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.

(Daily Mail)   Britain faces coldest winter in 100 years due to (spins wheel). Ah, global warming   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 244
    More: Interesting, Britain, Local Government Association, Lake District, North Yorkshire, side streets, hundreds, floods  
•       •       •

5046 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 12:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-29 12:42:55 AM
The Gulf Stream, how does it farking work?
 
2012-11-29 12:57:39 AM
I think it's called "Global Climate Change."
 
2012-11-29 12:58:22 AM

cretinbob: The Gulf Stream, how does it farking work?


Exactly. Get ready for more of this as melting ice caps fark with the ocean currents.
 
2012-11-29 01:01:50 AM
Those sunset pictures are really good.
 
2012-11-29 01:05:15 AM
No one ever blames good weather on Global Warming...
:(
 
2012-11-29 01:05:44 AM
Britain faces coldest winter in 100 years due to (spins wheela model that has been predicted for the last 20 years). Ah, global warming
 
2012-11-29 01:08:05 AM
First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.
 
2012-11-29 01:08:18 AM
Apparently, a large enough influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic due to melting ice could potentially put a complete halt to the Gulf Stream. If that happens the, ironically, global warming could trigger an ice age.
 
2012-11-29 01:08:30 AM
Global Climate Change is the perfect scam. It cannot be proved false. Too warm? Global Climate Change. Too Cold? Global Climate Change. Inconvenient climate? Oh, that's just weather, dummy!

LOL!
 
2012-11-29 01:08:58 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-29 01:09:39 AM
This just in... one in a hundred year events happen about every hundred years.
 
2012-11-29 01:09:53 AM
I remember reading 20 some odd years ago that climate change might disrupt oceanic currents possibly causing another mini ice age in Europe. So, cool tag?
 
2012-11-29 01:09:57 AM
brace yourselves, winter is coming
 
2012-11-29 01:11:41 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Well all the science you provided is very convincing.
 
2012-11-29 01:12:51 AM

johnperkins: The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


That's right, because mountains of evidence disappear in the glare of weasel-y words.
 
2012-11-29 01:13:02 AM

bookman: Global Climate Change is the perfect scam. It cannot be proved false. Too warm? Global Climate Change. Too Cold? Global Climate Change. Inconvenient climate? Oh, that's just weather, dummy!

LOL!


www.coolgizmotoys.com
 
2012-11-29 01:13:14 AM
FTFA: Temperatures could fall to as low as minus 3°c (27°f) in some places, with snow already falling in the Pennines.


27 degrees? Really? Grow a pair, you ninnies.
 
2012-11-29 01:13:17 AM
FDR Jones: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 311x400]

That is one hideous man.
 
2012-11-29 01:17:57 AM
UKs winters getting colder do to climate change has been documented for years now. When the ice forms and melts each year it contributes to the Thermohaline circulation that brings warm water up to the UK from the S.Atlantic. less ice formation towards the poles means less warm water up near UK to keep her warm this time of year. Sucks for our cousins across the pond.
 
2012-11-29 01:18:01 AM

DemDave: FTFA: Temperatures could fall to as low as minus 3°c (27°f) in some places, with snow already falling in the Pennines.


27 degrees? Really? Grow a pair, you ninnies.


Is that even a real temperature? It dropped down to the low 50s the other night. I brought in my outdoor thermometer so it wouldn't get too cold.
 
2012-11-29 01:18:04 AM
Um, I think that's Rod Stewart.
 
2012-11-29 01:18:28 AM
I thought there weren't going to be anymore wintesr in the UK.
 
2012-11-29 01:19:11 AM
For some reason, I heard that headline in Jeff Goldblum's voice.
 
2012-11-29 01:19:12 AM
*winters
 
2012-11-29 01:20:46 AM

ComicBookGuy: FDR Jones: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 311x400]

That is one hideous man.


Who has had more p^ssy than you could ever dream of.
 
2012-11-29 01:21:58 AM
I sure hope those hikers don't trigger an avalanche.

/all two inches of it
 
2012-11-29 01:22:47 AM

richard_1963: If that happens the, ironically, global warming could trigger an ice age.


Cool, then we would have saber toothed tigers and mastadons again. I have my pointed stick ready.
 
2012-11-29 01:24:32 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: No one ever blames good weather on Global Warming...
:(


We had a *great* winter in Michigan last year. As in, we really... didn't have one. I was digging in clay soil in effing January. Great for me.

Really sucked for most of the farmers here, because that beautifully unseasonably warm weather caused apple and cherries and damn near anything else we have here you don't start from seed to begin growth early... and then got killed by a snap frost that wasn't even really a snap if I remember correctly in the historical sense... it historically made sense. Just not last year.

Great for me other than Michigan fruit costing way more than it used to (yeah that sucks). Really sucks for the farmers and people who make products with those crops and who profit from festivals celebrating those crops etc...

/yeah, climate change
//happening
///you are not a freaking brilliant scientific mind and "it don't sound right" doesn't mean it isn't true 

img.gawkerassets.com
 
2012-11-29 01:25:29 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.



Global Warming: accurate description of what is occurring (the global aggregate temperature is increasing)
Climate Change: accurate description and EFFECT of Global Warming
Climate Instability: who the fark used this?

Might i suggest you actually know what the fark you're talking about before you ever open your mouth again

just a suggestion.
 
2012-11-29 01:25:36 AM

DeadBaby: cretinbob: The Gulf Stream, how does it farking work?

Exactly. Get ready for more of this as melting ice caps fark with the ocean currents.


[Reputable scientific] citation needed
 
2012-11-29 01:26:48 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: AverageAmericanGuy: No one ever blames good weather on Global Warming...
:(

We had a *great* winter in Michigan last year. As in, we really... didn't have one. I was digging in clay soil in effing January. Great for me.

Really sucked for most of the farmers here, because that beautifully unseasonably warm weather caused apple and cherries and damn near anything else we have here you don't start from seed to begin growth early... and then got killed by a snap frost that wasn't even really a snap if I remember correctly in the historical sense... it historically made sense. Just not last year.

Great for me other than Michigan fruit costing way more than it used to (yeah that sucks). Really sucks for the farmers and people who make products with those crops and who profit from festivals celebrating those crops etc...

/yeah, climate change
//happening
///you are not a freaking brilliant scientific mind and "it don't sound right" doesn't mean it isn't true 

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x405]


the Tulip Festival in Pella, IA got farked over too - everything was too early.

but that's ok.. fark PELLA.
 
2012-11-29 01:27:06 AM
If they would just switch back from Metric to Imperial, it would be about 32 degrees warmer.
 
2012-11-29 01:28:12 AM

Notabunny: Is that even a real temperature? It dropped down to the low 50s the other night. I brought in my outdoor thermometer so it wouldn't get too cold.


The high here today was 52. And for November, that's actually pretty damn warm. Always a few weeks in January/February where it doesn't get out of the teens (single digits or worse at night).

And there's plenty of people in more northerly climes that would call me a ninny for complaining about THAT, too. As they should.
 
2012-11-29 01:29:53 AM

opiumpoopy: DeadBaby: cretinbob: The Gulf Stream, how does it farking work?

Exactly. Get ready for more of this as melting ice caps fark with the ocean currents.

[Reputable scientific] citation needed


Do these count?
 
2012-11-29 01:30:00 AM
Global warming can cause cold temperatures in the same way that a speeding car can cause sudden deceleration.
 
2012-11-29 01:31:01 AM
woo.
here in Albuquerque, it got down to -17fahrenheit last February. Saw bunch of D.R Horton homes (cheap) with flooded floors when the pipes broke on thawing. I freaked when our faucets outside froze, but no damage when they thawed. Used faucet covers and everything.
/Lucky.
/Have a Pulte, with 6" walls.
 
2012-11-29 01:31:49 AM

thursdaypostal: Global warming can cause cold temperatures in the same way that a speeding car can cause sudden deceleration.


So that is a "i don't know how this works and i don't believe it so i'm going to make an absurd sounding statement and try to portray it as analogy".


Convection ... how does that shiat work?
Temperature flow, you can't explain that!
 
2012-11-29 01:33:10 AM

Ex-Texan: woo.
here in Albuquerque, it got down to -17fahrenheit last February. Saw bunch of D.R Horton homes (cheap) with flooded floors when the pipes broke on thawing. I freaked when our faucets outside froze, but no damage when they thawed. Used faucet covers and everything.
/Lucky.
/Have a Pulte, with 6" walls.


surprisingly the local contractor for D.R. Horton in Puget Sound seems to not build shiat. not that i bought from them, i bought from one of the local builders.

/WA has much stricter building codes.
 
2012-11-29 01:36:19 AM
Nice jerb, subtard.

The words "global warming" appear nowhere in TFA.

Meanwhile, here's your chance to submit questions for an interview with the notorious Dr. Michael Mann, himself, to be taped Friday. Difficulty for deniers: Please keep your questions short and respectful and focused on climate science.
 
2012-11-29 01:37:24 AM
Ask NJ & NY. What could go wrong?
 
2012-11-29 01:39:21 AM

FDR Jones: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 311x400]


* clap clap clap *

Was the first thing to come to my mind as well.
 
2012-11-29 01:39:31 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto:
[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x405]


Neither makes any sense. Global petroleum demand is constantly increasing, and no one has to bribe anyone to keep selling shiat tonnes of it, or keep prices up.

I think the most likely explanation is that the vast majority of people worldwide simply don't care one way or the other, and continue burning fossil fuels, and eating meat as a matter of course. It's just a given. They aren't evil, or in on a global conspiracy, or "deniers", or whatever. They simply would rather have meat diet and easy lifestyle than worry about climate change.
 
2012-11-29 01:41:49 AM
I think the quote in the documentary "The Corporation" best sums it up.

(I paraphrase)

"In the last 75 years, mankind has consumed and burned more resources than in the entire history of the Earth combined".

The Earth has been around for approximately 4.5 billion years. A lot has happened in that time, certainly. But consider that in a time span of only 75 years, a blink of an eye in comparison with the age of the planet, we have burned more gas, more diesel, clear-cut more forests and polluted more air to travel trillions of miles in planes, cars, trains and buses. And in that same span we have industrialized vast swaths of the planet for the sole purpose of producing stuff.

And there are those that would have us believe that this utterly unprecedented impact to the environment has had no consequence whatsoever.

Really.
 
2012-11-29 01:50:14 AM
El Nineo?
New Coke?
Katrina?
Superstorm Sandy?
 
2012-11-29 01:50:17 AM
Its -30C outside where I am right now, hard to find any sympathy for -2
 
2012-11-29 01:53:00 AM
So wait - on November 29, it's three degrees below freezing in a country that's completely north of Maine and whose northern provinces are on the same latitude as southern Alaska? Stop the presses.
 
2012-11-29 01:54:36 AM

Kazan: johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Global Warming: accurate description of what is occurring (the global aggregate temperature is increasing)
Climate Change: accurate description and EFFECT of Global Warming
Climate Instability: who the fark used this?

Might i suggest you actually know what the fark you're talking about before you ever open your mouth again

just a suggestion.




I wasn't addressing the science of it, or the right or wrong of either viewpoint (global warming exists vs doesn't exist). The point I was going for is that this series of apparently increasingly weasel-y expressions leads me to less and less of desire to trust or believe in the people using them. It's a bit like hearing the beginning of a speech and hearing the speaker transition to a political or sales presentation. Arthur Dent hears the story of the Krikkit and the wicket gate in Life The Universe And Everything, only for the story to end up being a commercial to sell wicket gate memorabilia. Imagine William Wallace in Braveheart- '...but they'll never take our FREEDOM...to buy Braveheart on DVD for the low, low price of $19.99!' Or Arthur (again), in So Long And Thanks For All The Fish, where the guy on Wonko's TV explains that it's 'supernormal,' not 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' because we think we know what those mean now. I don't remember where I first heard the term 'climate instability,' but there does appear to be a good number of hits on Google for it (with quotes).
 
2012-11-29 01:55:05 AM
London's latitude is somewhere between that of Calgary And Edmonton. And it's an ISLAND. The only reason it's not covered in a foot of ice 6 months a year is the warm air that comes off the gulf stream. If the gulf stream gets disrupted, Great Britain is proper farked.
 
2012-11-29 02:03:01 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.

The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


It's all of the above. The planet on average is warming, but it is not doing so uniformly. Local climates may change in either direction, warming faster than the average (e.g. the arctic) or cooling due to shifts in winds or ocean currents.

George Carlin summed it up quite nicely. "The planet is fine. The people are farked."
 
2012-11-29 02:03:42 AM
All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?
 
2012-11-29 02:05:45 AM

Dknsvsbl: Its -30C outside where I am right now, hard to find any sympathy for -2


You're in cryogenic storage? Have you been sent to the future to save mankind, or do you have some icky disease you hope we'll cure? Because the Terminator movies were make believe, and our fastest growing healthcare sector is homeopathy.
 
2012-11-29 02:09:43 AM

Dknsvsbl: Its -30C outside where I am right now, hard to find any sympathy for -2


It's -2C here right now and I live on the coast below the Mason-Dixon line. I can't believe it's news that it's the same temperature at a latitude over 900 miles north of here.
 
2012-11-29 02:10:58 AM

Notabunny: Dknsvsbl: Its -30C outside where I am right now, hard to find any sympathy for -2

You're in cryogenic storage? Have you been sent to the future to save mankind, or do you have some icky disease you hope we'll cure? Because the Terminator movies were make believe, and our fastest growing healthcare sector is homeopathy.


I'd never heard Ft McMurray described that way before.
 
2012-11-29 02:21:52 AM

Kazan: Ex-Texan: woo.
here in Albuquerque, it got down to -17fahrenheit last February. Saw bunch of D.R Horton homes (cheap) with flooded floors when the pipes broke on thawing. I freaked when our faucets outside froze, but no damage when they thawed. Used faucet covers and everything.
/Lucky.
/Have a Pulte, with 6" walls.

surprisingly the local contractor for D.R. Horton in Puget Sound seems to not build shiat. not that i bought from them, i bought from one of the local builders.

/WA has much stricter building codes.


Where the fark do they allow 4" exterior walls?

/had to insulate under slab - in my shop
 
2012-11-29 02:22:07 AM

cretinbob: The Gulf Stream, how does it farking work?


It isn't that's kind of the problem
reality how does it work?

/sad
 
2012-11-29 02:22:18 AM
If you're dumb enough to think "global warming" means it will never get cold again, or that "global cooling" means it will never get hot again, then you deserve to die in a global cataclysm, and nobody will miss you.
 
2012-11-29 02:23:25 AM

Dknsvsbl: Notabunny: Dknsvsbl: Its -30C outside where I am right now, hard to find any sympathy for -2

You're in cryogenic storage? Have you been sent to the future to save mankind, or do you have some icky disease you hope we'll cure? Because the Terminator movies were make believe, and our fastest growing healthcare sector is homeopathy.

I'd never heard Ft McMurray described that way before.


Oh, yeah. That was THE joke of the late 20th century. I guess you missed it. You have a lot of catching up to do.
 
2012-11-29 02:25:51 AM

Gyrfalcon: If you're dumb enough to think "global warming" means it will never get cold again, or that "global cooling" means it will never get hot again, then you deserve to die in a global cataclysm, and nobody will miss you.


so all of fark :(
 
2012-11-29 02:26:57 AM

styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?


You read it here folks. There's no Gulf Sream, or Europe for that matter.
 
2012-11-29 02:27:45 AM
It's 26C here in Perth, Western Australia and blowing a gale...damn "Climate Insecurity"
 
2012-11-29 02:29:40 AM

AndyChrist_AUS: It's 26C here in Perth, Western Australia and blowing a gale...damn "Climate Insecurity"


ya but what is the poisonous creature index?
:)
 
2012-11-29 02:33:15 AM

styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?


What?!??!!?

Seriously, WHAT?!??!?!!?
 
2012-11-29 02:36:38 AM

albatros183: AndyChrist_AUS: It's 26C here in Perth, Western Australia and blowing a gale...damn "Climate Insecurity"

ya but what is the poisonous creature index?
:)


Eleventy eleven, of course
 
2012-11-29 02:41:59 AM

bookman: Global Climate Change is the perfect scam. It cannot be proved false. Too warm? Global Climate Change. Too Cold? Global Climate Change. Inconvenient climate? Oh, that's just weather, dummy!

LOL!


"I don't understand how it works, therefore it doesn't happen! LOL!"
 
2012-11-29 02:44:53 AM

styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?


Wait, what?

Are you denying that the measured ocean current that was discovered by the early European explorers of America does not actually exist despite evidence of its existence to the contrary, or are you denying that convection works(and thusly the laws of Thermodynamics)?
 
2012-11-29 02:47:02 AM

Ex-Texan: woo.
here in Albuquerque, it got down to -17fahrenheit last February. Saw bunch of D.R Horton homes (cheap) with flooded floors when the pipes broke on thawing...


The pipes probably broke from freezing, not thawing (water expands when it freezes).
 
2012-11-29 02:51:03 AM

bookman: Global Climate Change is the perfect scam. It cannot be proved false.


/just wait until nuclear winter.
 
2012-11-29 02:53:07 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: StreetlightInTheGhetto:
[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x405]

Neither makes any sense. Global petroleum demand is constantly increasing, and no one has to bribe anyone to keep selling shiat tonnes of it, or keep prices up.


It's not so much about demand, it's about the fact that the EPA might fine them. These companies use their own "climate experts" to try to persuade everybody that their pollution causes no environmental harm. It really is all about money.
 
2012-11-29 02:55:32 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

Bring back The Frost Fair on The Thames.

What's it been? Three... four centuries?
 
2012-11-29 03:12:35 AM
johnperkins:


Kazan: johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Global Warming: accurate description of what is occurring (the global aggregate temperature is increasing)
Climate Change: accurate description and EFFECT of Global Warming
Climate Instability: who the fark used this?

Might i suggest you actually know what the fark you're talking about before you ever open your mouth again

just a suggestion.



I wasn't addressing the science of it, or the right or wrong of either viewpoint (global warming exists vs doesn't exist). The point I was going for is that this series of apparently increasingly weasel-y expressions leads me to less and less of desire to trust or believe in the people using them. It's a bit like hearing the beginning of a speech and hearing the speaker transition to a political or sales presentation. Arthur Dent hears the story of the Krikkit and the wicket gate in Life The Universe And Everything, only for the story to end up being a commercial to sell wicket gate memorabilia. Imagine William Wallace in Braveheart- '...but they'll never take our FREEDOM...to buy Braveheart on DVD for the low, low price of $19.99!' Or Arthur (again), in So Long And Thanks For All The Fish, where the guy on Wonko's TV explains that it's 'supernormal,' not 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' because we think we know what those mean now. I don't remember where I first heard the term 'climate instability,' but there does appear to be a good number of hits on Google for it (with quotes).


There you need differentiate between popular media and science, and which one you give a damn about.

Scientists have always been specific. Media.... Well, maybe notsomuch. Your typical blonde newsbabe or dark-haired newsken can't even pronounce "anthropogenic" so it's not surprising that most news articles get dumbed down to "global warming."

If you want a real kick and want to know when the phrase "Climate Change" got pushed, check out Frank Luntz's memo to G.W. Bush. That word got misused just as much as "global warming" did, although with the imprimatur of the POTUS. That didn't have much effect on the media directly, but it *did* have an effect on the guys who owned NOAA, NASA et alia for 8 years, and they had to conform to the wording coming from the White House.

It's kind of telling that even through 8 years of the boss saying "don't say anything about ACC" scientists still came to the same conclusion.

Handy chart:

i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-29 03:46:14 AM
Meh; we're screwed anyway. If I remember correctly; we are so close(perspectively) to the point of no return that it's less than a decade or two away.

/ So, buy some coats, get some pointy sticks; and watch your cat transform into a saber tooth tiger.
 
2012-11-29 03:52:43 AM
Meh, the Mail do this every year, some metiorol maetear weather stuff student pulls a prediction out of their ass and the Mail print it as fact because they are sensationalist dicks.

Britains winter will be the same as every other winter, couple of days of snow, maybe a week of -4/-5 C, the other two months mild and damp.

/love mild and damp.
//Britain!!!!
 
2012-11-29 04:18:10 AM

SickAsAParrot: Meh, the Mail do this every year, some metiorol maetear weather stuff student pulls a prediction out of their ass and the Mail print it as fact because they are sensationalist dicks.

Britains winter will be the same as every other winter, couple of days of snow, maybe a week of -4/-5 C, the other two months mild and damp.

/love mild and damp.
//Britain!!!!


Came to say this. Every week for about 2 months last year they had a headline like "Climate chaos due in 2 weeks, 10ft of snow predicted! Everybody panic!" and did we see ANY snow?

No.

FTA "Walkers rap up warm"

This is the sort of good reporting we are looking at, Lou.
 
2012-11-29 04:21:24 AM

iheartscotch: Meh; we're screwed anyway. If I remember correctly; we are so close(perspectively) to the point of no return that it's less than a decade or two away.

/ So, buy some coats, get some pointy sticks; and watch your cat transform into a saber tooth tiger.


The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive

Sorry, that card has already been played. It`s in the past, you can`t make people worry about it happening in the future anymore.
 
2012-11-29 04:27:03 AM
I'm like Hayao Miyazaki in thinking that we might need a bit of a jolt. Let things collapse, let humans get out of the stupid rut we're in now, focused on petty things. I'm interested to see an ice free Arctic.
 
2012-11-29 04:28:43 AM

Triumph: So wait - on November 29, it's three degrees below freezing in a country that's completely north of Maine and whose northern provinces are on the same latitude as southern Alaska? Stop the presses.


exactly, fake panic over expected things is fake. If you read TFA then is says that in the middle of winter temperatures may get as low as -20 C.

We must panic because normal winter temperatures may occur in winter!
 
2012-11-29 04:30:04 AM

ktybear: I'm like Hayao Miyazaki in thinking that we might need a bit of a jolt. Let things collapse, let humans get out of the stupid rut we're in now, focused on petty things. I'm interested to see an ice free Arctic.


upload.wikimedia.org

Disembodied eye watches your post with interest
 
2012-11-29 04:31:09 AM

dready zim: iheartscotch: Meh; we're screwed anyway. If I remember correctly; we are so close(perspectively) to the point of no return that it's less than a decade or two away.

/ So, buy some coats, get some pointy sticks; and watch your cat transform into a saber tooth tiger.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive

Sorry, that card has already been played. It`s in the past, you can`t make people worry about it happening in the future anymore.


FTA:Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

I think he's forgetting the biggest piece of real estate at the other end of the planet.
 
2012-11-29 04:36:38 AM
I sense a conspiracy.

Yeah we have scientists saying stuff, yeah we're still doing the same thing, the big companies doing the same shiat to stifle innovation into alternative energy solutions. They aren't going to change, don't give one fark, never will. The majority of people don't either 1) give a fark either 2) will not do anything to stop consumption.

Profit drives everything in the western world. The financial elite would rather see the majority of the people dead and cling on to the "way things are" destroy the planet and humanity in the course of maintaining power. They'll pay minions to fight their fight for them. Minions being minions will continue to clamor to kiss ass for more money (crumbs really).

Obama will fix it.
 
2012-11-29 04:37:36 AM
Look, if you want to read stuff and see the latest graphs on what's happening in the Arctic then read this blog. Amazing stuff! The Arctic storm, Greenland melting across its entire surface for nearly a week, easy to read, make up your own mind. I think it's great. Big changes are afoot! 


www.datelinezero.com
 
2012-11-29 04:40:25 AM

thursdaypostal: Global warming can cause cold temperatures in the same way that a speeding car can cause sudden deceleration.


So the problem of excess speed is solved at this point.

balial: This just in... one in a hundred year events happen about every hundred years.


Expected events are expected and not unusual or unprecedented. Some people have a problem with this. Also, as these events are a result of a chaotic system, they are unpredictable. More people have a problem with this.

Unpredictable and expected, most people cannot cope with this concept and panic...
 
2012-11-29 04:44:08 AM

ktybear: dready zim: iheartscotch: Meh; we're screwed anyway. If I remember correctly; we are so close(perspectively) to the point of no return that it's less than a decade or two away.

/ So, buy some coats, get some pointy sticks; and watch your cat transform into a saber tooth tiger.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive

Sorry, that card has already been played. It`s in the past, you can`t make people worry about it happening in the future anymore.

FTA:Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

I think he's forgetting the biggest piece of real estate at the other end of the planet.


Hey I didn`t say it was played well, just that the tipping point was AFAIK in 2008 in the public media. Do a google search and you will find a batch of articles from around then saying similar things (that are not being said in the media these days)

I think he had a bad dream after seeing waterworld.
 
2012-11-29 05:06:27 AM

dready zim: iheartscotch: Meh; we're screwed anyway. If I remember correctly; we are so close(perspectively) to the point of no return that it's less than a decade or two away.

/ So, buy some coats, get some pointy sticks; and watch your cat transform into a saber tooth tiger.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive

Sorry, that card has already been played. It`s in the past, you can`t make people worry about it happening in the future anymore.


Well damn; good thing I've got a 75 year old battle rifle and 700 rounds of ammo; they might come in handy when the shiat hits the fan.

/ I'm not a preper; but you can never have too much ammo
 
2012-11-29 05:09:33 AM

ktybear: I'm like Hayao Miyazaki in thinking that we might need a bit of a jolt. Let things collapse, let humans get out of the stupid rut we're in now, focused on petty things. I'm interested to see an ice free Arctic.


Miyazaki-san needs to get back to the whole feature length animated movie thing; so I can watch them before the end.

/ I enjoy his work; I especially like the planes; the more improbable, the better.
 
2012-11-29 05:18:05 AM
Oh yeah, I saw that movie.

blogs.sundaymercury.net
 
2012-11-29 05:38:14 AM
 
2012-11-29 05:38:53 AM

starsrift: styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?

Wait, what?

Are you denying that the measured ocean current that was discovered by the early European explorers of America does not actually exist despite evidence of its existence to the contrary, or are you denying that convection works(and thusly the laws of Thermodynamics)?


No, the part about Europe freezing over if the Gulf stream got farked
 
2012-11-29 05:49:42 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


But you can always bet that it is related to politics. Or "scientists" that are directly employed by some large government.
 
2012-11-29 06:01:22 AM
I spun the wheel and it came up wind direction.
 
2012-11-29 06:06:39 AM

richard_1963: Apparently, a large enough influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic due to melting ice could potentially put a complete halt to the Gulf Stream. If that happens the, ironically, global warming could trigger an ice age.


Says a study by the acclaimed Institute of No Matter What Happens To The Environment, We Are Right About Global Warming.
 
2012-11-29 06:07:40 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: AverageAmericanGuy: No one ever blames good weather on Global Warming...
:(

We had a *great* winter in Michigan last year. As in, we really... didn't have one. I was digging in clay soil in effing January. Great for me.

Really sucked for most of the farmers here, because that beautifully unseasonably warm weather caused apple and cherries and damn near anything else we have here you don't start from seed to begin growth early... and then got killed by a snap frost that wasn't even really a snap if I remember correctly in the historical sense... it historically made sense. Just not last year.

Great for me other than Michigan fruit costing way more than it used to (yeah that sucks). Really sucks for the farmers and people who make products with those crops and who profit from festivals celebrating those crops etc...

/yeah, climate change
//happening
///you are not a freaking brilliant scientific mind and "it don't sound right" doesn't mean it isn't true 

[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x405]


Which makes more sense? Well, the Oil companies would EXIST without the spending, the agencies would not, so.....
 
2012-11-29 06:11:16 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Are these not all descriptions of the same event?
 
2012-11-29 06:25:04 AM

dready zim: iheartscotch: Meh; we're screwed anyway. If I remember correctly; we are so close(perspectively) to the point of no return that it's less than a decade or two away.

/ So, buy some coats, get some pointy sticks; and watch your cat transform into a saber tooth tiger.

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive

Sorry, that card has already been played. It`s in the past, you can`t make people worry about it happening in the future anymore.


Hey, there are still a few hopeful remaining scientists.
 
2012-11-29 06:30:33 AM

styckx: starsrift: styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?

Wait, what?

Are you denying that the measured ocean current that was discovered by the early European explorers of America does not actually exist despite evidence of its existence to the contrary, or are you denying that convection works(and thusly the laws of Thermodynamics)?

No, the part about Europe freezing over if the Gulf stream got farked


I meant to click quote but accidentally hit "funny".

Anyway, if what you say is true it would interest me, have you any sauces or other condiments to back it up?
 
2012-11-29 06:35:44 AM

Slaxl: styckx: starsrift: styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?

Wait, what?

Are you denying that the measured ocean current that was discovered by the early European explorers of America does not actually exist despite evidence of its existence to the contrary, or are you denying that convection works(and thusly the laws of Thermodynamics)?

No, the part about Europe freezing over if the Gulf stream got farked

I meant to click quote but accidentally hit "funny".

Anyway, if what you say is true it would interest me, have you any sauces or other condiments to back it up?


It's the Rocky Mountains
 
2012-11-29 06:54:09 AM

MarkEC: Slaxl: styckx: starsrift: styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?

Wait, what?

Are you denying that the measured ocean current that was discovered by the early European explorers of America does not actually exist despite evidence of its existence to the contrary, or are you denying that convection works(and thusly the laws of Thermodynamics)?

No, the part about Europe freezing over if the Gulf stream got farked

I meant to click quote but accidentally hit "funny".

Anyway, if what you say is true it would interest me, have you any sauces or other condiments to back it up?

It's the Rocky Mountains


Yep, that's the sauce..
 
2012-11-29 07:11:12 AM

MarkEC: It's the Rocky Mountains


Interesting, thank you. His logic is fuzzy enough to make me skeptical of his modelling (water stores lots of heat, except when the water is moving? the Gulf Stream has little effect on the subpolar areas, but once you hit Norway it suddenly works like a microwave?) but it was an interesting read.
 
2012-11-29 07:20:59 AM
i.imgur.com

Why won't you buy my carbon credits?
 
2012-11-29 07:33:28 AM
Why you no buy what I'm selling?


What I don't understand... I own a farkton of Exxon stock. Why are you punks spreading yourself for them so eagerly?
 
2012-11-29 08:02:02 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: They simply would rather have meat diet and easy lifestyle than worry about climate change.


That's because modern humans evolved as obligate omnivores. There is no environment on Earth where you can live a healthy lifestyle on just the plant life that grows naturally. We can do without meat now of course, using modern technology, but you can't turn around roughly 3 million years of evolution on a dime. People still like meat because they evolved to like it, and in fact in their natural state, before the advent of modern technology, it was necessary for a healthy diet.
 
2012-11-29 08:04:58 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


We only keep changing it because you're too stupid to understand the implications of the first ones.

"Global warming" doesn't mean the weather will be warmer, it means the planet will warm up.

With bad consequences for weather.
 
2012-11-29 08:08:19 AM

dittybopper: ThrobblefootSpectre: They simply would rather have meat diet and easy lifestyle than worry about climate change.

That's because modern humans evolved as obligate omnivores. There is no environment on Earth where you can live a healthy lifestyle on just the plant life that grows naturally. We can do without meat now of course, using modern technology, but you can't turn around roughly 3 million years of evolution on a dime. People still like meat because they evolved to like it, and in fact in their natural state, before the advent of modern technology, it was necessary for a healthy diet.


Millions of herbivores disagree.

3 million years of evolution could have evolved a human capable of eating grass just like lots of other mammals do.
 
2012-11-29 08:24:26 AM

richard_1963: Apparently, a large enough influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic due to melting ice could potentially put a complete halt to the Gulf Stream. If that happens the, ironically, global warming could trigger an ice age.


No it couldn't.

It means some artificially-warm areas of the north Atlantic would suddenly get a lot colder. It might seem like an "ice age" to the people that live in those areas but they're not the whole world.
 
2012-11-29 08:39:23 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Never stop posting man. The world needs 4 billion more of you truth tellers.
 
2012-11-29 08:48:34 AM
Global Warming/ Climate Change... the ultimate application of the ole' "Heads I win, tales you lose" argument applied to everything weather/climate related
 
2012-11-29 08:48:41 AM

Joce678: dittybopper: ThrobblefootSpectre: They simply would rather have meat diet and easy lifestyle than worry about climate change.

That's because modern humans evolved as obligate omnivores. There is no environment on Earth where you can live a healthy lifestyle on just the plant life that grows naturally. We can do without meat now of course, using modern technology, but you can't turn around roughly 3 million years of evolution on a dime. People still like meat because they evolved to like it, and in fact in their natural state, before the advent of modern technology, it was necessary for a healthy diet.

Millions of herbivores disagree.


And every single one of them would have died prior to the advent of relatively modern farming. Many, though not all, would have died prior to the modern age, with dietary supplements. Farming is a relatively recent invention: The sort of large-scale varied agriculture that would allow a purely vegan diet is less than 8,000 years old, and even then, depending on what was specifically grown, it may not have supplied all the necessary nutrients.

This is why, despite the advent of the capability thousands of years ago, vegetarianism/veganism has been a very small exception to the vast majority of human experience up until relatively recently


3 million years of evolution could have evolved a human capable of eating grass just like lots of other mammals do.


If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. The fact is that genus Homo didn't evolve in that direction, and if it had, it's entirely probable that we wouldn't be having this conversation, we'd be instead hairy ape-like creatures grazing our way across a plain in Africa.

BTW, that also means that a completely carnivorous diet it out also: Sure, you can do that sort of thing today, and the Inuit winter diet is largely carnivorous, but it's not long-term carnivorous: They get numerous plant foods during the (short) growing season in the Arctic.
 
2012-11-29 08:54:34 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: ///you are not a freaking brilliant scientific mind and "it don't sound right" doesn't mean it isn't true


img.gawkerassets.com

Hey, you missed the third, and most likely option: Shiat's happening right on schedule.

/Yup
//Makes the most sense
 
2012-11-29 08:56:35 AM

Joce678: johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.

We only keep changing it because you're too stupid to understand the implications of the first ones.

"Global warming" doesn't mean the weather will be warmer, it means the planet will warm up.

With bad consequences for weather.


Hubris, this is how it works.
Cant explain the mpemba effect, yet we know everything there is about climate change on a planet 4.5 billion years old... and it has nothing to do with the sun, only co2.. Consensus=Fact, just ask the flat earth society.
 
2012-11-29 09:00:07 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: I think the most likely explanation is that the vast majority of people worldwide simply don't care one way or the other, and continue burning fossil fuels, and eating meat as a matter of course. It's just a given. They aren't evil, or in on a global conspiracy, or "deniers", or whatever. They simply would rather have meat diet and easy lifestyle than worry about climate change.


Did you know that the Bible says that in the last days, there will be worldwide outcry about the eating of meat being considered wrong? I'd say the bible has just as much of a shot at being right as the IPCC.
 
2012-11-29 09:02:25 AM

Notabunny: Is that even a real temperature? It dropped down to the low 50s the other night. I brought in my outdoor thermometer so it wouldn't get too cold.


You're funny. Although it's supposed to be in the 60's the weekend. In December. In Chicago. I'm ready for the apocalypse at any time now.
 
2012-11-29 09:06:50 AM

styckx: starsrift: styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?

Wait, what?

Are you denying that the measured ocean current that was discovered by the early European explorers of America does not actually exist despite evidence of its existence to the contrary, or are you denying that convection works(and thusly the laws of Thermodynamics)?

No, the part about Europe freezing over if the Gulf stream got farked


Well, lets see. The Gulf stream transports a metric buttload of heat. It doesn't take a scientist to realise that if you shut off that transport, things will get a whole lot colder. Europe is extremely warm for its latitude. Rome is on the same latitude as New York City, London is in the same latitude as Calgary, Olso is higher north than Churchill. You can compare the climate in those places yourself.
 
2012-11-29 09:08:23 AM

Joe Blowme: Hubris, this is how it works.
Cant explain the mpemba effect, yet we know everything there is about climate change on a planet 4.5 billion years old... and it has nothing to do with the sun, only co2.. Consensus=Fact, just ask the flat earth society.


You sound like a heretic!

/Ignore the source, the video contains the quote.
 
2012-11-29 09:12:23 AM
Britain faces coldest winter in 100 years due to ... spins wheel... Piss poor Daily Fail needing to sell some papers.

'Might be on the chilly side of normal', says the Met Office...

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/responding-to-more-win te r-weather-headlines/
 
2012-11-29 09:19:08 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: eating meat as a matter of course


it is a PETA-fud myth that meat is bad for the environment.

johnperkins: The point I was going for is that this series of apparently increasingly weasel-y expressions


which are not weasely IN THE SLIGHTEST if you understand them, and one of which you made up.

the rest of your post was predicated on this false assertion, so doesn't warrant specific addressing.

Ivo Shandor: George Carlin summed it up quite nicely. "The planet is fine. The people are farked."


that
 
2012-11-29 09:26:15 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Kazan:
Global Warming: accurate description of what is occurring (the global aggregate temperature is increasing)
Climate Change: accurate description and EFFECT of Global Warming
Climate Instability: who the fark used this?

Might i suggest you actually know what the fark you're talking about before you ever open your mouth again

just a suggestion.

johnperkins:
I wasn't addressing the science of it, or the right or wrong of either viewpoint (global warming exists vs doesn't exist). The point I was going for is that this series of apparently increasingly weasel-y expressions leads me to less and less of desire to trust or believe in the people using them. It's a bit like hearing the beginning of a speech and hearing the speaker transition to a political or sales presentation. Arthur Dent hears the story of the Krikkit and the wicket gate in Life The Universe And Everything, only for the story to end up being a commercial to sell wicket gate memorabilia. Imagine William Wallace in Braveheart- '...but they'll never take our FREEDOM...to buy Braveheart on DVD for the low, low price of $19.99!' Or Arthur (again), in So Long And Thanks For All The Fish, where the guy on Wonko's TV explains that it's 'supernormal,' not 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' because we think we know what those mean now. I don't remember where I first heard the term 'climate instability,' but there does appear to be a good number of hits on Google for it (with quotes).


You: "they changed the terms, must be deceitful"
Kazan: "they changed the terms to be more accurate"
You: "Not calling them deceitful. They sound deceitful. See these comparisons with fictional characters. And here's an totally unrelated marketing ploy."

When I was in college in the early 90s, we were already discussing in science classes how Global Climate Change was a better term than Global Warming, because while Global Warming conveys the worldwide average temperature increases, it also conveys a false impression of uniformity. 20 years ago scientists were predicting increased storm activity, sea level rise with increased coastal flooding, changing rainfall patterns, melting ice packs, and increasing extinctions of species unable to adapt or migrate to those changes. Those predictions have gotten more refined, the modeling has gotten better, but fundamentally this is not "weasel words", it's an attempt to avoid precisely the sort of confusion you are experiencing.

People can change things to be more accurate, not just to deceive.
 
2012-11-29 09:28:23 AM

Joce678: 3 million years of evolution could have evolved a human capable of eating grass just like lots of other mammals do.


but didn't. for a number of reasons.
 
2012-11-29 09:30:13 AM

Zasteva: People can change things to be more accurate, not just to deceive.


he's - and all the other anti-science cretins in this thread - not going to believe that. they've made their decision and are trying to conform reality to their partisan faith-based idea of what is right.
 
2012-11-29 09:32:04 AM

Kazan: Zasteva: People can change things to be more accurate, not just to deceive.

he's - and all the other anti-scienceconsensus cretins in this thread - not going to believe that. they've made their decision and are trying to conform reality to their partisan faith-based idea of what is right.


FTFY
/scientific method, how does it work?
 
2012-11-29 09:35:40 AM
What caused it to be so cold 100 years ago?
 
2012-11-29 09:42:46 AM

opiumpoopy: DeadBaby: cretinbob: The Gulf Stream, how does it farking work?

Exactly. Get ready for more of this as melting ice caps fark with the ocean currents.

[Reputable scientific] citation needed


http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/06conveyor3.html
 
2012-11-29 09:44:22 AM
Based on an average annual passenger car mileage of 12,500 miles and an average annual light truck mileage of 14,000 miles, your car emits the following pollutants: 108 pounds of hydrocarbons, 854 pounds of carbon monoxide, 55.8 pounds of oxides on nitrogen, 16,034 pounds of carbon dioxide, 813 gallons of gasoline evaporates.

Times over a biliion cars on the planet, surpassed in 2011. Not to mention factories, shipping, aircraft, rail, slash and burn, etc.

If you don't think that affects a finite system ... well, you are more to be pitied than despised for your disadvantageous thought process. That is as polite as I can be.
 
2012-11-29 09:52:39 AM
socoloco: I sense a conspiracy.

I sense a long jumbled train of false connections coming up....

socoloco: Yeah we have scientists saying stuff, yeah we're still doing the same thing, the big companies doing the same shiat to stifle innovation into alternative energy solutions.

Companies exist to make profit. If they can profit more from alternative energy than fossil fuels then private industry will lead the charge. They aren't currently because fossil fuels are artificially cheap due to externalized costs: all of society bears the cost of excess CO2 (and much of it in the future), but the companies reap the profits now. There are also costs to infrastructure transition that have to compete for capital investment.

socoloco: They aren't going to change, don't give one fark, never will. The majority of people don't either 1) give a fark either 2) will not do anything to stop consumption.

Profit drives everything in the western world. The financial elite would rather see the majority of the people dead and cling on to the "way things are" destroy the planet and humanity in the course of maintaining power. They'll pay minions to fight their fight for them. Minions being minions will continue to clamor to kiss ass for more money (crumbs really).


The US is unique among developed nations in having a populace where a huge part of the population rejects science in favor of faith. Most of the western world is already working toward resolving this problem. Only the US is keeping it's head in the sand.

Obama will fix it.

That's either hopelessly naive (which I doubt from your previous attitude), or snarky straw-man sarcasm. But his administration is more likely to apply effort toward addressing it than a GOP controlled administration would be.
 
2012-11-29 09:53:43 AM

johnperkins: The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


how are "global warming" and "climate change" weasel-y? (i've never heard anyone use "climate instability," btw) the globe IS warming and the climate IS changing. this is not in dispute.
 
2012-11-29 09:55:16 AM
Spins wheel. Let's see...it's Thursday. clickclickclick...click. Global Warming thread day. Woo hoo. Everybody get out your flame throwers, best insults, and graphs. It's party time.
 
2012-11-29 10:00:58 AM

barefoot in the head: Based on an average annual passenger car mileage of 12,500 miles and an average annual light truck mileage of 14,000 miles, your car emits the following pollutants: 108 pounds of hydrocarbons, 854 pounds of carbon monoxide, 55.8 pounds of oxides on nitrogen, 16,034 pounds of carbon dioxide, 813 gallons of gasoline evaporates.

Times over a biliion cars on the planet, surpassed in 2011. Not to mention factories, shipping, aircraft, rail, slash and burn, etc.

If you don't think that affects a finite system ... well, you are more to be pitied than despised for your disadvantageous thought process. That is as polite as I can be.


Your argument is faulty. The Milky Way Galaxy is a finite system. I do not think those emissions numbers have any appreciable effect on the rest of our galaxy. Just because the numbers are "a lot", it doesn't mean that they have any effect of any kind.

What matters is that models that predict a probability of certain events occurring have been almost entirely correct over the last 20 years and they are getting more and more accurate every year.
 
2012-11-29 10:12:45 AM

Triumph: So wait - on November 29, it's three degrees below freezing in a country that's completely north of Maine and whose northern provinces are on the same latitude as southern Alaska? Stop the presses.


So, by your "logic", Washington DC and Athens, Greece should have the same climate because they are at the same latitude?

Having lived in both cities, I can assure you that this is not the case. 

The point is that there are other factors involved. And the one in question, the Gulf Stream, is pretty damned important, and not just for climate.
 
2012-11-29 10:13:44 AM

WhippingBoy: What caused it to be so cold 100 years ago?


Crappy thermometers .
 
2012-11-29 10:15:30 AM

Gr8Zen: barefoot in the head: Based on an average annual passenger car mileage of 12,500 miles and an average annual light truck mileage of 14,000 miles, your car emits the following pollutants: 108 pounds of hydrocarbons, 854 pounds of carbon monoxide, 55.8 pounds of oxides on nitrogen, 16,034 pounds of carbon dioxide, 813 gallons of gasoline evaporates.

Times over a biliion cars on the planet, surpassed in 2011. Not to mention factories, shipping, aircraft, rail, slash and burn, etc.

If you don't think that affects a finite system ... well, you are more to be pitied than despised for your disadvantageous thought process. That is as polite as I can be.

Your argument is faulty. The Milky Way Galaxy is a finite system. I do not think those emissions numbers have any appreciable effect on the rest of our galaxy. Just because the numbers are "a lot", it doesn't mean that they have any effect of any kind.


The amount of poison that could kill me isn't really poison because it wouldn't leap from the confines of my body and kill a blue whale?
 
2012-11-29 10:16:54 AM

Gr8Zen: barefoot in the head: Based on an average annual passenger car mileage of 12,500 miles and an average annual light truck mileage of 14,000 miles, your car emits the following pollutants: 108 pounds of hydrocarbons, 854 pounds of carbon monoxide, 55.8 pounds of oxides on nitrogen, 16,034 pounds of carbon dioxide, 813 gallons of gasoline evaporates.

Times over a biliion cars on the planet, surpassed in 2011. Not to mention factories, shipping, aircraft, rail, slash and burn, etc.

If you don't think that affects a finite system ... well, you are more to be pitied than despised for your disadvantageous thought process. That is as polite as I can be.

Gr8Zen:
Your argument is faulty. The Milky Way Galaxy is a finite system. I do not think those emissions numbers have any appreciable effect on the rest of our galaxy. Just because the numbers are "a lot", it doesn't mean that they have any effect of any kind.


Him: "this isn't a drop in the bucket, it's a steady flow that will cause the bucket to overflow"
You: "that steady flow is to small to overflow a lake, so you are wrong"

He didn't explicitly state that the finite system was the Earth's, but it was obvious that was what he meant.

What matters is that models that predict a probability of certain events occurring have been almost entirely correct over the last 20 years and they are getting more and more accurate every year.

That is important, yes. But models are based on numerical calculations and assumptions about the finite system. Those models make a ton of calculations based around his argument that you just tried to say was faulty. If his argument is faulty, then so are the models.
 
2012-11-29 10:24:53 AM

maxheck: If you want a real kick and want to know when the phrase "Climate Change" got pushed, check out Frank Luntz's memo to G.W. Bush. That word got misused just as much as "global warming" did, although with the imprimatur of the POTUS. That didn't have much effect on the media directly, but it *did* have an effect on the guys who owned NOAA, NASA et alia for 8 years, and they had to conform to the wording coming from the White House.


First, the discussion of which term most accurately conveyed what would happen was going on when I was in college in the early 90s, pre-Clinton, well before George W. Bush's campaign.

Second, it's impossible to tell from that what the memo really said because it just uses tiny snippets to try to make a point, rather than letting us read it. If you have a link to the actual memo that would be interesting.
 
2012-11-29 10:28:30 AM

Joe Blowme: Kazan: Zasteva: People can change things to be more accurate, not just to deceive.

he's - and all the other anti-scienceconsensus cretins in this thread - not going to believe that. they've made their decision and are trying to conform reality to their partisan faith-based idea of what is right.

Joe Blowme:FTFY
/scientific method, how does it work?


Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?
 
2012-11-29 10:35:28 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Yeah...sometimes language can be hard.

Just to clear it up for you:

Global Warming: this is what is happening to our world. The vast majority of scientists qualified to speak with authority on the subject agree that this is happening and humans share varying degrees of culpability for the unprecedented warming.

Climate Change: an effect caused by a warming globe.

Climate Instability: a subset of Climate Change, also an effect caused by Global Warming.

See, not so much "weasley" words - more like "words used to describe different things".

Scientists do this kind of thing all the time. Don't blame them if the agenda setters decide to turn common terms into dog whistles for whatever reactionary group they are pandering to this week.
 
2012-11-29 10:38:40 AM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


Since this is all caused by words instead of changes in climate patterns, you have a strong point.
 
2012-11-29 10:40:48 AM

Zasteva: Joe Blowme: Kazan: Zasteva: People can change things to be more accurate, not just to deceive.

he's - and all the other anti-scienceconsensus cretins in this thread - not going to believe that. they've made their decision and are trying to conform reality to their partisan faith-based idea of what is right.

Joe Blowme:FTFY
/scientific method, how does it work?

Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?


I'm saying consensus is not the way of the scientific method. AGW is not axiomatic. we have been warming since the last ice age, no question about it as it has after every ice age. They want to blame it all on co2 so they can "tax it" which does nothing but line pockets, like trying to stop the tides by taxing moonlight beach strolls. If co2 is the devil, outlaw it... but they wont because then they could not squeeze cash out of it. If they were serious out it they would be fighting global population and calling for investing in space colonization/ exploration. Entrophy agrees with me the planet will not be around forever no matter what we tax. Carbon credits are a scam.
 
2012-11-29 10:43:36 AM

balial: This just in... one in a hundred year events happen about every hundred years.


In case no one else has mentioned it, that's not how probability works.

s2s2s2: Did you know that the Bible says that in the last days, there will be worldwide outcry about the eating of meat being considered wrong?


Well, aside from that being a terribly written sentence: an "outcry about [something] being considered wrong"? Pretty sure that's not what you intended to say, but since it's also extracted entirely from your nether regions, who know what the fark point you're trying to make. "The Bible" says no such thing, unless your exegesis is so faulty that you extract a single word in a single sentence in Timothy, without reference to history, custom, other usages of the same word throughout the book, or the simple context of the verse. But you'd never stoop to such just to make a snarky point of Fark, right?

s2s2s2: I'd say the bible has just as much of a shot at being right as the IPCC.


Well, we wish you wouldn't, because it's an absurd thing to say. We know you're a crank who lives to pull people's chains, but if you sincerely believe this you will have to be downgraded from "Guy Who Thinks He's Wittier Than He Really Is" to "Goddam Fool".
 
2012-11-29 10:43:50 AM

Zasteva: Joe Blowme: Kazan: Zasteva: People can change things to be more accurate, not just to deceive.

he's - and all the other anti-scienceconsensus cretins in this thread - not going to believe that. they've made their decision and are trying to conform reality to their partisan faith-based idea of what is right.

Joe Blowme:FTFY
/scientific method, how does it work?

Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?


Any time some moron points out the idea that there is a consensus on this subject I have to laugh. Who told you that science is some sort of popularity contest?

BTW, there is no consensus. As was reported in a Congressional Hearing:

Widely publicized consensus reports by "thousands" of scientists rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for "Red Teams" of credentialed investigators, who study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens.



Go get educated on this subject before you make more ignorant statements.
 
2012-11-29 10:50:36 AM
IT'S SNOWING SOMEWHERE THEREFORE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A FAKE AND WE SHOULD LYNCH AL GORE LOLOLOLOL.

/dammit people, I'm getting really sick of this shiat.
 
2012-11-29 10:51:12 AM

Zasteva: Joe Blowme: Kazan: Zasteva: People can change things to be more accurate, not just to deceive.

he's - and all the other anti-scienceconsensus cretins in this thread - not going to believe that. they've made their decision and are trying to conform reality to their partisan faith-based idea of what is right.

Joe Blowme:FTFY
/scientific method, how does it work?

Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?


The term "consensus science" will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of "argument from authority." Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus. The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the "climate establishment" - who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the "experts" called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. As outlined in my House Testimony, these "experts" become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. But with the luxury of having
the "last word" as "expert" authors of the reports, alternative views vanish. I've often stated that climate science is a "murky" science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.

that is a statement by a real scientist who works in the field. Get educated
 
2012-11-29 10:55:09 AM
The IPCC data is flawed. This chart gives a more accurate picture.
 
2012-11-29 10:56:30 AM
www.globalwarming.orgthis chart
 
2012-11-29 11:06:53 AM

chuckufarlie: that is a statement by a real scientist who works in the field. Get educated


OK, educate us.

Let's start with a name, and a CV for this fellow? How about an explanation for why he has such a problem with peer review in general and how his experience in Climate research is any different from the review and publishing process in any scientific discipline? Because he sounds like a whiny biatch.

How's that for starters?
 
2012-11-29 11:09:02 AM

Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: that is a statement by a real scientist who works in the field. Get educated

OK, educate us.

Let's start with a name, and a CV for this fellow? How about an explanation for why he has such a problem with peer review in general and how his experience in Climate research is any different from the review and publishing process in any scientific discipline? Because he sounds like a whiny biatch.

How's that for starters?


Professor John Christy
 
2012-11-29 11:14:01 AM

chuckufarlie: Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: that is a statement by a real scientist who works in the field. Get educated

OK, educate us.

Let's start with a name, and a CV for this fellow? How about an explanation for why he has such a problem with peer review in general and how his experience in Climate research is any different from the review and publishing process in any scientific discipline? Because he sounds like a whiny biatch.

How's that for starters?

Professor John Christy


I know him! He's the guy who said this: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."
 
2012-11-29 11:15:22 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: No one ever blames good weather on Global Warming...
:(


It was 70 degrees on Black Friday here in Denver. I thanked the global warming.
 
2012-11-29 11:21:48 AM

chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart


The numbers on the bottom seem to indicate years. I'm guessing the numbers on the left is the combined high temperatures in the polling location for that year?
 
2012-11-29 11:35:47 AM

RidgeRunner5: chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart

The numbers on the bottom seem to indicate years. I'm guessing the numbers on the left is the combined high temperatures in the polling location for that year?


Yeah, apparently nicksteel thinks that, because there are fewer records broken each year, the measured effect of humanity on the Earth is unimportant. I can usually decipher some sort of basis in reality in his rantings, but this one eludes me entirely. It's entirely possible that he doesn't know what it actually records and is just posting it because someone else did, he's done that in that past.
 
2012-11-29 11:40:55 AM
Let's just call it a mystery.... or maybe someone's sky wizard is pissed at us. I bet Iraq has something to do with it....

ronetheboxhouston.files.wordpress.com

/yeah, gotta be Iraq.
 
2012-11-29 12:12:58 PM

Joe Blowme:

Zasteva: Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

Joe Blowme: I'm saying consensus is not the way of the scientific method.


I agree. Consensus is not science. Consensus simply expresses a degree of agreement with an idea.

The science comes when people use scientific method to study physical phenomenon. The results of those studies are peer reviewed, reproduced and even occasionally discredited. The term "scientific consensus" only came about because of political pressure against scientific results which displeased some people. At that part the people who bridge the gap between pure science and policy making realized that the people were trotting out "experts" to make it appear that there was huge uncertainly about whether climate change was happening at all, and if it was, whether it was caused by human activity. At that point the scientific community began to talk about consensus to make it clear that those folks were not making scientifically credible claims.

For example:

Joe Blowme: AGW is not axiomatic.

No one claims it is.

There is, however, clear and compelling evidence, that it is happening, it fits with well understood laws of physics and the key mechanisms have been proven scientifically in many ways and are not in question. There are plenty of questions left to answer around climate change, but with it is happening, and whether human activity is largely responsible for it are not among them.


Joe Blowme: we have been warming since the last ice age, no question about it as it has after every ice age.

Science disagrees with you:
upload.wikimedia.org

Joe Blowme: They want to blame it all on co2 so they can "tax it" which does nothing but line pockets, like trying to stop the tides by taxing moonlight beach strolls.

1. Methane is well understood to be worse than CO2. But we produce so much CO2 that it's the main problem right now. But reducing methane has roughly 10x the effect of reducing CO2.

2. There have been numerous proposals -- taxing CO2, creating a free market for a sustainable level of CO2 though "cap and trade", and legislating behavior. Those are attempts to find ways to resolve a problem that was revealed by science, and have no reflection on the validity of the science itself.

Joe Blowme: If co2 is the devil, outlaw it... but they wont because then they could not squeeze cash out of it.

CO2 is not the devil. It is a necessary and important part of the atmosphere on our planet, and is essential to life. The same can be said of H2O. In both cases too much of it in the wrong place can kill you.

Joe Blowme: If they were serious out it they would be fighting global population and calling for investing in space colonization/ exploration.

There are plenty of people in the scientific community doing both. It's the policymakers who fund this stuff or not, so talk to them.

Joe Blowme: Entrophy agrees with me the planet will not be around forever no matter what we tax.

Yes, taxation has no impact on the laws of physics. What's your point? That the Earth will only be around for another billion years anyway, so who cares about whether we fark it up in the next century or not?

Joe Blowme: Carbon credits are a scam.

Well, the idea originally came from free market advocates who argued that it was more economically efficient than a carbon tax. Personally I'd prefer a tax because it directly incorporates the external costs of excess carbon. I suppose if you think free market advocates are scammers then I see why you might distrust their ideas.
 
2012-11-29 12:16:29 PM

Zafler: RidgeRunner5: chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart

The numbers on the bottom seem to indicate years. I'm guessing the numbers on the left is the combined high temperatures in the polling location for that year?

Yeah, apparently nicksteel thinks that, because there are fewer records broken each year, the measured effect of humanity on the Earth is unimportant. I can usually decipher some sort of basis in reality in his rantings, but this one eludes me entirely. It's entirely possible that he doesn't know what it actually records and is just posting it because someone else did, he's done that in that past.


You really are a tool. Christy has shown that if you remove the reporting station that were installed in the 1980s from the data set you find out that it was much warmer in the 1930s than it is now or has been since the 1930s.

Even a douchebag like you should realize that if you install lots of reporting stations during the 1980s then you are going to end up with faulty data.

Maybe you are too thick to understand that when you do install those stations in areas that then become built up that the temperatures over time are going to increase. Let me make it simple for you. You install a reporting station in
 
2012-11-29 12:17:47 PM

RidgeRunner5: chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart

The numbers on the bottom seem to indicate years. I'm guessing the numbers on the left is the combined high temperatures in the polling location for that year?


Link
 
2012-11-29 12:35:52 PM

chuckufarlie: Zasteva: Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

chuckufarlie: The term "consensus science" will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of "argument from authority." Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. ....[clipped].... As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.

that is a statement by a real scientist who works in the field. Get educated


I like the fact that you are accusing me of appeal to authority and then "refuting" it with an appeal to authority. That shows an impressive degree of mental flexibility.

The Appeal to Authority is a kind of logical fallacy, in which the assumption is that since a person is an expert that their statements are automatically correct.

However, I'm not saying that. First, I'm not relying on a single authority, but rather the collective output of the entire scientific community which has looked at this problem in many ways from many different angles. So my authority is science, not a particular person. Nor am I saying that the output of the scientific community is automatically correct, just that it should be presumed so until demonstrated not to be.

I agree with this guy's point about consensus as a political notion rather than a scientific one. (See my post above to Joe Blowme for reference).

Also, while I usually try to ignore snark such as "Get educated", I'm going to make an exception. Educated people who are serious about advancing human knowledge and seeking Truth like to cite their sources and put quotation marks and attribution for statements from other people. Anyone who graduated high school should be familiar with this.
 
2012-11-29 12:38:07 PM

Kazan: Joce678: 3 million years of evolution could have evolved a human capable of eating grass just like lots of other mammals do.

but didn't. for a number of reasons.


...which is why I used the word "could".

English. Do you speak it?
 
2012-11-29 12:46:03 PM

dittybopper: Joce678: Millions of herbivores disagree.

And every single one of them would have died prior to the advent of relatively modern farming.


So all those elephants and antelopes in Africa, all the buffalos in Asia, all those bison in North America... they were all the result of modern farming methods? Is that what you're saying?

Humans evolved the way they are because grazing is hard. You have to dedicate a lot of hours to it. Much better to figure out how to kill herbivores and eat the goodness they've spent all those hours concentrating together. That way you get some leisure time and can spend it evolving other abilities than running away from lions.
 
2012-11-29 12:55:07 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Zasteva: Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

chuckufarlie: The term "consensus science" will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of "argument from authority." Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. ....[clipped].... As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.

that is a statement by a real scientist who works in the field. Get educated

I like the fact that you are accusing me of appeal to authority and then "refuting" it with an appeal to authority. That shows an impressive degree of mental flexibility.

The Appeal to Authority is a kind of logical fallacy, in which the assumption is that since a person is an expert that their statements are automatically correct.

However, I'm not saying that. First, I'm not relying on a single authority, but rather the collective output of the entire scientific community which has looked at this problem in many ways from many different angles. So my authority is science, not a particular person. Nor am I saying that the output of the scientific community is automatically correct, just that it should be presumed so until demonstrated not to be.

I agree with this guy's point about consensus as a political notion rather than a scientific one. (See my post above to Joe Blowme for reference).

Also, while I usually try to ignore snark such as "Get educated", I'm going to make an exception. Educated people who are serious about advancing human knowledge and seeking Truth like to cite their sources and put quotation marks and attribution for statements from other people. Anyone who graduated high school should be familiar with ...


It seemed like a tremendous waste of time to provide that to a person like you. Anybody who goes with that consensus crap is too stupid to waste time on.
 
2012-11-29 12:57:07 PM

Zafler: RidgeRunner5: chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart

The numbers on the bottom seem to indicate years. I'm guessing the numbers on the left is the combined high temperatures in the polling location for that year?

Yeah, apparently nicksteel thinks that, because there are fewer records broken each year, the measured effect of humanity on the Earth is unimportant. I can usually decipher some sort of basis in reality in his rantings, but this one eludes me entirely. It's entirely possible that he doesn't know what it actually records and is just posting it because someone else did, he's done that in that past.


That's only because you weren't here when he used to post huge, rambling, time-cube inspired, 1500 word rants about how global warming was actually a gigantic worldwide conspiracy to create One World Government under the UN in order to overthrow the government of the United States, destroy democracy, and eliminate industry so we can all live in tents after the government has taken all our money and redistributed it to all of the poorest nations in the world.

I mean, really paranoid crazy stupid stuff.
 
2012-11-29 01:03:17 PM

chuckufarlie: Zasteva: I agree with this guy's point about consensus as a political notion rather than a scientific one. (See my post above to Joe Blowme for reference).

chuckufarlie: It seemed like a tremendous waste of time to provide that to a person like you. Anybody who goes with that consensus crap is too stupid to waste time on.


Hmm.... I agreed with you about the nature of consensus.

/stupid, I know.
//adding quotation marks and a person's name to a quote is very time consuming
 
2012-11-29 01:36:51 PM

chuckufarlie:
Zasteva:
Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

chuckufarlie: Go get educated on this subject before you make more ignorant statements.


That was a question, not a statement. This is a statement.
 
2012-11-29 01:57:37 PM

johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.


www.phdcomics.com
 
2012-11-29 01:58:43 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie:
Zasteva:
Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

chuckufarlie: Go get educated on this subject before you make more ignorant statements.

That was a question, not a statement. This is a statement.


you are a real piece of work. I guess that you mother was a heavy drug user when she was pregnant with you. I like how you did not include the part of my post that actually answered your question. Were the sentences too long? Were the words too big?
 
2012-11-29 01:59:40 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Zasteva: I agree with this guy's point about consensus as a political notion rather than a scientific one. (See my post above to Joe Blowme for reference).

chuckufarlie: It seemed like a tremendous waste of time to provide that to a person like you. Anybody who goes with that consensus crap is too stupid to waste time on.

Hmm.... I agreed with you about the nature of consensus.

/stupid, I know.
//adding quotation marks and a person's name to a quote is very time consuming


when dealing with a mouth breather like you, yes it is.
 
2012-11-29 02:01:35 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Zafler: RidgeRunner5: chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart

The numbers on the bottom seem to indicate years. I'm guessing the numbers on the left is the combined high temperatures in the polling location for that year?

Yeah, apparently nicksteel thinks that, because there are fewer records broken each year, the measured effect of humanity on the Earth is unimportant. I can usually decipher some sort of basis in reality in his rantings, but this one eludes me entirely. It's entirely possible that he doesn't know what it actually records and is just posting it because someone else did, he's done that in that past.

That's only because you weren't here when he used to post huge, rambling, time-cube inspired, 1500 word rants about how global warming was actually a gigantic worldwide conspiracy to create One World Government under the UN in order to overthrow the government of the United States, destroy democracy, and eliminate industry so we can all live in tents after the government has taken all our money and redistributed it to all of the poorest nations in the world.

I mean, really paranoid crazy stupid stuff.


Actually I have:
Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.

Pretty close to lil nicky's first appearance. Archived the thread for the research myself and others did in it, it stays useful for the series of questions here. There has yet to be a challenge presented that addressed these issues.
 
2012-11-29 02:24:18 PM

chuckufarlie: Professor John Christy


And his CV?

And his inability to handle/understand peer review?

At best you get an "Incomplete".

Don't make us Fail you.
 
2012-11-29 02:26:05 PM

chuckufarlie: Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Zasteva: I agree with this guy's point about consensus as a political notion rather than a scientific one. (See my post above to Joe Blowme for reference).

chuckufarlie: It seemed like a tremendous waste of time to provide that to a person like you. Anybody who goes with that consensus crap is too stupid to waste time on.

Hmm.... I agreed with you about the nature of consensus.

/stupid, I know.
//adding quotation marks and a person's name to a quote is very time consuming

when dealing with a mouth breather like you, yes it is.


Hmm... name-calling. Have you run out of arguments to support your position? Honestly I'm not even sure I understood your position. Let me restate it as best I understand (be patient with me -- I'm stupid):

- Consensus isn't a scientific notion, it's a political one (we agree on that)
- Even if there were a consensus among scientists they could still be wrong (we agree on that)
- There is no consensus among scientists on AGW, that's just the media/establishment picking who is chosen to speak
- Discussion of scientific consensus is a logical fallacy, and you've provided a single authority to prove it.

Maybe this will be easier if we shift away from the issue of the consensus on AGW, and discuss AGW itself.

Do you accept that CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" are capable of altering our climate? If not, why not?
Do you accept that Climate Change is happening? If not, what evidence to you have to support that position.
Do you accept that Climate Change is currently being driven by human activity? If not, what do you think is causing it?
 
2012-11-29 02:35:59 PM

chuckufarlie: Zasteva: chuckufarlie:
Zasteva:
Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

chuckufarlie: Go get educated on this subject before you make more ignorant statements.

That was a question, not a statement. This is a statement.

you are a real piece of work. I guess that you mother was a heavy drug user when she was pregnant with you. I like how you did not include the part of my post that actually answered your question. Were the sentences too long? Were the words too big?


You answered my post twice. I responded to one explicitly, and the other implicitly. My "this is a statement" reply was a response to your snark, which is why I kept it separate from the replies to your ideas.

You can choose whether to increase the personal attacks against me or respond to the ideas. If you expect me to get angry and start foaming at the mouth as a response to the personal attacks, you'll be sorely disappointed.

I'd rather see you try to respond to the ideas.

What ya' got?
 
2012-11-29 02:59:19 PM

Zafler: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Zafler: RidgeRunner5: chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart

The numbers on the bottom seem to indicate years. I'm guessing the numbers on the left is the combined high temperatures in the polling location for that year?

Yeah, apparently nicksteel thinks that, because there are fewer records broken each year, the measured effect of humanity on the Earth is unimportant. I can usually decipher some sort of basis in reality in his rantings, but this one eludes me entirely. It's entirely possible that he doesn't know what it actually records and is just posting it because someone else did, he's done that in that past.

That's only because you weren't here when he used to post huge, rambling, time-cube inspired, 1500 word rants about how global warming was actually a gigantic worldwide conspiracy to create One World Government under the UN in order to overthrow the government of the United States, destroy democracy, and eliminate industry so we can all live in tents after the government has taken all our money and redistributed it to all of the poorest nations in the world.

I mean, really paranoid crazy stupid stuff.

Actually I have:
Sure, what is your challenge to the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Include and explanation for the increase of carbon dioxide in both the atmosphere and the ocean, where it is coming from, why the concentration of C14 is decreasing so quickly without increasing in the biosphere, why temperature is increasing at an unprecedented rate when compared with the geological record, and why all the scientists studying the climate at universities and study centers world wide have erroneously, in your opinion, concluded that humans are one of the main causes of said warming. Take your time, I'll wait.

Pretty close to lil nicky's first appearance. Archived the thread for the research myself and others did in it, it stays useful for the series of questions here. There has yet to be a challenge presen ...


you are just all pissy because I refuse to believe in your scam. What's wrong, people stop buying carbon credits from you?

It is very flattering to see how much I mean to you and that you save my posts. I hate to break it to you, but I am not gay. This relationship can go nowhere.
 
2012-11-29 03:00:31 PM

Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: Professor John Christy

And his CV?

And his inability to handle/understand peer review?

At best you get an "Incomplete".

Don't make us Fail you.


fail away, moron.

Ever hear of a little thing called GOOGLE?? Look the man up and educate yourself. I am not responsible for trying to educate you.
 
2012-11-29 03:05:27 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Zasteva: chuckufarlie:
Zasteva:
Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

chuckufarlie: Go get educated on this subject before you make more ignorant statements.

That was a question, not a statement. This is a statement.

you are a real piece of work. I guess that you mother was a heavy drug user when she was pregnant with you. I like how you did not include the part of my post that actually answered your question. Were the sentences too long? Were the words too big?

You answered my post twice. I responded to one explicitly, and the other implicitly. My "this is a statement" reply was a response to your snark, which is why I kept it separate from the replies to your ideas.

You can choose whether to increase the personal attacks against me or respond to the ideas. If you expect me to get angry and start foaming at the mouth as a response to the personal attacks, you'll be sorely disappointed.

I'd rather see you try to respond to the ideas.

What ya' got?


I do not attack you personally to elicit a response of any sort. In fact, I do not believe that what I am doing is a personal attack. It is more like pointing out the obvious. I was trying to explain why providing you with lots of info would be a waste of my time. Apparently, I miscalculated your intelligence.
 
2012-11-29 03:19:41 PM

chuckufarlie: Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: Professor John Christy

And his CV?

And his inability to handle/understand peer review?

At best you get an "Incomplete".

Don't make us Fail you.

fail away, moron.

Ever hear of a little thing called GOOGLE?? Look the man up and educate yourself. I am not responsible for trying to educate you.


Here he is

FTWA: "Since 1989 Christy, along with Roy Spencer, has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the "UAH" record (see also satellite temperature record). This was once quite controversial: From the beginning of the satellite record in late 1978 into 1998 it showed a net global cooling trend, although ground measurements and instruments carried aloft by balloons showed warming in many areas. Part of the cooling trend seen by the satellites can be attributed to several years of cooler than normal temperatures and cooling caused by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano. Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[4][5] Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments has shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record."

So, he took measurements, which showed a cooling trend inconsistent with other measurements. He found several factors to explain this, including error in his own measurements, and corrected them. Now the data he gathers shows a warming trend.

All good so far.
 
2012-11-29 03:20:10 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Zasteva: I agree with this guy's point about consensus as a political notion rather than a scientific one. (See my post above to Joe Blowme for reference).

chuckufarlie: It seemed like a tremendous waste of time to provide that to a person like you. Anybody who goes with that consensus crap is too stupid to waste time on.

Hmm.... I agreed with you about the nature of consensus.

/stupid, I know.
//adding quotation marks and a person's name to a quote is very time consuming

when dealing with a mouth breather like you, yes it is.

Hmm... name-calling. Have you run out of arguments to support your position? Honestly I'm not even sure I understood your position. Let me restate it as best I understand (be patient with me -- I'm stupid):

- Consensus isn't a scientific notion, it's a political one (we agree on that)
- Even if there were a consensus among scientists they could still be wrong (we agree on that)
- There is no consensus among scientists on AGW, that's just the media/establishment picking who is chosen to speak
- Discussion of scientific consensus is a logical fallacy, and you've provided a single authority to prove it.

Maybe this will be easier if we shift away from the issue of the consensus on AGW, and discuss AGW itself.

Do you accept that CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" are capable of altering our climate? If not, why not?
Do you accept that Climate Change is happening? If not, what evidence to you have to support that position.
Do you accept that Climate Change is currently being driven by human activity? If not, what do you think is causing it?


yes, you ask all sorts of nice questions but lets get to the reality in this situation.

1. The data that has been gathered for the IPCC is faulty. There are multiple problems with the data.
2. The model makes assumptions that can not be proven. It also is hyper-sensitive to any increase in CO2 levels.

So you have bad data going into a flawed program. Garbage in, garbage out.

3. The temperature data for the period prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. The margin of error for that data is almost as great as the actual increase in temperature since 1850. That means that any assumptions based on this "data" are going to be suspect, at best.
4. The actual increase that has been recorded since 1850 is less than one degree C. That is not something that any intelligent person would get upset over.
5. Most of the reporting stations used to gather data were not installed until the 1980s. That means that data prior to that period is going to be biased. Christy has shown that the 1930s were much warmer than today if you eliminate those newer stations.
6. The placement of the newer stations is bad. Stations were installed in locations that were, at the time, in isolated locations. As the years passed, many of those stations are now in areas that are now developed. Can you see that a station reporting in an open field is going to show increases when that field has a building erected on it, or a parking lot?

The greenhouse gas explanation is a very simplistic explanation designed to explain a complex system to school age children. I hate to break it to you, but the planet I live on is much more complicated than a greenhouse. I have no idea what is going on with the planet you live on.

The IPCC is willing to admit that this has nothing to do with science, why can't you?
 
2012-11-29 03:26:20 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: Professor John Christy

And his CV?

And his inability to handle/understand peer review?

At best you get an "Incomplete".

Don't make us Fail you.

fail away, moron.

Ever hear of a little thing called GOOGLE?? Look the man up and educate yourself. I am not responsible for trying to educate you.

Here he is

FTWA: "Since 1989 Christy, along with Roy Spencer, has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the "UAH" record (see also satellite temperature record). This was once quite controversial: From the beginning of the satellite record in late 1978 into 1998 it showed a net global cooling trend, although ground measurements and instruments carried aloft by balloons showed warming in many areas. Part of the cooling trend seen by the satellites can be attributed to several years of cooler than normal temperatures and cooling caused by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano. Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[4][5] Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments has shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record."

So, he took measurements, which showed a cooling trend inconsistent with other measurements. He found several factors to explain this, including error in his own measurements, and corrected them. Now the data he gathers shows a warming trend.

All good so far.


people who use wikipedia as a source are usually lazy and stupid. Any idiot can make changes to that data at any time.


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 Principal Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

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

Dr. Christy received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois (1984, 1987). Prior to this career path he had graduated from the California State University in Fresno (B.A. Mathematics, 1973, Distinguished Alumnus 2007) and taught Physics and Chemistry as a missionary teacher in Nyeri, Kenya for two years. After earning a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Seminary (1978) he served four years as a bivocational mission-pastor in Vermillion, South Dakota where he also taught college math. He was featured in the February 2001 issue of Discover magazine and in a National Public Radio profile in 2004 in which his diverse background was highlighted.

Dr. Christy has been active in local educational groups. At Grissom High School he served as chairman of the Facilities committee, helping to secure the new Science wing and Gymnasium and was President of its PTSA, Alabama's largest, in 1997-98. He also served on the Huntsville City Schools Strategic Planning Committee and its Finance sub-panel. He is a member of the Huntsville City Surface Water Management Committee.

IF you want to know the man's current thinking, try reading this: Link

and stop using wikipedia to support your position. Only grade school children are allowed to do that.
 
2012-11-29 03:28:11 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: Professor John Christy

And his CV?

And his inability to handle/understand peer review?

At best you get an "Incomplete".

Don't make us Fail you.

fail away, moron.

Ever hear of a little thing called GOOGLE?? Look the man up and educate yourself. I am not responsible for trying to educate you.

Here he is

FTWA: "Since 1989 Christy, along with Roy Spencer, has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the "UAH" record (see also satellite temperature record). This was once quite controversial: From the beginning of the satellite record in late 1978 into 1998 it showed a net global cooling trend, although ground measurements and instruments carried aloft by balloons showed warming in many areas. Part of the cooling trend seen by the satellites can be attributed to several years of cooler than normal temperatures and cooling caused by the eruption of the Mount Pinatubo volcano. Part of the discrepancy between the surface and atmospheric trends was resolved over a period of several years as Christy, Spencer and others identified several factors, including orbital drift and decay, that caused a net cooling bias in the data collected by the satellite instruments.[4][5] Since the data correction of August 1998 (and the major La Niña Pacific Ocean warming event of the same year), data collected by satellite instruments has shown an average global warming trend in the atmosphere. From November 1978 through March 2011, Earth's atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.14 C per decade, according to the UAHuntsville satellite record."

So, he took measurements, which showed a cooling trend inconsistent with other measurements. He found several factors to explain this, including error in his own measurements, and corrected them. Now the data he gathers shows a warming trend.

All good so far.


Link
 
2012-11-29 03:35:49 PM

chuckufarlie: I do not attack you personally to elicit a response of any sort. In fact, I do not believe that what I am doing is a personal attack.


"Anybody who goes with that consensus crap is too stupid to waste time on." -- chuckufarlie
"I guess that you mother was a heavy drug user when she was pregnant with you." -- chuckufarlie
"when dealing with a mouth breather like you, yes it is" -- chuckufarlie

Sure, those don't seem like personal attacks at all.

chuckufarlie: It is more like pointing out the obvious. I was trying to explain why providing you with lots of info would be a waste of my time.

If it needs to be pointed out then it's not obvious. And I don't need lots of information from you. I simply desire a polite knowledgeable response to the ideas I've been discussing. But I can handle disappointment :-)

chuckufarlie: Apparently, I miscalculated your intelligence.

Again, no need to point out the obvious. That was clear to everyone when you called me stupid.
 
2012-11-29 03:43:55 PM
Zasteva, you do know chuck is nicksteel, right? Expecting a rational and coherent reply that is based in reality from him is a bit unrealistic.
 
2012-11-29 04:44:18 PM

chuckufarlie: yes, you ask all sorts of nice questions but lets get to the reality in this situation.

1. The data that has been gathered for the IPCC is faulty. There are multiple problems with the data.
2. The model makes assumptions that can not be proven. It also is hyper-sensitive to any increase in CO2 levels.

So you have bad data going into a flawed program. Garbage in, garbage out.

3. The temperature data for the period prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. The margin of error for that data is almost as great as the actual increase in temperature since 1850. That means that any assumptions based on this "data" are going to be suspect, at best.
4. The actual increase that has been recorded since 1850 is less than one degree C. That is not something that any intelligent person would get upset over.
5. Most of the reporting stations used to gather data were not installed until the 1980s. That means that data prior to that period is going to be biased. Christy has shown that the 1930s were much warmer than today if you eliminate those newer stations.
6. The placement of the newer stations is bad. Stations were installed in locations that were, at the time, in isolated locations. As the years passed, many of those stations are now in areas that are now developed. Can you see that a station reporting in an open field is going to show increases when that field has a building erected on it, or a parking lot?

The greenhouse gas explanation is a very simplistic explanation designed to explain a complex system to school age children. I hate to break it to you, but the planet I live on is much more complicated than a greenhouse. I have no idea what is going on with the planet you live on.

The IPCC is willing to admit that this has nothing to do with science, why can't you?


I'll take your points one at a time:

#1 This is just a summary of the points #5 & #6, so I'll address it there

#2 Models, by their very nature, must make assumptions. Christy's assertion that the model is hyper-sensitivity to CO2 cannot be proven either, because we have insufficient data. There are a variety of possible explanations for a mismatch between predicted and observed warming rate. Hyper-sensitivity could be one, but missing factors or short term effects not accounted for in the model is another. That the model is not a precise short term predictor of warming magnitude shows that we still have questions that need to be answered, not that AGW or the long term predicted effect is bunk.

#3 A huge amount of data in science is proxy data. Particle Physics is completely based on proxy data. We are long past the point in science were we are directly observing most of the things we study. That's one reason why scientists use so many different methods to try to get a record of past temperature, so we can compare a large amount of proxy data.

#4 The change so far is not the cause of concern. Intelligent people are concerned because this change was caused by human activity that is ongoing, and that even if we change the human activity it will take some time before the feedback effects completely work themselves out of the system. We are concerned because we can't predict the exact effects on a chaotic system like the weather, so the risks will be hard to mitigate. And because the costs to human society of things like rising sea level and warmer oceans will be tremendous. We are concerned because we need to stop what we are doing before we even have a chance to see the full effects of what we've already done, and it's not clear we have the political will to do that.

#5 There are a number of places where different historical data has been shown to need correction. Scientists try to use the latest data in their field, but of course at any given time they might have missed something very recent. Here's one example that cites Christy's work: FTP link to PDF. That said, you didn't provide any specific ways in which the data is skewed, so it's impossible to tell if your concerns have been addressed or not.

#6 Leroy 2010 proposed a site reliability criteria. However, there have been no peer reviewed papers published yet that use that to revise the data, and criticism I could find of the US temperature data based on siting issues is universally based on a press release about the results of an unpublished paper by Watts Link to PDF. That paper has not undergone peer review, and has already been contradicted by a peer reviewed, published paper "On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record" -- JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, D11108, 9 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2009JD013094 Link to PDF
 
2012-11-29 04:46:51 PM

Zafler: Zasteva, you do know chuck is nicksteel, right? Expecting a rational and coherent reply that is based in reality from him is a bit unrealistic.


Yep -- I am doing this for my own benefit (forces me to do more research) and for the benefit of others who might be otherwise taken in by his arguments. I don't have any expectations of changing his mind.
 
2012-11-29 04:53:58 PM

chuckufarlie: you are just all pissy because I refuse to believe in your scam. What's wrong, people stop buying carbon credits from you?


pissy? Nah. Though it is a bit annoying that you never answered the most pressing question of this subject - who exactly is behind this massive worldwide conspiracy that you say is using Global Warming as a way of creating One World Government, destroying democracy, eliminating industry, and stripping everyone in the US of all their money so we're all forced to live in tents?

I mean, you wrote so many posts making those claims at great length, but you never actually told us who it was you thought was behind it all.
 
2012-11-29 05:03:19 PM

Zasteva: Zafler: Zasteva, you do know chuck is nicksteel, right? Expecting a rational and coherent reply that is based in reality from him is a bit unrealistic.

Yep -- I am doing this for my own benefit (forces me to do more research) and for the benefit of others who might be otherwise taken in by his arguments. I don't have any expectations of changing his mind.


this from the moron who talked of a consensus and then backed away. Just because you are a fool do not expect everybody of being one.
 
2012-11-29 05:05:35 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: I do not attack you personally to elicit a response of any sort. In fact, I do not believe that what I am doing is a personal attack.

"Anybody who goes with that consensus crap is too stupid to waste time on." -- chuckufarlie
"I guess that you mother was a heavy drug user when she was pregnant with you." -- chuckufarlie
"when dealing with a mouth breather like you, yes it is" -- chuckufarlie

Sure, those don't seem like personal attacks at all.

chuckufarlie: It is more like pointing out the obvious. I was trying to explain why providing you with lots of info would be a waste of my time.

If it needs to be pointed out then it's not obvious. And I don't need lots of information from you. I simply desire a polite knowledgeable response to the ideas I've been discussing. But I can handle disappointment :-)

chuckufarlie: Apparently, I miscalculated your intelligence.

Again, no need to point out the obvious. That was clear to everyone when you called me stupid.


you are most certainly stupid, but pointing that out is no more of a personal attack than pointing out to a zebra that it has stripes.
 
2012-11-29 05:12:05 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: yes, you ask all sorts of nice questions but lets get to the reality in this situation.

1. The data that has been gathered for the IPCC is faulty. There are multiple problems with the data.
2. The model makes assumptions that can not be proven. It also is hyper-sensitive to any increase in CO2 levels.

So you have bad data going into a flawed program. Garbage in, garbage out.

3. The temperature data for the period prior to 1850 is based on proxy data. The margin of error for that data is almost as great as the actual increase in temperature since 1850. That means that any assumptions based on this "data" are going to be suspect, at best.
4. The actual increase that has been recorded since 1850 is less than one degree C. That is not something that any intelligent person would get upset over.
5. Most of the reporting stations used to gather data were not installed until the 1980s. That means that data prior to that period is going to be biased. Christy has shown that the 1930s were much warmer than today if you eliminate those newer stations.
6. The placement of the newer stations is bad. Stations were installed in locations that were, at the time, in isolated locations. As the years passed, many of those stations are now in areas that are now developed. Can you see that a station reporting in an open field is going to show increases when that field has a building erected on it, or a parking lot?

The greenhouse gas explanation is a very simplistic explanation designed to explain a complex system to school age children. I hate to break it to you, but the planet I live on is much more complicated than a greenhouse. I have no idea what is going on with the planet you live on.

The IPCC is willing to admit that this has nothing to do with science, why can't you?

I'll take your points one at a time:

#1 This is just a summary of the points #5 & #6, so I'll address it there

#2 Models, by their very nature, must make assumptions. Christy's assertion that t ...


You are a tool of the highest order. I would rather take Professor Christy's opinion on the subject than I would yours.

your idea that science is full of proxy data is very ignorant. When you have a set of temperature data that is based on tree ring growth from one small spot on the earth and you extrapolate that data to pretend that it must be the same all over the planet, you have a problem. When that make believe data has a margin of error almost the same as the temperature increase reported since 1850. your problem have grown to an enormous size.

Why am I trying to explain this to you? You and Zafler drank the Kool-aid a long time ago. At this point you are no open to any other possibility, if you ever were. I doubt it. You have shown a tremendous lack of intelligence. You have your religion, but like all zealots, you need to keep it to yourself.
 
2012-11-29 05:20:00 PM
usahitman.com


www.worldsocialism.org



(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

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

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.
 
2012-11-29 05:28:06 PM
everyone should read the proposals put forth by the UN to solve this problem.

Link

I just think that it is very odd that this paper is devoted so much to helping the under-developed countries of the world and spends very little time addressing anything that might alleviate the problem.

just saying................
 
2012-11-29 05:28:47 PM

chuckufarlie: You are a tool of the highest order. I would rather take Professor Christy's opinion on the subject than I would yours.


nicksteel: you people believe that somebody's opinion is evidence.


chuckufarlie: your idea that science is full of proxy data is very ignorant. When you have a set of temperature data that is based on tree ring growth from one small spot on the earth and you extrapolate that data to pretend that it must be the same all over the planet, you have a problem. When that make believe data has a margin of error almost the same as the temperature increase reported since 1850. your problem have grown to an enormous size.


nicksteel: citation needed


chuckufarlie: Why am I trying to explain this to you? You and Zafler drank the Kool-aid a long time ago. At this point you are no open to any other possibility, if you ever were. I doubt it. You have shown a tremendous lack of intelligence. You have your religion, but like all zealots, you need to keep it to yourself.


nicksteel: Your silly attacks always show that you have nothing to add to support your position.
 
2012-11-29 05:29:09 PM

chuckufarlie: people who use wikipedia as a source are usually lazy and stupid. Any idiot can make changes to that data at any time.


And anyone can look at the history of what was changed, and with what justification, as well as go back to the cited sources. It's a fine source of information, if you know how to use it. I used it to find one of his quotes. Is that quote wrong?

chuckufarlie: IF you want to know the man's current thinking, try reading this: Link

Good stuff. I'll take the easiest one:

"Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. So, rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and deadly indoor-air pollution. Until affordable and reliable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source." - John R. Christy, PhD


First, this entire statement is outside his area of expertise, so it is merely his opinions. Secondly, much of it is false:

"More CO2 generally means more food for all". There is zero scientific basis for this statement. More CO2 does cause faster planet growth, but it will not affect all species equally. Invasive pest species like kudzu may get more benefits than food crops like corn. And changing weather patterns are projected to have huge negative impact on food production by causing droughts and flooding in areas that are prime cropland.

"rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction". This may be true worldwide, but it is not true in the US, where the gap between rich and poor has been widening since the 80s and real wages for all but the top earners have been stagnant, even while CO2 emission have increased dramatically. Rising CO2 emissions is a side effect of our dependence on fossil fuels, not a axiomatic side effect of electrification, transportation and industry, all of which exist without fossil fuels.

"Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and deadly indoor-air pollution." Natural gas -- fracking which is causing groundwater contamination; Oil -- catastrophic spills, wealth transfer to hostile nations; Coal -- mountain top removal, strip mining, toxic leavings full of heavy metals, sulfur dioxide emissions which cause acid rain, airborne particulates which cause asthma; Of these, cool is the only thing we have in abundance. So fossil fuels are great -- if you compare them to burning wood.

"Until affordable and reliable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source" -- we agree upon that at least. Though I wonder if he understands that fossil fuels are artificially cheap because of external costs.

chuckufarlie: and stop using wikipedia to support your position. Only grade school children are allowed to do that.

What's the name for the fallacy of criticizing the source of the information rather than the content?
 
2012-11-29 05:31:37 PM

chuckufarlie: Zasteva: Zafler: Zasteva, you do know chuck is nicksteel, right? Expecting a rational and coherent reply that is based in reality from him is a bit unrealistic.

Yep -- I am doing this for my own benefit (forces me to do more research) and for the benefit of others who might be otherwise taken in by his arguments. I don't have any expectations of changing his mind.

this from the moron who talked of a consensus and then backed away. Just because you are a fool do not expect everybody of being one.


There you go with the name calling again. You should lecture on the topic of how to win friends and influence people. I can see you are very good at it.

I thought I was very clear and consistent about my position on consensus. But you should be able to copy and paste my quotes on it and prove me wrong very easily.
 
2012-11-29 05:35:43 PM

chuckufarlie: Ever hear of a little thing called GOOGLE?? Look the man up and educate yourself. I am not responsible for trying to educate you.


Oh, kee-rist, this hoary old dodge? "Not responsible for educating"? You sure talk a blue streak for someone not of a mind to inform.

Why are you expecting us to rely on what the man says, lazy bones?

Why can't you give us his bona fides?

Step to it!

Or are ya just...

www.omlet.us
 
2012-11-29 05:40:52 PM

Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: Ever hear of a little thing called GOOGLE?? Look the man up and educate yourself. I am not responsible for trying to educate you.

Oh, kee-rist, this hoary old dodge? "Not responsible for educating"? You sure talk a blue streak for someone not of a mind to inform.

Why are you expecting us to rely on what the man says, lazy bones?

Why can't you give us his bona fides?

Step to it!

Or are ya just...

[www.omlet.us image 600x600]


I posted it at 2012-11-29 03:26:20 PM

It is just that morons like you failed to see it. You need to go play and let the adults talk,
 
2012-11-29 05:44:02 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: people who use wikipedia as a source are usually lazy and stupid. Any idiot can make changes to that data at any time.

And anyone can look at the history of what was changed, and with what justification, as well as go back to the cited sources. It's a fine source of information, if you know how to use it. I used it to find one of his quotes. Is that quote wrong?

chuckufarlie: IF you want to know the man's current thinking, try reading this: Link

Good stuff. I'll take the easiest one:

"Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. So, rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and deadly indoor-air pollution. Until affordable and reliable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source." - John R. Christy, PhD


First, this entire statement is outside his area of expertise, so it is merely his opinions. Secondly, much of it is false:

"More CO2 generally means more food for all". There is zero scientific basis for this statement. More CO2 does cause faster planet growth, but it will not affect all species equally. Invasive pest species like kudzu may get more benefits than food crops like corn. And changing weather patterns are projected to have huge negative impact on food production by causing droughts and flooding in areas that are prime cropland.

"rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction". This may be true worldwide, but it is not true in the US, where the gap between rich and poor has been widening ...


How honest of you to take a multi-page testimony and ignoring everything but a few paragraphs.

The fact that you take such a dishonest approach to this is all the proof needed to show anybody and everybody that you are a liar. If just one of you warmers would take an honest approach, I would be shocked.

And then you defend wikipedia. That also speaks volumes about your character.
 
2012-11-29 05:47:08 PM

chuckufarlie: Zasteva: chuckufarlie: people who use wikipedia as a source are usually lazy and stupid. Any idiot can make changes to that data at any time.

And anyone can look at the history of what was changed, and with what justification, as well as go back to the cited sources. It's a fine source of information, if you know how to use it. I used it to find one of his quotes. Is that quote wrong?

chuckufarlie: IF you want to know the man's current thinking, try reading this: Link

Good stuff. I'll take the easiest one:

"Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. So, rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and deadly indoor-air pollution. Until affordable and reliable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source." - John R. Christy, PhD


First, this entire statement is outside his area of expertise, so it is merely his opinions. Secondly, much of it is false:

"More CO2 generally means more food for all". There is zero scientific basis for this statement. More CO2 does cause faster planet growth, but it will not affect all species equally. Invasive pest species like kudzu may get more benefits than food crops like corn. And changing weather patterns are projected to have huge negative impact on food production by causing droughts and flooding in areas that are prime cropland.

"rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction". This may be true worldwide, but it is not true in the US, where the gap between rich and poor has been ...



nicksteel: It seems hypocritical to tell people that they are wrong when these two (an a few others) have no real idea why they are wrong. It is easy to answer a question by pointing somebody to a lengthy article. The hope that somewhere in that article is the answer. I merely ask them to provide those one or two sentences that actually ARE the answer. They can't.
 
2012-11-29 05:53:26 PM

chuckufarlie: everyone should read the proposals put forth by the UN to solve this problem.

Link

I just think that it is very odd that this paper is devoted so much to helping the under-developed countries of the world and spends very little time addressing anything that might alleviate the problem.

just saying................


Their thinking goes like this:
- CO2 emissions do cause climate change
- the US is producing the largest quantity of CO2 emissions due to our lifestyle and development choices
- the US made those development choices because they were the cheapest and easiest way to get to our level of development
- the less developed parts of the world are trying to reach US levels of development
- the less developed parts of the world will take the cheapest and easiest path to do that
- if they take that path, CO2 emissions levels will dramatically increase, probably at least 5 times their current levels
- that will have tremendous costs in the developed world, as cities like New York and DC end up below sea level, not to mention pretty much all of Florida.
- it will be cheaper for the developed world to reduce the costs of an alternative path than it will be to deal with the costs of climate change.

I'm sure you disagree with any number of points above, starting with the first especially. But to call them odd seems inaccurate, since "odd" really is an expression of how uncommon and unexpected it is. In our world, especially among scientists, it is your view that is "odd".
 
2012-11-29 05:55:48 PM
since somebody here, being extremely dishonest, posted one small snippet of Professor Christy's 36 pages of testimony, I will post some of his statements that are actually relevant.

The average warming rate of 38 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models over-react to CO2. Policy based on observations will likely be far more effective than if based on speculative models, no matter what the future climate does. Regarding Arctic sea ice loss, the average model response to CO2 engenders little confidence because the models' output fails when applied to Antarctic sea ice conditions. New discoveries explain part of the warming found in popular surface temperature data sets which is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the stations. This means popular surface data sets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming

At present, the sea ice extent in the Arctic is at the lowest areal coverage since satellites began monitoring the extent over 30 years ago. In an area with extremely large natural variations, the question is: How much of the loss might be due to extra greenhouse gas warming relative to other causes? We know that there has been warming
in the Arctic since the 1960s from all data sets. To explain this observation, Wallace et al. 2012 examined the different patterns of atmospheric circulation that can contribute to a warmer Arctic versus what might be expected from the extra warming due to the additional greenhouse gases being added to the atmosphere.

They report:
These results support the notion that the enhanced wintertime warming   over high northern latitudes from 1965 to  2000 was mainly a reflection of  unforced  variability  of  the  coupled  climate  system.  Some  of  the simulations  exhibit  an  enhancement  of  the  warming  along  the  Arctic coast, suggestive of exaggerated feedbacks.


In other words, natural variations of the circulation patterns that create warmer Arctic temperatures explain most of the warming that is detected according to this study (see also Liu and Curry 2004 and Curry's analysis using the notion of "climate shifts" in which combinations of natural modes of variability can lead to large changes in ice
coverage: http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/19/pondering-the-arctic-ocean-part-i-cl imatedynamics/). However, there is another non-greenhouse factor that may contribute to Arctic sea ice loss too. When particles from incomplete combustion of carbon fuels, i.e. black carbon aerosols, are transported to the Arctic they can settle on the ice, making the ice darker and more absorbent (less reflective) of the sun's energy (Jacobson 2006,
Hansen et al. 2007.) This extra energy absorbed by the ice speeds up the melting process.


John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama's State
Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of
Alabama in Huntsville. I have served as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC
assessments, have been awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement,
and in 2002 elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
 
2012-11-29 06:04:24 PM

chuckufarlie:


Zasteva: Good stuff. I'll take the easiest one

[Christy quote sipped]

Zasteva: First, this entire statement is outside his area of expertise, so it is merely his opinions. Secondly, much of it is false:

"More CO2 generally means more food for all". There is zero scientific basis for this statement. More CO2 does cause faster planet growth, but it will not affect all species equally. Invasive pest species like kudzu may get more benefits than food crops like corn. And changing weather patterns are projected to have huge negative impact on food production by causing droughts and flooding in areas that are prime cropland.

"rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction". This may be true worldwide, but it is not true in the US, where the gap between rich and poor has been widening ...

chuckufarlie: How honest of you to take a multi-page testimony and ignoring everything but a few paragraphs.

The fact that you take such a dishonest approach to this is all the proof needed to show anybody and everybody that you are a liar. If just one of you warmers would take an honest approach, I would be shocked.

And then you defend wikipedia. That also speaks volumes about your character.


I responded point by point to the longest point of his 5 point argument (and was clear that I was taking the easiest part, as opposed to the whole thing).

You ignored all my points, and launched another personal attack against my character.

Wanna try again?

/you aren't fooling anyone.
 
2012-11-29 06:08:41 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: everyone should read the proposals put forth by the UN to solve this problem.

Link

I just think that it is very odd that this paper is devoted so much to helping the under-developed countries of the world and spends very little time addressing anything that might alleviate the problem.

just saying................

Their thinking goes like this:
- CO2 emissions do cause climate change
- the US is producing the largest quantity of CO2 emissions due to our lifestyle and development choices
- the US made those development choices because they were the cheapest and easiest way to get to our level of development
- the less developed parts of the world are trying to reach US levels of development
- the less developed parts of the world will take the cheapest and easiest path to do that
- if they take that path, CO2 emissions levels will dramatically increase, probably at least 5 times their current levels
- that will have tremendous costs in the developed world, as cities like New York and DC end up below sea level, not to mention pretty much all of Florida.
- it will be cheaper for the developed world to reduce the costs of an alternative path than it will be to deal with the costs of climate change.

I'm sure you disagree with any number of points above, starting with the first especially. But to call them odd seems inaccurate, since "odd" really is an expression of how uncommon and unexpected it is. In our world, especially among scientists, it is your view that is "odd".


Nobody has proven that an increase of CO2 causes climate change. You really need to read up on that.

My favorite of your mistakes - It turns out that CHINA is the world's largest producer of CO2, not the USA. If you don't know that, you need to get back up on the porch. And here is an interesting fact, the UN does not want to do anything to impact the amount of CO2 produced in China because China is considered a developing nation, just like India is.

The idea that Florida, or parts of it, are going to be under water is just more of the crap that you have accepted as true when there is nothing to support it.

The rest of your clap trap is pure BS. The UN wants to take money from the developed countries and give it to the developing countries (and they include China and India on that list).


I will let a member of the IPCC explain it, since this seems to be another area where you inability to understand what you read causes you problems:

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

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

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.



Get up on the porch, junior. You do not have what it takes to spew the warmers lies.
 
2012-11-29 06:13:01 PM

chuckufarlie: since somebody here, being extremely dishonest, posted one small snippet of Professor Christy's 36 pages of testimony, I will post some of his statements that are actually relevant.


The man is a respected atmospheric scientist. I'm not arguing against his atmospheric research, but rather his overreaching policy conclusions based on it. That's why I took his policy summary rather than the data itself. I'll leave it to other scientists to argue against it.

Why did you completely fail to respond to my point by point criticism of that. Why haven't you responded to either of the 2 papers I referenced that rebutted your points the one time you dared to actually make any disprovable statements rather than just launch personal attacks.
 
2012-11-29 06:14:58 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie:


Zasteva: Good stuff. I'll take the easiest one

[Christy quote sipped]

Zasteva: First, this entire statement is outside his area of expertise, so it is merely his opinions. Secondly, much of it is false:

"More CO2 generally means more food for all". There is zero scientific basis for this statement. More CO2 does cause faster planet growth, but it will not affect all species equally. Invasive pest species like kudzu may get more benefits than food crops like corn. And changing weather patterns are projected to have huge negative impact on food production by causing droughts and flooding in areas that are prime cropland.

"rising CO2 emissions are one indication of poverty-reduction". This may be true worldwide, but it is not true in the US, where the gap between rich and poor has been widening ...

chuckufarlie: How honest of you to take a multi-page testimony and ignoring everything but a few paragraphs.

The fact that you take such a dishonest approach to this is all the proof needed to show anybody and everybody that you are a liar. If just one of you warmers would take an honest approach, I would be shocked.

And then you defend wikipedia. That also speaks volumes about your character.

I responded point by point to the longest point of his 5 point argument (and was clear that I was taking the easiest part, as opposed to the whole thing).

You ignored all my points, and launched another personal attack against my character.

Wanna try again?

/you aren't fooling anyone.


I addressed your points and then went on to show how dishonest and ignorant you are. That is not an attack on your character. You should have somebody read QB VII by Leon Uris. I think that the judges findings concerning the plaintiff fit you perfectly. The plaintiff was suing a man for defamation of character. During the trial, the true character of the plaintiff was revealed. The judge awarded in his favor but the settlement was for less and a Pound The judge felt that this amount was all that the plaintiff's character was worth..
 
2012-11-29 06:18:15 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: since somebody here, being extremely dishonest, posted one small snippet of Professor Christy's 36 pages of testimony, I will post some of his statements that are actually relevant.

The man is a respected atmospheric scientist. I'm not arguing against his atmospheric research, but rather his overreaching policy conclusions based on it. That's why I took his policy summary rather than the data itself. I'll leave it to other scientists to argue against it.

Why did you completely fail to respond to my point by point criticism of that. Why haven't you responded to either of the 2 papers I referenced that rebutted your points the one time you dared to actually make any disprovable statements rather than just launch personal attacks.


I did not respond because it was not worth it. All you did was list a bunch of crap that is pointless. To be honest, you bore me. You are not worth my time and am just going to ignore you from now on. You are at best, a neophyte. You are obviously a fool and a socialist who wants to ruin the USA economy
 
2012-11-29 06:25:05 PM
since there have been some people posting lies, I thought I would show some truth. The idea that the average global temperature is increasing and is higher than since 1850 is just not true.

c3headlines.typepad.com

c3headlines.typepad.com
 
2012-11-29 06:37:00 PM

chuckufarlie: [www.globalwarming.org image 300x189]this chart



www.pocketables.com

Because the number of US daily maximum temperature records set is a much better proxy for global mean temperature than, say, global temperature data. 

Of course, this has already been explained to chuck, repeatedly, but then deniers are a lot like teatards when it comes to data from outside the echo chamber.
 
2012-11-29 06:39:20 PM

chuckufarlie: Nobody has proven that an increase of CO2 causes climate change. You really need to read up on that.

My favorite of your mistakes - It turns out that CHINA is the world's largest producer of CO2, not the USA. If you don't know that, you need to get back up on the porch. And here is an interesting fact, the UN does not want to do anything to impact the amount of CO2 produced in China because China is considered a developing nation, just like India is.


Opps. My bad. Yes, China is the largest producer, producing 7 billion tons compared to 5.4 billion tons for the US. It looks like China surpassed the US probably sometime in 2004, so I really should have known better. That's what I get for making a statement without researching it. Link

The idea that Florida, or parts of it, are going to be under water is just more of the crap that you have accepted as true when there is nothing to support it.

I'm not saying it's a certainly. But there is undeniably an amount of atmospheric CO2 that would (indirectly though a variety of mechanisms) cause sufficient sea level rise to flood much of Florida. Here's a map of the amount of flooding you would get with various amounts of sea level rise:

Florida Sea Level rise map

If all the ice on the planet melted, that would produce a sea level rise of roughly 60 meters, which would only leave a few tiny island left of the highest parts of Florida. 1/3rd of that would be enough to drown about 1/2 of Florida. These are approximations only, not precise measurements.

I'm not claiming any of this is certain, or even likely. It seems to me that by the time we hit 2050, the indications of Global Climate change should be clear enough that even you won't deny them. At that point, we are likely to take the action we need to stop adding to it, so we are likely to stabilize at less than 2 meters of rise. But we'll have to see what happens.

It's also worth considering that the worst economic losses from flooding will happen on the major coastal cities, which will be hit pretty hard by even a 2 meter rise. So mitigation might still be cheaper than recovery.
 
2012-11-29 06:44:47 PM

chuckufarlie: I addressed your points and then went on to show how dishonest and ignorant you are. That is not an attack on your character. You should have somebody read QB VII by Leon Uris. I think that the judges findings concerning the plaintiff fit you perfectly. The plaintiff was suing a man for defamation of character. During the trial, the true character of the plaintiff was revealed. The judge awarded in his favor but the settlement was for less and a Pound The judge felt that this amount was all that the plaintiff's character was worth..


No you didn't, and QB VII is a work of fiction.

/just like all the other stuff you base your worldview on
 
2012-11-29 07:12:10 PM

chuckufarlie: since there have been some people posting lies, I thought I would show some truth. The idea that the average global temperature is increasing and is higher than since 1850 is just not true.

[c3headlines.typepad.com image 400x253]

[c3headlines.typepad.com image 400x233]


Shouldn't you be showing us a chart of average global temperature, instead of one for the just the US?

Or at least offer some explanation why the US alone is accurate proxy data for the entire world.
 
2012-11-29 07:29:31 PM

chuckufarlie: Why did you completely fail to respond to my point by point criticism of that. Why haven't you responded to either of the 2 papers I referenced that rebutted your points the one time you dared to actually make any disprovable statements rather than just launch personal attacks.

I did not respond because it was not worth it. All you did was list a bunch of crap that is pointless. To be honest, you bore me. You are not worth my time and am just going to ignore you from now on. You are at best, a neophyte. You are obviously a fool and a socialist who wants to ruin the USA economy

 

Okay, see you around!

I sure learned a lot though. All this new vocabulary:

"Bunch of Crap that is Pointless" - noun. peer reviewed published scientific papers
"to be honest" - verb. to make excuses
"to bore" - verb. to force chuckufarlie to run away in shame
"to addressing the point" - verb. ignoring the point and launching personal attacks
"personal attacks" - plural noun. insults other than name calling, accusations of poor character and intelligence, or saying bad things about someone's mother
"to state the obvious" - verb. name calling, accusations of poor character and intelligence, and saying bad things about someone's mother
"dishonest approach" - noun. clearly saying what you are going to do and doing it
"obvious" - adjective. akin to the things chuckufarlie repeats frequently because other people can't see them
"truth" - noun. charts that show something related to, but not the same as, what chuckufarlie said
"fool" - noun. someone who disproves nearly everything that chuckufarlie says

/vocabulary is fun
//this is just too easy
 
2012-11-29 08:28:35 PM

Kazan: thursdaypostal: Global warming can cause cold temperatures in the same way that a speeding car can cause sudden deceleration.

So that is a "i don't know how this works and i don't believe it so i'm going to make an absurd sounding statement and try to portray it as analogy".


Convection ... how does that shiat work?
Temperature flow, you can't explain that!


What? I was saying like going to fast can lead to a crash, temperatures too high can lead to a crash.
 
2012-11-29 08:28:58 PM

Zasteva: chuckufarlie: I addressed your points and then went on to show how dishonest and ignorant you are. That is not an attack on your character. You should have somebody read QB VII by Leon Uris. I think that the judges findings concerning the plaintiff fit you perfectly. The plaintiff was suing a man for defamation of character. During the trial, the true character of the plaintiff was revealed. The judge awarded in his favor but the settlement was for less and a Pound The judge felt that this amount was all that the plaintiff's character was worth..

No you didn't, and QB VII is a work of fiction.

/just like all the other stuff you base your worldview on


there you go again, another example of your inability to understand what you read. At no point did I make any claim that the book was or was not fiction. Do you wonder why I question your intelligence?

Also a very mature response "no you didn't". Did you stomp your little foot while you were typing that?
 
2012-11-29 08:48:29 PM

Zasteva: Gr8Zen: barefoot in the head: Based on an average annual passenger car mileage of 12,500 miles and an average annual light truck mileage of 14,000 miles, your car emits the following pollutants: 108 pounds of hydrocarbons, 854 pounds of carbon monoxide, 55.8 pounds of oxides on nitrogen, 16,034 pounds of carbon dioxide, 813 gallons of gasoline evaporates.

Times over a biliion cars on the planet, surpassed in 2011. Not to mention factories, shipping, aircraft, rail, slash and burn, etc.

If you don't think that affects a finite system ... well, you are more to be pitied than despised for your disadvantageous thought process. That is as polite as I can be.

Gr8Zen:
Your argument is faulty. The Milky Way Galaxy is a finite system. I do not think those emissions numbers have any appreciable effect on the rest of our galaxy. Just because the numbers are "a lot", it doesn't mean that they have any effect of any kind.

Him: "this isn't a drop in the bucket, it's a steady flow that will cause the bucket to overflow"
You: "that steady flow is to small to overflow a lake, so you are wrong"

He didn't explicitly state that the finite system was the Earth's, but it was obvious that was what he meant.

What matters is that models that predict a probability of certain events occurring have been almost entirely correct over the last 20 years and they are getting more and more accurate every year.

That is important, yes. But models are based on numerical calculations and assumptions about the finite system. Those models make a ton of calculations based around his argument that you just tried to say was faulty. If his argument is faulty, then so are the models.


To use your analogy, his point was "I have a drop of water and so do billions of other people." His numbers provided almost no context by which to gauge if that drop was going into a bucket or a lake or a universe. Even if we assume The Earth, which seems to be a pretty valid assumption, without some reference to the total volume of carbon on the Earth, his statements are meaningless in any practical way. It great that he says we are (using made up numbers) adding 10^3 megatons of carbon per year. Without some other context, like saying that the system has 10^6 megatons or 10^600 megatons, merely throwing out a big number is useless.

It's not just that his "argument" is specious is that he basically said:

A.
B is finite.
Therefore, C is is true.

without establishing any relationship between A, B or C, and THEN went on to say that if you don't automagically just know his argument, then your an idiot to be pitied/despised.
 
2012-11-29 10:16:37 PM

Bontesla: johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.

Are these not all descriptions of the same event?


From the standpoint of politicians / salesmen /weasel words, no. Wearing a layman hat, they sound like this-

Global warming- the world is getting hotter.

Climate change- the world isn't getting hotter where you are? Okay, so it's 'climate change' now. Gets hotter? Climate change. Gets colder? Climate change.

Climate instability- any change at all means the world's going to end in the next 10 years.

If I put on the science hat with a lining of skepticism, I still don't see anything worth trusting. There are groups of scientists on each side, saying the other side's scientists are idiots.

If someone tells me cheese is now dangerous because it has been found to undergo spontaneous fusion, I probably won't believe them. If dairies world wide start to detonate with the appropriate radiation signature, then I would take it seriously.

The problem is the signal to noise ratio or, in this case, the message to BS ratio. The ratio is too low for me right now.
 
2012-11-29 10:28:31 PM

styckx: All of you on soap boxes know the whole Gulf Stream and Europe thing is a myth right?


I hope you're getting paid to troll that hard
 
2012-11-29 10:36:25 PM

Abacus9: ThrobblefootSpectre: StreetlightInTheGhetto:
[img.gawkerassets.com image 300x405]

Neither makes any sense. Global petroleum demand is constantly increasing, and no one has to bribe anyone to keep selling shiat tonnes of it, or keep prices up.

It's not so much about demand, it's about the fact that the EPA might fine them. These companies use their own "climate experts" to try to persuade everybody that their pollution causes no environmental harm. It really is all about money.


Mostly the same people the tobacco companies hired to prove how healthy cigarettes are.
 
2012-11-29 11:02:30 PM

thursdaypostal: Kazan: thursdaypostal: Global warming can cause cold temperatures in the same way that a speeding car can cause sudden deceleration.

So that is a "i don't know how this works and i don't believe it so i'm going to make an absurd sounding statement and try to portray it as analogy".


Convection ... how does that shiat work?
Temperature flow, you can't explain that!

What? I was saying like going to fast can lead to a crash, temperatures too high can lead to a crash.


ok good, so it ISN'T what i thought it was.

johnperkins: Wearing a layman hat, they sound like this-

Global warming- the world is getting hotter.

Climate change- the world isn't getting hotter where you are? Okay, so it's 'climate change' now. Gets hotter? Climate change. Gets colder? Climate change.

Climate instability- any change at all means the world's going to end in the next 10 years.


i know plenty of laymen who understand what this terms mean just fine. and STILL nobody but you has ever used the third one.

johnperkins: There are groups of scientists on each side, saying the other side's scientists are idiots.


no.. there are not. the only "scientists" that say AGW isn't happening are pretty much on the payrolls of the oil and coal industries. this sense of controversy you have is false.


johnperkins: If someone tells me cheese is now dangerous because it has been found to undergo spontaneous fusion, I probably won't believe them. If dairies world wide start to detonate with the appropriate radiation signature, then I would take it seriously.

The problem is the signal to noise ratio or, in this case, the message to BS ratio. The ratio is too low for me right now.



that's because you've made up your mind, and it doesn't matter how many mountains of evidence the scientists have to support it.. it will never be enough for you

you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger and Backfire effects. That is to say: you are more confident in your knowledge then you have right to be, and evidence that contradicts your predetermined [biased] position just serves to make you dig in your heals more.
 
2012-11-29 11:08:45 PM

johnperkins: Bontesla: johnperkins: First it was...global warming.

Then it was...climate change.

Then it was...climate instability.



The more weasel-y the words, the more trouble I have taking any of it seriously.

Are these not all descriptions of the same event?

From the standpoint of politicians / salesmen /weasel words, no. Wearing a layman hat, they sound like this-

Global warming- the world is getting hotter.

Climate change- the world isn't getting hotter where you are? Okay, so it's 'climate change' now. Gets hotter? Climate change. Gets colder? Climate change.

Climate instability- any change at all means the world's going to end in the next 10 years.

If I put on the science hat with a lining of skepticism, I still don't see anything worth trusting. There are groups of scientists on each side, saying the other side's scientists are idiots.

If someone tells me cheese is now dangerous because it has been found to undergo spontaneous fusion, I probably won't believe them. If dairies world wide start to detonate with the appropriate radiation signature, then I would take it seriously.

The problem is the signal to noise ratio or, in this case, the message to BS ratio. The ratio is too low for me right now.


That's disingenuous. I'm not asking if, politically, you're able to illustrate how the words are dangerous. I'm asking if, scientifically, are these not all descriptions of the same event? The answer is yes.

And the BSAB argument is a terrible one. If you're unable to form thoughts independent of political speech and pandering then you have no business advocating for anything to anyone. Who cares if both sides froth at the mouth if there's actual science to review? I don't need to like the person trying to save my life if they're using reason and facts for the purpose of saving my life. Further, while both sides may be bad, that does not mean both sides are equally bad nor does it mean both sides are guilty of the same bad qualities.

There is actual science. The issue is much simpler than you're suggesting. Simply toss out all of the noise and focus on the science.
 
2012-11-29 11:33:34 PM
 
2012-11-30 02:31:41 AM

Kazan: thursdaypostal: Kazan: thursdaypostal: Global warming can cause cold temperatures in the same way that a speeding car can cause sudden deceleration.

So that is a "i don't know how this works and i don't believe it so i'm going to make an absurd sounding statement and try to portray it as analogy".


Convection ... how does that shiat work?
Temperature flow, you can't explain that!

What? I was saying like going to fast can lead to a crash, temperatures too high can lead to a crash.

ok good, so it ISN'T what i thought it was.

johnperkins: Wearing a layman hat, they sound like this-

Global warming- the world is getting hotter.

Climate change- the world isn't getting hotter where you are? Okay, so it's 'climate change' now. Gets hotter? Climate change. Gets colder? Climate change.

Climate instability- any change at all means the world's going to end in the next 10 years.

i know plenty of laymen who understand what this terms mean just fine. and STILL nobody but you has ever used the third one.

johnperkins: There are groups of scientists on each side, saying the other side's scientists are idiots.

no.. there are not. the only "scientists" that say AGW isn't happening are pretty much on the payrolls of the oil and coal industries. this sense of controversy you have is false.


johnperkins: If someone tells me cheese is now dangerous because it has been found to undergo spontaneous fusion, I probably won't believe them. If dairies world wide start to detonate with the appropriate radiation signature, then I would take it seriously.

The problem is the signal to noise ratio or, in this case, the message to BS ratio. The ratio is too low for me right now.


that's because you've made up your mind, and it doesn't matter how many mountains of evidence the scientists have to support it.. it will never be enough for you

you're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger and Backfire effects. That is to say: you are more confident in your knowledge then you have right to be, ...


Nobody but me has used 'climate instability-' 55,900 hits on Google for "climate instability."

Scientists who say AGW isn't happening are on payrolls of big companies- this is part of why I have difficulty trusting either side. It feels like religion A saying they are God's chosen and Religion B's folowers are evil, but Religion B saying they (B) are the chosen and the A's are evil. I don't know how many no-AGW scientists are on a payroll or not, but it would be hard to accept a 100% on the payroll figure.

It will never be enough for me- I think 'it's not enough right now' and 'it will never be enough' are not the same thing.

Backfire and Dunning-Kruger effects- i don't see how either fit for me as I'm not expressing a pro- or anti- AGW viewpoint. I recognize that either side might be correct and that I might someday encounter enough info to put me on one side of the fence or the other.  I haven't yet, but I may in the future.
 
2012-11-30 08:56:42 AM

chuckufarlie: Zasteva: chuckufarlie: Zasteva: Joe, are you trying to suggest that because there is a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening and it's caused largely by human activity that it's not real science?

chuckufarlie: The term "consensus science" will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of "argument from authority." Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. ....[clipped].... As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.

that is a statement by a real scientist who works in the field. Get educated

I like the fact that you are accusing me of appeal to authority and then "refuting" it with an appeal to authority. That shows an impressive degree of mental flexibility.

The Appeal to Authority is a kind of logical fallacy, in which the assumption is that since a person is an expert that their statements are automatically correct.

However, I'm not saying that. First, I'm not relying on a single authority, but rather the collective output of the entire scientific community which has looked at this problem in many ways from many different angles. So my authority is science, not a particular person. Nor am I saying that the output of the scientific community is automatically correct, just that it should be presumed so until demonstrated not to be.

I agree with this guy's point about consensus as a political notion rather than a scientific one. (See my post above to Joe Blowme for reference).

Also, while I usually try to ignore snark such as "Get educated", I'm going to make an exception. Educated people who are serious about advancing human knowledge and seeking Truth like to cite their sources and put quotation marks and attribution for statements from other people. Anyone who graduated high school should be familia ...


Hahaha, you're such an A-hole. Every thread you are in gets automatically better. You always try so hard to sound like an authority on assorted topics and you consistently come across as some guy with intense little-man syndrome.

Carry on.
 
2012-11-30 08:59:52 AM

johnperkins: Nobody but me has used 'climate instaeahbility-' 55,900 hits on Google for "climate instability."


global warming; About 277,000,000 results (0.21 seconds)
climate change: About 897,000,000 results (0.17 seconds)

johnperkins: Scientists who say AGW isn't happening are on payrolls of big companies- this is part of why I have difficulty trusting either side. It feels like religion A saying they are God's chosen and Religion B's folowers are evil, but Religion B saying they (B) are the chosen and the A's are evil. I don't know how many no-AGW scientists are on a payroll or not, but it would be hard to accept a 100% on the payroll figure.


*rolleyes*

the statement happens to be an accurate statement. This is the SAME EXACT false-controversy creating propaganda tactic that the tobacco companies used 20-30 years ago. In fact it is run by the same disinformation masters.

Rightly accusing a small group of people of bias, because every time they open their mouth you can follow the money is not religion.

Again, you're showing all the signs of the Backfire effect.

johnperkins: It will never be enough for me- I think 'it's not enough right now' and 'it will never be enough' are not the same thing.


when you will never switched from the former to the latter then it is. as i've said several times now - you're showing all the signs of the Backfire (and to a lesser extent the Dunning-Kruger) effect. No reasonable scientifically literate person in 2012 doubts that global warming is happening, and essentially none of them doubt humans have some role.

>

johnperkins: Backfire and Dunning-Kruger effects- i don't see how either fit for me as I'm not expressing a pro- or anti- AGW viewpoint. I recognize that either side might be correct and that I might someday encounter enough info to put me on one side of the fence or the other. I haven't yet, but I may in the future.


Because no reasonably scientifically literate person uses the form of arguments you've used to object to something with as clear of data as AGW.
Because no reasonable scientifically literate person doubt that global warming is happening, and that humans are at minimum part of the cause
Because you are engaging in an argument pattern consistent with rejecting evidence in favor of your preconceived notions
Because you are demonstrating a belief that your layman's ignorance is as good as their knowledge.
 
2012-11-30 10:27:47 AM

Kazan: johnperkins: Nobody but me has used 'climate instaeahbility-' 55,900 hits on Google for "climate instability."

global warming; About 277,000,000 results (0.21 seconds)
climate change: About 897,000,000 results (0.17 seconds)

johnperkins: Scientists who say AGW isn't happening are on payrolls of big companies- this is part of why I have difficulty trusting either side. It feels like religion A saying they are God's chosen and Religion B's folowers are evil, but Religion B saying they (B) are the chosen and the A's are evil. I don't know how many no-AGW scientists are on a payroll or not, but it would be hard to accept a 100% on the payroll figure.

*rolleyes*

the statement happens to be an accurate statement. This is the SAME EXACT false-controversy creating propaganda tactic that the tobacco companies used 20-30 years ago. In fact it is run by the same disinformation masters.

Rightly accusing a small group of people of bias, because every time they open their mouth you can follow the money is not religion.

Again, you're showing all the signs of the Backfire effect.

johnperkins: It will never be enough for me- I think 'it's not enough right now' and 'it will never be enough' are not the same thing.

when you will never switched from the former to the latter then it is. as i've said several times now - you're showing all the signs of the Backfire (and to a lesser extent the Dunning-Kruger) effect. No reasonable scientifically literate person in 2012 doubts that global warming is happening, and essentially none of them doubt humans have some role.

> johnperkins: Backfire and Dunning-Kruger effects- i don't see how either fit for me as I'm not expressing a pro- or anti- AGW viewpoint. I recognize that either side might be correct and that I might someday encounter enough info to put me on one side of the fence or the other. I haven't yet, but I may in the future.

Because no reasonably scientifically literate person uses the form of arguments you've used ...


Climate instability, 55,900 hits vs. 277,000,000 and 897,000,000- There was no discussion about how many hits of one term vs. the other. The statement being challenged was that no one (hits=0) used that term but me. Spelling- typing on a flat screen right before bed, my fault.

Scientists who say AGW isn't happening are on payrolls of big companies- that would appear to be a truism and a matter of demonizing the opposition. If we assume for the moment that AGW does exist, that would imply that there exists no scientist who reached the opposite conclusion (no AGW) for being in the pocket of big business.

I never suggested it was a matter of religion. I used that as an analogy for how it feels to me to watch two groups do the 'if you're not with us, then you're against us' thing.

No reasonable scientific person in 2012 doubts- demonizing the opposition. If they disagree, they must not be reasonable.

Engaging in an argument pattern consistent with rejecting evidence in favor of your preconceived notions- I can't say there is no pattern as that would feel like proving a negative. I can say that I'm not rejecting evidence and that I'm not making any value statements about my opinions/knowledge vs. someone else's. I'm making a statement about how it feels to experience the marketing from one side.

I've been careful here to avoid showing whatever opinion I may have one way or the other (pro- vs anti- AGW) or if I have such an opinion either way. What I was going for with the original comment was that the apparent changes in buzzwords feel weasel-y to me and do not help to move me to the side using them.

I wish I could remember where it came from, but I remember a story about a bunch of protesters and counter-protesters doing their thing (hold up signs, chant slogans, etc.). One guy shows up with a blank sign and holds that up. Different people think he has to be saying one thing or another and some get very angry at him, thinking he's trying to undermine their viewpoint.

I enjoy a good argument, but I haven't experienced anything in this thread that moves me to one side or the other. This feels like the marketing bit- Yell, yell, anyone who doesn't agree with us is an idiot or up to no good. It doesn't push me away from the pro-AGW side because I'm knowingly participating in the argument, but at the same time it doesn't push me toward the pro-AGW side because my experience of the message here is that I'm an idiot, not for disagreeing (I don't), but for not agreeing. It's just not effective marketing.
 
2012-11-30 10:38:35 AM

johnperkins: I've been careful here to avoid showing whatever opinion I may have one way or the other (pro- vs anti- AGW) or if I have such an opinion either way.


no you haven't. the moment you made that bullshiat weasely words argument you showed your hand.

johnperkins: I enjoy a good argument, but I haven't experienced anything in this thread that moves me to one side or the other.


that's because you're finding every excuse not to take a position. you refuse to say "now it isn't happening" because i'll bury you in data a mile deep. However you can sit there an make up BS about "marketing" and "demonizing the opposition" all day long to avoid accepting a well supported scientific theory that you're uncomfortable with.


should i just start dropping data on you like a bad habit?
 
2012-11-30 10:40:16 AM

chuckufarlie: It is just that morons like you failed to see it. You need to go play and let the adults talk,


It takes a few seconds to type, you know. Other people post in the meantime. And, I might add, if it was so easy to provide, why were you so goddam pissy about it? AND your poutrage over ad hominem is noted, again, ya farking hypocrite.

chuckufarlie: The idea that Florida, or parts of it, are going to be under water is just more of the crap that you have accepted as true when there is nothing to support it.


www.makingitmagazine.net

Would like a word...

Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat

But now that your provenance is fully revealed I hang my head in shame having engaged you at such length.

Good day, sir.
 
2012-11-30 12:27:25 PM

Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: It is just that morons like you failed to see it. You need to go play and let the adults talk,

It takes a few seconds to type, you know. Other people post in the meantime. And, I might add, if it was so easy to provide, why were you so goddam pissy about it? AND your poutrage over ad hominem is noted, again, ya farking hypocrite.

chuckufarlie: The idea that Florida, or parts of it, are going to be under water is just more of the crap that you have accepted as true when there is nothing to support it.

[www.makingitmagazine.net image 400x534]

Would like a word...

Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat

But now that your provenance is fully revealed I hang my head in shame having engaged you at such length.

Good day, sir.


what part of pancake flat do you not understand? That is the description in the article for the islands. Florida is not pancake flat. Those islands at the best of time barely stick above sea level, Florida does not fit that description.

Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to try to make that sort of comparison? Do you have any active brain cells?

I have noticed that the people that believe in this scam can not think clearly. You are all part of a group of egotists who believe that you are smarter than the rest of us when in fact you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.
 
2012-11-30 12:42:38 PM

chuckufarlie: what part of pancake flat do you not understand? That is the description in the article for the islands. Florida is not pancake flat. Those islands at the best of time barely stick above sea level, Florida does not fit that description.


Never been to the Keys, I take it?

chuckufarlie: I have noticed that the people that believe in this scam can not think clearly. You are all part of a group of egotists who believe that you are smarter than the rest of us when in fact you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.


Ladies and Gentlemen, here she is!

Miss Congeniality!
 
2012-11-30 12:52:02 PM

chuckufarlie: Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: It is just that morons like you failed to see it. You need to go play and let the adults talk,

It takes a few seconds to type, you know. Other people post in the meantime. And, I might add, if it was so easy to provide, why were you so goddam pissy about it? AND your poutrage over ad hominem is noted, again, ya farking hypocrite.

chuckufarlie: The idea that Florida, or parts of it, are going to be under water is just more of the crap that you have accepted as true when there is nothing to support it.

[www.makingitmagazine.net image 400x534]

Would like a word...

Entire nation of Kiribati to be relocated over rising sea level threat

But now that your provenance is fully revealed I hang my head in shame having engaged you at such length.

Good day, sir.

what part of pancake flat do you not understand? That is the description in the article for the islands. Florida is not pancake flat. Those islands at the best of time barely stick above sea level, Florida does not fit that description.

Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to try to make that sort of comparison? Do you have any active brain cells?

I have noticed that the people that believe in this scam can not think clearly. You are all part of a group of egotists who believe that you are smarter than the rest of us when in fact you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.



nicksteel: When you do nothing but attack people, you project an image of a group who does not understand the logic enough to discuss it intelligently.
 
2012-11-30 03:44:38 PM

Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: what part of pancake flat do you not understand? That is the description in the article for the islands. Florida is not pancake flat. Those islands at the best of time barely stick above sea level, Florida does not fit that description.

Never been to the Keys, I take it?

chuckufarlie: I have noticed that the people that believe in this scam can not think clearly. You are all part of a group of egotists who believe that you are smarter than the rest of us when in fact you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here she is!

Miss Congeniality!


wow, the dumb just never stops with you. You went from comparing Florida to some tiny flat atolls in the Pacific to now making the statement that Florida consists of nothing but the keys. You truly are an ignorant piece of crap, aren't you!!!

Maybe you do not realize that the average height of any of the Florida Keys is FIVE feet. Link Once again, not at all like those atolls that you are so concerned with.

You have dug yourself a pretty deep hole, I suggest that you stop digging. If your goal was to show what a massive moron you are, you have succeeded beautifully.

You are the perfect example of a warmer - not intelligent enough to exercise independent thinking so you just go along with stupid ideas like AGW. I blame the public schools, they no longer teach our children to think, they just teach them to memorize and regurgitate.

Realizing that your ego and your lack of intelligence will not allow you to gracefully go away, I await your next display of ignorance and stupidity.
 
2012-11-30 03:49:18 PM

Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: what part of pancake flat do you not understand? That is the description in the article for the islands. Florida is not pancake flat. Those islands at the best of time barely stick above sea level, Florida does not fit that description.

Never been to the Keys, I take it?

chuckufarlie: I have noticed that the people that believe in this scam can not think clearly. You are all part of a group of egotists who believe that you are smarter than the rest of us when in fact you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here she is!

Miss Congeniality!


i.chzbgr.com

images.sodahead.com 
 
2012-11-30 04:49:19 PM

chuckufarlie: to now making the statement that Florida consists of nothing but the keys.


Well, it's better than lying about what someone else said, don't you think?
 
2012-11-30 05:18:11 PM

chuckufarlie: Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: what part of pancake flat do you not understand? That is the description in the article for the islands. Florida is not pancake flat. Those islands at the best of time barely stick above sea level, Florida does not fit that description.

Never been to the Keys, I take it?

chuckufarlie: I have noticed that the people that believe in this scam can not think clearly. You are all part of a group of egotists who believe that you are smarter than the rest of us when in fact you are too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

Ladies and Gentlemen, here she is!

Miss Congeniality!

[i.chzbgr.com image 426x360]

[images.sodahead.com image 276x299]



nicksteel: I like your type - when you cannot come back with an intelligent answer you post some silly picture. Good for you!!!
 
2012-11-30 05:26:06 PM

Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: to now making the statement that Florida consists of nothing but the keys.

Well, it's better than lying about what someone else said, don't you think?


you have descended from stupidity to incoherence.

Are you a drug user? Have you suffered a severe head injury? Were you deprived of oxygen at the time of your birth?
 
2012-11-30 05:31:16 PM

chuckufarlie: Deucednuisance: chuckufarlie: to now making the statement that Florida consists of nothing but the keys.

Well, it's better than lying about what someone else said, don't you think?

you have descended from stupidity to incoherence.

Are you a drug user? Have you suffered a severe head injury? Were you deprived of oxygen at the time of your birth?



nicksteel: WOW!! You missed the point completely and turned it into an attack on people who disagree with you. If you would actually think about these posts instead of your knee jerk reactions, you might learn something. Oh hell, who I am kidding.
 
2012-11-30 08:09:48 PM

Kazan: johnperkins: I've been careful here to avoid showing whatever opinion I may have one way or the other (pro- vs anti- AGW) or if I have such an opinion either way.

no you haven't. the moment you made that bullshiat weasely words argument you showed your hand.

johnperkins: I enjoy a good argument, but I haven't experienced anything in this thread that moves me to one side or the other.

that's because you're finding every excuse not to take a position. you refuse to say "now it isn't happening" because i'll bury you in data a mile deep. However you can sit there an make up BS about "marketing" and "demonizing the opposition" all day long to avoid accepting a well supported scientific theory that you're uncomfortable with.


should i just start dropping data on you like a bad habit?


Showed my hand? Okay. Challenge: Describe my position on the subject of AGW. Difficulty: Do it in a non-combative, polite fashion, no hyperbole, no cursing, etc..
 
2012-11-30 08:25:04 PM

johnperkins: Difficulty: Do it in a non-combative, polite fashion, no hyperbole, no cursing, etc..


You have bought into the false controversy and believe that there are actually responsible scientists somewhere that doubt the validity of AGW, and think that anyone who points out this fact is simply "demonizing the other side".
 
2012-11-30 08:52:38 PM

Kazan: johnperkins: Difficulty: Do it in a non-combative, polite fashion, no hyperbole, no cursing, etc..

You have bought into the false controversy and believe that there are actually responsible scientists somewhere that doubt the validity of AGW, and think that anyone who points out this fact is simply "demonizing the other side".


Widely publicized consensus reports by "thousands" of scientists rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for "Red Teams" of credentialed investigators, who study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens

The term "consensus science" will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of "argument from authority." Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus. The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the "climate establishment" - who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the "experts" called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency. As outlined in my House Testimony, these "experts" become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. But with the luxury of having
the "last word" as "expert" authors of the reports, alternative views vanish. I've often stated that climate science is a "murky" science. We do not have laboratory methods of testing our hypotheses as many other sciences do. As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science.

John R. Christy, PhD
Alabama State Climatologist
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
House Energy and Power Subcommittee
20 September 2012

John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama's State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. He has served as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC assessments, has been awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
 
2012-11-30 11:09:41 PM

chuckufarlie: Kazan: johnperkins: Difficulty: Do it in a non-combative, polite fashion, no hyperbole, no cursing, etc..

You have bought into the false controversy and believe that there are actually responsible scientists somewhere that doubt the validity of AGW, and think that anyone who points out this fact is simply "demonizing the other side".

Widely publicized consensus reports by "thousands" of scientists rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for "Red Teams" of credentialed investigators, who study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for policies which, for example, lead to increased energy costs for citizens

The term "consensus science" will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of "argument from authority." Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written House Testimony last year (House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus. The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the "climate establishment" - who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the "exp ...



If at first you fail miserably, try the same thing again. Talk about appeals to authority...

At least you didn't embiggen and embolden Christy's credentials this time.
 
2012-11-30 11:30:22 PM

chuckufarlie: John R. Christy, PhD
Alabama State Climatologist
The University of Alabama in Huntsville
House Energy and Power Subcommittee
20 September 2012

John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama's State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. He has served as a Lead Author and Contributing Author of IPCC assessments, has been awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and in 2002 elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.



nicksteel: You tell me that somebody said that it is, so that must make it true. I, for one, am not going to blindly follow these people. I ask for proof, you give me names.
 
2012-12-01 02:36:32 AM
Have I mentioned before how much I love nicksteel vs nicksteel? It cracks me the hell up.
 
2012-12-01 12:49:41 PM

Zafler: Have I mentioned before how much I love nicksteel vs nicksteel? It cracks me the hell up.


just about as much when YOU ACTUALLY post in a thread under several IDs. It is not funny, more like pathetic. An attempt on your part to get agreement, even if it is just you agreeing with you.

You should feel bad laughing at that drug addled old fool. He needs help, not people laughing at him. Constant drug use has destroyed most of his brain, leaving him with just enough brain mass to believe in the lie that is AGW.

So, let's take a roll call of the people who "believe" in AGW.

1. CON MEN - that is where you fit.
2. DRUG ADDLED HIPPY WANNA BEs - guess
3.. PEOPLE WHO CANNOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER TAUGHT TO DO SO.

And sprinkle throughout this mix those people who want to see the world economy turned upside down.

Do you not realize yet that the USA is never going to support this insanity? You might as well give up because your boys have messed this up so many times that the majority does not accept it. Move on to a new scam, this one has run its course. The British press will continue to report on it, but they have to. Lots of Brits lost their jobs over this con. The establishment has to continue the charade, the rest of us do not.

A bit of advice (fill in the blank) - next time do not say that the problem will cause more _______ or less _____ or that we will see about the same amount of _______ as before,

a. rain
b. snow
c. tornadoes
d. hurricanes
e. floods
f. droughts
g. higher temperatures
h. lower temperatures
i. rainbows
j. pirate attacks
 
2012-12-01 12:51:29 PM
A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming


Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, birds shrinking, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England,cannibalism, cannibalism again, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), deaths to reach 6 million, Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, disasters, diseases move from animals to humans, diseases move north, dog disease, Dolomites collapse, dozen deadly diseases, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, earthquakes, earthquakes redux, earthquakes redux 2, Egypt revolt, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, possums, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish head north, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flames stoked, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, fog (more) in San Francisco, fog (less) in San Francisco, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), football team migration, footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, geese decline in Hampshire, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier grows (California), glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, great tits cope, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, health risks, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice age, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs, illegal immigration, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, kidney stones again, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lawyers want more, legionnaires' surge, lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, Lopsided Earth, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountaineers fears, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains taller, mortality lower, Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean dead zones unleashed, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, oceans noisier, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, penguin chicks frozen, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf, polar bears drowning, polar bears eating themselves, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, prostitution, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, radars taken out, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, reindeer endangered, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, Rise and Fall of Rome, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, Salmon Decline, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire bats, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, violin decline, volcanic eruptions, volcanic eruptions redux, Iceland volcano eruption, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede, war, war between US and Canada, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales lose weight, whales move north, whales wiped out, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine - England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , wine passé (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

and all on 0.006 deg C per year!
 
2012-12-01 02:13:08 PM

chuckufarlie: A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, birds shrinking, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England,cannibalism, cannibalism ...



If you're going to post copypasta, at least credit the original source:

Link not allowed: http://whatreallyh appened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

On second thought, when your source is a compendium of conspiracy theories old and new (Waco, Vince Foster, ALL the fake dead bin Ladens, etc., ad nauseam), maybe you're better off claiming the derp as your own, after all.
 
2012-12-01 03:24:52 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, alligators in the Thames, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, birds shrinking, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city, Britain Siberian, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England,cannibalism ...


Are you under the impression that anybody but YOU is stupid enough to think that I came up with that all by myself?

You are also unaware that the list is available in a lot of places and the one you listed is not the one that I went to. So what does that make you? I did not think that you could stick you head any further up your ass than it was. You surprise me.
 
2012-12-01 03:43:40 PM

chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

...

Are you under the impression that anybody but YOU is stupid enough to think that I came up with that all by myself?

You are also unaware that the list is available in a lot of places and the one you listed is not the one that I went to.



In other words, it's just another poor chicken that's been passed around the echo chamber. For your sake, I hope you wore a condom.
 
2012-12-01 04:47:02 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

...

Are you under the impression that anybody but YOU is stupid enough to think that I came up with that all by myself?

You are also unaware that the list is available in a lot of places and the one you listed is not the one that I went to.


In other words, it's just another poor chicken that's been passed around the echo chamber. For your sake, I hope you wore a condom.


actually, most of the websites that have that list provide links to show that at some point, somebody made the claim that global warming was a cause for the problem and these people were mostly scientists.
 
2012-12-01 05:28:37 PM

chuckufarlie: Zafler: Have I mentioned before how much I love nicksteel vs nicksteel? It cracks me the hell up.

just about as much when YOU ACTUALLY post in a thread under several IDs. It is not funny, more like pathetic. An attempt on your part to get agreement, even if it is just you agreeing with you.

You should feel bad laughing at that drug addled old fool. He needs help, not people laughing at him. Constant drug use has destroyed most of his brain, leaving him with just enough brain mass to believe in the lie that is AGW.

So, let's take a roll call of the people who "believe" in AGW.

1. CON MEN - that is where you fit.
2. DRUG ADDLED HIPPY WANNA BEs - guess
3.. PEOPLE WHO CANNOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY WERE NEVER TAUGHT TO DO SO.

And sprinkle throughout this mix those people who want to see the world economy turned upside down.

Do you not realize yet that the USA is never going to support this insanity? You might as well give up because your boys have messed this up so many times that the majority does not accept it. Move on to a new scam, this one has run its course. The British press will continue to report on it, but they have to. Lots of Brits lost their jobs over this con. The establishment has to continue the charade, the rest of us do not.

A bit of advice (fill in the blank) - next time do not say that the problem will cause more _______ or less _____ or that we will see about the same amount of _______ as before,

a. rain
b. snow
c. tornadoes
d. hurricanes
e. floods
f. droughts
g. higher temperatures
h. lower temperatures
i. rainbows
j. pirate attacks



nicksteel: You have resorted to calling me names. That is a very good indication that you have lost.
 
2012-12-01 06:06:27 PM

chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

...

Are you under the impression that anybody but YOU is stupid enough to think that I came up with that all by myself?

You are also unaware that the list is available in a lot of places and the one you listed is not the one that I went to.


In other words, it's just another poor chicken that's been passed around the echo chamber. For your sake, I hope you wore a condom.

actually, most of the websites that have that list provide links to show that at some point, somebody made the claim that global warming was a cause for the problem and these people were mostly scientists.



A similar self-contradictory list of predictions can be made for just about any scientific theory you care to name, as the theory develops over time and more data become available.

Taking that list of predictions, removing any trace of relevance by ignoring when each prediction was made and what data was available at the time, and then using the list in an attempt to discredit the underlying theory isn't science, even if the predictions did come from scientists.

Did you originally get this from and even if the list is published by a retired professor of industrial instrumentation
 
2012-12-01 06:12:42 PM

chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

...

Are you under the impression that anybody but YOU is stupid enough to think that I came up with that all by myself?

You are also unaware that the list is available in a lot of places and the one you listed is not the one that I went to.


In other words, it's just another poor chicken that's been passed around the echo chamber. For your sake, I hope you wore a condom.

actually, most of the websites that have that list provide links to show that at some point, somebody made the claim that global warming was a cause for the problem and these people were mostly scientists.



A similar self-contradictory list of predictions can be made for just about any scientific theory you care to name, as the theory develops over time and more data become available.

Taking that list of predictions, removing any trace of relevance by ignoring when each prediction was made and what data was available at the time, and then using the list in an attempt to discredit the underlying theory isn't science, even if the predictions did come from scientists.

Did you originally get this from Number Watch? It's the least nutcase-like source I've found, but a retired professor of industrial instrumentation is hardly a credible source for analysis of climate-change predictions.

FTFM. I think I need a new mouse.
 
2012-12-01 08:55:40 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming

...

Are you under the impression that anybody but YOU is stupid enough to think that I came up with that all by myself?

You are also unaware that the list is available in a lot of places and the one you listed is not the one that I went to.


In other words, it's just another poor chicken that's been passed around the echo chamber. For your sake, I hope you wore a condom.

actually, most of the websites that have that list provide links to show that at some point, somebody made the claim that global warming was a cause for the problem and these people were mostly scientists.


A similar self-contradictory list of predictions can be made for just about any scientific theory you care to name, as the theory develops over time and more data become available.

Taking that list of predictions, removing any trace of relevance by ignoring when each prediction was made and what data was available at the time, and then using the list in an attempt to discredit the underlying theory isn't science, even if the predictions did come from scientists.

Did you originally get this from Number Watch? It's the least nutcase-like source I've found, but a retired professor of industrial instrumentation is hardly a credible source for analysis of climate-change predictions.

FTFM. I think I need a new mouse.


I am not surprised that you missed the point of that list. It is scary to think that stupid people like you are allowed out without supervision.
 
2012-12-01 09:47:15 PM

chuckufarlie: I am not surprised that you missed the point of that list. It is scary to think that stupid people like you are allowed out without supervision.



You posted a list of things which were supposedly attributed to ACC by a host of unknown entities at unknown times, while conveniently ignoring the fact that ACC theory has changed and developed over decades. It's about as scientific as blaming all geologists for self-contradictory predictions because geologists in the 1940s weren't accurately modeling plate tectonics.

The only point of that list, unintended thought it might be, is to highlight how little you know about science.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
 
2012-12-01 10:03:42 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: I am not surprised that you missed the point of that list. It is scary to think that stupid people like you are allowed out without supervision.


You posted a list of things which were supposedly attributed to ACC by a host of unknown entities at unknown times, while conveniently ignoring the fact that ACC theory has changed and developed over decades. It's about as scientific as blaming all geologists for self-contradictory predictions because geologists in the 1940s weren't accurately modeling plate tectonics.

The only point of that list, unintended thought it might be, is to highlight how little you know about science.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.


Nope, that was not it. Want to try again or do you want to admit that you are an idiot and get it over with.
 
2012-12-01 11:25:31 PM

chuckufarlie: common sense is an oxymoron: chuckufarlie: I am not surprised that you missed the point of that list. It is scary to think that stupid people like you are allowed out without supervision.


You posted a list of things which were supposedly attributed to ACC by a host of unknown entities at unknown times, while conveniently ignoring the fact that ACC theory has changed and developed over decades. It's about as scientific as blaming all geologists for self-contradictory predictions because geologists in the 1940s weren't accurately modeling plate tectonics.

The only point of that list, unintended thought it might be, is to highlight how little you know about science.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Nope, that was not it. Want to try again or do you want to admit that you are an idiot and get it over with.



When did you stop beating your wife?
 
Displayed 244 of 244 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report