in it. I provided a link to an entire document that was his testimony in front of Congress. Not only does he not believe in AGW, he does not believe in global warming and his testimony stated that His credentials far outweigh any douchebag warmer.


Actually, he believes climate change is happening. What he is not convinced is of the scope of how much warmer we will get or how much humans have influenced it. He does say there is a minimal chance that we have had no impact. He also runs one of the two big MSU at UAH that have shown for years that the upper atmosphere is cooling, consistent with more heat trapping in the troposphere from increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

I know full well what he believes, and I can actually interpret it.
 
2012-11-11 05:09:40 PM  

SevenizGud: Oh, that's helpful. I had no idea that the articles of latent heats of phase changes was just introduced 15 years ago.

How useful it would have been in 1985 to have ice floating in water at equilibrium of 37C, just imagine all the fancy cooking I could have done.


As I said before, I don't think for a moment that you seriously believe the drivel you're posting.

I'm just pointing out that it isn't unheard of for the internal energy of a system to increase while the temperature remains constant.
 
2012-11-11 05:10:36 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: I see you've stopped using the "I'M MALIA OBAMA AND THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN MY ENTIRE LIFE" graph. I wonder why.


I wonder why you don't know that Malia and Sasha are different people.

img801.imageshack.usView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 05:10:56 PM  

SevenizGud: Can one of you chicken littles tell me why if your political party is really interested in the problem, why have they not suggested child-bearing curbs in the tax code, for example, seeing as how population growth is the single biggest factor in CO2 output BY FAR going forward.

Oh yeah, I remember now, it's a political football, nothing to address seriously.


Someones gone to the derp side of the moon.
 
2012-11-11 05:11:04 PM  

SevenizGud: CPennypacker: Even if global warming is fake, which 97% of scientists say isn't the case, can one of you derpers please tell me why anyone without a big fat corporate dick up their ass would oppose measures to stem it?

Can one of you chicken littles tell me why if your political party is really interested in the problem, why have they not suggested child-bearing curbs in the tax code, for example, seeing as how population growth is the single biggest factor in CO2 output BY FAR going forward.

Oh yeah, I remember now, it's a political football, nothing to address seriously.


Right, cuz its TEH LIBRULZ who would freak out about a child limit and not the fat religious dough-people in the south pumping out 10 little duggers each.
 
2012-11-11 05:11:10 PM  

SevenizGud: thamik


The facts you keep pretending support whatever position you think you have is not what was bolded.

I bolded this:

SevenizGud: Dude, stop crying. The underlying URL of the picture itself will tell you that it is the trend line. And the trend line for what, you may sob and boo-hoo?


It's hard to speak with any authority about any scientific topic when this thought not only goes through your head, but it actually seems like a good idea to type it for a long enough time to type it. It doesn't really smack of credibility.
 
2012-11-11 05:11:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: One man with facts beats the hell out of the crap spewing from you. You have no credentials, Christy has a boatload.


You seem to be hanging a lot on Christy being right and just about everyone else being wrong.
 
2012-11-11 05:12:24 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: HotIgneous Intruder: I imagine you think the Earth is a closed system, as well.
Amirite?

I think the Earth-Sun system comprises a functionally closed system. Sure, we get some gamma rays and charged particles from other solar systems and some radio frequency energy from Jupiter and Saturn but that is largely negligible. If you want to be a stickler you have to account for black swan events like meteor impacts but significantly large meteor impacts are pretty rare.


Check. Earth isn't a closed system.
So where are all these warming gasses coming from?
Sequestered CO2 -- ancient sunlight -- that we're releasing through combustion, right?
The temperature of the Earth has fluctuated widely across time for various reasons.
If you viewed Earth from space, you would observe natural processes and would deduce that the infestation of humans was transforming the environment. This has happened before with the Great Oxygenation Event, which set the very stage for human existence. Humans can no less stop their impact on the atmosphere than the cyanobacteria could stop theirs.
To suggest otherwise is to dabble in mental illness.

If you think people will freely choose to starve and go cold in the winter and hot in the summer or will allow any government to set those conditions for them -- which would surely arise from curtailing fossil fuel combustion at any significant levels -- they you and your cohort are suicidally addicted to magical thinking. Maybe it's an attempt to allay your psychological shame at having sold out your boomer idealism and redeem your useless selves. I have no idea. Perhaps your conscience will be clear when everyone is scratching the ground with sticks and suffering.

But you know what? The only human option is to ADAPT to the changing climate.
The climate had been changing for 13,000 years and it's not going to be stopped by one group of the the human slime mold making some others of the group of slime mold stop out-gassing.
 
2012-11-11 05:13:39 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: As I said before, I don't think for a moment that you seriously believe the drivel you're posting.


The people at Hadley will be delighted to hear that someone named Monkeyhouse Zendo says their last 15 years of data are drivel.
 
2012-11-11 05:15:53 PM  

thamike: It doesn't really smack of credibility


Yeah, because if there is anything that goes against credibility, it is posting the, you know, actual data for the last 15 years.
 
2012-11-11 05:17:10 PM  

SevenizGud: CPennypacker: Even if global warming is fake, which 97% of scientists say isn't the case, can one of you derpers please tell me why anyone without a big fat corporate dick up their ass would oppose measures to stem it?

Can one of you chicken littles tell me why if your political party is really interested in the problem, why have they not suggested child-bearing curbs in the tax code, for example, seeing as how population growth is the single biggest factor in CO2 output BY FAR going forward.

Oh yeah, I remember now, it's a political football, nothing to address seriously.



The simple answer is that population growth isn't a factor in industrialized countries. The fertility rate in the US is close to replacement, for instance.

The more important question is why did you think it was, given that your perception here is greatly and obviously at odds with reality? Where are you getting your information from, and how much critical thought are you putting towards it?
 
2012-11-11 05:17:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: He is not a believer in AGW.


Because it makes no sense to "believe" in AGW. It's either real, as provable beyond a doubt by science, or it's not. AGW is not provable beyond any doubt and will probably never be for anyone living right now.
 
2012-11-11 05:18:27 PM  
And we have less navy ships now than in 1917!
 
2012-11-11 05:18:56 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: He is not a believer in AGW.

Because it makes no sense to "believe" in AGW. It's either real, as provable beyond a doubt by science, or it's not. AGW is not provable beyond any doubt and will probably never be for anyone living right now.


If it was do you think it would make a difference? See: Evolution
 
2012-11-11 05:19:15 PM  

SevenizGud: The people at Hadley will be delighted to hear that someone named Monkeyhouse Zendo says their last 15 years of data are drivel.


It's not the data that's drivel.

It's the narrative you have where "I only use 15 years worth of data instead of 5 years or a 100 years worth of data because otherwise it wont' fit the narrative I'm trying to create".
 
2012-11-11 05:20:33 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: dead:
Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.

Sometimes.

There have been a LOT of advances in building design over the last few decades, particularly in regards to residential construction designed to resist wind loads.

The only house in a subdivision designed to resist cat 5 hurricane wind loads:

[www.dvorak.org image 467x494]

Two outwardly identical houses in a full scale wind test. The house that survived used a couple hundred dollars of hardware installed during construction and some minor detailing changed.

Link


His assumption is based on houses that are older and *still standing* this is fallacious because only the structures built to last (and thus more expensive and stronger overall) would still be around in this day and age.

Also is it really only a few hundred dollars? I was under the impression it was more, but I don't claim any expertise in that area.

Also also, cool video.
 
2012-11-11 05:21:01 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: The simple answer is that population growth isn't a factor in industrialized countries. The fertility rate in the US is close to replacement, for instance.


Oh, so, according to Chicken Little logic, REDUCING the US population wouldn't reduce CO2 output, because, people in high population growth countries don't burn much coal per capita.

Chicken Little logic, everyone. It's no wonder you believe in ACC.
 
2012-11-11 05:23:41 PM  

CPennypacker: HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: He is not a believer in AGW.

Because it makes no sense to "believe" in AGW. It's either real, as provable beyond a doubt by science, or it's not. AGW is not provable beyond any doubt and will probably never be for anyone living right now.

If it was do you think it would make a difference? See: Evolution


I'm not talking about the screaming rabble of delusional sky-man worshippers. I'm talking about scientific facts that any reasonably educated person can see to be true with minimal training, like maybe community college biology. The knuckle draggers will always howl at the moon.
 
2012-11-11 05:23:50 PM  

Mrtraveler01: the narrative I'm trying to create".


Tell me how much it's warmed in the last 15 years again. I forgot what you said the first time.
 
2012-11-11 05:25:10 PM  

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: I see you've stopped using the "I'M MALIA OBAMA AND THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN MY ENTIRE LIFE" graph. I wonder why.

I wonder why you don't know that Malia and Sasha are different people.

[img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]



Because I don't get my talking points from denialists?

At any rate, it's obvious why you retired it. "Sasha's graph" ends with a decline, but the latest data shows a reversal:

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size


I guess your response will be to redraw the graph, cherry-picking a new local maximum as the starting point to create a decline over your chosen time frame.
 
2012-11-11 05:25:12 PM  

SevenizGud: REDUCING the US population wouldn't reduce CO2 output, because, people in high population growth countries don't burn much coal per capita.


Correct, actually. Americans are the most resource-heavy consumers on the planet.
 
2012-11-11 05:27:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: CPennypacker: HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: He is not a believer in AGW.

Because it makes no sense to "believe" in AGW. It's either real, as provable beyond a doubt by science, or it's not. AGW is not provable beyond any doubt and will probably never be for anyone living right now.

If it was do you think it would make a difference? See: Evolution

I'm not talking about the screaming rabble of delusional sky-man worshippers. I'm talking about scientific facts that any reasonably educated person can see to be true with minimal training, like maybe community college biology. The knuckle draggers will always howl at the moon.


boingboing.netView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 05:27:45 PM  

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: I see you've stopped using the "I'M MALIA OBAMA AND THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN MY ENTIRE LIFE" graph. I wonder why.

I wonder why you don't know that Malia and Sasha are different people.

[img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]



11 years is even worse than your previous use of 15. I can pose to you what I posed earlier (and that you notably ignored). If you're not recognizing the idea that such a short period of time is insufficient to be able to tell, why not five years:

woodfortrees.orgView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 05:30:04 PM  
Svensmark of Denmark: The Cloud Mystery.
The information in this documentary had been nicely suppressed by the globalists.

/Idiots, you are.
//Wake up.
 
2012-11-11 05:32:28 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: CPennypacker: HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: He is not a believer in AGW.

Because it makes no sense to "believe" in AGW. It's either real, as provable beyond a doubt by science, or it's not. AGW is not provable beyond any doubt and will probably never be for anyone living right now.

If it was do you think it would make a difference? See: Evolution

I'm not talking about the screaming rabble of delusional sky-man worshippers. I'm talking about scientific facts that any reasonably educated person can see to be true with minimal training, like maybe community college biology physics, such as the infrared-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide. The knuckle draggers will always howl at the moon.


FTFY
 
2012-11-11 05:32:44 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: The simple answer is that population growth isn't a factor in industrialized countries. The fertility rate in the US is close to replacement, for instance.

Oh, so, according to Chicken Little logic, REDUCING the US population wouldn't reduce CO2 output, because, people in high population growth countries don't burn much coal per capita.

Chicken Little logic, everyone. It's no wonder you believe in ACC.



I think it would help, but that's a far cry from your actual claim:

SevenizGud: CPennypacker: Even if global warming is fake, which 97% of scientists say isn't the case, can one of you derpers please tell me why anyone without a big fat corporate dick up their ass would oppose measures to stem it?

Can one of you chicken littles tell me why if your political party is really interested in the problem, why have they not suggested child-bearing curbs in the tax code, for example, seeing as how population growth is the single biggest factor in CO2 output BY FAR going forward.

Oh yeah, I remember now, it's a political football, nothing to address seriously.

 
2012-11-11 05:34:14 PM  
SevenizGud


2012-11-11 04:03:10 PM
Nothing says "getting owned" like posting the, you know, actual last 15 years of HADCRUT3 data without any changes from those reported by Hadley Center themselves.

2012-11-11 04:09:42 PM
The trend line for the, you know, data.

2012-11-11 04:15:35 PM
Yeah, nothing says "out of your depth" more than posting the, you know, actual data.

2012-11-11 04:21:59 PM
Good to know your aren't, you know, a totally biased shill for the watermelons.

2012-11-11 04:27:34 PM
Yeah, because there's nothing more laughable than posting the last 15 years of, you know, the actual data.

2012-11-11 04:45:29 PM
Why don't you just gut the main argument, and, you know, show that it really has warmed in the last 15 years?
2012-11-11 04:53:17 PM
Here's another one for you, tell me how much it would really be warming if it were, you know, actually warming.


2012-11-11 05:15:53 PM

Yeah, because if there is anything that goes against credibility, it is posting the, you know, actual data for the last 15 years.
 


I don't know what this is, but I'm pretty sure it's diagnosable.
 
2012-11-11 05:35:42 PM  

SevenizGud: Mrtraveler01: the narrative I'm trying to create".

Tell me how much it's warmed in the last 15 years again. I forgot what you said the first time.


woodfortrees.orgView Full Size
 

About that much, given this length of time's lack of significance climatologically (and probably statistically).
 
2012-11-11 05:43:35 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: About that much, given this length of time's lack of significance climatologically (and probably statistically).


And the fact that warming isn't wholly reflected in air temperature.
 
2012-11-11 05:46:43 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Svensmark of Denmark: The Cloud Mystery.
The information in this documentary had been nicely suppressed by the globalists.

/Idiots, you are.
//Wake up.



Svensmark of Denmark. I can play the [name] of [country] game, too.

Tom of Finland.

Svensmark and Tom. Two guys with equal relevance to the AGW debate.

Svensmark believes that cosmic rays can affect cloud formation. Unfortunately, the available evidence proves him wrong. Link, complete with original sources

As far as I know, Tom hasn't made any statements about AGW. At least he isn't being dishonest.
 
2012-11-11 06:05:45 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: HotIgneous Intruder: Svensmark of Denmark: The Cloud Mystery.
The information in this documentary had been nicely suppressed by the globalists.

/Idiots, you are.
//Wake up.


Svensmark of Denmark. I can play the [name] of [country] game, too.

Tom of Finland.

Svensmark and Tom. Two guys with equal relevance to the AGW debate.

Svensmark believes that cosmic rays can affect cloud formation. Unfortunately, the available evidence proves him wrong. Link, complete with original sources

As far as I know, Tom hasn't made any statements about AGW. At least he isn't being dishonest.


Yes, because those CERN scientists are just a bunch of lying pussies, amirite?
 
2012-11-11 06:11:10 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Check. Earth isn't a closed system.
So where are all these warming gasses coming from?
Sequestered CO2 -- ancient sunlight -- that we're releasing through combustion, right?
The temperature of the Earth has fluctuated widely across time for various reasons.
If you viewed Earth from space, you would observe natural processes and would deduce that the infestation of humans was transforming the environment. This has happened before with the Great Oxygenation Event, which set the very stage for human existence. Humans can no less stop their impact on the atmosphere than the cyanobacteria could stop theirs.
To suggest otherwise is to dabble in mental illness.


So now you're in the "well we can't do anything about it" camp. That's cool, maybe that was always your position and you're not moving the goalposts. Of course your assertion that we can't mitigate our impact on atmospheric composition is specious. Our intelligence and ingenuity got us to the point where we can change atmospheric composition, there is no reason to believe that it can't help mitigate that externality.

If you think people will freely choose to starve and go cold in the winter and hot in the summer or will allow any government to set those conditions for them -- which would surely arise from curtailing fossil fuel combustion at any significant levels -- they you and your cohort are suicidally addicted to magical thinking. Maybe it's an attempt to allay your psychological shame at having sold out your boomer idealism and redeem your useless selves. I have no idea. Perhaps your conscience will be clear when everyone is scratching the ground with sticks and suffering.

As I've said before, people are great at short term problem solving but generally suck at long term planning. The largest issue is population, following that is energy usage per capita. Basically we're wasteful and where we could vastly reduce energy consumption per capita through the use of more modern technology, and, on a longer time frame, reduce total population; we're not motivated to do so.

I also don't know where you get this assumption that I'm a baby boomer. I'm solidly gen-x and I've had these issues in mind from when I studied physics at the university back in the late 80s.

But you know what? The only human option is to ADAPT to the changing climate.
The climate had been changing for 13,000 years and it's not going to be stopped by one group of the the human slime mold making some others of the group of slime mold stop out-gassing.


It's funny that in one breath you claim that we're not going to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate greater than it can be absorbed by natural carbon sinks and in the next claim that our only option is to adapt. My point is that we should begin adapting first by controlling our reproduction rates, improving our energy efficiency, and planning for maximum recycling of our waste products and garbage.

The fact that climate has been changing slowly for the last 13000 years isn't terribly interesting. What is interesting is that it suddenly decided to speed up only a hundred years after we started digging large volumes of sequestered carbon out of the ground and burning it.

We're not bacteria and, while we're not particularly good at long term planning, we can learn to set reasonable limits on our resource usage so as to avoid greater costs down the line.
 
2012-11-11 06:11:51 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Link, complete with original sources


Funny how there's a ready-made canned rebuttal to everything that seems to contradict AGW.
I'm beginning to consider the phenomenon of unintentional conspiracies among AGW advocates; something like mass hysteria.

[Actually, it's more like rabid career and grant gravy-train protectionism, but I digress.]
 
2012-11-11 06:12:48 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Funny how there's a ready-made canned rebuttal to everything that seems to contradict AGW.


Yes, funny.
 
2012-11-11 06:13:51 PM  

SevenizGud: Monkeyhouse Zendo: As I said before, I don't think for a moment that you seriously believe the drivel you're posting.

The people at Hadley will be delighted to hear that someone named Monkeyhouse Zendo says their last 15 years of data are drivel.


Their data is fine. The cherry picked analysis you keep repeating, not so much.
 
2012-11-11 06:14:48 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: we can learn to set reasonable limits on our resource usage so as to avoid greater costs down the line.


Bullshiat. The attempted Kyoto protocols prove there is no political will to do this trick of magical thinking.
When you tell people what it means for their lives, nobody will listen to you for more than one minute.
And no politician will or would dare go along with it.
You do what needs to be done and send me a postcard from your short unhappy life there.
 
2012-11-11 06:15:53 PM  
The AGW crowd must have a Mosquito Coast fetish going on or something.
They are the ones who need to have their use of valuable resources limited.
 
2012-11-11 06:17:07 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Funny how there's a ready-made canned rebuttal to everything that seems to contradict AGW.


I've got a shelf full of books that are ready-made, canned rebuttals to anything that contradicts heliocentrism, a spherical earth, the luminiferous ether and the existence of phlogiston. It's almost as if there were a worldwide conspiracy spanning the last five hundred years called science.
 
2012-11-11 06:17:15 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: The AGW crowd must have a Mosquito Coast fetish going on or something.
They are the ones who need to have their use of valuable resources limited.

 
2012-11-11 06:20:26 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Monkeyhouse Zendo: we can learn to set reasonable limits on our resource usage so as to avoid greater costs down the line.

Bullshiat. The attempted Kyoto protocols prove there is no political will to do this trick of magical thinking.
When you tell people what it means for their lives, nobody will listen to you for more than one minute.
And no politician will or would dare go along with it.
You do what needs to be done and send me a postcard from your short unhappy life there.


big-kahuna-ventures.comView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 06:21:29 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: SevenizGud: REDUCING the US population wouldn't reduce CO2 output, because, people in high population growth countries don't burn much coal per capita.

Correct, actually. Americans are the most resource-heavy consumers on the planet.


So you are saying that reducing the US population wouldn't reduce CO2 output is correct.

More Chicken Little logic, Ladies and Gentlemen.
 
2012-11-11 06:24:00 PM  
Now he's lashing out at people who agree with him.
 
2012-11-11 06:24:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: it wont' fit the narrative


People need to stop using this line. It's hacky. Everyone has "a narrative". The very use of the term is a false narrative that by using 15 years, he's *OB*-vious-ly wrong.

He may be, but the "fits your narrative" thing is a weak attack.
 
2012-11-11 06:24:58 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: chuckufarlie: He is not a believer in AGW.

Because it makes no sense to "believe" in AGW. It's either real, as provable beyond a doubt by science, or it's not. AGW is not provable beyond any doubt and will probably never be for anyone living right now.


he made his position quite clear.
 
2012-11-11 06:25:55 PM  

s2s2s2: He may be, but the "fits your narrative" thing is a weak attack.


Well, it is supposed to be the polite way to tell someone he's full of sh*t, so technically it is a weak attack.
 
2012-11-11 06:28:37 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Because it makes no sense to "believe" in AGW. It's either real, as provable beyond a doubt by science, or it's not. AGW is not provable beyond any doubt and will probably never be for anyone living right now.


Science isn't a courtroom.
 
2012-11-11 06:28:47 PM  
Lets keep poisoning the planet and buying fuel from the Middle East 'cuz we can't be sure. Wouldn't want to take action unless we were sure the earth was warming. Boy would our faces be red.
 
2012-11-11 06:28:58 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: One man with facts beats the hell out of the crap spewing from you. You have no credentials, Christy has a boatload.

You seem to be hanging a lot on Christy being right and just about everyone else being wrong.


When compared to the wanna-be scientists and pretend engineers that are posting here, he is the only knowledgeable one.

I know that Christy is not the only scientist who has these believes but he is the easy to locate on the web and his comments are only about one month old.

Christy is a good source because he was in on the IPCC scam when it was started, became vocal about the "findings" and he works at a major University. Warmers cannot accuse him of working for big oil.
 
2012-11-11 06:31:11 PM  

thamike: Well, it is supposed to be the polite way to tell someone he's full of sh*t, so technically it is a weak attack


The reason it is weak is if you go far enough back, to pre-industrialized times, you can set your clock to global climate change. So ANY narrative suggesting we are warming as a result of industrialization requires a shorter time frame that we have available to us for review. One man's 40 years may just be as invalid as what's his name's 15 years.

I'm all for progress, there is no moral excuse for how far behind we are. But my question has got to be: "How do we reverse it?" I think the answer is "We can't".
 
2012-11-11 06:33:56 PM  
 
2012-11-11 06:34:17 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I've got a shelf full of books that are ready-made, canned rebuttals to anything that contradicts heliocentrism, a spherical earth, the luminiferous ether and the existence of phlogiston. It's almost as if there were a worldwide conspiracy spanning the last five hundred years called science.


That's because for about 20 years, academia has been in lock step with the globalists.
Whatcha gonna do about me? Force me to not burn fossil fuels at bayonet point?
Fix the laws so that I become a criminal?
Go engineer some other society, you AGW gomers.
 
2012-11-11 06:35:32 PM  

s2s2s2: Next IPCC report will 'scare the wits out of everyone'


Only if you "BELIEVE."

It's like a religion. You have to "believe!"
OR ELSE.
 
2012-11-11 06:36:59 PM  

s2s2s2: I'm all for progress, there is no moral excuse for how far behind we are. But my question has got to be: "How do we reverse it?" I think the answer is "We can't".


Well there it is.
An economy based on capitalist growth has no reverse gear.
 
2012-11-11 06:37:27 PM  

GAT_00: chuckufarlie: GAT_00: The All-Powerful Atheismo: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

-John Christy, PhD

I'm always amazed that more people in these threads don't quote him given his other views on climate change.

He is not a believer in AGW. You take one little statement and think that he believes in it. I provided a link to an entire document that was his testimony in front of Congress. Not only does he not believe in AGW, he does not believe in global warming and his testimony stated that His credentials far outweigh any douchebag warmer.

Actually, he believes climate change is happening. What he is not convinced is of the scope of how much warmer we will get or how much humans have influenced it. He does say there is a minimal chance that we have had no impact. He also runs one of the two big MSU at UAH that have shown for years that the upper atmosphere is cooling, consistent with more heat trapping in the troposphere from increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

I know full well what he believes, and I can actually interpret it.


You are an idiot. He testified that it has been much warmer in the last century than it is now. He testified that the data collected is from sources set up in the 1980s and that means that it misses the real warming period early last century.

1. Extreme events, like the recent U.S. drought, will continue to occur, with or without human causation. These recent U.S. "extremes" were exceeded in previous decades.

2. The average warming rate of 38 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models over-react to CO2. Policy based on observations will likely be far more effective than if based on speculative models, no matter what the future climate does. Regarding Arctic sea ice loss, the average model response to CO2 engenders little confidence because the models' output fails when applied to Antarctic sea ice conditions.

3. New discoveries explain part of the warming found in popular surface temperature datasets which is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the stations. This means popular surface datasets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming.


Recently it has become popular to try and attribute certain extreme events to human causation. The Earth however, is very large, the weather is very dynamic, especially at local scales, so that extreme events of one type or another will occur somewhere on the planet in every year. Since there are innumerable ways to define an
extreme event (i.e. record high/low temperatures, number of days of a certain quantity, precipitation total over 1, 2, 10 ... days, snowfall amounts, etc.) this essentially assures us that there will be numerous "extreme events" in every year because every year has unique weather patterns. The following assesses some of the recent "extreme events" and demonstrates why they are poor proxies for making claims about human causation.

The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. So, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s.


INTERPRET THIS, EINSTEIN:

Another extreme metric is the all-time record high temperature for each state. The occurrence of the records by decade (Figure 1.1 below) makes it obvious that the 1930s were the most extreme decade and that since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.
 
2012-11-11 06:38:42 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: It's like a religion. You have to "believe!"


Just because they require absolute compliance based on their interpretation of the language of their system of knowledge, and refer to those who don't believe with epithets like "heretic", call for their castigation from society, and have millions of believers that are not capable of reaching the same conclusions themselves, that does NOT make it a religion.
 
2012-11-11 06:38:59 PM  

GAT_00: chuckufarlie: GAT_00: The All-Powerful Atheismo: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."

-John Christy, PhD

I'm always amazed that more people in these threads don't quote him given his other views on climate change.

He is not a believer in AGW. You take one little statement and think that he believes in it. I provided a link to an entire document that was his testimony in front of Congress. Not only does he not believe in AGW, he does not believe in global warming and his testimony stated that His credentials far outweigh any douchebag warmer.

Actually, he believes climate change is happening. What he is not convinced is of the scope of how much warmer we will get or how much humans have influenced it. He does say there is a minimal chance that we have had no impact. He also runs one of the two big MSU at UAH that have shown for years that the upper atmosphere is cooling, consistent with more heat trapping in the troposphere from increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

I know full well what he believes, and I can actually interpret it.


pensee-unique.frView Full Size
 
2012-11-11 06:39:28 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Monkeyhouse Zendo: we can learn to set reasonable limits on our resource usage so as to avoid greater costs down the line.

Bullshiat. The attempted Kyoto protocols prove there is no political will to do this trick of magical thinking.


So you're saying we can't adapt? That's really too bad. Personally, I'd look at clean energy as a market opportunity but I'm clearly more optimistic regarding people collectively deciding that, given an alternative, they don't want to live in places with the air quality of Beijing or Mexico City.

When you tell people what it means for their lives, nobody will listen to you for more than one minute.
And no politician will or would dare go along with it.


You seem to have bought into the idea that a 25% reduction in total consumer energy utilization would mean living in cold, dark, caves rather than simply making some changes in how we construct and insulate homes and move from place to place.

You do what needs to be done and send me a postcard from your short unhappy life there.

Let me know your address. I telecommute 100% of the time, reinsulated my house, replaced the old water heater with a high efficiency, tankless / on-demand unit, installed a nice fireplace insert so I can burn wood in the winter and rely less on the natural gas heater, went with CFC bulbs and am replacing them with LED as they die. I'm still working on biking to the local farmer's market and kicking around solar options but I'll get there. Also, the wife and I opted to stop after one kid which is probably the decision which will have the largest long term impact. Truly a living hell.

Now, if you ask whether this is cheaper than burning an assload of coal? No, it isn't, but I'm in a position to spend a little extra to limit my contribution to the problem. Am I perfectly carbon neutral, not by a long shot but I do better than most here in the US.
 
2012-11-11 06:40:12 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: An economy based on capitalist growth has no reverse gear.


It also has a shiatty suspension, and terrible steering. Sometimes you need to be able to back out, bro.
 
2012-11-11 06:45:21 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: That's because for about 20 years, academia has been in lock step with the globalists.
Whatcha gonna do about me? Force me to not burn fossil fuels at bayonet point?


Not at all, I'll ignore you and push for changes to energy efficiency regulations and building codes such that new construction takes advantage of advances in energy efficiency.

Fix the laws so that I become a criminal?

No, just adjust the laws such that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is no longer an externality and let the market take care of the rest. Be as wasteful as you like, it's your money you'll be wasting. 

Go engineer some other society, you AGW gomers.

I thought you were in favor of adapting?
 
2012-11-11 06:46:52 PM  

stonelotus: James F. Campbell: [0.tqn.com image 500x334]

if you enjoy it a little is it still rape?


If you're a little retarded, should anyone respond to you?
 
2012-11-11 07:07:55 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: HotIgneous Intruder: Monkeyhouse Zendo: we can learn to set reasonable limits on our resource usage so as to avoid greater costs down the line.

Bullshiat. The attempted Kyoto protocols prove there is no political will to do this trick of magical thinking.

So you're saying we can't adapt? That's really too bad. Personally, I'd look at clean energy as a market opportunity but I'm clearly more optimistic regarding people collectively deciding that, given an alternative, they don't want to live in places with the air quality of Beijing or Mexico City.

When you tell people what it means for their lives, nobody will listen to you for more than one minute.
And no politician will or would dare go along with it.

You seem to have bought into the idea that a 25% reduction in total consumer energy utilization would mean living in cold, dark, caves rather than simply making some changes in how we construct and insulate homes and move from place to place.

You do what needs to be done and send me a postcard from your short unhappy life there.

Let me know your address. I telecommute 100% of the time, reinsulated my house, replaced the old water heater with a high efficiency, tankless / on-demand unit, installed a nice fireplace insert so I can burn wood in the winter and rely less on the natural gas heater, went with CFC bulbs and am replacing them with LED as they die. I'm still working on biking to the local farmer's market and kicking around solar options but I'll get there. Also, the wife and I opted to stop after one kid which is probably the decision which will have the largest long term impact. Truly a living hell.

Now, if you ask whether this is cheaper than burning an assload of coal? No, it isn't, but I'm in a position to spend a little extra to limit my contribution to the problem. Am I perfectly carbon neutral, not by a long shot but I do better than most here in the US.


If you are spending all of that money to limit your contribution to the problem, you are wasting a lot of money. The only problem is a political one.
 
2012-11-11 07:21:09 PM  

chuckufarlie: Another extreme metric is the all-time record high temperature for each state.


All-time. Um, no.
All-time would be since forever.
The climate has been much warmer than this before -- it's established science.
You mean record high temps since records have been kept, which is not all-time, but more like 120 years or so, if that.
Surprisingly, in 2012, NO -- and by that I mean NONE - and by that I mean ZERO- -- states recorded temperature records and that's according to NOAA temperature records. Yes, friends, the arm wavers are taking you for a ride to get you to watch the teevee and keep the grant money flowing.
You're being lied to and stimulated and agitated.
Ask yourself why.
 
2012-11-11 07:23:08 PM  
Am I the only one who finds it funny that these clowns take their gospel from a guy named Christy?
 
2012-11-11 07:36:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: If you are spending all of that money to limit your contribution to the problem, you are wasting a lot of money. The only problem is a political one.


The water heater needed replacing anyway. The fireplace insert improves both the aesthetics of my living room and the efficiency of heating the house. The update to the insulation saves me money in the long term on heating and cooling and was partially covered by a tax credit.

HotIgneous Intruder: You're being lied to and stimulated and agitated.
Ask yourself why.


Paranoid thinking detected.

Are you honestly positing a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists spanning decades in order to get that sweet, sweet grant money?
 
2012-11-11 07:38:35 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Paranoid thinking detected.

Are you honestly positing a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists spanning decades in order to get that sweet, sweet grant money?


The NOAA data set doesn't appear to validate your claim that I'm paranoid.
In fact, I'm not paranoid at all, but just fact friendly.
Just ask yourself why all the arm waving and attention whoring from the warming crowd.
 
2012-11-11 07:44:30 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Now, if you ask whether this is cheaper than burning an assload of coal? No, it isn't, but I'm in a position to spend a little extra to limit my contribution to the problem. Am I perfectly carbon neutral, not by a long shot but I do better than most here in the US.


I applaud your efforts at making yourself feel better. I hope you do.
Burning wood? That's a special solution that's no scalable.
You don't have a Prius, do you?
How do you handle air conditioning?
Many of the homes built in the past 20 or 30 years in the US southe