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 71
    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 (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-11 11:34:12 AM  
6 votes:
Stronger hurricanes != worse storms. What made Sandy unprecedented was not that it was a hurricane of unprecedented strength (in fact, by the time it hit NY, it wasn't a hurricane, or even a tropical storm - that's why people are calling it 'superstorm Sandy'). What made it unprecedented was the storm surge and the resulting flood damage.

Also, comparing damage and casualties from this storm to damage and casualties from storms in the 1930s and 1950s is meaningless. We have better storm tracking and communications (allowing more people to be warned and have the opportunity to evacuate), and improved building codes (regulations, oh noes!).
2012-11-11 01:40:51 PM  
3 votes:
0.tqn.com
2012-11-11 11:51:04 AM  
3 votes:

dead: NewsBusters might be derp (never been there, can't say) but I have some faith in NPR, which published this story shortly after Sandy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/31/163960418/americas-most-exp e nsive-storms?live=1%3Futm_source%3DNPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaig n=20121031

If you want to do something, don't allow people to build as densely and as expensively close to a hurricane or strong storm zone. But if you do, realize that you're going to go though periods of expensive cleanup and death. Ask yourself the question, "does the reward outweigh the risk?"

6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).

The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control. What can we do to control the climate (which is not weather- a common misconception) to prevent this in the future? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps it would be easier to control weather before we tried to control the climate.


1. More expensive storms in the past, adjusted for inflation, does not account for weaker structures. Older homes were much less able to withstand severe weather events.
2. NYC's flood defenses are better today than they have been in the past and they saw worse floods than any time in recorded history. The Battery Tunnel has no flood barriers partly because it had never needed them before.
3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.
2012-11-11 11:14:51 AM  
3 votes:

vpb: Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.


Well, of course. NewsBusters is like the Onion, but, y'know, significantly less funny.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 10:20:32 AM  
3 votes:

dead: Hey hey now- don't stand in the way of a politician misrepresenting facts to increase their power over the masses.

/move along citizen. nothing to question here.


Or a derp blog misrepresenting facts to manipulate the ignorant?

Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.
2012-11-11 09:58:23 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:28:37 PM  
2 votes:

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


Science isn't a courtroom.
2012-11-11 06:17:07 PM  
2 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Funny how there's a ready-made canned rebuttal to everything that seems to contradict AGW.


I've got a shelf full of books that are ready-made, canned rebuttals to anything that contradicts heliocentrism, a spherical earth, the luminiferous ether and the existence of phlogiston. It's almost as if there were a worldwide conspiracy spanning the last five hundred years called science.
2012-11-11 02:47:33 PM  
2 votes:
Remember: the people insisting there is no global warming are the same people who cited unskewed polls and called Nate Silver a stupid hack.
2012-11-11 02:43:18 PM  
2 votes:
Ah yes...the weekly climate change thread. I get to play my favorite game:

Spot the Derptard GOPers Who Have Never Taken a College-level Chemistry, Physics, or Meteorology Class.

Some folks would say that the dumbest people around are 9-11 "Truthers" or "Birthers." I say it's the Climate Change Denialists.
2012-11-11 02:31:54 PM  
2 votes:

gingerjet: dead: Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.
Because a weekly magazine like Time never picks up on fringe stories and never gets things wrong. Never.
/and you are the one arguing over government control. we are arguing over the very real changes in climate.


Oh this story?

socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com

Which was actually this story:

img.timeinc.net

yeah, that's a fake cover. And yet it's been cited as "proof" that somehow everybody everywhere is wrong about global warming. A fuking photoshop. Nobody even has the smarts to check and see if it's real, even though they have the internet right in front of them.

I''m sure I can trust people who need to make photoshops of popular magazine covers to prove their point over every climate scientist, ever.
2012-11-11 02:05:42 PM  
2 votes:

Mrbogey: The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional.


So even THIS is a lie? The climatologists saying the conditions WERE exceptional are lying? You know better? Can I ask where you received your degree? Can I see some of your published work?
2012-11-11 01:56:40 PM  
2 votes:

Mrbogey: GAT_00: More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.

I don't think the actual land cared if it flooded before people moved there.

I don't have to be in the woods to know that a tree falls. I don't believe that no tree has ever fallen unless I'm there.


And you don't believe in scientific consensus, built from decades of study.

So we get it. You ENJOY willful ignorance...
2012-11-11 01:43:15 PM  
2 votes:
Libertarians don't understand positive liberty.
2012-11-11 09:24:05 AM  
2 votes:
Well then, there's obviously no need to do anything

/I'm sure the repeated devastation is much more cost effective in the long run
2012-11-12 11:41:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:19:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:31:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:10:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:47:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:04:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:06:02 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-12 10:57:41 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-11 11:39:39 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-11 11:27:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:42:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:35:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:23:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:10:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:09:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:51:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:46:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:39:16 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it.


Math is always a weak spot for Conservatives. Comparing a temperature increase over a couple of hundred years versus tens of thousands of years. Pro-tip there hasn't been this rapid of a temperature increase ever.
2012-11-11 08:03:32 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: common sense is an oxymoron: Link, complete with original sources

Funny how there's a ready-made canned rebuttal to everything that seems to contradict AGW.



That's how reality works.


I'm beginning to consider the phenomenon of unintentional conspiracies among AGW advocates; something like mass hysteria.

[Actually, it's more like rabid career and grant gravy-train protectionism, but I digress.]



So now the success of reality-based arguments against ACC deniers is evidence of a conspiracy? How can you live knowing that the universe itself is conspiring against you?
2012-11-11 08:03:00 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

You don't have a Prius, do you?

Nope.

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


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

Why do you think I have to live without modern technology?
2012-11-11 07:36:05 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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


Paranoid thinking detected.

Are you honestly positing a worldwide conspiracy among climate scientists spanning decades in order to get that sweet, sweet grant money?
2012-11-11 05:46:43 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Svensmark of Denmark: The Cloud Mystery.
The information in this documentary had been nicely suppressed by the globalists.

/Idiots, you are.
//Wake up.



Svensmark of Denmark. I can play the [name] of [country] game, too.

Tom of Finland.

Svensmark and Tom. Two guys with equal relevance to the AGW debate.

Svensmark believes that cosmic rays can affect cloud formation. Unfortunately, the available evidence proves him wrong. Link, complete with original sources

As far as I know, Tom hasn't made any statements about AGW. At least he isn't being dishonest.
2012-11-11 05:27:45 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: I see you've stopped using the "I'M MALIA OBAMA AND THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN MY ENTIRE LIFE" graph. I wonder why.

I wonder why you don't know that Malia and Sasha are different people.

[img801.imageshack.us image 799x752]



11 years is even worse than your previous use of 15. I can pose to you what I posed earlier (and that you notably ignored). If you're not recognizing the idea that such a short period of time is insufficient to be able to tell, why not five years:

woodfortrees.org
2012-11-11 05:07:41 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: Also realize that simple least-squares regression isn't what's used in this sort of analysis.

Oh, I know. It's what's used by the Chicken Littles until it doesn't work any more, at which point they change to something else.

It's just like
global warming
global climate change
global climate disruption
global son-of-a-biatch some other term that is finally sufficiently nebulous that it is unmeasurable, and therefore unfalsifiable!! There, that should settle it!



You're contradicting yourself here. You know that least-squares regression isn't used and you're accusing " the Chicken Littles" of using it - these seem to be somewhat mutually exclusive. You're also dodging what I asked:

SevenizGud: Or is it the case that 15 years is wrong for me to do, but 8 years is fine for Hansen to do?


Can you back up this statement in some way? 

As for the discussion about nomenclature, note that different terms have different meaning, and to different groups. We can get deeper into it if you wish, but don't conflate that terms are "sufficiently nebulous" to you means that they are to others. More importantly, such a perceived nebulous quality dot not mean that climate change is somehow "unmeasurable, and therefore unfalsifiable".
2012-11-11 04:52:41 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: still have yet to explain why you limit yourself to 15 years.

You've yet to explain why you aren't showing me how much is has really warmed in the last 15 years.

Why don't you just gut the main argument, and, you know, show that it really has warmed in the last 15 years?



Well, you could use the more-complete HadCRUT4 instead of HadCRUT3:

www.woodfortrees.org

You're also dodging the point that The All-Powerful Atheismo. Why have you chosen just 15 years? It's a simple question.
2012-11-11 04:41:39 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Ooogah-BOOGAH-BOOH!


Not trying to scare you, just pointing out that the energy is going somewhere.

I've pretty much given up on reasoning with people who don't understand even a high school level treatment of thermodynamics. Things like what constitutes a thermodynamically closed system just don't figure into their understanding of the world.

Please understand, I'm not saying that you're stupid. I'm saying that you don't have the necessary tools to think about the problem in any useful manner.
2012-11-11 04:33:18 PM  
1 votes:
chuckufarlie:

I'm actually an engineer who works on environmental projects, so I guarantee you that I've read more studies than you have, and that I understand them better than you.

But that doesn't even matter. 97% of SCIENTISTS... actual ones... say you are full of shiat.
2012-11-11 04:32:18 PM  
1 votes:

dead: Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.


Wrong. Given a choice between a house built in 1900 that is still standing today and a house built in 1970 still standing today, I will probably choose the house built in 1900. The difference being that the house still standing today from 1900 was built for somebody wealthy and out of building materials that can not be put into the average house today because of cost. The average home of 1900 is not standing today, the one from 1970 is.
2012-11-11 04:28:30 PM  
1 votes:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-11-11 04:25:57 PM  
1 votes:
chuckufarlie:

What do the other 99.99% of climate scientists say?

Are you going to cite them too?
2012-11-11 04:24:21 PM  
1 votes:

thamike: Care to take a stab at why the temperature has more or less stopped spiking over the last 15 years?


The great thing about a glass of ice water is that you can put it out in the sun on a warm day and it will stay at precisely the same temperature while the ice melts. The heat being added by the sun and the warm air isn't disappearing, it's busy driving the phase transition for the ice.

It takes a lot of energy to warm the oceans and melt that polar ice. Don't worry, it will start climbing again once all that methane locked up under the polar ice and in the permafrost starts to let loose.
2012-11-11 04:21:05 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: thamike: The bolded part indicates why you are out of your depth on this issue.

Yeah, nothing says "out of your depth" more than posting the, you know, actual data.


Why do you keep picking the last 15 years? Oh yeah, because if you show more significant data samplings, your moronic argument falls apart.

woodfortrees.org
woodfortrees.org
woodfortrees.org 

So, there's the, you know, actual data.
2012-11-11 04:07:29 PM  
1 votes:

thamike: Bottom line is, why the hell do some people fight so hard when the very worst that could happen is that we clean up our ecosystem a little bit? We just want to live in a hospitable place.


Because some people will lose a lot of money because their business model is based on NOT changing.

Those people pay other people to spout bullshiat.
2012-11-11 04:06:33 PM  
1 votes:
Bottom line is, why the hell do some people fight so hard when the very worst that could happen is that we clean up our ecosystem a little bit? We just want to live in a hospitable place.
2012-11-11 03:59:55 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: your interpretation vis-a-vis a best fit line IS false.

Draw a better best fit line, then, or STFU.


that's not even the point. the interpretation itself is wrong.

you think you've found someone else you can argue with? I've seen you before, jerkoff. you've been owned in every single thread you've been in. And in this thread already.

Go away.
2012-11-11 03:57:15 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: why do you refuse to answer my question, about why you keep posting that graph despite being REPEATEDLY shown, over and over, that it isn't correct?

Why do you keep claiming that it isn't correct? Again, if you believe it isn't correct, then post the correct HADCRUT3 numbers or else STFU.


you didn't even answer MY criticism.

The numbers aren't false.
your interpretation vis-a-vis a best fit line IS false.
2012-11-11 03:55:30 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Yeah, this happened now, instead of 15 years ago because of all the global warming we've had in the last 15 years:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


www.skepticalscience.com

From this link
2012-11-11 03:52:15 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Why do you post that graph after it being repeatedly demonstrated to you that it is completely false?

Completely false as in "data copied directly from HADCRUT3"?

Not only is it not completely false, it is EXACTLY the last 15 years of hadcrut3 data WITHOUT ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

If you disagree with that, then YOU POST the last 15 years of HARDCRUT3 data, and point out the differences.

Oh yeah, that's right. There aren't any differences, because that's the actual data.

But feel free to keep calling data that you don't like "false".


If you think a "best fit" line is data, you need to go back to school. I recommend starting in 1st grade.
2012-11-11 03:44:42 PM  
1 votes:

SevenizGud: Yeah, this happened now, instead of 15 years ago because of all the global warming we've had in the last 15 years:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


Why do you post that graph after it being repeatedly demonstrated to you that it is completely false?

Why have you never answered those criticisms?
2012-11-11 03:42:58 PM  
1 votes:

IlGreven: ...uhm, just because someone PSed a magazine cover about it doesn't mean Time wasn't talking about it.

/If you have the June 24, 1974 issue, you'll find an article entitled "Another Ice Age?"
//It's just not on the cover.


The point still stands. Why the forgeries? Surely if it was more than just a one-off Time BS article (because Time is such a respected scientific publication) there should be plenty of evidence that such a narrative was being pushed en masse.
2012-11-11 03:30:52 PM  
1 votes:
Yeah, this happened now, instead of 15 years ago because of all the global warming we've had in the last 15 years:

www.woodfortrees.org

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
2012-11-11 03:29:17 PM  
1 votes:

LewDux: GAT_00: 3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.

To be fair he did say "global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's)"


No, that's not fair. The only consensus on global cooling is the media's consensus that it would sell more magazines.
2012-11-11 03:09:20 PM  
1 votes:
Why does bullshiat always collapse under any kind of scrutiny? Can't we build bullshiat that is strong enough? Damn you all to hell Bullshiat!
2012-11-11 02:27:02 PM  
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: Teufelaffe: 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. Study it out

FTFY

You hate facts, don't you?


At least we pay attention to facts. Go get more talking points from unskewedclimate.com, where math is optional.
2012-11-11 02:23:07 PM  
1 votes:
In case you did not know it...
A hundred-year event is NOT defined as one that only happens once every hundred years!!!
2012-11-11 02:07:52 PM  
1 votes:

dead: Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think


For good buildings, which is like saying that just because we can build a house that can withstand a Cat-3 today means all buildings can. But the easiest proof of this is earthquake-proofing. Old structures can't handle earthquakes.
2012-11-11 02:05:48 PM  
1 votes:

dead:
Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.


Sometimes.

There have been a LOT of advances in building design over the last few decades, particularly in regards to residential construction designed to resist wind loads.

The only house in a subdivision designed to resist cat 5 hurricane wind loads:

www.dvorak.org

Two outwardly identical houses in a full scale wind test. The house that survived used a couple hundred dollars of hardware installed during construction and some minor detailing changed.

Link
2012-11-11 02:03:10 PM  
1 votes:

dead: 6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).


This paragraph, alone, is evidence enough to discount anything you say in the future on anything. Ever.
2012-11-11 01:58:54 PM  
1 votes:

dead: That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.


You're convinced that the government is using climate change as a tool to take control of our lives and we're the scared ones?  Projection, you has it.
2012-11-11 01:55:28 PM  
1 votes:

dead: The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control.


You mean like the decades of analysis and consensus?

Abdicating your rights? Talk about a pants wetting whiny statement. "Their going to put me in a camp!!!"

Jesus. You are one gigantic pussy.
2012-11-11 01:47:59 PM  
1 votes:
No other country has so many people who believe global warming is fake than this theocratic, anti-knowledge country.

Of course, we are tops in believing in angels, so it makes sense.

MUST...FIGHT...FACTS!!!
2012-11-11 01:43:41 PM  
1 votes:

dead: Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.


Because a weekly magazine like Time never picks up on fringe stories and never gets things wrong. Never.

/and you are the one arguing over government control. we are arguing over the very real changes in climate.
2012-11-11 11:15:43 AM  
1 votes:
The Statue of Liberty could be knee-deep in New York Harbor and deniers would claim it's just seasonal variation.
2012-11-11 11:10:38 AM  
1 votes:
Good lord. I swear, if flash smog incidents started occurring again, Republicans would claim that they were natural because they occurred in the 40s-60s.
2012-11-11 09:26:03 AM  
1 votes:
More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.
2012-11-11 09:24:53 AM  
1 votes:
Cool. So, we should just ignore it then.

Got it.
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report