Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsBusters)   NY Gov. Cuomo: Look at these past two years, we have had back to back once a century storm, see global warming. Facts: Ooh we had three worse ones in 1954 alone, and dozens over the past 200 years   (newsbusters.org ) divider line 398
    More: Interesting, Andrew Cuomo, New York, global warming, Battery Park, hurricanes, Jesse Jackson, New London, Tim Carney  
•       •       •

898 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (3 years 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
 
2012-11-12 12:04:23 PM  

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


I have already linked to several links which showed this. Citation offered. Your ignoring them and posting a cartoon is noted.

This is just a Wiki page but it links to all sorts of things for you to digest! Or you can go to see the Surveys of scientists' views on climate change which will show that, yes, a vast majority of scientists feel this way. Again, feel free to check the actual surveys, all of which are linked for your convenience.

Let me know if you have any questions... Feel free to do so in cartoon form if that's the easiest way for you to communicate.

this just in - science is not a popularity contest!! who knew??

I guess we could explain science to kids and other scientific illiterates that yes, science is a popularity contest - only the popularity is not determined by who has the most money, political influence of best record collection.

The popularity is determined by the evidence. Evidence is like, totally popular! It's the cool kids at the best table in the lunch room! All the cool scientists follow the evidence and that's what makes it popular.

Did you know there are even people who deny Germ Theory? Heliocentrism?

However, those views are almost always the fringe. This is the same with evolution and climate change. At best, those who go against the popularity of prevailing theories misunderstand the evidence. At worst (and has already been shown to you) they have other agendas (and sources of income) which clouds their objectivity. And their views are easily dismissed (as I mentioned, your own hero John Christy had to

The popularity of a scientific view depends on the evidence. That climate change is real and we are contributing to it is very popular! Because the evidence shows this to be true. Even your hero John Christy - the guy lacking in credentials, which you earlier claimed is very important - was forced to retract his fudged study that Exxon paid for. Oops.

If I can dumb it down any further for you, let me know.
 
2012-11-12 12:59:11 PM  

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

I have already linked to several links which showed this. Citation offered. Your ignoring them and posting a cartoon is noted.

This is just a Wiki page but it links to all sorts of things for you to digest! Or you can go to see the Surveys of scientists' views on climate change which will show that, yes, a vast majority of scientists feel this way. Again, feel free to check the actual surveys, all of which are linked for your convenience.

Let me know if you have any questions... Feel free to do so in cartoon form if that's the easiest way for you to communicate.

this just in - science is not a popularity contest!! who knew??

I guess we could explain science to kids and other scientific illiterates that yes, science is a popularity contest - only the popularity is not determined by who has the most money, political influence of best record collection.

The popularity is determined by the evidence. Evidence is like, totally popular! It's the cool kids at the best table in the lunch room! All the cool scientists follow the evidence and that's what makes it popular.

Did you know there are even people who deny Germ Theory? Heliocentrism?

However, those views are almost always the fringe. This is the same with evolution and climate change. At best, those who go against the popularity of prevailing theories misunderstand the evidence. At worst (and has already been shown to you) they have other agendas (and sources of income) which clouds their objectivity. And their views are easily dismissed (as I mentioned, your own hero John Christy had to

The popularity of a scientific view depends on the evidence. That climate change is real and we are contributing to it is very popular! Because the evidence shows this to be true. Even your hero John Christy - the guy lacking in credentials, which you earlier claimed is very impo ...


when you use a WIKI page to back up your argument, you have already lost it.
 
2012-11-12 01:07:33 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: 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.


You keep repeating the same crap as if repetition will make it true. Show me proof that it is not extremely stable.

As for climatologists, not all of the scientists that worked with the IPCC were climatologists. In fact, Christy worked with the IPCC.

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007) and taught Physics and Chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years.

you truly are amazingly stupid.
 
2012-11-12 01:47:37 PM  

chuckufarlie: when you use a WIKI page to back up your argument, you have already lost it.

I found it easier to list a ton of scientific citations that happen to be in one place. Maybe you didn't see them? Okay, maybe you're just too lazy to click a link. Here you go:

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries. A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received ... In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5-6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2-4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5-6), 15.1% to a small extent (2-4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.


Glad I could save you from clicking a link in showing you these... Now you got your citations in a format that you apparently approve of. Anything else?
 
2012-11-12 01:52:39 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.


Evar! EVAR! EVAR!! EVAR!

/How long is ever?
 
2012-11-12 02:07:30 PM  

NYCNative: chuckufarlie: when you use a WIKI page to back up your argument, you have already lost it.I found it easier to list a ton of scientific citations that happen to be in one place. Maybe you didn't see them? Okay, maybe you're just too lazy to click a link. Here you go:

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the su ...


one last request, since you asked. Could you gather some friends who could help get your head out of your ass?

Polls are always biased. They provide the results that the people paying for it want.
 
2012-11-12 02:24:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: Polls are always biased. They provide the results that the people paying for it want.


Forget about all polls. That would be way too much work for you.

Kindly show the errors in the methodology which would cause bias in just the four surveys I cited.

Show your work.

Thanks in advance!
 
2012-11-12 02:38:54 PM  
Facts:

Subby is a flat-earther.

Not News.
 
2012-11-12 02:54:04 PM  

NYCNative: chuckufarlie: Polls are always biased. They provide the results that the people paying for it want.

Forget about all polls. That would be way too much work for you.

Kindly show the errors in the methodology which would cause bias in just the four surveys I cited.

Show your work.

Thanks in advance!


It is not my job to educate morons like you. It would take way too long and end up as a waste of time. You already believe in one of the biggest scams that the UN has dumped on the world in decades. The fact that you have done so exhibits gullibility and stupidity beyond anything I could surmount.
 
2012-11-12 02:59:55 PM  

chuckufarlie: one last request, since you asked. Could you gather some friends who could help get your head out of your ass?

Polls are always biased. They provide the results that the people paying for it want.



nicksteel: Is the information wrong???? I love the way that you tree huggers attack the source of the data, but not the data itself. It shows a level of intelligence and maturity that is amazing.

 
2012-11-12 03:04:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: NYCNative: chuckufarlie: Polls are always biased. They provide the results that the people paying for it want.

Forget about all polls. That would be way too much work for you.

Kindly show the errors in the methodology which would cause bias in just the four surveys I cited.

Show your work.

Thanks in advance!

It is not my job to educate morons like you. It would take way too long and end up as a waste of time. You already believe in one of the biggest scams that the UN has dumped on the world in decades. The fact that you have done so exhibits gullibility and stupidity beyond anything I could surmount.



nicksteel: If a person makes a claim (like your did) it is that person's responsibility to present evidence when challenged.

 
2012-11-12 03:10:49 PM  

chuckufarlie: You keep repeating the same crap as if repetition will make it true. Show me proof that it is not extremely stable.

As for climatologists, not all of the scientists that worked with the IPCC were climatologists. In fact, Christy worked with the IPCC.

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this ca ...


How many times in recent* history has the "lone maverick" who speaks out against the scientific establishment about a topic actually turned out to be right? Now, compare that to the number of times the "lone maverick" has been wrong. It's not going to be a particularly high success rate. In addition, you're on the wrong side of this argument even if Christy is right. To wit:

We make an effort to move to cleaner, more sustainable energy, but Christy and other deniers are right and the rest of the climate science establishment is wrong: We've moved to cleaner, more sustainable energy.

We don't make the effort to move to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources, and Christy is wrong and the rest of the climate science establishment is right: We run the very real risk of no longer being able to grow staple crops, billions die worldwide from starvation, every country in the world becomes an impoverished shiathole within a few generations.

No matter which side of this issue you choose to side with, the only way we can definitely avoid potential disaster is by moving to cleaner more sustainable energy. If we do that, the worst case scenario is that we've made life better for people when we didn't have to. I know, that just sounds awful, right?

You can call it scare mongering all you want, but if we do nothing, we are looking at the very real possibility that we are damaging our environment so much that it will no longer be able to sustain our species within a few decades. Moving away from fossil fuels and other sources of energy that generate greenhouse gasses is the intelligent thing to do. It's like wearing a condom during sex, washing your hands after you wipe your ass, or wearing a seat belt; you don't do it because you're scared, you do it because it's what intelligent humans do in order to stay alive and healthy. Tell you what, you can stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA LA GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL" all you want, and the rest of us will continue working to prevent potential disaster. You can thank us later.


*By "recent" I mean since humanity has had an actual established scientific community.
 
2012-11-12 03:14:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: It is not my job to educate morons like you.


So you cannot back up your assertions? You're just spouting rhetoric and have no ability to back it up? I mean, not EVEN a Wiki page?

The good news is that this is what science is about! Weighing evidence!

So on one hand, I see citations and transparent methodology in how the surveys were conducted. On the other, you offer no evidence and call me names.

I would have to say that the evidence is clear! Thanks for this science lesson! I hope you learned as much from it as I did!
 
2012-11-12 03:53:50 PM  

NYCNative: chuckufarlie: It is not my job to educate morons like you.

So you cannot back up your assertions? You're just spouting rhetoric and have no ability to back it up? I mean, not EVEN a Wiki page?

The good news is that this is what science is about! Weighing evidence!

So on one hand, I see citations and transparent methodology in how the surveys were conducted. On the other, you offer no evidence and call me names.

I would have to say that the evidence is clear! Thanks for this science lesson! I hope you learned as much from it as I did!


I did not say that I cannot back up my assertions. What I said was that you are too stupid to understand my assertions. Your latest post is simply additional proof.

Of course YOU think that the evidence is clear. The sad truth is that just isn't any evidence. The data that you have seen has been massaged to make it more acceptable to politicians. It took very little time for the scientists who had provided the actual data to start protesting that the UN had manipulated the data. The IPCC admitted it, but never changed it.

Professor Christy, in his testimony to Congress, explained why the data being collected now is faulty. He suggested that an unbiased group start the research from scratch.

Are you even aware of the fact that all of the temperature data reported for the period prior to 1850 is just proxy data? They extrapolated the data from tree ring growth in one small part of the planet, That means that it is neither GLOBAL nor is it data. It was a wild ass guess. Are you aware that the margin of error for that data is greater than the increase recorded since 1850? Are you aware that the data from 1850 to at least 1900 is not global either? Are you aware that even the data they have for that period is not at all accurate?

Why is this important? Because your buddies tell us that temperatures starting rising with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The fact is, they have no idea if that is true or not.


So, it boils down to the fact that the data is suspect, the people reporting it have an agenda to push and the solution they have proposed does nothing to solve what they see as a problem.
 
2012-11-12 04:00:33 PM  
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. - Ottmar Edenhofer


That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all - - Ottmar Edenhofer


This is the little bit of information that most warmers do not want us to think about. The rest of the warmers are not smart enough to understand what it means.

support for AGW is supporting the dismantling of the western economy at a great advantage to China and India.
 
2012-11-12 04:03:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: NYCNative: chuckufarlie: It is not my job to educate morons like you.

So you cannot back up your assertions? You're just spouting rhetoric and have no ability to back it up? I mean, not EVEN a Wiki page?

The good news is that this is what science is about! Weighing evidence!

So on one hand, I see citations and transparent methodology in how the surveys were conducted. On the other, you offer no evidence and call me names.

I would have to say that the evidence is clear! Thanks for this science lesson! I hope you learned as much from it as I did!

I did not say that I cannot back up my assertions. What I said was that you are too stupid to understand my assertions. Your latest post is simply additional proof.


nicksteel: Now you are expecting me to take your word at face value. I had a very long conversation with Elvis Presley last week, at least he said that he was Elvis.



chuckufarlie: Of course YOU think that the evidence is clear. The sad truth is that just isn't any evidence. The data that you have seen has been massaged to make it more acceptable to politicians. It took very little time for the scientists who had provided the actual data to start protesting that the UN had manipulated the data. The IPCC admitted it, but never changed it.


chuckufarlie: imgs.xkcd.com



chuckufarlie: Professor Christy, in his testimony to Congress, explained why the data being collected now is faulty. He suggested that an unbiased group start the research from scratch.


nicksteel: You are the one who is painfully ignorant. Somebody tells you something and you blindly follow them. That is the peak of ignorance.


chuckufarlie: Are you even aware of the fact that all of the temperature data reported for the period prior to 1850 is just proxy data? They extrapolated the data from tree ring growth in one small part of the planet, That means that it is neither GLOBAL nor is it data. It was a wild ass guess. Are you aware that the margin of error for that data is greater than the increase recorded since 1850? Are you aware that the data from 1850 to at least 1900 is not global either? Are you aware that even the data they have for that period is not at all accurate?

Why is this important? Because your buddies tell us that temperatures starting rising with the beginning of the industrial revolution. The fact is, they have no idea if that is true or not.


So, it boils down to the fact that the data is suspect, the people reporting it have an agenda to push and the solution they have proposed does nothing to solve what they see as a problem.


nicksteel: citation needed
 
2012-11-12 04:05:57 PM  

chuckufarlie: Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. - Ottmar Edenhofer


That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all - - Ottmar Edenhofer

This is the little bit of information that most warmers do not want us to think about. The rest of the warmers are not smart enough to understand what it means.

support for AGW is supporting the dismantling of the western economy at a great advantage to China and India.


nicksteel: Op Ed pieces?? Is that what you call proof??

 
2012-11-12 04:11:15 PM  

chuckufarlie: Of course YOU think that the evidence is clear. The sad truth is that just isn't any evidence


That sad truth is that you're a liar who gets off trolling climate change threads.
 
2012-11-12 04:12:44 PM  

chuckufarlie: I did not say that I cannot back up my assertions. What I said was that you are too stupid to understand my assertions.


You seem confused about what we are discussing. Let's recap:

You said I needed to show citations for the fact that overwhelmingly most climatologists agree that there is anthropological climate change.

I did. Four different surveys in the past five years.

You claimed that the studies were biased but offered no evidence for this.

Then you claim it's because I wouldn't understand it?

This is a very advantageous situation for you! See, if you provide the evidence that those four surveys are biased and I don't understand it, then you win!

Conversely, if you supply this evidence and someone happens to come along who does understand it and agrees with you, then you win again! Unless you don't think anyone who happens to be reading this thread can understand your evidence.... That seems way too arrogant to be possible.

So, you're in a win-win situation here! Show me the evidence and baffle me with it and I will have no choice but to concede.

Please do make sure that the evidence is for all four surveys, because the methodology of them varies. Debunk one as biased and it says nothing of the other three!

Of course you know this... So, show me your evidence. Even if I am too stupid to understand it, I am sure someone else will be able to.

Thanks in advance!
 
2012-11-12 04:26:30 PM  

NYCNative: chuckufarlie: I did not say that I cannot back up my assertions. What I said was that you are too stupid to understand my assertions.

You seem confused about what we are discussing. Let's recap:

You said I needed to show citations for the fact that overwhelmingly most climatologists agree that there is anthropological climate change.

I did. Four different surveys in the past five years.

You claimed that the studies were biased but offered no evidence for this.

Then you claim it's because I wouldn't understand it?

This is a very advantageous situation for you! See, if you provide the evidence that those four surveys are biased and I don't understand it, then you win!

Conversely, if you supply this evidence and someone happens to come along who does understand it and agrees with you, then you win again! Unless you don't think anyone who happens to be reading this thread can understand your evidence.... That seems way too arrogant to be possible.

So, you're in a win-win situation here! Show me the evidence and baffle me with it and I will have no choice but to concede.

Please do make sure that the evidence is for all four surveys, because the methodology of them varies. Debunk one as biased and it says nothing of the other three!

Of course you know this... So, show me your evidence. Even if I am too stupid to understand it, I am sure someone else will be able to.

Thanks in advance!


WOW!

I misjudged you. You are even thicker than I first thought. IF somebody did come along and agree with me you would obviously call him a denier.

You do not want to see the truth. Either that or you are one of the people who like the idea of redistributing the world's wealth and screwing the western world.
 
2012-11-12 04:37:55 PM  

chuckufarlie: NYCNative: chuckufarlie: I did not say that I cannot back up my assertions. What I said was that you are too stupid to understand my assertions.

You seem confused about what we are discussing. Let's recap:

You said I needed to show citations for the fact that overwhelmingly most climatologists agree that there is anthropological climate change.

I did. Four different surveys in the past five years.

You claimed that the studies were biased but offered no evidence for this.

Then you claim it's because I wouldn't understand it?

This is a very advantageous situation for you! See, if you provide the evidence that those four surveys are biased and I don't understand it, then you win!

Conversely, if you supply this evidence and someone happens to come along who does understand it and agrees with you, then you win again! Unless you don't think anyone who happens to be reading this thread can understand your evidence.... That seems way too arrogant to be possible.

So, you're in a win-win situation here! Show me the evidence and baffle me with it and I will have no choice but to concede.

Please do make sure that the evidence is for all four surveys, because the methodology of them varies. Debunk one as biased and it says nothing of the other three!

Of course you know this... So, show me your evidence. Even if I am too stupid to understand it, I am sure someone else will be able to.

Thanks in advance!

WOW!

I misjudged you. You are even thicker than I first thought. IF somebody did come along and agree with me you would obviously call him a denier.

You do not want to see the truth. Either that or you are one of the people who like the idea of redistributing the world's wealth and screwing the western world.



nicksteel: You and your buddies have never once addressed the actual science of anything that I have posted. All you do is attack the person who made the statement. That tells me a lot about what I have posted, it tells me that it is true and you have no "facts" to dispute it.

 
2012-11-12 04:42:50 PM  

chuckufarlie:

I misjudged you. You are even thicker than I first thought. IF somebody did come along and agree with me you would obviously call him a denier.


I didn't ask for "someone to come along and agree with" you. I asked for evidence of bias in four separate surveys as you claimed. I am still waiting for that.

You do not want to see the truth.

Evidently I do want to see your evidence that all four surveys are biased. Otherwise why would I have asked so many times?

If you are trying to get me to see your point of view, you are doing a pretty poor job of it. But you can turn that around! I'll just wait over here for the evidence that all four surveys are biased.
 
2012-11-12 05:15:37 PM  

NYCNative: chuckufarlie:

I misjudged you. You are even thicker than I first thought. IF somebody did come along and agree with me you would obviously call him a denier.

I didn't ask for "someone to come along and agree with" you. I asked for evidence of bias in four separate surveys as you claimed. I am still waiting for that.

You do not want to see the truth.

Evidently I do want to see your evidence that all four surveys are biased. Otherwise why would I have asked so many times?

If you are trying to get me to see your point of view, you are doing a pretty poor job of it. But you can turn that around! I'll just wait over here for the evidence that all four surveys are biased.


No, you did not ask somebody to come along, you just suggested that if somebody did come along and agreed with me then you would accept their word. Or do you not remember:

"Conversely, if you supply this evidence and someone happens to come along who does understand it and agrees with you, then you win again!"

I am not trying to get you to see my point of view. It takes intelligence and an open mind to accept what somebody is trying to tell you. You have neither intelligence nor an open mind.

How stupid does a person have to be to keep pushing for the same thing over and over when I already told you no?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein
 
2012-11-12 05:23:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: NYCNative: chuckufarlie:

I misjudged you. You are even thicker than I first thought. IF somebody did come along and agree with me you would obviously call him a denier.

I didn't ask for "someone to come along and agree with" you. I asked for evidence of bias in four separate surveys as you claimed. I am still waiting for that.

You do not want to see the truth.

Evidently I do want to see your evidence that all four surveys are biased. Otherwise why would I have asked so many times?

If you are trying to get me to see your point of view, you are doing a pretty poor job of it. But you can turn that around! I'll just wait over here for the evidence that all four surveys are biased.

No, you did not ask somebody to come along, you just suggested that if somebody did come along and agreed with me then you would accept their word. Or do you not remember:

"Conversely, if you supply this evidence and someone happens to come along who does understand it and agrees with you, then you win again!"

I am not trying to get you to see my point of view. It takes intelligence and an open mind to accept what somebody is trying to tell you. You have neither intelligence nor an open mind.

How stupid does a person have to be to keep pushing for the same thing over and over when I already told you no?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein



nicksteel: You have been told a story and you accept it without question. Anything that comes along that contradicts your belief is ignored. THAT is religion. THAT is stupid.

 
2012-11-12 05:44:12 PM  

chuckufarlie: You keep repeating the same crap as if repetition will make it true. Show me proof that it is not extremely stable.

As for climatologists, not all of the scientists that worked with the IPCC were climatologists. In fact, Christy worked with the IPCC.

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this ca ...


Your hero on this topic is a meterologist with delusions of grandeur, and you call other people stupid? That's rich.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, Christy and all the other people who are either too stupid or too arrogant to face reality, are correct and man-made global warming is fake. It's a hoax. The big question at that point is: Why?

To get grant money? If you belive that, you obviously have exactly zero experience wih grant-funded research. Cue Morbo with GRANT-FUNDING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

To get more money for "green" energy companies? Well, we already provide billions of dollars every year in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and gas companies, why shouldn't we extend that to companies that can provide cleaner, more efficient, more sustainable sources of energy? Globa warming aside, we should be helping our energy industry progress into the future.

whowhatwhy.com
 
2012-11-12 06:23:14 PM  

chuckufarlie: You do not want to see the truth. Either that or you are one of the people who like the idea of redistributing the world's wealth and screwing the western world.


Wow, I mean, like, no matter who you are, this statement can't possibly be taken seriously.

Actually, it wasn't that exciting.
 
2012-11-12 06:24:46 PM  

chuckufarlie: How stupid does a person have to be to keep pushing for the same thing over and over when I already told you no?



I don't know. How many times have you been told "no" here?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. - Albert Einstein

Irony, and its close cousin, comedy.
 
2012-11-12 07:05:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: when you use a WIKI page to back up your argument, you have already lost it.


If you don't know how Wikipedia works, you probably shouldn't be getting into "arguments" in the first place.
 
2012-11-12 08:03:28 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: You keep repeating the same crap as if repetition will make it true. Show me proof that it is not extremely stable.

As for climatologists, not all of the scientists that worked with the IPCC were climatologists. In fact, Christy worked with the IPCC.

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Pr ...


YOU are an idiot!!!

That much is a given. Anybody who posts that stupid graphic is an idiot. The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.

As for your attack of Christy, your type attacks anybody who disagrees with your "ideas". It doesn't mean a thing,
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois
 
2012-11-12 08:04:04 PM  

thamike: chuckufarlie: when you use a WIKI page to back up your argument, you have already lost it.

If you don't know how Wikipedia works, you probably shouldn't be getting into "arguments" in the first place.


I know how it works. It seems that you do not.
 
2012-11-12 08:31:22 PM  

chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.


Ah, so you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You know, you could have just said that in the first place and then we could have just ignored your insane ranting. By the way, I would recommend you get with your psychiatrist soon; you're either on the wrong meds or the dosage is off.

Anyone who believes the UN capable of massive conspiracies has never, ever, paid attention to how the UN functions. Seriously, if this is being perpetuated by the UN, how did they get nearly 98% of the climate scientists on Earth to go along with it? And why aren't the remaining ~2% telling the world about how the UN tried to get them to take part in the conspiracy instead of spending their time spouting junk science and shiatty data analysis? Don't you find it a little odd that the only people who are saying "OMG, THE UN IS BEHIND IT" are not actually climate scientists, even the ones that don't agree with GW?
 
2012-11-12 08:36:48 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.

Ah, so you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You know, you could have just said that in the first place and then we could have just ignored your insane ranting. By the way, I would recommend you get with your psychiatrist soon; you're either on the wrong meds or the dosage is off.

Anyone who believes the UN capable of massive conspiracies has never, ever, paid attention to how the UN functions. Seriously, if this is being perpetuated by the UN, how did they get nearly 98% of the climate scientists on Earth to go along with it? And why aren't the remaining ~2% telling the world about how the UN tried to get them to take part in the conspiracy instead of spending their time spouting junk science and shiatty data analysis? Don't you find it a little odd that the only people who are saying "OMG, THE UN IS BEHIND IT" are not actually climate scientists, even the ones that don't agree with GW?


Don't waste your time. Trying to convince a crazy person that their delusion is, in fact, a delusion, just makes them cling to it harder.
 
2012-11-12 09:01:41 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.

Ah, so you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You know, you could have just said that in the first place and then we could have just ignored your insane ranting. By the way, I would recommend you get with your psychiatrist soon; you're either on the wrong meds or the dosage is off.

Anyone who believes the UN capable of massive conspiracies has never, ever, paid attention to how the UN functions. Seriously, if this is being perpetuated by the UN, how did they get nearly 98% of the climate scientists on Earth to go along with it? And why aren't the remaining ~2% telling the world about how the UN tried to get them to take part in the conspiracy instead of spending their time spouting junk science and shiatty data analysis? Don't you find it a little odd that the only people who are saying "OMG, THE UN IS BEHIND IT" are not actually climate scientists, even the ones that don't agree with GW?


You want to know how I can tell that you are an idiot? You believe that 98% of climate scientists agree with the UN, That is just another part of the scam that the uninformed believe without question. People who believe like that are idiots.

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. - Ottmar Edenhofer

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

nothing to see here, is there moron?
 
2012-11-12 09:02:18 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.

Ah, so you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You know, you could have just said that in the first place and then we could have just ignored your insane ranting. By the way, I would recommend you get with your psychiatrist soon; you're either on the wrong meds or the dosage is off.

Anyone who believes the UN capable of massive conspiracies has never, ever, paid attention to how the UN functions. Seriously, if this is being perpetuated by the UN, how did they get nearly 98% of the climate scientists on Earth to go along with it? And why aren't the remaining ~2% telling the world about how the UN tried to get them to take part in the conspiracy instead of spending their time spouting junk science and shiatty data analysis? Don't you find it a little odd that the only people who are saying "OMG, THE UN IS BEHIND IT" are not actually climate scientists, even the ones that don't agree with GW?

Don't waste your time. Trying to convince a crazy person that their delusion is, in fact, a delusion, just makes them cling to it harder.


Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. - Ottmar Edenhofer

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.
 
2012-11-12 10:19:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: I created this alt just for this thread: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.

Ah, so you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You know, you could have just said that in the first place and then we could have just ignored your insane ranting. By the way, I would recommend you get with your psychiatrist soon; you're either on the wrong meds or the dosage is off.

Anyone who believes the UN capable of massive conspiracies has never, ever, paid attention to how the UN functions. Seriously, if this is being perpetuated by the UN, how did they get nearly 98% of the climate scientists on Earth to go along with it? And why aren't the remaining ~2% telling the world about how the UN tried to get them to take part in the conspiracy instead of spending their time spouting junk science and shiatty data analysis? Don't you find it a little odd that the only people who are saying "OMG, THE UN IS BEHIND IT" are not actually climate scientists, even the ones that don't agree with GW?

Don't waste your time. Trying to convince a crazy person that their delusion is, in fact, a delusion, just makes them cling to it harder.

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. - Ottmar Edenhofer

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.


Dear god, are you really that stupid? Here, let me make this really, really, really simple for you:

Climate science and climate policy are not the same thing.



Proposed UN climate policies, regardless of what they are, do not somehow magically mean that the climate scientists who are warning us about AGW are wrong, lying, or in cahoots with the UN. Your argument is the equivalent of saying condoms don't work as contraception because the Catholic church doesn't want Catholics using them.
 
2012-11-12 10:41:32 PM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: I created this alt just for this thread: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.

Ah, so you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You know, you could have just said that in the first place and then we could have just ignored your insane ranting. By the way, I would recommend you get with your psychiatrist soon; you're either on the wrong meds or the dosage is off.

Anyone who believes the UN capable of massive conspiracies has never, ever, paid attention to how the UN functions. Seriously, if this is being perpetuated by the UN, how did they get nearly 98% of the climate scientists on Earth to go along with it? And why aren't the remaining ~2% telling the world about how the UN tried to get them to take part in the conspiracy instead of spending their time spouting junk science and shiatty data analysis? Don't you find it a little odd that the only people who are saying "OMG, THE UN IS BEHIND IT" are not actually climate scientists, even the ones that don't agree with GW?

Don't waste your time. Trying to convince a crazy person that their delusion is, in fact, a delusion, just makes them cling to it harder.

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. - Ottmar Edenhofer

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.

Dear god, are you really that stupid? Here, let me make this really, really, really simple for you:

Climate science and climate policy are not the same thing.

Proposed UN climate policies, regardless of what they are, do not somehow magically mean that the climate scientists who are warning us about AGW are wrong, lying, or in cahoots with the UN. Your argument is the equivalent of ...


Gee, why am I not surprised that you are so stupid that you cannot understand? The UN politicians took the report given to the by the scientists and they altered it to make it more politically acceptable. Connect the dots, dumbass.

And before you start, the IPCC has admitted that they altered the data.
 
2012-11-12 11:05:05 PM  

chuckufarlie: And before you start, the IPCC has admitted that they altered the data.


nicksteel: citation needed
 
2012-11-12 11:09:22 PM  

chuckufarlie: I created this alt just for this thread: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.

Ah, so you're a paranoid schizophrenic. You know, you could have just said that in the first place and then we could have just ignored your insane ranting. By the way, I would recommend you get with your psychiatrist soon; you're either on the wrong meds or the dosage is off.

Anyone who believes the UN capable of massive conspiracies has never, ever, paid attention to how the UN functions. Seriously, if this is being perpetuated by the UN, how did they get nearly 98% of the climate scientists on Earth to go along with it? And why aren't the remaining ~2% telling the world about how the UN tried to get them to take part in the conspiracy instead of spending their time spouting junk science and shiatty data analysis? Don't you find it a little odd that the only people who are saying "OMG, THE UN IS BEHIND IT" are not actually climate scientists, even the ones that don't agree with GW?

Don't waste your time. Trying to convince a crazy person that their delusion is, in fact, a delusion, just makes them cling to it harder.

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated. - Ottmar Edenhofer

For those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.



nicksteel: somebody else who either does not understand simple English or you area complete liar. Or both, I vote for both.

 
2012-11-12 11:32:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: Gee, why am I not surprised that you are so stupid that you cannot understand? The UN politicians took the report given to the by the scientists and they altered it to make it more politically acceptable. Connect the dots, dumbass.

And before you start, the IPCC has admitted that they altered the data.


One guy admits that the report he co-authored incorrectly stated that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035, and you're using that as evidence that ALL of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the UN? What's next, you gonna drag out the emails mentioning "Mike's Nature trick" as further "evidence" that it's all being faked? Insane or not, I will say that you're certainly entertaining.
 
2012-11-12 11:40:15 PM  

Teufelaffe: chuckufarlie: Gee, why am I not surprised that you are so stupid that you cannot understand? The UN politicians took the report given to the by the scientists and they altered it to make it more politically acceptable. Connect the dots, dumbass.

And before you start, the IPCC has admitted that they altered the data.

One guy admits that the report he co-authored incorrectly stated that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035, and you're using that as evidence that ALL of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the UN? What's next, you gonna drag out the emails mentioning "Mike's Nature trick" as further "evidence" that it's all being faked? Insane or not, I will say that you're certainly entertaining.


I did not realize how uninformed you are. I was referring to the data that the science teams put together for the reports. Seriously, if you are that far out of the loop, you have no business here.
 
2012-11-12 11:41:51 PM  

chuckufarlie: Gee, why am I not surprised that you are so stupid that you cannot understand? The UN politicians took the report given to the by the scientists and they altered it to make it more politically acceptable. Connect the dots, dumbass.

And before you start, the IPCC has admitted that they altered the data.


There's no dots to connect here. Here is your "evidence" that global warming is a hoax by the UN:

One Atmospheric Scientist says it's not real.
A couple scientists lied about Himalayan glaciers in a report to the IPCC.
Members of the UN say that a meeting about global climate policy is not about the environment, but economics.

Now, to a normal, sane, logical human being, all of that would add up to...well, nothing. But to you, to you, it all means something. It's all connected, but only you and a select few others are aware/smart enough to see it! Everyone else is letting themselves be brainwashed by the powers that be! Why can't they just see the truth!? It's right there, staring them in the face...if only they could sustain the serious head injury required to understand!
 
2012-11-12 11:44:35 PM  

chuckufarlie: Teufelaffe: chuckufarlie: Gee, why am I not surprised that you are so stupid that you cannot understand? The UN politicians took the report given to the by the scientists and they altered it to make it more politically acceptable. Connect the dots, dumbass.

And before you start, the IPCC has admitted that they altered the data.

One guy admits that the report he co-authored incorrectly stated that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035, and you're using that as evidence that ALL of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the UN? What's next, you gonna drag out the emails mentioning "Mike's Nature trick" as further "evidence" that it's all being faked? Insane or not, I will say that you're certainly entertaining.

I did not realize how uninformed you are. I was referring to the data that the science teams put together for the reports. Seriously, if you are that far out of the loop, you have no business here.


Well then, got a citation for that, Sparky? All I could find was the crap about the glaciers. And no, I won't do your work for you. If you make an assertion, it's up to you to back it up, not us.
 
2012-11-13 12:02:13 AM  

chuckufarlie: I did not realize how uninformed you are


LOL a climate change denier/flat-earther accusing others of being "uninformed."

Just...yeah. Amazing the level of cheap thrills one can glean from these threads.

Enjoy your climate change President, astroturfer.
 
2012-11-13 01:31:28 AM  

chuckufarlie: Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: You keep repeating the same crap as if repetition will make it true. Show me proof that it is not extremely stable.

As for climatologists, not all of the scientists that worked with the IPCC were climatologists. In fact, Christy worked with the IPCC.

Dr. John R. Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. Since November 2000 he has been Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996 and 2007) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has served on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees.

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illin ...



Wow...appeal to authority much?

Whom to believe...one meteorologist, even one with big bold degrees, or the vast majority of climatologists, surprisingly few of whom are complaining that the IPCC has altered their data and misinterpreted their conclusions?
 
2012-11-13 02:17:13 AM  

Carlo Spicy-Wiener: chuckufarlie: Gee, why am I not surprised that you are so stupid that you cannot understand? The UN politicians took the report given to the by the scientists and they altered it to make it more politically acceptable. Connect the dots, dumbass.

And before you start, the IPCC has admitted that they altered the data.

There's no dots to connect here. Here is your "evidence" that global warming is a hoax by the UN:

One Atmospheric Scientist says it's not real.
A couple scientists lied about Himalayan glaciers in a report to the IPCC.
Members of the UN say that a meeting about global climate policy is not about the environment, but economics.

Now, to a normal, sane, logical human being, all of that would add up to...well, nothing. But to you, to you, it all means something. It's all connected, but only you and a select few others are aware/smart enough to see it! Everyone else is letting themselves be brainwashed by the powers that be! Why can't they just see the truth!? It's right there, staring them in the face...if only they could sustain the serious head injury required to understand!


nicksteel: Another piece of the Global Warming Agenda is to create one worldwide government and the UN is ready and willing to serve
nicksteel: The facts speak for themselves. Their true passion is one global government. Global warming is their tool to achieve it.
nicksteel: They want a new world order, the elimination of democracy and the elimination of industry. They want to take your money and mine and give it to the poor nations of the world.
nicksteel: the truth will set you free. This entire scam is about organizing one global governing body. It is about dismantling the United States.
And incredibly naive people who live in the USA are trying to help overthrow our government and our economy.

nicksteel: Make a list of the big organizations that support your movement and see how many of them also want to destroy democracy. How many want to set up a global government.

nicksteel: Environmentalists are not going to destroy America, the UN will do it for them.

 
2012-11-13 05:10:13 AM  

chuckufarlie: thamike: chuckufarlie: when you use a WIKI page to back up your argument, you have already lost it.

If you don't know how Wikipedia works, you probably shouldn't be getting into "arguments" in the first place.

I know how it works. It seems that you do not.


Please don't pretend to be on my level.
 
2012-11-13 05:14:20 AM  

whidbey: chuckufarlie: I did not realize how uninformed you are

LOL a climate change denier/flat-earther accusing others of being "uninformed."

Just...yeah. Amazing the level of cheap thrills one can glean from these threads.

Enjoy your climate change President, astroturfer.


He's just trolling, on a ThreePoundsofAsscheeks level. He's a sane person in the rest of the politics tab.
 
2012-11-13 12:57:23 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:

No, you did not ask somebody to come along, you just suggested that if somebody did come along and agreed with me then you would accept their word. Or do you not remember.

I am afraid your reading comprehension is lacking.

I said to provide evidence. And even if I didn't understand it, someone else might come along and they would understand it.

I was pointing out that even if your assertion that I am too stupid to understand the evidence that it was still worth your time to present it.

Yet, here we are. Still, no evidence.

Guess you don't have any, huh.
 
Displayed 48 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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report