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=20121031If 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.
vpb: Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.
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.
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...
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
(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
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.
HotIgneous Intruder: Funny how there's a ready-made canned rebuttal to everything that seems to contradict AGW.
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.
Mrbogey: The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional.
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.
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.
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 EdenhoferFor those who may not know, Ottmar Edenhofer is the co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.
Climate science and climate policy are not the same thing.
chuckufarlie: The people behind this scam are not scientists, they are politicians at the UN.
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 ...
chuckufarlie: when you use a WIKI page to back up your argument, you have already lost it.
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.
chuckufarlie: a vast majority of other scientists?? you monkeys are always spotting off about a vast majority of other scientists
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.
chuckufarlie: a vast majority of other scientists?? you monkeys are always spotting off about a vast majority of other scientists
chuckufarlie: So, if we discount Christy, we need to discount every scientist being funded by any "green" organization. Are you willing to do that?
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.
chuckufarlie: first of all, it was less than one degree, closer to one half. Yes, I do call that extremely stable.
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.
chuckufarlie: [www.petitionproject.org image 850x365]31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDsSignatories 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.
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.
chuckufarlie: what about all of those climate scientists who are "deniers"?
chuckufarlie: Monkeyhouse Zendo: I miss John Snow.I am pretty sure that he is here.
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.
chuckufarlie: Why would a person who claims to be a scientist use a word like denier?
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.
HotIgneous Intruder: common sense is an oxymoron: Link, complete with original sourcesFunny how there's a ready-made canned rebuttal to everything that seems to contradict AGW.
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.
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.
HotIgneous Intruder: You're being lied to and stimulated and agitated.Ask yourself why.
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.
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]
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 likeglobal warmingglobal climate changeglobal climate disruptionglobal son-of-a-biatch some other term that is finally sufficiently nebulous that it is unmeasurable, and therefore unfalsifiable!! There, that should settle it!
SevenizGud: Or is it the case that 15 years is wrong for me to do, but 8 years is fine for Hansen to do?
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?
HotIgneous Intruder: Ooogah-BOOGAH-BOOH!
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.
thamike: Care to take a stab at why the temperature has more or less stopped spiking over the last 15 years?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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)"
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 outFTFYYou hate facts, don't you?
dead: Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think
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).
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.
dead: The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control.
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.
If you like these links, you'll love
More funny for your money.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 21 2017 20:22:29
Runtime: 0.653 sec (652 ms)