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 (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 04:58:48 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  
www.pensee-unique.fr
 
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.

www.pensee-unique.fr
 
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.us
 
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:

www.woodfortrees.org

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.


www.boingboing.net
 
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.org
 
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.


www.woodfortrees.org 

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.com
 
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