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  
•       •       •

906 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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".


www.cru.uea.ac.uk

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?

www.skepticalscience.com

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  
www.skepticalscience.com

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.us
 
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.org
woodfortrees.org
woodfortrees.org 

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.com

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.net
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 398 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report