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.

(Slashdot)   Good news: Oceans are not rising like researchers predicted. Bad news: Oceans are rising *faster* than researchers predicted   (science.slashdot.org) divider line 143
    More: Scary, researchers predicted, Electric energy consumption, purpose in life, soylent greens  
•       •       •

7337 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Nov 2012 at 10:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-28 08:53:49 AM  
It's just the natural result of the end of the Ice Age 10,000 years ago when solar flares started flaring and made Mars hot. Stupid libs.
 
2012-11-28 08:56:57 AM  
Yay! Raleigh, North Carolina will finally be a port city!
 
2012-11-28 09:13:56 AM  
The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

See, data is meaningless when it's taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here's a piece of data:

2230

Impressive, right? Now, if I just told you that number and said it was vitally important, what would happen? I'll tell you what: an entire realm of science would pop into being dedicated to finding out what that number means, how it impacts our life. By the time the 2230ists were finished, the Theory of 2230 would relate to everything. Then other scientists would come along and say, no, you guys are wrong, the real Theory of 2230 is *this*. And so on, and so on, and so on. That's what scientists *do*. They create meaning for things, then other scientists create another meaning, then they argue, then the government gives them grant money.

And here's the kicker: the truth is that 2230 *is* important, but each of them is just looking at it in isolation. Without understanding the big picture. They don't know how all the parts fit together, or even what the parts are. And so they're all wrong.

Don't get it? OK, let's try it this way. Let's pull back the lens a bit, subby, take a look at the situation you're describing. Water levels are rising. Oooh, scary. They're rising faster than predicted. OOOOOOH, scarier. But what happens when you increase the total amount of water in a given surface? Hm?

Volume, remember that? The water's volume increases. OK, see that's something that an oceanographer doesn't consider, because it's about math. So tell me: what happens when a water's volume increases?

That's right, very good. The water becomes heavier. Because there's more of it. Need proof? Here's an experiment for you to conduct: pick up a 5-gallon jug of water. Now pick up a 1-gallon jug. Which is heavier?

So what happens when the water's weight increases? Well, now we're into geography, another part of the big picture. The heavier water pushes down on the ocean's floor. Now, in some places, that will actually make the ocean deeper -- sort of like when the bottom of a plastic dish bows outward. In other places, though, the heavier water won't be able to actually move the floor, but will put tremendous pressure on it. TREMENDOUS pressure. And what happens when you put tremendous pressure on the earth's crust?

That's right, volcanoes. See, now we're into volcanology, which teaches us that magma, which is produced by volcanoes, is earth's building material. The pressure produced by the rising sea will force volcanic eruptions of magma to the surface, which in effect will create new land. So, even as the oceans are rising, land is rising, too. This is how planets get bigger, subby (and -- see? -- we're into astrology now). Do you think the Earth was always this same size? No! Thousands upon thousands of years ago it was much smaller. There was also a lot less water. Now we have lots of water, and lots of land. A few thousand years from now, there will be even more of both. It's the natural way of things. It's science. SCIENCE. But not science studied in isolation, subby. Science as part of the greater whole.
 
2012-11-28 09:24:23 AM  

Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

See, data is meaningless when it's taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here's a piece of data:

2230


I [heart] Pocket Ninja. I am now a firm believer in 2230.
 
2012-11-28 10:05:03 AM  
www.dvdtimes.co.uk

Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!
 
2012-11-28 10:07:21 AM  

Sybarite: [www.dvdtimes.co.uk image 600x322]

Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!


♪ Tee, tum! ♫ Tee tum! ♪
 
2012-11-28 10:24:50 AM  
The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are get excited about.
 
2012-11-28 10:24:52 AM  
No matter how mad it gets, Earth still won't end up like Waterworld.
 
2012-11-28 10:24:57 AM  
Oh, fark, two GW threads posted to Main already, and it's not even noon.

It's going to be one of those days.


I'm gonna need more liquor.
 
2012-11-28 10:25:37 AM  

bim1154: The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are or get excited about.

 
2012-11-28 10:25:41 AM  
If this is true, why did Al Gore just buy oceanfront property?
 
2012-11-28 10:25:47 AM  
FREE 2230! FREE 2230! FREE 2230!
 
2012-11-28 10:25:51 AM  

Cythraul: Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

See, data is meaningless when it's taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here's a piece of data:

2230

I [heart] Pocket Ninja. I am now a firm believer in 2230.


2230 causes autism you heartless bastard
 
2012-11-28 10:27:08 AM  
More beach for everyone!rewardslink.info
 
2012-11-28 10:27:30 AM  
www.webspawner.com
 
2012-11-28 10:27:48 AM  
It's to late to do anything, and we don't know what to do even if we could. It's to complex a system and we've pushed it to far out of whack.

/If you'll excuse me, I've got to mount pontoons to my apartment.
 
2012-11-28 10:28:00 AM  
It's a brand new album for 1990....


obscure?
 
2012-11-28 10:28:33 AM  

Pocket Ninja: 2230


That was beautiful. I read it in a southern car salesman's voice.
 
2012-11-28 10:29:20 AM  
I hate having to drive 3 hours to reach the ocean. The quicker it gets to me the better.

/be right back, melting some icebergs
 
2012-11-28 10:31:05 AM  

bim1154: The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are get excited about.


The last time the earth "reinvented" itself on a scale like this, the dinosaurs died out (or became chickens).
 
2012-11-28 10:31:45 AM  

Pocket Ninja: astrology


I lost it bad right there. Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee.
 
2012-11-28 10:33:03 AM  
Awesome! The world WON'T be taken over by Zombies, because everyone knows they can't swim!
 
2012-11-28 10:33:54 AM  
Well, of course it seems like the Ocean is rising faster than predicted. Stupid Lib scientists failed to account for the Storm surge from Hurricane Sandy.
 
2012-11-28 10:34:37 AM  

Pocket Ninja: The problem with these...


you are the strangest and most wonderful person on the internets
 
2012-11-28 10:35:26 AM  
Obviously, we need to detonate the Yellowstone caldera to trigger a supervolcano and rapidly cool the Earth for 100 years or so.
 
2012-11-28 10:35:36 AM  
SCARY tag? only too the sheep
 
2012-11-28 10:36:01 AM  

IlGreven: bim1154: The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are get excited about.

The last time the earth "reinvented" itself on a scale like this, the dinosaurs died out (or became chickens).


This is happening just at the right time. Global Warming=really hot summers=more old people dying of heatstroke=Social Security & Medicare remaining in the black for a longer period.

\ta da!
 
2012-11-28 10:38:08 AM  
In the 260 years since the Industrial Revolution, mankind has managed to destroy a 4.5 billion year old planet. Despite the negative press, you really have to marvel at our power. We are a truly unique and innovative species with more power sitting on our shoulders than all the suns in the universe. If there is life out there on other planets, I cannot imagine it even coming close to our immense strength. We shall rule the universe just as we've ruled the apes of our own planet. Bow at our feet or suffer our wrath!
 
2012-11-28 10:38:20 AM  

IlGreven: bim1154: The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are get excited about.

The last time the earth "reinvented" itself on a scale like this, the dinosaurs died out (or became chickens).


Your thought process in the overall dynamics of earth's history is pretty weak if that's all you have.
 
2012-11-28 10:38:34 AM  
Better inform Jamie Foxx's "lord and savior" about this. After all didn't he promise that he'd make the oceans recede?
 
2012-11-28 10:38:50 AM  
I need to remember to identify the poster before reading the post, or I spend way too much time blinking quizzically when I stumble across Pocket Ninja content.
 
2012-11-28 10:39:55 AM  

docilej: Better inform Jamie Foxx's "lord and savior" about this. After all didn't he promise that he'd make the oceans recede?


That's it! Let's clone Moses a few hundred times and post him in lighthouses to hold back the water.
 
2012-11-28 10:40:06 AM  
People who mocked Obama for claiming in 2008 that future people would look back at that election as the turning point when we would begin to see the rise of the oceans slow because they thought he was a fool for believing that global warming was real and thought it was a sign of his arrogance that he believed he could cause the sea to recede like some latter-day Moses.

Expect these same people to be complaining about Obama breaking this promise in this topic, before going into another topic within the next month to claim the EPA should be eliminated because it exists only a tool for Obama to attempt to strike down capitalism.
 
2012-11-28 10:42:41 AM  
3.2mm per year?

Are we sure this isn't a natural fluctuation?
 
2012-11-28 10:43:26 AM  
just wait 10 more years we will be back to the global cooling scare

greenplanetethics.com
 
2012-11-28 10:45:07 AM  
So are the environmentalists going to allow geoengineering research, or keep it banned on the grounds that an industrial solution will only encourage more industry, rather than eliminating it?
 
2012-11-28 10:45:12 AM  

HAMMERTOE: If this is true, why did Al Gore just buy oceanfront property?


Because he has THE MONEY.
 
2012-11-28 10:46:16 AM  

Sybarite: [www.dvdtimes.co.uk image 600x322]

Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!


So, walk to where the camera is you idiots!

Jebus only sends so many boats.
 
2012-11-28 10:46:42 AM  
I almost fed the troll.
 
2012-11-28 10:47:50 AM  

sodomizer: 3.2mm per year?

Are we sure this isn't a natural fluctuation?


Is this about 3.2mm? >I I

I am so afeared!
 
2012-11-28 10:49:12 AM  

Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

See, data is meaningless when it's taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here's a piece of data:

2230

Impressive,


This is the most impressive I've seen from you so far, kudos to you sir. Keep up the effort. You have made my morning, maybe I will even share this with my physics class and show them the wisdom of the internet.
 
2012-11-28 10:50:40 AM  
But the people who run the satellites say that this satellite data is messed up.
Link
 
2012-11-28 10:52:01 AM  
Scary tag is for Fark linking to Slashdot. My worlds are colliding!
 
2012-11-28 10:52:11 AM  
How can that be an unfetchable link, Fark? I fetched it. Fetch.
Link
 
2012-11-28 10:53:32 AM  
I, too, have found evidence of 2230:

upload.wikimedia.org NEVER FORGET
 
2012-11-28 10:55:42 AM  

spentmiles: In the 260 years since the Industrial Revolution, mankind has managed to destroy a 4.5 billion year old planet. Despite the negative press, you really have to marvel at our power. We are a truly unique and innovative species with more power sitting on our shoulders than all the suns in the universe. If there is life out there on other planets, I cannot imagine it even coming close to our immense strength. We shall rule the universe just as we've ruled the apes of our own planet. Bow at our feet or suffer our wrath!


Wow ... epic stupidity.

Nobody is saying the planet will be destroyed. What is happening is the planet's climate is shifting to a place that will significantly reduce how well it supports human life. The planet will be fine ... human populations will suffer significant negative affects.

If you have to put up a strawman to attack AGW then shouldn't you re-evaluate your position?Or is arguing from lies normal for you?
 
2012-11-28 10:57:01 AM  

clane: just wait 10 more years we will be back to the global cooling scare

[greenplanetethics.com image 400x527]


I found you problem ... you get your science from magazines. Only morons do that.
 
2012-11-28 10:58:35 AM  
Let's just get this out of the way:
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-28 11:00:28 AM  
I'm just waiting for this stupid species to go extinct, the planet needs new management.
 
2012-11-28 11:00:58 AM  

Farking Canuck: I found you problem ... you get your science from magazines. Only morons do that.


Well, I DO like my subscription to Scientific American (even after the format change), and I read the Economist regularly, but TIME is pretty much out of the question.
 
2012-11-28 11:01:37 AM  

spentmiles: mankind has managed to destroy a 4.5 billion year old planet.


Oh please. We haven't destroyed the earth. The earth, and life will go on just as it has for ages.
We just won't be on earth anymore. We have destroyed ourselves.
 
2012-11-28 11:03:42 AM  

Grungehamster: ...before going into another topic within the next month to claim the EPA should be eliminated because it exists only a tool for Obama to attempt to strike down capitalism.


They've done that ever since the EPA was in Jimmy Carter's hands! Other things that are an "evil socialist conspiracy to bring down capitalism" - OSHA, Peace Corps, the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Unemployment Insurance, and many others.
 
2012-11-28 11:04:01 AM  

Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

See, data is meaningless when it's taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here's a piece of data:

2230

Impressive, right? Now, if I just told you that number and said it was vitally important, what would happen? I'll tell you what: an entire realm of science would pop into being dedicated to finding out what that number means, how it impacts our life. By the time the 2230ists were finished, the Theory of 2230 would relate to everything. Then other scientists would come along and say, no, you guys are wrong, the real Theory of 2230 is *this*. And so on, and so on, and so on. That's what scientists *do*. They create meaning for things, then other scientists create another meaning, then they argue, then the government gives them grant money.

And here's the kicker: the truth is that 2230 *is* important, but each of them is just looking at it in isolation. Without understanding the big picture. They don't know how all the parts fit together, or even what the parts are. And so they're all wrong.

Don't get it? OK, let's try it this way. Let's pull back the lens a bit, subby, take a look at the situation you're describing. Water levels are rising. Oooh, scary. They're rising faster than predicted. OOOOOOH, scarier. But what happens when you increase the total amount of water in a given surface? Hm?

Volume, remember that? The water's volume increases. OK, see that's something that an oceanographer doesn't consider, because it's about math. So tell me: what happens when a water's volume increases?

That's right, very good. The water becomes heavier. Because there's more of it. Need proof? Here's an experiment for you to conduct: pick up a 5-gallon jug of water. Now pick up a 1-gallon jug. Which is heavier?

So what happens when the water's weight increases? Well, now we're into geography, another part of the big picture. The heavier water pushes down on the ocean's floor. Now, in some places, that will actually make the ocean deeper -- sort of like when the bottom of a plastic dish bows outward. In other places, though, the heavier water won't be able to actually move the floor, but will put tremendous pressure on it. TREMENDOUS pressure. And what happens when you put tremendous pressure on the earth's crust?

That's right, volcanoes. See, now we're into volcanology, which teaches us that magma, which is produced by volcanoes, is earth's building material. The pressure produced by the rising sea will force volcanic eruptions of magma to the surface, which in effect will create new land. So, even as the oceans are rising, land is rising, too. This is how planets get bigger, subby (and -- see? -- we're into astrology now). Do you think the Earth was always this same size? No! Thousands upon thousands of years ago it was much smaller. There was also a lot less water. Now we have lots of water, and lots of land. A few thousand years from now, there will be even more of both. It's the natural way of things. It's science. SCIENCE. But not science studied in isolation, subby. Science as part of the greater whole.


So what happens when the water's weight increases? Well, now we're into geography, another part of the big picture. The heavier water pushes down on the ocean's floor. Now, in some places, that will actually make the ocean deeper -- sort of like when the bottom of a plastic dish bows outward. In other places, though, the heavier water won't be able to actually move the floor, but will put tremendous pressure on it. TREMENDOUS pressure. And what happens when you put tremendous pressure on the earth's crust?

For all your going-on about "the big picture," you failed to do so yourself.

That "extra weight" already exists,in Arctic & Antarctic ice.As it melts and mingles with seawater, it will actually distribute that weight over a larger area. You're not going to get enough localized pressure to trigger a volcanic reaction.
 
2012-11-28 11:07:15 AM  

GhostfacedFiddlah: Let's just get this out of the way:


You should have posted a porn picture instead in this thread.
 
2012-11-28 11:09:14 AM  

fluffy2097: spentmiles: mankind has managed to destroy a 4.5 billion year old planet.

Oh please. We haven't destroyed the earth. The earth, and life will go on just as it has for ages.
We just won't be on earth anymore. We have destroyed ourselves.


Mission not yet accomplished.
Be happy, we are working on it.

/Git er dun
 
2012-11-28 11:10:03 AM  
clane:

just wait 10 more years we will be back to the global cooling scare

You might want to know that none of the sensationalist magazine covers you posted had anything to do with "global cooling." The upper left one was about a crunch in heating oil prices and the lower right one was about a drop in industrial production from a massive coal strike.

You wouldn't want to go around looking like you are just parroting some talking point and don't know what you're talking about.

TMYK
 
2012-11-28 11:11:53 AM  

MaliFinn: Obviously, we need to detonate the Yellowstone caldera to trigger a supervolcano and rapidly cool the Earth for 100 years or so.


GTFO. You all can stay there on the coasts and drown, since you're all too good for "fly-over country" anyway. This is OUR turf.

fluffy2097: spentmiles: mankind has managed to destroy a 4.5 billion year old planet.
Oh please. We haven't destroyed the earth. The earth, and life will go on just as it has for ages.
We just won't be on earth anymore. We have destroyed ourselves.


Oh please. It's spentmiles.
 
2012-11-28 11:15:17 AM  

spentmiles: In the 260 years since the Industrial Revolution, mankind has managed to destroy a 4.5 billion year old planet. Despite the negative press, you really have to marvel at our power. We are a truly unique and innovative species with more power sitting on our shoulders than all the suns in the universe. If there is life out there on other planets, I cannot imagine it even coming close to our immense strength. We shall rule the universe just as we've ruled the apes of our own planet. Bow at our feet or suffer our wrath!


Yep, you didn't just fail science classes AND reading classes, you never even attended them.
 
2012-11-28 11:15:24 AM  

WelldeadLink: How can that be an unfetchable link, Fark? I fetched it. Fetch.
Link


Dear sir, you have an appropriate choice for a user name .
 
2012-11-28 11:16:04 AM  
well they did just find all those new life forms in the ocean, so they will have more room now, which is good.
 
2012-11-28 11:17:20 AM  

Cythraul: Yay! Raleigh, North Carolina will finally be a port city!


Still won't be shiat to do here, but at least the beach will be closer

/Grew up in a port city, it was boring there too
 
2012-11-28 11:19:30 AM  

Kesherz: Pocket Ninja: So what happens when the water's weight increases? Well, now we're into geography, another part of the big picture. The heavier water pushes down on the ocean's floor. Now, in some places, that will actually make the ocean deeper -- sort of like when the bottom of a plastic dish bows outward. In other places, though, the heavier water won't be able to actually move the floor, but will put tremendous pressure on it. TREMENDOUS pressure. And what happens when you put tremendous pressure on the earth's crust?

For all your going-on about "the big picture," you failed to do so yourself.

That "extra weight" already exists,in Arctic & Antarctic ice.As it melts and mingles with seawater, it will actually distribute that weight over a larger area. You're not going to get enough localized pressure to trigger a volcanic reaction.


Well obviously, when that weight is removed the ground underneath "springs back", displacing the water and making it "appear" to rise. The volume of H2O is unchanged. Duh.

/Stupid Libs
 
2012-11-28 11:21:04 AM  

fluffy2097: spentmiles: mankind has managed to destroy a 4.5 billion year old planet.

Oh please. We haven't destroyed the earth. The earth, and life will go on just as it has for ages.
We just won't be on earth anymore. We have destroyed ourselves.


Not even that. Global warming, even the very direst predictions of it, won't make our species extinct. The danger is to our way of life, our organizations and that people's lives in local areas could be in jeopardy. There is danger, just not the danger of extinction.
 
2012-11-28 11:23:18 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: GhostfacedFiddlah: Let's just get this out of the way:

You should have posted a porn picture instead in this thread.


You, sir, just made my favourite list.
 
2012-11-28 11:23:59 AM  
We're gonna party like it's 2230!
 
2012-11-28 11:29:30 AM  

mongbiohazard: There is danger, just not the danger of extinction.


This. Not even close to extinction.

But that doesn't mean it won't be bad. Especially in the poor parts of the world that won't be able to handle the increased costs of food, etc.
 
2012-11-28 11:30:52 AM  
i26.photobucket.com
wanted for questioning
 
2012-11-28 11:32:50 AM  
Kesherz:

Volume, remember that? The water's volume increases. OK, see that's something that an oceanographer doesn't consider, because it's about math. So tell me: what happens when a water's volume increases?

That's right, very good. The water becomes heavier. Because there's more of it. Need proof? Here's an experiment for you to conduct: pick up a 5-gal ...


You have been around too long to fall for a pocketninja post.
 
2012-11-28 11:34:04 AM  

Cythraul: Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

See, data is meaningless when it's taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here's a piece of data:

2230

I [heart] Pocket Ninja. I am now a firm believer in 2230.


This is how religions form.

/2230 believer
//all hail Pocket Ninja
 
2012-11-28 11:35:47 AM  

Pocket Ninja: See, now we're into volcanology, which teaches us that magma, which is produced by volcanoes, is earth's building material. The pressure produced by the rising sea will force volcanic eruptions of magma to the surface, which in effect will create new land. So, even as the oceans are rising, land is rising, too. This is how planets get bigger


You magnificent bastard. I'll be willing to bet one of my clipped toenails that your entire hypothesis ends up repeated nearly word for word across climate hoaxer websites across the world for eternity.

Or at least until the data centers hosting them get flooded. 

9.9/10
 
2012-11-28 11:36:09 AM  
wow, quote fail.not used to the mobile editor.
 
2012-11-28 11:39:34 AM  

Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on...

*SNIP*


This...this is another example of why you're highlighted in green and one of my favorites.

PocketNinja is an alien brought from another planet to amuse the ever-loving shiat out of us while they take over.
 
2012-11-28 11:41:08 AM  

IlGreven: bim1154: The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are get excited about.

The last time the earth "reinvented" itself on a scale like this, the dinosaurs died out (or became chickens).


Dinosaurs were dumbshiats, plus how can get anything done with those short arms?
 
2012-11-28 11:47:35 AM  
Why do so many people still believe these computer models when every few months an announcement is made that they were wrong and that the world is actually heating up at a more rapid pace than originally predicted by the computer models? I have a strong hunch that these inaccuracies strongly correlate with the expiration of grant funding.

i1103.photobucket.com

Mercury!, Getcha red-hot Mercury today! Right here! Great for the kids! Doubles as a pesticide! Ya can't get enough Mercury! Buy today! Crappy light, but expensive! It's win-win! For us, anyway! Mercury! All you suckers fine people just line up right over there for ya Mercury!
 
2012-11-28 11:48:29 AM  
I'm just happy to have been here for the birth of the 2230 movement.
 
2012-11-28 11:49:43 AM  
Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be hundreds of thousands of climate change refuges by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be more frequent hurricanes? On that note, are these the same researches who run forward after every single solitary weather related disaster to proclaim that this is "climate change" even if its contradictory to what they said the last time?

I'm still laughing over the fact that lack of snowfall in a particular area of Canada was "climate change" but then massive snow fall just a few months later in a portion of the United States was "just weather, not climate".
 
2012-11-28 11:49:52 AM  

Farking Canuck: mongbiohazard: There is danger, just not the danger of extinction.

This. Not even close to extinction.

But that doesn't mean it won't be bad. Especially in the poor parts of the world that won't be able to handle the increased costs of food, etc.


Don't expect the "rich" parts to be immune. More hungry poor people likely means more instability and insecurity for the not-hungry rich folks.
 
2012-11-28 11:50:13 AM  

CornerPocket: Why do so many people still believe these computer models when every few months an announcement is made that they were wrong and that the world is actually heating up at a more rapid pace than originally predicted by the computer models? I have a strong hunch that these inaccuracies strongly correlate with the expiration of grant funding.

[i1103.photobucket.com image 280x280]

Mercury!, Getcha red-hot Mercury today! Right here! Great for the kids! Doubles as a pesticide! Ya can't get enough Mercury! Buy today! Crappy light, but expensive! It's win-win! For us, anyway! Mercury! All you suckers fine people just line up right over there for ya Mercury!


You know who tells us that mercury is bad for us? Scientists!! You know ... the same ones that say AGW is real.

Why do you feel mercury is bad if scientists are all lying scumbags scamming for their next grant?!?
 
2012-11-28 11:59:41 AM  

randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?


Nope. Worst case scenarios are not actually proposed as likely. If scientists do not list what is possible and the unlikely extreme actually happens, Luddites like yourself get all pitchforky. See recent events in Italy.

Predictions are made with ranges usually with Gaussian distributions. This means that the center of the range of the prediction and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely.
 
2012-11-28 12:01:22 PM  
But only twice a day.
 
2012-11-28 12:05:23 PM  
Spentmiles you never cease to amaze me in your abilities to snare dumb asses. I applaud you sir.
 
2012-11-28 12:13:32 PM  

LovingTeacher: Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.

See, data is meaningless when it's taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here's a piece of data:

2230

Impressive,

This is the most impressive I've seen from you so far, kudos to you sir. Keep up the effort. You have made my morning, maybe I will even share this with my physics class and show them the wisdom of the internet.


2230 is just plagarizing the '42' concept from HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy.

/lazy
 
2012-11-28 12:19:50 PM  
s1.djyimg.com

F*ck!
 
2012-11-28 12:21:21 PM  
Then stop farking around and build nuke power plants. Jeez.
 
2012-11-28 12:25:13 PM  
t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-28 12:27:53 PM  
www.proscoinc.com
 
2012-11-28 12:34:03 PM  

Farking Canuck: randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Nope. Worst case scenarios are not actually proposed as likely. If scientists do not list what is possible and the unlikely extreme actually happens, Luddites like yourself get all pitchforky. See recent events in Italy.

Predictions are made with ranges usually with Gaussian distributions. This means that the center of the range of the prediction and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely.


So then we're not going to have extreme climate changes? Cool - we can all relax then!
 
2012-11-28 12:35:50 PM  

imtheonlylp: Awesome! The world WON'T be taken over by Zombies, because everyone knows they can't swim!


Don't some movies depict them simply walking along the bottoms of lakes etc. till they finally walk right out on the other side though?

It's not like they need to breathe.

So this probably won't prevent the world from being taken over by Zombies.

Just sayin'. . .

/pro-tip: it's already happened
//no one even noticed
 
2012-11-28 12:37:52 PM  
Bull(cough)
 
2012-11-28 12:39:26 PM  
the planet doesn't give a shiat.. it's the honey badger

we however do sorta kinda care about conditions on the planet we have to live on.
 
2012-11-28 12:40:09 PM  
"What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
"Ask a glass of water!"


Since were looking all smart with quoting Hitchhikers.
 
2012-11-28 01:01:25 PM  
so where is all those H2O stealing aliens when you need them...
 
2012-11-28 01:04:14 PM  

Onkel Buck: Cythraul: Yay! Raleigh, North Carolina will finally be a port city!

Still won't be shiat to do here, but at least the beach will be closer

/Grew up in a port city, it was boring there too


Maybe you should log off Fark and go outside more often. I found plenty to do when I lived in Raleigh. Tons of stuff to do in Wilmington too, but I guess it's a matter of perspective.
 
2012-11-28 01:04:43 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: starsrift: Oh, fark, two GW threads posted to Main already, and it's not even noon.

It's going to be one of those days.


I'm gonna need more liquor.

Pick me up some rum while you are there... something nice... mixable, sip-able, but not to expensive... maybe:

[ecx.images-amazon.com image 300x300]


With the topic at hand, maybe Kraken would be more appropriate.
 
2012-11-28 01:04:57 PM  
Fark will miss Florida when it's gone.
 
2012-11-28 01:05:27 PM  

Farking Canuck: CornerPocket: Why do so many people still believe these computer models when every few months an announcement is made that they were wrong and that the world is actually heating up at a more rapid pace than originally predicted by the computer models? I have a strong hunch that these inaccuracies strongly correlate with the expiration of grant funding.

[i1103.photobucket.com image 280x280]

Mercury!, Getcha red-hot Mercury today! Right here! Great for the kids! Doubles as a pesticide! Ya can't get enough Mercury! Buy today! Crappy light, but expensive! It's win-win! For us, anyway! Mercury! All you suckers fine people just line up right over there for ya Mercury!

You know who tells us that mercury is bad for us? Scientists!! You know ... the same ones that say AGW is real.

Why do you feel mercury is bad if scientists are all lying scumbags scamming for their next grant?!?



Didn't say all of 'em were. Some are. Just like policemen, office workers, landscape architects, and every other segment of society. I knew a medicinal chemistry professor from India who was the smartest and most honest human being I ever met. Nevertheless, anybody who tells you that the research on climate change is refined enough to inform public policy today is just wrong or a very wishful thinker. Hence all the revisions. I don't deny the research is potentially useful, but it's in its infancy and has no real predictive power yet. Again, I believe this due to all the revisions that have consistently appeared. Yet the scam artists are trying to use this quite incomplete and impractical data to drive policy, frighten people for their own gain (because that's what such people always do), and make a few bucks in the process. Also, the toxicity of mercury is easily demonstrable and repeatable in any decently appointed pharmacology lab. Not so with climate change. That doesn't invalidate climate science, it just makes it much fuzzier (and less well developed) than toxicology. That Washington would allow such a product to hit the market makes me very uncomfortable. Ultimately, though, I think this will turn out like the common cold. Nobody's trying to find a cure for it anymore, like they used to. At least according to what I read. There is no way to predict effectively the level and direction of the antigenic shifts and drifts of the garden-variety rhinovirus over time. Climate change ultimately will turn out the same, IMHO. No collection of people, no matter how smart, are going to be able to predict the behavior of any system as complex as the Earth's climate. As Yogi Berra said: "Predictions are tricky, especially when they involve the future."

E=mc2. = science. Nuclear reactors in good repair behave exactly as predicted by relativity theory, at least to the limits of the uncertainty principle.

"I can tell you how hot the world will be in 100 years. Cause that's what my computer program says." = not so much.


Well played, though. I had to work on that response for much longer than ususal. 

BTW, I love Canada. Especially PEI. My wife and I used to travel there every summer. Now, with the kids, it's a lot harder. Nicest people I ever met were the locals on that Island.

MD apointment in a little while, must go. Thanks everybody
 
2012-11-28 01:05:47 PM  

randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be hundreds of thousands of climate change refuges by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be more frequent hurricanes? On that note, are these the same researches who run forward after every single solitary weather related disaster to proclaim that this is "climate change" even if its contradictory to what they said the last time?

I'm still laughing over the fact that lack of snowfall in a particular area of Canada was "climate change" but then massive snow fall just a few months later in a portion of the United States was "just weather, not climate".


Right. Statistically speaking - all scientists in fields relating to the environment agree :
1). Climate change exists
2). Humans are the primary cause of global warming
3). This does not end well.

But because there isn't a consensus on the rate at which things end badly, obviously science is wrong?
 
2012-11-28 01:11:35 PM  

CornerPocket: Farking Canuck: CornerPocket: Why do so many people still believe these computer models when every few months an announcement is made that they were wrong and that the world is actually heating up at a more rapid pace than originally predicted by the computer models? I have a strong hunch that these inaccuracies strongly correlate with the expiration of grant funding.

[i1103.photobucket.com image 280x280]

Mercury!, Getcha red-hot Mercury today! Right here! Great for the kids! Doubles as a pesticide! Ya can't get enough Mercury! Buy today! Crappy light, but expensive! It's win-win! For us, anyway! Mercury! All you suckers fine people just line up right over there for ya Mercury!

You know who tells us that mercury is bad for us? Scientists!! You know ... the same ones that say AGW is real.

Why do you feel mercury is bad if scientists are all lying scumbags scamming for their next grant?!?


Didn't say all of 'em were. Some are. Just like policemen, office workers, landscape architects, and every other segment of society. I knew a medicinal chemistry professor from India who was the smartest and most honest human being I ever met. Nevertheless, anybody who tells you that the research on climate change is refined enough to inform public policy today is just wrong or a very wishful thinker. Hence all the revisions. I don't deny the research is potentially useful, but it's in its infancy and has no real predictive power yet. Again, I believe this due to all the revisions that have consistently appeared. Yet the scam artists are trying to use this quite incomplete and impractical data to drive policy, frighten people for their own gain (because that's what such people always do), and make a few bucks in the process. Also, the toxicity of mercury is easily demonstrable and repeatable in any decently appointed pharmacology lab. Not so with climate change. That doesn't invalidate climate science, it just makes it much fuzzier (and less well developed) than toxicology. That Washington would allow such a product to hit the market makes me very uncomfortable. Ultimately, though, I think this will turn out like the common cold. Nobody's trying to find a cure for it anymore, like they used to. At least according to what I read. There is no way to predict effectively the level and direction of the antigenic shifts and drifts of the garden-variety rhinovirus over time. Climate change ultimately will turn out the same, IMHO. No collection of people, no matter how smart, are going to be able to predict the behavior of any system as complex as the Earth's climate. As Yogi Berra said: "Predictions are tricky, especially when they involve the future."

E=mc2. = science. Nuclear reactors in good repair behave exactly as predicted by relativity theory, at least to the limits of the uncertainty principle.

"I can tell you how hot the world will be in 100 years. Cause that's what my computer program says." = not so much.


Well played, though. I had to work on that response for much longer than ususal. 

BTW, I love Canada. Especially PEI. My wife and I used to travel there every summer. Now, with the kids, it's a lot harder. Nicest people I ever met were the locals on that Island.

MD apointment in a little while, must go. Thanks everybody


Again...

Statistically speaking, all scientists (in fields related to the environment) agree:
1). Climate change exists
2). Humans are the primary cause of global warming.
3). This is going to end badly.

But because they can't all agree as to what degree it will end badly, we shouldn't be talking about ways to mitigate our contributions to climate change?

That's absurd . The scientific community isn't calling on everyone to go vegan, ride bicycles, and shower less. They're saying we need to develop plans for green energy and consume less resources. These goals are relevant even if climate change doesn't pan out the way Model 132A predicts.
 
2012-11-28 01:16:21 PM  
This is a problem that the Combine could easily help us with.
farm8.staticflickr.com

That, and overpopulation.
 
2012-11-28 01:21:24 PM  

fortheloveofgod: Farking Canuck: randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Nope. Worst case scenarios are not actually proposed as likely. If scientists do not list what is possible and the unlikely extreme actually happens, Luddites like yourself get all pitchforky. See recent events in Italy.

Predictions are made with ranges usually with Gaussian distributions. This means that the center of the range of the prediction and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely.

So then we're not going to have extreme climate changes? Cool - we can all relax then!


Ummm ... is that how you read that?? No wonder there is such an anti-science movement in the USA. You apparently have absolutely no understanding of statistics used to report most phenomena.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov
 
2012-11-28 01:37:39 PM  

Farking Canuck: fortheloveofgod: Farking Canuck: randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Nope. Worst case scenarios are not actually proposed as likely. If scientists do not list what is possible and the unlikely extreme actually happens, Luddites like yourself get all pitchforky. See recent events in Italy.

Predictions are made with ranges usually with Gaussian distributions. This means that the center of the range of the prediction and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely.

So then we're not going to have extreme climate changes? Cool - we can all relax then!

Ummm ... is that how you read that?? No wonder there is such an anti-science movement in the USA. You apparently have absolutely no understanding of statistics used to report most phenomena.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov


Your exact words were "...and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely. (emphasis mine)
 
2012-11-28 01:53:16 PM  

MythDragon: This is a problem that the Combine could easily help us with.


media.giantbomb.com

The Combine?
 
2012-11-28 01:58:40 PM  
Is there a Spentmiles/PocketNinja Tracker showing how many they fished in today? Looks like record-breaking territory.
 
2012-11-28 02:03:56 PM  

fortheloveofgod:

Your exact words were "...and the extreme that you keep harping on and on about is actually highly unlikely. (emphasis mine)


Fair enough ... I see where your confusion is now. You are conflating my use of 'extreme' referring to the edge of the statistical distribution with the use of extreme as an adjective to describe possible future climates.

Pretty much all of the range of predicted climate is bad except the extreme low end (there's that word again!!). At what point 'bad' climate change is considered 'extremely bad' depends on the person ... for some this may be when food prices rise 30% and for others it may be when large numbers of fatalities start. It is arbitrary but it is on that bell curve somewhere.
 
2012-11-28 02:04:59 PM  

elchupacabra: Is there a Spentmiles/PocketNinja Tracker showing how many they fished in today? Looks like record-breaking territory.


I sure wished there was. Not sure if this was a record breaker for Spentmiles. I know some months back, I wished I could remember which thread, that one had to have been a record breaker for him. I was in awe.
 
2012-11-28 02:05:50 PM  
Um, yeah, multiple sources say that sea level rise is decelerating. Just google it. Look at the satellite data. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shiat.
 
2012-11-28 02:10:57 PM  
Are we really linking to a /. story that links to a Reuters "whoever wants it print it" piece? Ok /. comments are more informative than Reuters I guess, maybe I can see it.
 
2012-11-28 02:12:00 PM  

3rotor: so where is all those H2O stealing aliens when you need them...


They were going to steal our water, but as they were pulling into the solar system the aliens noticed there were whole moons and dwarf planets made up mostly of ice (with the bonus of being entirely uncontaminated by potentially harmful lifeforms). While they were out there conducting a low-risk ice mining operation, the aliens grabbed a few asteroids containing more precious metals than have ever been mined in the entirety of human history, because they needed gold and stuff...for some reason.
 
2012-11-28 02:24:58 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: starsrift: Oh, fark, two GW threads posted to Main already, and it's not even noon.

It's going to be one of those days.


I'm gonna need more liquor.

Pick me up some rum while you are there... something nice... mixable, sip-able, but not to expensive... maybe:

ecx.images-amazon.com



What's everybody on these threads got against absinthe?
(cat eyes at link follow cursor)

www.absinthes.com

www.originalabsinthe.com

Is everyone diabetic and can't handle melting sugar cubes or something? 
www.grapesandgrainsnyc.com

Some strange aversion to green faeries?
cdn2-b.examiner.com

Mmmmmmm . . . heavy fog swirling outside, the fragrance of a crackling fire, Fark tales of approaching doom reaching for all . . .ah, . . .it's an absinthe morning, an absinthe mourning . . . mmmmmm . . .

upload.wikimedia.org

upload.wikimedia.org

"The sadness will last forever."

 
2012-11-28 02:31:25 PM  

WelldeadLink: But the people who run the satellites say that this satellite data is messed up.
Link



Meh. . . What do they know?
 
2012-11-28 02:40:59 PM  

randomjsa: Are these the same researchers who said we would have no snow by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be hundreds of thousands of climate change refuges by this point?

Are these the same researches who said there would be more frequent hurricanes? On that note, are these the same researches who run forward after every single solitary weather related disaster to proclaim that this is "climate change" even if its contradictory to what they said the last time?



No. These are DIFFERENT researchers.
 
2012-11-28 02:46:06 PM  

Cythraul: MythDragon: This is a problem that the Combine could easily help us with.

[media.giantbomb.com image 850x680]

The Combine?


bulk.destructoid.com
The Combine.
 
2012-11-28 02:54:19 PM  

GhostfacedFiddlah: Let's just get this out of the way:
[i.imgur.com image 461x382]


No, let's just get THIS out of the way:
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-11-28 02:56:47 PM  

Farking Canuck: Luddites like yourself get all pitchforky.


Hilarious!

/Am stealing this.
 
2012-11-28 03:05:00 PM  
Pocket Ninja's 2230 is really 1^V110 in binary, think about that for a moment.

Then you might think 22:30 as in Matthew 22:30-- "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven."

Or you may have thought in hexadecimal it's 8B6, which may be the last half of a Canadian postal code for Nisku, a hamlet Alberta, Canada

Then Hamlet reminds you of either Denmark or Shakespeare..........................and so it goes on

2230, a very serious number
 
2012-11-28 03:22:08 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-28 03:25:53 PM  

Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns...
...Do you think the Earth was always this same size? No! Thousands upon thousands of years ago it was much smaller. There was also a lot less water. Now we have lots of water, and lots of land. A few thousand years from now, there will be even more of both. It's the natural way of things. It's science. SCIENCE. But not science studied in isolation, subby. Science as part of the greater whole.



Anyone else read all that in Cave Johnson's voice?
 
2012-11-28 03:42:01 PM  

HAMMERTOE: If this is true, why did Al Gore just buy oceanfront property?


Because NOBODY who promotes the global warming cause is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

cwheelie: It's a brand new album for 1990....


obscure?


Nope, it`s their brand new album.
 
2012-11-28 05:21:11 PM  
dready zim:

HAMMERTOE: If this is true, why did Al Gore just buy oceanfront property?

Because NOBODY who promotes the global warming cause is willing to put their money where their mouth is.


Say, you kids wouldn't be talking about this place, would you?

I'm told it has a nice ocean *VIEW*, given that it's over 150 meters above sea level in the hills of Montecito.

You guys can't even get your ALGOOOOORE!!! talking points straight.
 
2012-11-28 05:29:16 PM  
Pocket Ninja is right on target.
Modern day catastrophists keep predicting doom and death
and it's JUST ABOUT TO HAPPEN

and then...on to the next scare.

a fool and his money are soon parted
 
2012-11-28 07:18:55 PM  
Goodbye, New York City.
 
2012-11-28 07:43:25 PM  
Nope, it's still at sea level, Submittard.
 
2012-11-28 07:50:06 PM  
.

102.mlsimages.movoto.com
 
2012-11-28 08:28:30 PM  

Pocket Ninja: The problem with these "OMG the sky is falling" climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.


That was beautiful!

/2230
 
2012-11-28 08:30:58 PM  
www.electronic-spare-parts.com
 
2012-11-28 08:50:37 PM  
I just want to make one statement. Not everything fix a Gaussian curve.
 
2012-11-28 09:15:27 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: I just want to make one statement. Not everything fix a Gaussian curve.


Assuming you meant 'fits', you are correct. Although, in this situation, I would word it as: a Gaussian curve does not necessarily describe the probability of all outcomes of a prediction model.

That said, the Gaussian curve is the most likely distribution of predictions without some kind of limiting force shifting it ... which is why I am assuming it describes the situation in this case. Even if it is not completely accurate the actual curve is still likely close to the bell curve with a possible shift of the center line.

This still supports my suggestion that the extreme predictions (both at the high end and the low end) are unlikely to occur. That the average global temperature we get will be pretty close to the center of the predicted range. Which may still produce extreme climate shifts as per fortheloveofgod's comment but will not result in the most dire predictions which were 'worst case scenarios'.

tldr: The assertions by deniers that, since the absolute worst case scenarios didn't happen, then the predictions must all be wrong is simply bad logic not supported by the statistics. They were never suggested as likely ... just possible.
 
2012-11-28 09:28:42 PM  

IlGreven: bim1154: The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are get excited about.

The last time the earth "reinvented" itself on a scale like this, the dinosaurs died out (or became chickens).


Some became ostrich and those damn fine eatin. Close to dino meat as you can get.
 
2012-11-28 09:41:26 PM  

FunkOut: IlGreven: bim1154: The earth just reinvents itself on a regular basis. Nothing to see here are get excited about.

The last time the earth "reinvented" itself on a scale like this, the dinosaurs died out (or became chickens).

Some became ostrich and those damn fine eatin. Close to dino meat as you can get.


As close as you can get to dino meat? Methinks you have forgotten about the crocodile and it is also damn fine eatin.
 
2012-11-28 10:16:13 PM  
i651.photobucket.com

*cackle*
 
2012-11-28 10:16:44 PM  

maxheck: clane:

just wait 10 more years we will be back to the global cooling scare

You might want to know that none of the sensationalist magazine covers you posted had anything to do with "global cooling." The upper left one was about a crunch in heating oil prices and the lower right one was about a drop in industrial production from a massive coal strike.

You wouldn't want to go around looking like you are just parroting some talking point and don't know what you're talking about.

TMYK


1974 Time Magazine article
June 24, 1974 issue, Time presented an article titled Another Ice Age? that noted "the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades"

An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek magazine was titled "The Cooling World" it pointed to "ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change and pointed to a drop in temp1972 and 1974 National Science Board

The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/newsweeks-1975-article-about-the-c o ming-ice-age

I don't know why you didn't also include this link: YOU CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO BE SEEN AS LYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

 
2012-11-28 10:18:09 PM  

GhostfacedFiddlah: Let's just get this out of the way:
[i.imgur.com image 461x382]



then why lie?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-che a ting-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/
 
2012-11-28 10:34:46 PM  
clane:

then why lie?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-che a ting-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/


That's easy... The reason the Global Warming Policy Foundation (who made the graph forming the basis for that blog post you're posting) lies is because they are an astroturf organization with ties to Exxon / Mobil.

That is why they lie. You didn't know that?

Also... The covers you posted in your OP had nothing at all to do with global cooling, you obviously haven't even taken a cursory look into the crud you're posting, you just went out and googled something to make it look as if you knew what you were talking about and hadn't just rushed to post some copypasta you found on the internet. I pointed that out a lot more gently than you deserved.
 
2012-11-29 01:27:15 AM  
But barry told me that he would LOWER the oceans if we elected him!
 
2012-11-29 05:00:50 AM  
Fish_Fight!:

But barry told me that he would LOWER the oceans if we elected him!

And the dumbass media you believed in convinced you to post here with the conviction that sea-level rises weren't happening.

Who played you worse?
 
2012-11-29 05:19:20 AM  
An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.
...
The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[32] possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."[33] It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion, though this model is recent and controversial.
...
According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not.[38]
 
2012-11-29 05:32:23 AM  
Dadoody:

An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.
...
The next well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which glacial ice sheets reached the equator,[32] possibly being ended by the accumulation of greenhouse gases such as CO2 produced by volcanoes. "The presence of ice on the continents and pack ice on the oceans would inhibit both silicate weathering and photosynthesis, which are the two major sinks for CO2 at present."[33] It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion, though this model is recent and controversial.
...
According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not.[38]


Was there a point there, or were you just practicing cut and paste on your new computer?
 
2012-11-29 10:25:22 AM  

maxheck: clane:

then why lie?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-che a ting-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

That's easy... The reason the Global Warming Policy Foundation (who made the graph forming the basis for that blog post you're posting) lies is because they are an astroturf organization with ties to Exxon / Mobil.

That is why they lie. You didn't know that?

Also... The covers you posted in your OP had nothing at all to do with global cooling, you obviously haven't even taken a cursory look into the crud you're posting, you just went out and googled something to make it look as if you knew what you were talking about and hadn't just rushed to post some copypasta you found on the internet. I pointed that out a lot more gently than you deserved.



I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world. Can you tell me if you also believe

A) Republicans are at war against women
B) Big Bird would not survive without our tax dollars
C) Increasing taxes will actually help the economy
D) Republicans are against Susan Rice because of her race or gender
E) We are in the middle of Global Warming despite Record snowfall in La and Tx last year
F) All of the above

i could keep going but it just gets so funny and sad from a non sheep perspective.
 
2012-11-29 10:44:37 AM  

clane: I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world.


So what you are saying is that you feel that it is more likely that a world-wide conspiracy of scientists is more likely than multi-billion dollar corporations spreading dis-information to protect profits.

/and you call other people sheep
 
2012-11-29 11:22:32 AM  

clane: maxheck: clane:

then why lie?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100114292/lying-che a ting-climate-scientists-caught-lying-cheating-again/

That's easy... The reason the Global Warming Policy Foundation (who made the graph forming the basis for that blog post you're posting) lies is because they are an astroturf organization with ties to Exxon / Mobil.

That is why they lie. You didn't know that?

Also... The covers you posted in your OP had nothing at all to do with global cooling, you obviously haven't even taken a cursory look into the crud you're posting, you just went out and googled something to make it look as if you knew what you were talking about and hadn't just rushed to post some copypasta you found on the internet. I pointed that out a lot more gently than you deserved.


I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world. Can you tell me if you also believe

A) Republicans are at war against women
B) Big Bird would not survive without our tax dollars
C) Increasing taxes will actually help the economy
D) Republicans are against Susan Rice because of her race or gender
E) We are in the middle of Global Warming despite Record snowfall in La and Tx last year
F) All of the above

i could keep going but it just gets so funny and sad from a non sheep perspective.


Middle???
I was told by your fearless leaders that this is just the beginning and we are looking forward to the Rapture point of no return where the oceans rise to Denver.
This is not two things in one, this is bullchit.
If you farking GOP sycophants don't dump the Christian Taliban that has hijacked the GOP, you are doomed to irrelevance.
 
2012-11-29 07:47:39 PM  

clane: I don't know why you didn't also include this link: YOU CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO BE SEEN AS LYING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.


No, but you certainly want to be seen as lying against global warming.
 
2012-11-29 09:00:29 PM  

Farking Canuck: clane: I live in Texas and we just don't have as many sheep down here as most states. i have never spoken with someone that actually believes in Global Warming or that ExxonMobil controls the world.

So what you are saying is that you feel that it is more likely that a world-wide conspiracy of scientists is more likely than multi-billion dollar corporations spreading dis-information to protect profits.

/and you call other people sheep


Again then why do scientists lie and lie again? And explain record snow fall during global warming... Wake up my god it is sad you ding bats will believe anything. It's okay though big Bird is safe now.
 
2012-11-29 11:25:24 PM  

clane: Again then why do scientists lie and lie again? And explain record snow fall during global warming... Wake up my god it is sad you ding bats will believe anything. It's okay though big Bird is safe now.


Wow ... weapon's grade stupid.

You are not worth the effort. Your lies were debunked 10 years ago.

You are way out of date on your talking points.
 
Displayed 143 of 143 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report