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.

(Slate)   Last month was warmer than average. This is a repeat of the last 331 months   (slate.com) divider line 22
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

4358 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 4:13 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2012-11-18 12:13:54 AM
7 votes:

GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


LIBERAL LIES! MOAR OIL!
2012-11-18 12:45:16 AM
6 votes:
I'm sorry, but the graph I have right here from the FundedByExxon Institute that I got from Michelle Malkin's site show that it was chilly in my neighborhood yesterday, therefore all the fat cat climate scientists have to give up their Bentleys and Lambos and parade in front of the Fox News headquarters wearing polar bear outfits and carrying signs admitting it was all a big moneymaking super scam.
2012-11-18 12:47:54 AM
4 votes:
Yes, global warming is real, but when I open my window, it's cold outside.

How about you stop using facts and science to justify things and just use some common sense?
2012-11-18 01:02:22 AM
3 votes:
It's clear that what we need right now is more piracy.
2012-11-18 06:26:15 PM
1 votes:

brantgoose:
[debunks stupid misleading shiat]


Thank you.

Unless you are a motherfarking climate scientist, or at least someone with a solid scientific education in motherfarking atmospheric physics you dipshiat denialists can take your cribbed-from-the-internet charts, paragraphs, and other bullshiat, and can go suck a huge overflowing bucket of syphilitic goat cocks. I am so, utter, completely sick of know-nothing cockbags throwing around charts who couldn't tell you how a farking cloud is formed.

Hey, Dr. Oncologist! My uncle smoked seven packs of cigarettes a day for ninety five years! Hence, smoking doesn't cause cancer! You are so full of shiat! Here's a chart!

Hey, Dr. Climate scientist with a hundred peer-reviewed publications in premiere journals! It was cold in my back yard yesterday, hence global warming is a pile of shiat! Here's a chart! Go fark yourself!

HURR DURR DUUUUURRRRRRRR.
2012-11-18 01:05:45 PM
1 votes:
If only there was some journalistic source, trusted by conservatives, that would weigh in as a voice of reason in this controversy...


oi50.tinypic.com
2012-11-18 11:10:51 AM
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: jack21221: 2) The area of the Earth covered by contrails is tiny and is not nearly enough to change the albedo of the Earth by any meaningful amount.

Contrails do affect temperature.


gromit.orf5.com
2012-11-18 10:02:06 AM
1 votes:

dennysgod: We need to stop focusing on carbon dioxide and focus on the most abundant and most effective greenhouse gas, dihydrogen monoxide.


I remember all the way back to when that joke was funny. I was wearing my favorite HyperColor sweater in the theater for the latest Ninja Turtles movie, when my beeper went off so I went outside to use a pay-phone. My friend Dave (we called him D-funky-fresh) told me he read this great joke in Mad Magazine, so I hopped on my 10-speed with the Vanilla Ice stickers all over it and went to his house to drink jolt and play Battletoads.
2012-11-18 09:42:14 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked?


Huh? The term "global warming" was tossed because G.W.Bush didn't like it. This is well documented

Interesting that Frank Luntz (the guy who lead the committee) has done a U-turn since then and now goes around saying that warming is very real and man-made.
2012-11-18 06:01:25 AM
1 votes:

Metalithic: Does no-one else find it odd that Libertarians and Conservatives are so fond of championing individual agency and blaming all misfortunes on personal choices, yet refuse to believe that our collective choices might have any negative effect on our environment?


Nope. Personal responsibility is for other people.
2012-11-18 05:51:55 AM
1 votes:

Kriggerel: What I find so very telling is how the language describing those, who question the Global Warming orthodoxy has shifted over the past number of months.

I specifically refer to the way that the phrase "Climate Change Skeptic" has been replaced by "Climate Change Denier", as denier always has the negative cachet associated with "Holocaust Denier".

Of course, there's some real double-down irony in that, seeing has how vaguely-cloaked anti-semitism has once again become extremely chic in intellectual circles, and holocaust denial is once again rearing its head and sniffing around, especially in the "Israeli Apartheid Week" circles.


WTF am I reading?

What I find so very telling is that the purple teletubby was gay. I specifically refer to the way that nobody besides Big Bird can see Snuffleupagus. I offer as proof the fact that purple crayons are even more delicious than orange crayons.

That makes as much sense as your ridiculous post.
2012-11-18 05:38:07 AM
1 votes:

NobleHam: look at the actual Ljungqvist or Mann papers


It's been a warmer than average week in Lake Wobegon. Fred Ljungqvist snuck on down to the Sidetrack Tap to sip on a cold one, and contemplate what that might mean.
2012-11-18 05:28:07 AM
1 votes:

NobleHam: Cyclometh: NobleHam: log_jammin: david_gaithersburg: Nah, I'll stick with scientific research instead of a 20 freaking minute Youtube clip. But thanks for sticking your head in the sand.

your graph isn't "scientific research". it's just another doctored graph from a blogger.

Your video ignores the predominance of ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and is overly reliant on data based on the cold land of the well-documented Northern Hemisphere without proper adjustment to account for the disparity. The data in the video is also presented somewhat dishonestly, with the video creator criticizing one person for removing the last 10 years from a 2000 year graph, but not pointing out that 10 year+ spikes above current temperatures are visible in the graph he cites. And finally he concludes by saying, "yeah, what's happening now is pretty much like the Medieval Warm Period... but that's not a good thing!

Do you honestly think that this claptrap is going to fly? This isn't reddit.

Again, do you have a specific problem with what I said or does it just not jibe with your worldview?


Do I look like a teacher, chucklenuts? I'm not here to debate your stupid ass, I am here to mock and deride you for having bad ideas and worse arguments.
2012-11-18 05:25:51 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Bontesla: david_gaithersburg: Climate change, yeah, its been changing since day 1. Notice how the term "global warming" was tossed once it was debunked? Link "Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!

Pecking away at the keyboard in your parents' basement does not constitute debunking in any scientific regard.

I present facts and citations, all you have is name calling. Got it.


Lol calling them facts does not actually convince people (other than you) that you're presenting actual facts.

The Fark community has danced with you many times on this particular subject and you just double down in your scientific skepticism. Why would I want to play that number again? This isn't Casablanca.

Finally, suggesting that you're chicken pecking at a keyboard in your parents' basement isn't name calling. If I were to suggest that you were an idiot then I would be name calling.
2012-11-18 05:20:07 AM
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Climate change" by its very nature can never be debunked, perpetual funding!!!!!


Climate change scientist billionaires are the 1%.
2012-11-18 05:14:18 AM
1 votes:

NobleHam: GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.

You... didn't read any of the actual data, did you? I'm assuming this because of all the assumptions you made which aren't even tangentially connected to the data we're looking at. For one thing, the NOAA document the article references has no references of its own more recent than 2008 and no links to data tables for the numbers its cites.

There are a number of discrepancies that climate change alarmists have yet to explain.

For one, the lagging of ...


Holy farking dogshiat, son... just look at how stupid you are!
2012-11-18 05:03:16 AM
1 votes:
We're already past the point of no return.

All that's left to do now is to sit back and enjoy the only true and lasting legacies the human race will ever provide this planet:

Earth's next great climate shift
Earth's 6th extinction level event.

USA!USA!
err, um... well I suppose we can be more inclusive
... EARTH! EARTH! EARTH! EARTH!
2012-11-18 04:52:51 AM
1 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.com

Study it out, folks, just study it out.
2012-11-18 04:51:50 AM
1 votes:

MrEricSir: The skeptical question


there is no "skeptical question". the skeptic comes to a conclusion based on the evidence. and there is no evidence that concludes GW is strictly an act of nature.
2012-11-18 04:31:04 AM
1 votes:

GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.
2012-11-18 04:26:04 AM
1 votes:
How much global warming does it take to screw in a incandescent light bulb?

none because they were both made up things XDD
2012-11-18 04:18:17 AM
1 votes:
The future is uncertain and the end is always near.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report