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 08:46:17 PM

chuckufarlie: Why would a person who claims to be a scientist use a word like denier?


Much in the same way immunologists have no respect for anti-vaxxers and astronomers have no respect for Flat Earthers, I know of no climate scientist who has respect for Deniers.
 
2012-11-11 08:47:29 PM

chuckufarlie: 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.


You've never talked to any real scientists, have you?
 
2012-11-11 08:51:05 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.


NOAA says July 2012 was the hottest month in 118 years.

That site you linked to is the perfect example of people cherry picking data to support their agenda. If you'd like to refer to the actual NOAA site, you'll see that record temperature variations have been recorded in numerous states in 2012. So, no, we didn't see any single days in 2012 that were "the hottest day on record", but we sure as hell saw months that, taken as a whole, are the hottest on record.  Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of scientific method or data analysis knows that trends are not defined by extremes, so even attempting to use "OMG 2012 didn't have any record days with record highs!" as an argument shows that you lack the knowledge sufficient to even discuss this topic.
 
2012-11-11 08:51:16 PM
Holy crap, I actually feel that I've lost glial cells reading this damned thread.
 
2012-11-11 08:51:57 PM
I miss John Snow.
 
2012-11-11 08:53:58 PM

chuckufarlie: I see no point in discussing your proposals


Why not? I think they're pretty reasonable.
 
2012-11-11 08:56:31 PM

GAT_00: chuckufarlie: Why would a person who claims to be a scientist use a word like denier?

Much in the same way immunologists have no respect for anti-vaxxers and astronomers have no respect for Flat Earthers, I know of no climate scientist who has respect for Deniers.


Your comparison is really weak. No, actually it is just plain ignorant. It makes no sense at all.

what about all of those climate scientists who are "deniers"?

The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the "experts" called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. As outlined in my House Testimony, these "experts" become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. But with the luxury of having
the "last word" as "expert" authors of the reports, alternative views vanish.

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.

Christy obviously has issues with the IPCC and its findings. Could it be because they took the findings from all of those scientists (including Christy) and changed them to make them more politically acceptable.

Hey, since you are standing there next to the man, why don't you ask him?


And while you have his ear, ask him to explain this:

I believe policymakers, with the public's purse, should actively support the assembling all of the information that is vital to addressing this murky and wicked science, since the public will ultimately pay the cost of any legislation
alleged to deal with climate.
 
2012-11-11 09:01:47 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: I see no point in discussing your proposals

Why not? I think they're pretty reasonable.


they are not the proposals currently being addressed. It would be pointless to discuss your ideas when they no chance of being adopted. If you want to support the idea of climate change and you want to support efforts to impact that change, you need to first of all accept the IPPC solution as yours and then you need to find a way to defend it. If you do not agree with the proposed IPCC solution then you have a problem. Your support of the idea of AGW means that you support the IPCC proposals.
 
2012-11-11 09:02:27 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I miss John Snow.


I am pretty sure that he is here.
 
2012-11-11 09:09:04 PM

chuckufarlie: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I miss John Snow.

I am pretty sure that he is here.


Probably not. One of the things that characterized his posts was that they were heavily referenced. His average post was better than some of the undergrad papers I had to grade when I was still kicking around the idea of getting a PhD before I was lured away by the phat dot com lewts.
 
2012-11-11 09:10:36 PM

chuckufarlie: what about all of those climate scientists who are "deniers"?


Yes, the 2% or so who are clearly know what's up, not the 98% who analyze evidence. But keep telling yourself all the data is biased. Make an Unskewed Climate Model to show all those stupid libs what's what.
 
2012-11-11 09:12:51 PM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I miss John Snow.

I am pretty sure that he is here.

Probably not. One of the things that characterized his posts was that they were heavily referenced. His average post was better than some of the undergrad papers I had to grade when I was still kicking around the idea of getting a PhD before I was lured away by the phat dot com lewts.


He has posted under at least three IDs (and in the same threads). He did not always post with those boring graphs. Maybe his favorite "how to address AGW denier" website is down and he has no material.
 
2012-11-11 09:18:35 PM

GAT_00: chuckufarlie: what about all of those climate scientists who are "deniers"?

Yes, the 2% or so who are clearly know what's up, not the 98% who analyze evidence. But keep telling yourself all the data is biased. Make an Unskewed Climate Model to show all those stupid libs what's what.


As for your first sentence:

imgs.xkcd.com

As for the rest of it:

1. It is well known that the data is wrong (more accurate than biased). Christy made that point in his testimony. He gave several reasons why it is wrong. He even suggested that a new group be set up to do exactly what you proposed. He wants an group that is not politically biased to gather data and create a new, more accurate model.

2. Since I voted for Obama (three times), I consider myself a liberal. suck on that.
 
2012-11-11 09:21:58 PM
www.petitionproject.org

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs


Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
 
2012-11-11 09:23:23 PM

chuckufarlie: Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I miss John Snow.

I am pretty sure that he is here.

Probably not. One of the things that characterized his posts was that they were heavily referenced. His average post was better than some of the undergrad papers I had to grade when I was still kicking around the idea of getting a PhD before I was lured away by the phat dot com lewts.

He has posted under at least three IDs (and in the same threads). He did not always post with those boring graphs. Maybe his favorite "how to address AGW denier" website is down and he has no material.


There's an app for that
 
2012-11-11 09:35:03 PM

chuckufarlie: [www.petitionproject.org image 850x365]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs


Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.


I like how you're more than happy to copypasta the parts of that Wiki article that you agree with, but strangely leave out the part that shoots a whole lot of holes in the validity of that petition:

Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe". When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake". A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."
 
2012-11-11 09:35:42 PM

chuckufarlie: Monkeyhouse Zendo: chuckufarlie: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I miss John Snow.

I am pretty sure that he is here.

Probably not. One of the things that characterized his posts was that they were heavily referenced. His average post was better than some of the undergrad papers I had to grade when I was still kicking around the idea of getting a PhD before I was lured away by the phat dot com lewts.

He has posted under at least three IDs (and in the same threads). He did not always post with those boring graphs. Maybe his favorite "how to address AGW denier" website is down and he has no material.



This is really a thing with you deniers, isn't it? There can't POSSIBLY be that many people proving you wrong, so it HAS to be alts.
 
2012-11-11 09:50:53 PM

TheBigJerk:
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.


True. Although a lot of the 'strength' of old buildings is also luck - most of the gulf coast is a Cat 5 hurricane risk area but they aren't common so a lot of areas probably haven't seen a direct hit from one in the last 100 years or so.

Regarding the wind strengthening:

IIRC the strengthening mainly consisted of:

Metal ties to connect the roof joists to the slab
Slightly thicker ply roofing and wall panels
Tighter nail pattern on wall and roof panels
Front door opens outward rather than inward.

The total material cost difference was very low, but a builder would almost certainly add a hefty premium to deliver a tornado proof house.
 
2012-11-11 09:54:02 PM
Sea levels around NYC have been rising by something like an inch a year. I guess we shouldn't look into it.
 
2012-11-11 09:58:23 PM

chuckufarlie: 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...


John R. Christy is a meteorologist, not a climatologist.
Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, "scientifically crude at best," although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.

Think Progress
He is a part of the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon.

Additionally, he is quite the optimist:
(I)n a December 12, 2003 speech at a conference hosted by the CATO Institute, one of many "independent" think tanks partially supported by ExxonMobil and other big players in the fossil fuel industry (see "What Exxon doesn't want you to know" and www.exxonsecrets.org), Christy commented that he did not think the human portion of climate change would be dangerous: "I don't see danger, I see in some cases adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters and a more fertile atmosphere."

(I)n a December 16, 2003 speech Christy gave at the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) autumn meeting in San Francisco, Christy said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities or putting dust and soot into the atmosphere and putting millions of acres of desert into irrigated agriculture and putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that in some way the natural course of the climate system has not been changed."

Stephen H. Schneider, Stanford University
So your "credentialed" source is not a climatologist, is bought and paid for by big oil, he was forced to retract his fudged study that Exxon paid for, and his opinions are at odds with a vast majority of scientists on the subject - most of whom are better credentialed than he is.

But by all means, talk credentials if you want...
 
2012-11-11 10:09:16 PM

NYCNative: chuckufarlie: 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...

John R. Christy is a meteorologist, not a climatologist.Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists; his view is that models are, in general, "scientifically crude at best," although they are used regularly by most climate scientists and he himself used the compiled results of a variety of climate models in preparing his report and testimony in this case.

Think ProgressHe is a part of the George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon.

Additionally, he is quite the optimist:(I)n a December 12, 2003 speech at a conference hosted by the CATO Institute, one of many "independent" think tanks partially supported by ExxonMobil and other big players in the fossil fuel industry (see "What Exxon doesn't want you to know" and www.exxonsecrets.org), Christy commented that he did not think the human portion of climate change would be dangerous: "I don't see danger, I see in some cases adaptation, and in others something like restrained glee at the thought of longer growing seasons, warmer winters and a more fertile atmosphere."

(I)n a December 16, 2003 speech Christy gave at the American Geophysical Union's (AGU) autumn meeting in San Francisco, Christy said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities or putting dust and soot into the atmosphere and putting millions of acres of desert into irrigated agriculture and putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that in some way the natural course of t ...


some people do not believe that working under big oil funding is a problem. Some people think that getting funding from green groups is not a problem.

So, if we discount Christy, we need to discount every scientist being funded by any "green" organization. Are you willing to do that?

The fact that you do not agree with his statements does not make him wrong.

As for his credentials, he was good enough to be asked to work for the IPCC, he is good enough to testify in front of Congress. You are just biased.

Optimism is NOT a crime.
 
2012-11-11 10:10:03 PM

Wayne 985: Sea levels around NYC have been rising by something like an inch a year. I guess we shouldn't look into it.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-11 10:18:50 PM
As a "believer" in global warming. I don't require facts. Or proof.
 
2012-11-11 10:23:42 PM

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


It would cost trillions and trillions of dollars.
 
2012-11-11 10:24:02 PM

chuckufarlie: As for his credentials, he was good enough to be asked to work for the IPCC, he is good enough to testify in front of Congress.


Are you sure you want to use that as a measure of merit? Elmo has testified in front of Congress.
 
2012-11-11 10:28:34 PM

TIKIMAN87: James F. Campbell: [0.tqn.com image 500x334]

It would cost trillions and trillions of dollars.


Trillions and trillions, eh? Must be that Republican Math I've been hearing about.
 
2012-11-11 10:32:26 PM

SevenizGud: 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.


You're a moron. Climate trends are significant on multi-hundred year periods because the planet gives zero farks about a 15 year period. You know what that means to the planet, on a climate level? Jack. shiat. So take your "but...but it hasn't warmed dramatically in 15 years" red herring, and shove it up your neanderthal ass.
 
2012-11-11 10:34:56 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: chuckufarlie: As for his credentials, he was good enough to be asked to work for the IPCC, he is good enough to testify in front of Congress.

Are you sure you want to use that as a measure of merit? Elmo has testified in front of Congress.


sure, use publicity stunts as a measure.
 
2012-11-11 10:36:31 PM
Newsbusters refuses to join the reality based community. Nothing new.
 
2012-11-11 10:42:08 PM

chuckufarlie: 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.


You would call that stable? Do realize how short 150 years is? How great 1 degree globally is?
 
2012-11-11 10:46:27 PM

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


Dude, your blog sucks.
 
2012-11-11 10:46:51 PM

chuckufarlie: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: chuckufarlie: As for his credentials, he was good enough to be asked to work for the IPCC, he is good enough to testify in front of Congress.

Are you sure you want to use that as a measure of merit? Elmo has testified in front of Congress.

sure, use publicity stunts as a measure.


Here are some other folks that have testified in front of Congress:

Danielle Steel
Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop
Ben Affleck
Chevy Chase
Stephen Colbert
Julia Roberts
Sheryl Crow
Chuck D
Dee Snider

So, were those all "publicity stunts", or should you maybe re-think your position that testifying in front of Congress means jack shiat about one's credibility?
 
2012-11-11 10:49:23 PM

chuckufarlie: [www.petitionproject.org image 850x365]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs


Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.


By the 1980s Teller was nuts. So go with that.
 
2012-11-11 11:02:03 PM

Bucky Katt: chuckufarlie: [www.petitionproject.org image 850x365]

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs


Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

By the 1980s Teller was nuts. So go with that.


and how does that discredit 31,487 scientists?

Why is it that warmers can be so picky about data they do not like and so liberal when it comes to data that you do like? That makes no sense. I will consider the source.
 
2012-11-11 11:03:27 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: chuckufarlie: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: chuckufarlie: As for his credentials, he was good enough to be asked to work for the IPCC, he is good enough to testify in front of Congress.

Are you sure you want to use that as a measure of merit? Elmo has testified in front of Congress.

sure, use publicity stunts as a measure.

Here are some other folks that have testified in front of Congress:

Danielle Steel
Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop
Ben Affleck
Chevy Chase
Stephen Colbert
Julia Roberts
Sheryl Crow
Chuck D
Dee Snider

So, were those all "publicity stunts", or should you maybe re-think your position that testifying in front of Congress means jack shiat about one's credibility?


I guess that you are not aware that congressmen will bring in high profile people in an effort to get publicity for their cause.

Add that to the list of things that you are in the dark about.
 
2012-11-11 11:04:32 PM

mrshowrules: chuckufarlie: 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.

You would call that stable? Do realize how short 150 years is? How great 1 degree globally is?


first of all, it was less than one degree, closer to one half. Yes, I do call that extremely stable.
 
2012-11-11 11:05:39 PM
Since the only people posting here to abuse my comments seem to be of a much lower intelligence level than the average mollusk, good night.
 
2012-11-11 11:11:43 PM
Did any of these worse storms flood the tunnels? (I know some of the subways had to have existed in 1954, though maybe not the commuter traffic tunnels.)
 
2012-11-11 11:27:40 PM

chuckufarlie: I guess that you are not aware that congressmen will bring in high profile people in an effort to get publicity for their cause.


I am well aware of that, and that fact does not lend credence to your suggestion that testifying in front of Congress actually means a damn thing about a person's credibility. Which do you think is more likely, that Christy is such an incredible genius and unmatched scholar in the field of climatology (even though he's not a climatologist) that he was chosen to testify in front of Congress about climate change, or that someone in Congress needed an "expert" climate change denier and picked Christy?


chuckufarlie: first of all, it was less than one degree, closer to one half. Yes, I do call that extremely stable.


And that is why you fail. If you think that is "extremely stable" then you know less about climate science than your keyboard and you should probably shut the fark up.
 
2012-11-11 11:35:12 PM

chuckufarlie: Since the only people posting here to abuse my comments seem to be of a much lower intelligence level than the average mollusk, good night.


Says the person who exhibits no real understanding of climate science or data analysis. Sleep well, may you wake up refreshed and willing to actually and honestly educate yourself on this topic* before you open your yap about it.

*That means reading more than what ONE denier who isn't even in the field has to say about it, checking the actual data that is available from the sources, and maybe taking a course in data analysis at your local CC (or heck, even online with Coursera).
 
2012-11-11 11:39:39 PM

chuckufarlie: So, if we discount Christy, we need to discount every scientist being funded by any "green" organization. Are you willing to do that?


Sure! And then we have unaffiliated scientists - 99% of whom agree that climate change is happening and is anthropological in nature. Unless you think that all of science except for the ones employed by oil companies and Conservative think tanks are employed by Green organizations. Is that your contention?

The fact that you do not agree with his statements does not make him wrong.

No, but the fact that a vast majority of other scientists do not agree with him does show that he is most likely not correct.

Let me remind you that you're the guy who brought up "credentials." I just pointed out that far MORE people far BETTER credentialed than John Christy (including others who testified in front of Congress; if that is your litmus, then I assume you also agree that Dr. Christopher Field is even better since he has better credentials) and the vast, vast majority of them disagree with Christy.

Of course it isn't Dr. Field's credentials or the willingness of Congress to listen to him that makes him correct. It is the fact that his views are not massively out of step with scientific consensus on the matter.

Take away these supposed "Green" scientists and you still have a vast majority of scientists who feel a certain way. Take away all of the shills for big oil and Conservative thinking and you have... Well, pretty much nothing.
 
2012-11-12 12:22:21 AM

James F. Campbell: 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?


silly question. I already did.
 
2012-11-12 08:07:19 AM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: TIKIMAN87: James F. Campbell: [0.tqn.com image 500x334]

It would cost trillions and trillions of dollars.

Trillions and trillions, eh? Must be that Republican Math I've been hearing about.


Well Obama has a good start with Solyndra, that was what... 500-600 bilion dollars lost?

LOL what a joke.
 
2012-11-12 10:03:42 AM

TIKIMAN87: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: TIKIMAN87: James F. Campbell: [0.tqn.com image 500x334]

It would cost trillions and trillions of dollars.

Trillions and trillions, eh? Must be that Republican Math I've been hearing about.

Well Obama has a good start with Solyndra, that was what... 500-600 bilion dollars lost?

LOL what a joke.


$535 million loan guarantee is now 500 billion? Are you retarded?
 
2012-11-12 10:24:53 AM

NYCNative: chuckufarlie: So, if we discount Christy, we need to discount every scientist being funded by any "green" organization. Are you willing to do that?

Sure! And then we have unaffiliated scientists - 99% of whom agree that climate change is happening and is anthropological in nature. Unless you think that all of science except for the ones employed by oil companies and Conservative think tanks are employed by Green organizations. Is that your contention?

The fact that you do not agree with his statements does not make him wrong.

No, but the fact that a vast majority of other scientists do not agree with him does show that he is most likely not correct.

Let me remind you that you're the guy who brought up "credentials." I just pointed out that far MORE people far BETTER credentialed than John Christy (including others who testified in front of Congress; if that is your litmus, then I assume you also agree that Dr. Christopher Field is even better since he has better credentials) and the vast, vast majority of them disagree with Christy.

Of course it isn't Dr. Field's credentials or the willingness of Congress to listen to him that makes him correct. It is the fact that his views are not massively out of step with scientific consensus on the matter.

Take away these supposed "Green" scientists and you still have a vast majority of scientists who feel a certain way. Take away all of the shills for big oil and Conservative thinking and you have... Well, pretty much nothing.




a vast majority of other scientists?? you monkeys are always spotting off about a vast majority of other scientists

imgs.xkcd.com


this just in - science is not a popularity contest!! who knew??
 
2012-11-12 10:26:59 AM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: chuckufarlie: Since the only people posting here to abuse my comments seem to be of a much lower intelligence level than the average mollusk, good night.

Says the person who exhibits no real understanding of climate science or data analysis. Sleep well, may you wake up refreshed and willing to actually and honestly educate yourself on this topic* before you open your yap about it.

*That means reading more than what ONE denier who isn't even in the field has to say about it, checking the actual data that is available from the sources, and maybe taking a course in data analysis at your local CC (or heck, even online with Coursera).


I have not been posted my opinions, I have been posting the opinions of a highly respected member of the scientific community.

but you missed that, huh>
 
2012-11-12 10:27:28 AM

Fart_Machine: TIKIMAN87: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: TIKIMAN87: James F. Campbell: [0.tqn.com image 500x334]

It would cost trillions and trillions of dollars.

Trillions and trillions, eh? Must be that Republican Math I've been hearing about.

Well Obama has a good start with Solyndra, that was what... 500-600 bilion dollars lost?

LOL what a joke.

$535 million loan guarantee is now 500 billion? Are you retarded?


No Im a liberal.
 
2012-11-12 10:28:51 AM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: chuckufarlie: I guess that you are not aware that congressmen will bring in high profile people in an effort to get publicity for their cause.

I am well aware of that, and that fact does not lend credence to your suggestion that testifying in front of Congress actually means a damn thing about a person's credibility. Which do you think is more likely, that Christy is such an incredible genius and unmatched scholar in the field of climatology (even though he's not a climatologist) that he was chosen to testify in front of Congress about climate change, or that someone in Congress needed an "expert" climate change denier and picked Christy?


chuckufarlie: first of all, it was less than one degree, closer to one half. Yes, I do call that extremely stable.

And that is why you fail. If you think that is "extremely stable" then you know less about climate science than your keyboard and you should probably shut the fark up.


As if your opinion matters at all to me. It is extremely stable to have that small amount of change over that period of time. You and your ilk are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
2012-11-12 10:57:41 AM

chuckufarlie: a vast majority of other scientists?? you monkeys are always spotting off about a vast majority of other scientists


A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" [...] 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

Link to article.
Link to survey results. (PDF)

There's your citations. Note that I emphasized climatologists because listening to other types of scientists on this matter is a waste of time. It would be like asking your podiatrist about your heart condition; it's stupid, and accomplishes nothing worthwhile.
 
2012-11-12 11:06:02 AM

chuckufarlie: As if your opinion matters at all to me. It is extremely stable to have that small amount of change over that period of time. You and your ilk are making a mountain out of a mole hill.


And the fact that you think that is a "small amount of change over that period of time" shows that you know nothing about climatology. That's the point that I, and a number of other people have been trying to make to you. You do not know anywhere near as much about climate science as you seem to think you do. You are a layman attempting to argue science, and you're doing a terrifyingly bad job at it. The mere fact that you are happily taking the word of a non-climatologist (Christy) over those of thousands of actual climate scientists should have been your first clue that you're in WAY over your head.

You remind me of the people who are into homeapathy. You'll blissfully ignore what actual experts on a subject have to say and latch on to someone in a different field who tells you what you want to hear.
 
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