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  
•       •       •

892 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (1 year 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 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.org
 
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:

www.woodfortrees.org

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.com
 
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:

www.woodfortrees.org
 
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