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 06:21:29 PM  

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

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


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

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

Mrtraveler01: it wont' fit the narrative


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Only if you "BELIEVE."

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

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


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

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

-John Christy, PhD

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


INTERPRET THIS, EINSTEIN:

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

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


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

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

-John Christy, PhD

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

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

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

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


www.pensee-unique.fr
 
2012-11-11 06:39:28 PM  

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Fix the laws so that I become a criminal?

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

Go engineer some other society, you AGW gomers.

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

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

if you enjoy it a little is it still rape?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Paranoid thinking detected.

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

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Paranoid thinking detected.

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


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

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


I applaud your efforts at making yourself feel better. I hope you do.
Burning wood? That's a special solution that's no scalable.
You don't have a Prius, do you?
How do you handle air conditioning?
Many of the homes built in the past 20 or 30 years in the US southeast will quickly become uninhabitable mold boxes without being air conditioned. That's a pretty big problem.
 
2012-11-11 07:45:43 PM  
Nearly time for mythbusters and zombies.
I only hear crickets on the thread.
 
2012-11-11 07:55:45 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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?



Guess who chose willful ignorance over reading the facts. There is no evidence that the particles produced in the CERN experiment ever lead to the formation of the condensation nuclei needed for cloud formation.
 
2012-11-11 08:02:24 PM  

chuckufarlie: INTERPRET THIS, EINSTEIN:


It's funny how you think completely misinterpreting a climate scientist and yelling said misinterpretation at another person who actually understands the material you're talking about and knows Dr. Christy and his opinions from talking to him.
 
2012-11-11 08:03:00 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: I applaud your efforts at making yourself feel better. I hope you do.
Burning wood? That's a special solution that's no scalable.


No, but since I live in a heavily wooded part of the nation and it's relatively inexpensive and carbon neutral, I'll make use of it.

You don't have a Prius, do you?

Nope.

How do you handle air conditioning?
Many of the homes built in the past 20 or 30 years in the US southeast will quickly become uninhabitable mold boxes without being air conditioned. That's a pretty big problem.


I have an attic fan for spring and fall. Summers I use the AC but my house is shaded by trees and pretty well insulated so they don't have to run constantly. The brick on the south face tends to heat up in the summer so this spring I'm putting in trellises with some flowering vines to shade it a bit. I also don't chill my house down to 65 degrees like a lot of people seem to do.

Why do you think I have to live without modern technology?
 
2012-11-11 08:03:24 PM  

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

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

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

Paranoid thinking detected.

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


No, not the scientists, the politicians at the UN. They have admitted it as far as I am concerned. Even the scientists at the CRU are starting to unravel.

You are aware that the IPCC took the scientific report and modified it to make it politically correct. They admitted to that years ago.

How do you explain a proposed solution that allows China and India a pass on any sort of regulations. They are two of the biggest offenders when it comes to CO2.

Earlier today, I posted a link to the Congressional testimony of Professor John Christy. In hist testimony he reveals a lot of the problems with the data and the modelling process. I suggest that you read that report so you can see what has been going on.

Just a little taste - he testified that most of the stations currently reporting temperature data were installed in the 1980s. That means that any statement that "this is the warmest day in history" really means that "this is the warmest day since the 1980s". Christy provided data that showed plenty of days prior to the 1980s that were warmer than what we have seen lately. His data shows the warmest period, including now, was in the 1930s.

He also testified that many of those stations installed in the 1980s were in areas that were not developed but now they are in the midst of built up areas. It would only make sense that a station that was sending you data from the middle of a meadow is going to send higher averages once it is near a parking lot or a building.

I will close with a quote from that testimony:

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
 
2012-11-11 08:03:27 PM  
I kind of forgot a conclusion in that run-on. Basically, I've forgotten more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics than you'll ever learn and I know the people you're misinterpreting.
 
2012-11-11 08:03:32 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: 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.



That's how reality works.


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.]



So now the success of reality-based arguments against ACC deniers is evidence of a conspiracy? How can you live knowing that the universe itself is conspiring against you?
 
2012-11-11 08:07:18 PM  

GAT_00: I kind of forgot a conclusion in that run-on. Basically, I've forgotten more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics than you'll ever learn and I know the people you're misinterpreting.


Sure you do!! You cannot prove that, of course. You might as well tell me that you are the king of Mars.

You don't know anybody of any importance.

Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to even make claims that cannot be backed up? Don'[t answer that question, I know how stupid you are.
 
2012-11-11 08:08:54 PM  

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

All-time. Um, no.
All-time would be since forever.
The climate has been much warmer than this before -- it's established science.
You mean record high temps since records have been kept, which is not all-time, but more like 120 years or so, if that.
Surprisingly, in 2012, NO -- and by that I mean NONE - and by that I mean ZERO- -- states recorded temperature records and that's according to NOAA temperature records. Yes, friends, the arm wavers are taking you for a ride to get you to watch the teevee and keep the grant money flowing.
You're being lied to and stimulated and agitated.
Ask yourself why.



ahem!

Why would Professor Christy lie to Congress.
www.pensee-unique.fr
 
2012-11-11 08:10:40 PM  

GAT_00: I kind of forgot a conclusion in that run-on. Basically, I've forgotten more about meteorology and atmospheric dynamics than you'll ever learn and I know the people you're misinterpreting.


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.

Exactly how could I misinterpret this statement?
 
2012-11-11 08:11:53 PM  

GAT_00: chuckufarlie: INTERPRET THIS, EINSTEIN:

It's funny how you think completely misinterpreting a climate scientist and yelling said misinterpretation at another person who actually understands the material you're talking about and knows Dr. Christy and his opinions from talking to him.


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. - Prof. Christy


By the way, while you were talking to Professor Christy, I was having lunch with Elvis and Bigfoot. They think you are stupid.
 
2012-11-11 08:14:04 PM  

hourheroyes: Am I the only one who finds it funny that these clowns take their gospel from a guy named Christy?


He is a well known and a very well respected member of the community studying this "problem".
 
2012-11-11 08:18:03 PM  
Why do you guys still bother with Nicksteele's alt?
 
2012-11-11 08:26:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: Just a little taste - he testified that most of the stations currently reporting temperature data were installed in the 1980s. That means that any statement that "this is the warmest day in history" really means that "this is the warmest day since the 1980s". Christy provided data that showed plenty of days prior to the 1980s that were warmer than what we have seen lately. His data shows the warmest period, including now, was in the 1930s.

He also testified that many of those stations installed in the 1980s were in areas that were not developed but now they are in the midst of built up areas. It would only make sense that a station that was sending you data from the middle of a meadow is going to send higher averages once it is near a parking lot or a building.


I'm going to ignore the inherent comedy in your claim that there is no anthropogenic warming since the sensors are in places that are now warmer due to humans changing the local environment. We now have satellites measuring surface temperature all over the globe, including the temperature of the ocean surface.

When it comes down to it, we're increasing the atmospheric concentration of a known greenhouse gas, we're seeing some indications that temperatures are increasing including changes to arctic sea ice, melting permafrost, receding glaciers, agricultural effects such as the decreases in maple syrup production, observed increases in ocean surface temperature, etc. There isn't really much question that things are warming up so the "skeptics" have retreated to the position that the observed changes over the past century are independent of anthropogenic changes to the environment. Some have even taken the next step and moved to the position that it is too late and we can't do anything about it so we may as well not try.

I honestly don't get it. Why are controlling population growth, improved energy efficiency, and carbon neutral energy sources such outlandish propositions?
 
2012-11-11 08:30:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: Why would Professor Christy lie to Congress.


Why do you assume that he's not just incorrect? Science isn't perfect. Einstein argued against quantum mechanics for years.
 
2012-11-11 08:33:06 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: Why would Professor Christy lie to Congress.

Why do you assume that he's not just incorrect? Science isn't perfect. Einstein argued against quantum mechanics for years.


Why do you assume that the IPCC is correct? They are politicians, not scientists.

Christy is not the first person to make these statements. He is just the first to say so in testimony to Congress.
 
2012-11-11 08:34:42 PM  

chuckufarlie: hourheroyes: Am I the only one who finds it funny that these clowns take their gospel from a guy named Christy?

He is a well known and a very well respected member of the community studying this "problem".


Who also holds a position that runs counter to most of that community.

Fart_Machine: Why do you guys still bother with Nicksteele's alt?


It's good practice for when I talk to people who are simply misinformed rather than willfully ignorant and contrarian.
 
2012-11-11 08:35:49 PM  

chuckufarlie: You don't know anybody of any importance.


And there is literally nothing I could do that would convince you that I know him. I could get him to hold up a piece of paper that has my login on it and you wouldn't believe me. But what else would be expected from a Denier?
 
2012-11-11 08:36:15 PM  

chuckufarlie: Why do you assume that the IPCC is correct? They are politicians, not scientists.


I pay more attention to NASA than the IPCC.
 
2012-11-11 08:36:18 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: Just a little taste - he testified that most of the stations currently reporting temperature data were installed in the 1980s. That means that any statement that "this is the warmest day in history" really means that "this is the warmest day since the 1980s". Christy provided data that showed plenty of days prior to the 1980s that were warmer than what we have seen lately. His data shows the warmest period, including now, was in the 1930s.

He also testified that many of those stations installed in the 1980s were in areas that were not developed but now they are in the midst of built up areas. It would only make sense that a station that was sending you data from the middle of a meadow is going to send higher averages once it is near a parking lot or a building.

I'm going to ignore the inherent comedy in your claim that there is no anthropogenic warming since the sensors are in places that are now warmer due to humans changing the local environment. We now have satellites measuring surface temperature all over the globe, including the temperature of the ocean surface.

When it comes down to it, we're increasing the atmospheric concentration of a known greenhouse gas, we're seeing some indications that temperatures are increasing including changes to arctic sea ice, melting permafrost, receding glaciers, agricultural effects such as the decreases in maple syrup production, observed increases in ocean surface temperature, etc. There isn't really much question that things are warming up so the "skeptics" have retreated to the position that the observed changes over the past century are independent of anthropogenic changes to the environment. Some have even taken the next step and moved to the position that it is too late and we can't do anything about it so we may as well not try.

I honestly don't get it. Why are controlling population growth, improved energy efficiency, and carbon neutral energy sources such outlandish propositions?



You need to start from the beginning. You need to read the propositions that are currently being discussed via the IPCC. They do not address population growth (and I am glad that they don't). In fact, their solution is far from yours and theirs has the added benefit of not being beneficial.

I see no point in discussing your proposals. That is not what is seen as the solution.
 
2012-11-11 08:39:16 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.


Math is always a weak spot for Conservatives. Comparing a temperature increase over a couple of hundred years versus tens of thousands of years. Pro-tip there hasn't been this rapid of a temperature increase ever.
 
2012-11-11 08:40:24 PM  

GAT_00: chuckufarlie: You don't know anybody of any importance.

And there is literally nothing I could do that would convince you that I know him. I could get him to hold up a piece of paper that has my login on it and you wouldn't believe me. But what else would be expected from a Denier?


I have one word for you - PHOTOSHOP.

You just get dumber and dumber. You could play Carrey's and Daniels' roles all by yourself.

Why would a person who claims to be a scientist use a word like denier? Real scientists recognize that skepticism is good for science. Even somebody that had taken an introductory science class knows that much.
 
2012-11-11 08:42:58 PM  

mrshowrules: 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.

Math is always a weak spot for Conservatives. Comparing a temperature increase over a couple of hundred years versus tens of thousands of years. Pro-tip there hasn't been this rapid of a temperature increase ever.


The recorded temperature increase reported by the IPCC is less than one degree C since 1850. I would call that extremely stable.

Of course, the IPCC has no way of knowing what temperatures were like prior to 1850 so any discussion without that data is pointless. The majority of the data after 1850 is not all that reliable either.
 
2012-11-11 08:44:26 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: Why do you assume that the IPCC is correct? They are politicians, not scientists.

I pay more attention to NASA than the IPCC.


You mean that scientist at NASA that was caught manipulating data? Or do you mean that scientist at NASA that was caught reporting the exact same data for different months? Oh wait, that was the same scientist and he is a known quack when it comes to this subject.
 
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