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 398
    More: Interesting, Andrew Cuomo, New York, global warming, Battery Park, hurricanes, Jesse Jackson, New London, Tim Carney  
•       •       •

893 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.com

Which was actually this story:

img.timeinc.net

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.com

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:

www.woodfortrees.org

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.


www.skepticalscience.com

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.

www.quixoticgames.combustingnewsbusters.files.wordpress.com

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
 
Displayed 50 of 398 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report