Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Yahoo)   New AP poll shows that even 61% of those who ain't none too sure about that there "Science" thing, still think global warming is real and temperatures are rising   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 169
    More: Obvious, AP Top 25, U.S. state abbreviations, snow removal, Jon Krosnick  
•       •       •

1748 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Dec 2012 at 11:52 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 02:06:06 PM  
globalwarminsong.com
 
2012-12-14 02:08:46 PM  

SevenizGud: B) The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.


[socratic]
Well then, if you're interested in what is "PRESENTLY" going on, then wouldn't five years be closer to the present?

www.woodfortrees.org

Why would this time scale be worse than your choice of 10 years or 15 years, hm?

[/socratic]
 
2012-12-14 02:09:34 PM  

HighZoolander: If 5 years is too short a time to overcome short term variability, what's a number that's just a little bit more than 5 years, that's also too short to overcome short term variability?


OMG, YOU almost understood something.

Hansen went before congress in 1988 to fearmonger only 8 years after the 40 year trend of cooling from 1940-1980.

So, if Hansen can do it for 8 years, can you see why my using 15 is EVEN BETTER?

Holy Cow! Maybe there is hope for you yet.

You are almost there!!! Two of your 3 neurons linked. Just one more connection and you are there. C'mon, YOU CAN DO IT!!!!
 
2012-12-14 02:09:54 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: More importantly, even though the distribution may be uneven, it is not somehow an indication of some sort of wrongdoing. Careful here in that you're arguing in the style of creationists - when confronted with some sort of unknown jumping to the conclusion that therefore God must have done it, you're simply substituting some sort of conspiracy instead of God.

Creationists often start their argument with posts to NASA's GISS temperature data, with the URL right on the graph so anyone can check, do they?


But they will cherry-pick and misrepresent data ;)
 
2012-12-14 02:13:43 PM  

omeganuepsilon: SewerSquirrels: omeganuepsilon: HighZoolander:

You obviously are a bit slow i'll break it down.

The fact that their is a majority has no bearing on the data itself.
To demonstrate.

99 out of 100 math teachers say 1+1=3

Reality and fact are not democratic in nature. they just are. No amount of majority or minority will change that fact.

The attempt to sway the belief of the public based on such numbers of ratio, is more akin to recruiting people to your religion, than inform them of fact.


Wait a minute...I thought 1+1=Potato.

So how does a non expert acquire facts on a subject if not to defer to the position of the majority of experts?

Don't get me wrong, it could be that climatologists are just trying to keep their jobs, but that doesn't make sense to me. Obviously climatologists aren't just lying so they can continue to live like rock stars and bank CEOs on all those fat stacks of grant money, but it seems if they were trying to protect their jobs they wouldn't have to claim the climate change is happening. They would be better off saying that it might be happening and thus warrants more investigation. How do you get grant money to study a known fact?
 
2012-12-14 02:14:35 PM  

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: If 5 years is too short a time to overcome short term variability, what's a number that's just a little bit more than 5 years, that's also too short to overcome short term variability?

OMG, YOU almost understood something.

Hansen went before congress in 1988 to fearmonger only 8 years after the 40 year trend of cooling from 1940-1980.

So, if Hansen can do it for 8 years, can you see why my using 15 is EVEN BETTER?

Holy Cow! Maybe there is hope for you yet.

You are almost there!!! Two of your 3 neurons linked. Just one more connection and you are there. C'mon, YOU CAN DO IT!!!!


So if we're going to just ignore statistics for a minute, and go with the idea that using more years is better, why not use 30 years, or 100 years? Surely either of those is EVEN BETTER than 15 years. You obviously have the data. Why don't you graph it?
 
2012-12-14 02:15:42 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: Come to think of it, it's suspicious that our cherry-picking friend here decided to show only the yearly averages, when the monthly data is readily available:

www.woodfortrees.org

Ah, that's why.

The graph says right on it that it is the METEOROLOGICAL YEARS. Do I really need to explain the difference between the meteorological year and the calendar year?

Amazing, you don't know the FIRST THING about meteorology.



Swing and a miss. What I've pointed out has nothing to do with meteorological years, and I'm not somehow questioning your use of such over calendar years. The fact remains that you tend to use monthly data - I presume you chose not to in this case because it shows the opposite of your intended point.
 
2012-12-14 02:16:19 PM  

SewerSquirrels: So how does a non expert acquire facts on a subject if not to defer to the position of the majority of experts?


Especially when the "experts" already admitted they shiatcanned the original data.

Trust us, because, science, that's why!
 
2012-12-14 02:18:07 PM  

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: SevenizGud: B) The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

[s11.postimage.org image 362x218]

Care to explain this then?

You are entirely too predictable. Just admit you're a lying sack of shiat and move on.

Wow, 4 whole years? Why not plot the weather since this morning?

Why don't you just admit you are a camel-raping loser who molests his neighbor's 7-year-old son and move on?


[socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?

[/socratic]
 
2012-12-14 02:18:28 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Swing and a miss. What I've pointed out has nothing to do with meteorological years, and I'm not somehow questioning your use of such over calendar years. The fact remains that you tend to use monthly data - I presume you chose not to in this case because it shows the opposite of your intended point.


Or it could be that, you know, the meteorological year just ended, and so I posted the, you know, end-of-year data.
 
2012-12-14 02:18:47 PM  

SevenizGud: SewerSquirrels: So how does a non expert acquire facts on a subject if not to defer to the position of the majority of experts?

Especially when the "experts" already admitted they shiatcanned the original data.

Trust us, because, science, that's why!


Okay, scientist guys! We believe you. Now what are you going to do for money?
 
2012-12-14 02:20:45 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: Swing and a miss. What I've pointed out has nothing to do with meteorological years, and I'm not somehow questioning your use of such over calendar years. The fact remains that you tend to use monthly data - I presume you chose not to in this case because it shows the opposite of your intended point.

Or it could be that, you know, the meteorological year just ended, and so I posted the, you know, end-of-year data.



Which you could have done just as easily with monthly data, as you do elsewhere. Again, your lack of consistency may be due to the fact the monthly data shows the opposite of your intended point.
 
2012-12-14 02:22:39 PM  
Figures can lie and liars can figure.
But we know certain truths that can't be denied as they do exist.
More people, more farts, more cars, more trash- creating methane, more strange weather patterns, droughts, less restrictions on industrialization pollution- especially in China, less tropical forest, less polar ice, less long lasting snowfalls (as in less snow and it melting off really fast), less colder winters...

you know, the obvious truths.
 
2012-12-14 02:24:20 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]


Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.
 
2012-12-14 02:24:48 PM  

SevenizGud: HighZoolander: If 5 years is too short a time to overcome short term variability, what's a number that's just a little bit more than 5 years, that's also too short to overcome short term variability?

OMG, YOU almost understood something.

Hansen went before congress in 1988 to fearmonger only 8 years after the 40 year trend of cooling from 1940-1980.

So, if Hansen can do it for 8 years, can you see why my using 15 is EVEN BETTER?

Holy Cow! Maybe there is hope for you yet.

You are almost there!!! Two of your 3 neurons linked. Just one more connection and you are there. C'mon, YOU CAN DO IT!!!!



However,,Hansen didn't rely on simple correlation like what you're doing. Neither does the attribution of anthropogenic climate change, for that matter.

You're arguing like a creationist again - you're misrepresenting scientific information.
 
2012-12-14 02:26:24 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.


HAHAHAHAHAHA. LOL. Why not 30 years then? You have the data, why won't you use it?
 
2012-12-14 02:26:25 PM  

SevenizGud: Damnhippyfreak: [socratic]
Again, since we're interested in why whether "The earth is not PRESENTLY warming" or not, 4 years would be preferable to 10 or 15 years, yes?
[/socratic]

Quite a departure from the Hansen standard of 8 years. I like to be more robust in the analysis, to, you know, take out the variability. That's why 15 years. You know, more scientific. Because global warming is all about the underlying science, and not political footballing and shading the data.



You're misrepresenting information in that Hansen didn't rely on 8 years, and neither did he rely on just simple correlation. If you wish to argue otherwise, you'll need to provide some proof.
 
2012-12-14 02:28:33 PM  

omeganuepsilon: It's your recruiting methods that are more akin to a christian missionary than a teacher or professor of science.


Yes, because understanding the overwhelming undisputed body of science=recruiting methods

Again, the only believers here are the ones who are denying facts that aren't being debated in the scientific community.
 
2012-12-14 02:49:48 PM  
We ignorant pieces of shiat aren't denying that the earth's climate is changing, we merely point out that it has always been changing, that we are in neither a high end or low end in the temperature cycle, we question whether or not humanity's industrialization has been a factor in the change, and if so whether it really matters, anyway.

It is only the True Believing Evangelists who insist the "science is settled..." every good scientist knows the science is never settled, and "consensus" means exactly dick to the scientific method.

So yeah.... for me part of it is that it is in my personality to oppose anyone who acts like an asshole who claims to stand behind science without knowing how science actually works. But either, I don't give any shiats at all about a 10 cm rise in ocean levels over 100 years. If our civilization can't deal with it, then we deserve to perish, and personally, living in northern Ohio I like the more mild winters.

So fark all of you in general.

Someone post a graph again, that always changes minds.
 
2012-12-14 02:53:20 PM  

GORDON: It is only the True Believing Evangelists who insist the "science is settled..." every good scientist knows the science is never settled, and "consensus" means exactly dick to the scientific method.


Honestly, anyone who would refer to the scientific method as the work of "True Believing Evangelists" doesn't deserve the courtesy of a rational discussion.
 
2012-12-14 03:29:15 PM  

SewerSquirrels: So how does a non expert acquire facts on a subject if not to defer to the position of the majority of experts?


That's the million dollar question for a subject such as this. With non-tangible evidence and highly political nature both sides(largely non-expert) are going with their gut or flaccid reasoning.

I'm not a denier, regardless to what some here claim, I would like for people to use less of the above, and more rational thought.

It's very similar to our social issues, taxes, economy, welfare, etc. Many of these political issues have no hard evidence, it's all conjecture about what people think should be done. So much of that "should" is clouded by religion, morals, greed, etc.

Now, the consensus is that GW does exist, and I'm not saying it doesn't. But when you break it down, a lot of the studies have different representations of what specifically is and is not happening, and what will and will not happen, despite having a similar lean in one direction. That's part of what I'm getting at, the "consensus" is not entirely genuine.

That's why I brought up that link above about transparency and how it's needed.

Add to all that, not all scientists are certifiably reliable.(And that's not to say they're all corrupt, not even a majority of them, because people will try and railroad me for saying "You science denier11!!1") Leading edge researchers have a long history of hoaxes or greasing studies, one has to look no further than FOX news for evidence of number stacking for a purpose.

Science is not fallible in that regard, science itself has no inherent agenda, but scientists themselves can be fallible, and have agenda's. We've got many on record, and people that still follow them despite credible reveals. Vaccines vs autism for example, a bought and paid for study that caused real social strife. Hell, we've got young earth creationists in number, who refute many base concepts of science, just because, God.

Many of this "consensus" will doubt other papers, similar as they may be, there is contention of facts within the same "party" (for lack of a better term).

A non-expert looking at all of that when trying to make a decision has to wonder what is and is not credible, lack of that curiosity is no better at root than begin a denier for the same reason. That, in my opinion, is why simple belief is no better than flipping a coin.

It's a shame that science as a concept has that...association...with bad scientists. It would be nice if we could trust highly political things to science, but that is simply not a rational decision.

Sure, it's never a bad idea to attempt to fix some of the problems. We all know pollution is bad. But, the change that's being asked for is pretty grand, a lot of sacrifice. Right now, with 6 billion people on the planet, severely cutting or cutting completely the output of non-circulated carbon(IE carbon that's been buried for thousands of years in fossil fuels), is going to put a huge hamper on how man lives, cooks and travels.

No less of a global epoch as simply letting the planet warm up a tad.... in some people's eyes. Then again, you get that social prediction of what might happen..equated to what WILL happen...and the same argument rears it's head.

Back to the original question, all we can really do to make sure people are informed, is reform education. But then again some people still don't want that to happen, and even with a good education people will retain bias as to what should happen, etc.

In the end, we're screwed. I say enjoy it while we have it. Humanity has the ability to persevere either way, so getting all outragey about it is pointless.
 
2012-12-14 03:38:49 PM  

WizardofToast: argylez: Ohlookabutterfly: So according to your uselessly inflammitory logic ALL scientists are perfect, never lie for selfish or self-serving reasons, such as say, if all you blindly trusting morons who must never be wrong all of a sudden stopped believing their bullshiart these so-called scientists would find themselves without donations or funding sitting on the curb trying to figure another scam to hysteriafy your poor gullible pea-brains with, and you moronsky's would obble that farker up hook, line, and sinker just like the state of fear created by the climate change boogeyman.

Question everything, sheep.


1/10

Needs the two olbligatory XKCD comics since he said 'sheep' in the end.


So you don't have an argument that proves me wrong, that all scientists are perfectly trustworthy, all you have is snark and insults? Thanks for proving me right.
 
2012-12-14 03:42:22 PM  

omeganuepsilon: That's the million dollar question for a subject such as this. With non-tangible evidence and highly political nature both sides(largely non-expert) are going with their gut or flaccid reasoning.


Bullshiat.


It's very similar to our social issues, taxes, economy, welfare, etc. Many of these political issues have no hard evidence, it's all conjecture about what people think should be done


Your opinons!=facts

A non-expert looking at all of that when trying to make a decision has to wonder what is and is not credible, lack of that curiosity is no better at root than begin a denier for the same reason. That, in my opinion, is why simple belief is no better than flipping a coin

Sorry, but that only works one way--for those who still believe the earth is flat and that there is no science that proves it is in fact, round.

This is not a "both sides" thing, and your post is disingenuous as usual.
Honestly, I wouldn't keep replying to you if you didn't have such a predictably disinformational track record.
 
2012-12-14 03:49:56 PM  

dj1s: Ohlookabutterfly: Magorn: The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category.

I think anyone who categorizes themselvesas "not trusting scientists" should be legally barred from recieving vaccines or flu shots, using a computer, watching tv or otherwise enjoy any benefit or product of "science"

So according to your uselessly inflammitory logic ALL scientists are perfect, never lie for selfish or self-serving reasons, such as say, if all you blindly trusting morons who must never be wrong all of a sudden stopped believing their bullshiart these so-called scientists would find themselves without donations or funding sitting on the curb trying to figure another scam to hysteriafy your poor gullible pea-brains with, and you moronsky's would obble that farker up hook, line, and sinker just like the state of fear created by the climate change boogeyman.

Question everything, sheep.

Including your post?


Hell yes, I'm not a closed minded narcissist who can't tolerate criticism. If I make a mistake I acknowledge it and try to correct it. If upon reflection I find I have behaved like an ass, I apologize and try to prevent it from happening again. If you are not willing to publicly admit fault you have no right to criticize others. Ever.
 
2012-12-14 03:57:08 PM  

GORDON: If our civilization can't deal with it, then we deserve to perish


This. I think we both have Darwinian Apathy. (Why yes, that is a phrase I JUST made up)

I just enjoy getting on fark and busting people's chops, really. Save all the fluffly little animals, or the earth, whatever, their utopian fantasies are so derpy they deserve a kick in the nuts now and again.
 
2012-12-14 03:57:25 PM  

GORDON: It is only the True Believing Evangelists who insist the "science is settled..." every good scientist knows the science is never settled, and "consensus" means exactly dick to the scientific method.


These are my current favorite lies from the denier movement. That people claim that science is "done through consensus" and that people are claiming that "the science is settled".

Of course these are ridiculous claims and completely untrue ... but deniers and truth have never been friendly.

The word consensus is being used to describe the fact that the vast majority of independently produced, peer reviewed papers published in relevant, respected science journals have all independently come to similar conclusions ... and this really bothers deniers.

Deniers try to twist this fact to suggest there is some kind of conspiracy or collusion but this is just misdirection and lies. The papers are there, in the open, available for all to read, count and compare. Even though they are independently produced their conclusions are in agreement with each other.

As for the "science being settled" ... again, this is just stupid people misunderstanding what is meant. Science is never 100% settled ... anyone who understands anything about science knows this as a given. This concept is at the core of scientific research.

What does happen is that we reach a level of evidence that our confidence levels are so high that we decide that the odds of the overall concept being wrong is so low that it is a waste of time and resources generating more evidence. Instead the effort goes into clearing up the details, improving the models, etc.

This is where we are with AGW. The confidence level in the concept of GW via the greenhouse effect is extremely high and the confidence level that the unbalancing source of greenhouse gasses is man is also very high.

So the science is not and never will be settled ... but we are way past the speculation stage,
 
2012-12-14 04:00:58 PM  

GORDON: We ignorant pieces of shiat aren't denying that the earth's climate is changing, we merely point out that it has always been changing, that we are in neither a high end or low end in the temperature cycle, we question whether or not humanity's industrialization has been a factor in the change, and if so whether it really matters, anyway.

It is only the True Believing Evangelists who insist the "science is settled..." every good scientist knows the science is never settled, and "consensus" means exactly dick to the scientific method.

So yeah.... for me part of it is that it is in my personality to oppose anyone who acts like an asshole who claims to stand behind science without knowing how science actually works. But either, I don't give any shiats at all about a 10 cm rise in ocean levels over 100 years. If our civilization can't deal with it, then we deserve to perish, and personally, living in northern Ohio I like the more mild winters.

So fark all of you in general.

Someone post a graph again, that always changes minds.


This

I live in central Alberta, I like mild winters too. Any warmtards been outside in -42C with a 56km/h wind?
 
2012-12-14 04:01:46 PM  

Farking Canuck: The word consensus is being used to describe the fact that the vast majority of independently produced, peer reviewed papers published in relevant, respected science journals have all independently come to similar conclusions ... and this really bothers deniers.


If it were fact, you'd get more precision than "similar".

Apples and Oranges, really. No, seriously, apples and oranges are similar. Nevermind the differences, they are fruit, that grows on trees, that have skin, and seeds on the inside.
 
2012-12-14 04:05:42 PM  
gilest.ro
Now this is interesting. If you notice, the bar in the centre at zero has the highest value (as it should). The first bar on the positive side is nearly 3 yet the first bar on the negative side is nearly 2, giving it nearly 50% more weight. This is a consistant thing with the positive values having more weight than the negative ones. If you look closely you can see that the dotted line on the positive side is closer to the bars than the dotted line on the negative side (in fact the first 3 bars exceed the dotted line which is not the case with *any* of the bars on the negative side) and the whole average is on the positive side.

Now aren`t we told that the `heat island effect` is being removed by the adjustments graphed here? wouldn`t that be a bias toward the negative side?

Why do the adjustments have an overall positive bias if this is the case?
 
2012-12-14 04:14:10 PM  

Ohlookabutterfly: dj1s: Ohlookabutterfly: Magorn: The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category.

I think anyone who categorizes themselvesas "not trusting scientists" should be legally barred from recieving vaccines or flu shots, using a computer, watching tv or otherwise enjoy any benefit or product of "science"

So according to your uselessly inflammitory logic ALL scientists are perfect, never lie for selfish or self-serving reasons, such as say, if all you blindly trusting morons who must never be wrong all of a sudden stopped believing their bullshiart these so-called scientists would find themselves without donations or funding sitting on the curb trying to figure another scam to hysteriafy your poor gullible pea-brains with, and you moronsky's would obble that farker up hook, line, and sinker just like the state of fear created by the climate change boogeyman.

Question everything, sheep.

Including your post?

Hell yes, I'm not a closed minded narcissist who can't tolerate criticism. If I make a mistake I acknowledge it and try to correct it. If upon reflection I find I have behaved like an ass, I apologize and try to prevent it from happening again. If you are not willing to publicly admit fault you have no right to criticize others. Ever.


Is your name based on the haiku?

A leaf falls to ground,
then flutters back to the branch,
Oh! A butterfly.
 
2012-12-14 04:19:35 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Farking Canuck: The word consensus is being used to describe the fact that the vast majority of independently produced, peer reviewed papers published in relevant, respected science journals have all independently come to similar conclusions ... and this really bothers deniers.

If it were fact, you'd get more precision than "similar".

Apples and Oranges, really. No, seriously, apples and oranges are similar. Nevermind the differences, they are fruit, that grows on trees, that have skin, and seeds on the inside.


That's funny ... if I had said "the same conclusion" you would have whined about that.

It is similar in that they study many different aspects ... from solar to oceans to temperature monitoring, etc. They are similar because they all support the concept of AGW but from all the different directions of research.

And that really burns your ass because it shows that everything you post is a lie.
 
2012-12-14 04:24:44 PM  

omeganuepsilon: SewerSquirrels: So how does a non expert acquire facts on a subject if not to defer to the position of the majority of experts?

That's the million dollar question for a subject such as this. With non-tangible evidence and highly political nature both sides(largely non-expert) are going with their gut or flaccid reasoning...

Um...I was actually hoping I could just call 411 or something. Perhaps resolve the issue with a cage match? I appreciate your efforts, but these rational conclusions just don't sit well with me, ΩΝΕ. 

Now where do I collect that $1M?
 
2012-12-14 04:41:52 PM  

GORDON: It is only the True Believing Evangelists who insist the "science is settled..." every good scientist knows the science is never settled, and "consensus" means exactly dick to the scientific method.


Gotta say, it is languange like `the science is setlled`, reliance on there being a consensus and the large usage of the word `belief` that puts me off a lot of this. In science it doesn`t matter what you believe, it matters what can be proven.

Science is all about predictions and the accuracy of those predictions, looking at how your predictions did against reality then deciding if your proposed theory matches reality enough to be called valid.

What predictions made decades ago are accurate today? That should be the test. To be fair to the needed minimum of twenty years of data to show a trend they should be twenty year old predictions at a minimum.

Having accurate predictions is the *only* weapon against naysayers in the field of science. Have all the graphs you like but when you have predictions made decades ago that match data from today there can be no argument with that.

Should be easy what with all the settled science and consensus and `overwhelming proof`

post it here to show up all the deniers. Show the prediction and compare it to the measured data.
 
2012-12-14 05:00:34 PM  

dready zim: Ohlookabutterfly: dj1s: Ohlookabutterfly: Magorn: The biggest change in the polling is among people who trust scientists only a little or not at all. About 1 in 3 of the people surveyed fell into that category.

I think anyone who categorizes themselvesas "not trusting scientists" should be legally barred from recieving vaccines or flu shots, using a computer, watching tv or otherwise enjoy any benefit or product of "science"

So according to your uselessly inflammitory logic ALL scientists are perfect, never lie for selfish or self-serving reasons, such as say, if all you blindly trusting morons who must never be wrong all of a sudden stopped believing their bullshiart these so-called scientists would find themselves without donations or funding sitting on the curb trying to figure another scam to hysteriafy your poor gullible pea-brains with, and you moronsky's would obble that farker up hook, line, and sinker just like the state of fear created by the climate change boogeyman.

Question everything, sheep.

Including your post?

Hell yes, I'm not a closed minded narcissist who can't tolerate criticism. If I make a mistake I acknowledge it and try to correct it. If upon reflection I find I have behaved like an ass, I apologize and try to prevent it from happening again. If you are not willing to publicly admit fault you have no right to criticize others. Ever.

Is your name based on the haiku?

A leaf falls to ground,
then flutters back to the branch,
Oh! A butterfly.


No, but thank you for associating me with something beautiful.

Now I must ask you something. How can science, something I believe in because it is all about facts and proof have anything to do with predictions, or to us simple folk, guesses? Is that not considered a scientific theory, and therefore a very good guess based on probabilities? Something that has yet to be proven?

Oh, and you may reconsider calling most of us deniers. I deny nothing. The only thing I am certain of is man's capacity for corruption and selfishness.

Thanks for the poem, I just might like you after all.

A leaf falls to ground,
then flutters back to the branch,
Oh! A butterfly.
 
2012-12-14 05:02:14 PM  

SewerSquirrels: omeganuepsilon: SewerSquirrels: So how does a non expert acquire facts on a subject if not to defer to the position of the majority of experts?

That's the million dollar question for a subject such as this. With non-tangible evidence and highly political nature both sides(largely non-expert) are going with their gut or flaccid reasoning...

Um...I was actually hoping I could just call 411 or something. Perhaps resolve the issue with a cage match? I appreciate your efforts, but these rational conclusions just don't sit well with me, ΩΝΕ. 

Now where do I collect that $1M?


Indeed.

Glad you read it and can see where I come from.
 
2012-12-14 05:17:51 PM  

dready zim: [gilest.ro image 800x600]
Now this is interesting. If you notice, the bar in the centre at zero has the highest value (as it should). The first bar on the positive side is nearly 3 yet the first bar on the negative side is nearly 2, giving it nearly 50% more weight. This is a consistant thing with the positive values having more weight than the negative ones. If you look closely you can see that the dotted line on the positive side is closer to the bars than the dotted line on the negative side (in fact the first 3 bars exceed the dotted line which is not the case with *any* of the bars on the negative side) and the whole average is on the positive side.

Now aren`t we told that the `heat island effect` is being removed by the adjustments graphed here? wouldn`t that be a bias toward the negative side?

Why do the adjustments have an overall positive bias if this is the case?



Careful here in that a graph of distribution like the one posted says nothing about weighting. Contrary to what you've claimed, one could not surmise from that graph that "the positive values [have] more weight than the negative ones". What I think you're trying to get at is that the mean adjusted trends is slightly positive. According to the link where I grabbed that graph, it represents a difference of 0.017° C/decade compared to an overall trend of 0.2° C/decade - it doesn't change the result all that much.

As for the reasons for these changes, keep in mind that the release of data sets as well as major revisions to said sets are usually accompanied by a paper. In this case one could look up the papers that the NCDC have published with this data set, and go on to read, say, the latest one and work your way backwards through the cited literature to get a complete idea of what adjustments were done and why. The key words you're probably looking for is 'homogenization' in a 'quality control' process. Off the top of my head, such adjustments are done by an algorithm that includes comparing sites to adjacent ones. If one was so motivated, you could reproduce much of the analysis.

We can get into this, but we both may have to do some heavy reading. No easy answer on this one, sorry.
 
2012-12-14 05:33:20 PM  
Hello everybody!

Am I too late to toss in my Church of AGW atheist views?

/i like polls, because they can lie so well.
//half of the respondents didn't like cheese whiz either.
 
2012-12-14 05:47:02 PM  

HighZoolander: Tricky Chicken: HighZoolander: Tricky Chicken: Sure the temperatures are going up, it is the anthropomorphic part that is a load of speculation and suspect correlation.

Or it could be the population of pirates.

Yep, anyone claiming that warming is anthropomorphic is definitely full of it. Anthropogenic warming, on the other hand, rests on a solid scientific foundation.

oops, I tend to mis-use those.

Irregardless, the argument for human influence is not nearly as accepted as the argument for climate change. But you would rather argue word usage I assume? Its you're perrogitive.

/have fun

not nearly as accepted by the public, yes. But it is accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate. Would you rather believe the experts who spend their lives studying the issue, or people who failed 8th grade science?


I has science degree. Seriously. A Bachelors Degree, but still it more than most of you Church of AGW zealots have.

I believe in climate change. It change over the course of the year, decade, century epoch, or what have you. but it does change.

I believe one volcanic episode does release more gases than all human activity ever has. It's a scientific fact, but feel free to argue it.

I don't believe that the tax scheme is anything but another source of revenue for the governments involved.
 
2012-12-14 06:04:50 PM  
And why is this happening?

Because of our behavior?!

Bullsh*t...

Link
 
2012-12-14 06:05:05 PM  

whidbey: omeganuepsilon: HighZoolander: But it is accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate. Would you rather believe the experts who spend their lives studying the issue, or people who failed 8th grade science?

Appeal to Popularity

I love how you keep pretending this subject is a debate.

Again, if you really feel the need to debate something, tell us whether you believe solar, wind and consuming less petroleum products is a viable alternative.

Otherwise, all you're doing is making yourself look like a fool who won't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.


Uhm, because even the scientist believe that this is the debate?

And solar power is a storage emdium, not a power producer. It takes far more energy to manufacture, than it will deliver. Think of it as a battery, that's what it really is.

Wind is good, but hydro is better, and they both are ugly.

I sold my old Ford, bought a new one, it uses less fuel, so yeah, I am better than you are in that respect.

Care to talk about low CO2 nuclear power?

HighZoolander: omeganuepsilon: HighZoolander: But it is accepted by an overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate. Would you rather believe the experts who spend their lives studying the issue, or people who failed 8th grade science?

Appeal to Popularity

Let me rephrase - What would you rather believe, a rational argument based on facts and evidence that can be independently confirmed (and made by people who have spent their lives studying the issue), or unsupported assertions that are easily shown to be false or dishonest (and made by people who have made no effort to study the issue)


I have studied the issues, especially the statistical analysis, which is the science behind AGW. My science degree, from the prestigious American College in Naha, class of 1984, is in statistical analysis. You'll find me in the faculty guide as well, I'm the guy that taught American Culture in 1983-84.

And yours is from what? Fark U?
 
2012-12-14 06:08:51 PM  
About the "your time scale of temperature average was cherry picked" accusations: I'm sure if you average from present to X integer years ago the straight line fit will vary in slope. What I'm curious of is what a graph of slope vs X would look like. What I mean is the horizontal axis is "average over the last X years" and the vertical axis is "slope of that average." How many up slopes are there? How many down slopes?
 
2012-12-14 06:10:08 PM  

Slam1263: I has science degree. Seriously. A Bachelors Degree, but still it more than most of you Church of AGW zealots have.


Good for you. Really. I have a PhD in science (not climate science), and many others here are far more knowledgeable and qualified on this topic than me, so I suspect that you are really wrong here.


Slam1263: I believe one volcanic episode does release more gases than all human activity ever has. It's a scientific fact, but feel free to argue it.


Or it's not actually a scientific fact at all, and is even the opposite - with humans emitting 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes: explanation and link to primary literature

Your degree-granting institution haz a sad now.
 
2012-12-14 06:12:23 PM  

unyon: Wook: I love this issue. One side of the fence wants to throw a bag of other people's money at it as a solution to the issue. The other side of the fence doesn't want their money tossed into the toilet.

Sandy had a price tag of $60B. Was Sandy caused by AGW? Not specifically, but since the intensity and frequency of weather events like that is a predictable outcome of AGW, you might want to start asking yourself seriously how much of this so-called money saving you can afford.


No Sandy didn't cause a penny in damages. Nature is not responsible for it's actions. You can not sue nature for damages.

People who built in know tidal zones, and the agencies that let them, are the responsible parties.

Stupid as all get out, but responsible none the less.

Try using a chart, it night win your arguement.
 
2012-12-14 06:18:05 PM  

Slam1263: I have studied the issues, especially the statistical analysis, which is the science behind AGW. My science degree, from the prestigious American College in Naha, class of 1984, is in statistical analysis. You'll find me in the faculty guide as well, I'm the guy that taught American Culture in 1983-84.


I'm not trying to snark at your credentials (honestly), but what is Naha? The only thing in the ballpark I could find via google was the American College of Norway - is that what you're referring to?
 
2012-12-14 06:31:59 PM  

whidbey: GORDON: It is only the True Believing Evangelists who insist the "science is settled..." every good scientist knows the science is never settled, and "consensus" means exactly dick to the scientific method.

Honestly, anyone who would refer to the scientific method as the work of "True Believing Evangelists" doesn't deserve the courtesy of a rational discussion.


Great, because you Church of AGW zealots haven't made a rational point yet.
 
2012-12-14 06:34:40 PM  

Slam1263: you Church of AGW zealots


derp

Care to talk about low CO2 nuclear power?

No.

Otherwise, all you're doing is making yourself look like a fool who won't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Uhm, because even the scientist believe that this is the debate?


You what, now?
 
2012-12-14 06:37:47 PM  

omeganuepsilon: GORDON: If our civilization can't deal with it, then we deserve to perish

This. I think we both have Darwinian Apathy. (Why yes, that is a phrase I JUST made up)


You mean you're going to die out with all the other ignorant people too lazy to read an actual scientific journal?

Not likely.
 
2012-12-14 06:39:08 PM  

Farking Canuck: GORDON: It is only the True Believing Evangelists who insist the "science is settled..." every good scientist knows the science is never settled, and "consensus" means exactly dick to the scientific method.

These are my current favorite lies from the denier movement. That people claim that science is "done through consensus" and that people are claiming that "the science is settled".

Of course these are ridiculous claims and completely untrue ... but deniers and truth have never been friendly.

The word consensus is being used to describe the fact that the vast majority of independently produced, peer reviewed papers published in relevant, respected science journals have all independently come to similar conclusions ... and this really bothers deniers.

Deniers try to twist this fact to suggest there is some kind of conspiracy or collusion but this is just misdirection and lies. The papers are there, in the open, available for all to read, count and compare. Even though they are independently produced their conclusions are in agreement with each other.

As for the "science being settled" ... again, this is just stupid people misunderstanding what is meant. Science is never 100% settled ... anyone who understands anything about science knows this as a given. This concept is at the core of scientific research.

What does happen is that we reach a level of evidence that our confidence levels are so high that we decide that the odds of the overall concept being wrong is so low that it is a waste of time and resources generating more evidence. Instead the effort goes into clearing up the details, improving the models, etc.

This is where we are with AGW. The confidence level in the concept of GW via the greenhouse effect is extremely high and the confidence level that the unbalancing source of greenhouse gasses is man is also very high.

So the science is not and never will be settled ... but we are way past the speculation stage,


Why does the zealots of the Church of AGW call those that aren't prostrate before them, deniers?

Hell kiddo, you called me a denier, when I stated that the Earth appears to be warming.

Are you bipolar?
 
2012-12-14 06:50:49 PM  

HighZoolander: Slam1263: I has science degree. Seriously. A Bachelors Degree, but still it more than most of you Church of AGW zealots have.

Good for you. Really. I have a PhD in science (not climate science), and many others here are far more knowledgeable and qualified on this topic than me, so I suspect that you are really wrong here.


Slam1263: I believe one volcanic episode does release more gases than all human activity ever has. It's a scientific fact, but feel free to argue it.

Or it's not actually a scientific fact at all, and is even the opposite - with humans emitting 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes: explanation and link to primary literature

Your degree-granting institution haz a sad now.


Actually you're wrong. Bummer, what with your PhD and all.

Nice link to the warmer site BTW. Try a science site next time.

HighZoolander: Slam1263: I have studied the issues, especially the statistical analysis, which is the science behind AGW. My science degree, from the prestigious American College in Naha, class of 1984, is in statistical analysis. You'll find me in the faculty guide as well, I'm the guy that taught American Culture in 1983-84.

I'm not trying to snark at your credentials (honestly), but what is Naha? The only thing in the ballpark I could find via google was the American College of Norway - is that what you're referring to?


Naha, Okinawa, Japan.

whidbey: Slam1263: you Church of AGW zealots

derp

Care to talk about low CO2 nuclear power?

No.

Otherwise, all you're doing is making yourself look like a fool who won't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Uhm, because even the scientist believe that this is the debate?


You what, now?


Exactly, you have no understanding of this subject outside a few well worn talking points. If you aren't willing to look at all options, and that includes nuclear, you're just a zealot.

But do continue.
 
2012-12-14 06:57:29 PM  

Slam1263: HighZoolander: Slam1263: I has science degree. Seriously. A Bachelors Degree, but still it more than most of you Church of AGW zealots have.

Good for you. Really. I have a PhD in science (not climate science), and many others here are far more knowledgeable and qualified on this topic than me, so I suspect that you are really wrong here.


Slam1263: I believe one volcanic episode does release more gases than all human activity ever has. It's a scientific fact, but feel free to argue it.

Or it's not actually a scientific fact at all, and is even the opposite - with humans emitting 100 times as much CO2 as volcanoes: explanation and link to primary literature

Your degree-granting institution haz a sad now.

Actually you're wrong. Bummer, what with your PhD and all.

Nice link to the warmer site BTW. Try a science site next time.



Way to address the argument there, Mr McStatsalot.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report