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.

(NBC News)   Global warming drops to 50 below in Russia   (worldnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 285
    More: Interesting, Russia, Novosibirsk, global warming  
•       •       •

5017 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Dec 2012 at 10:38 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-20 11:51:44 AM  

chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.


I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.
 
2012-12-20 11:53:18 AM  

Tatterdemalian: Weimar Republic


Glenn Beck Like Typing Detected.
 
2012-12-20 11:55:09 AM  
russianwomenblog.hotrussianbrides.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-20 11:57:11 AM  

snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.



I believe the point of those particular solutions (Princeton's Stabilization Wedges) is that they are relatively practical and easy to implement with existing technology. Honestly, take a look if you have a chance.
 
2012-12-20 11:59:22 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.


I believe the point of those particular solutions (Princeton's Stabilization Wedges) is that they are relatively practical and easy to implement with existing technology. Honestly, take a look if you have a chance.


It is a farking board game you moron.
I suspect a large component of humor.
 
What, you not in favor of the clown that wants money to study throwing chaff into orbit to "shade" the planet.
 
2012-12-20 12:02:48 PM  

snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented. I will also throw out all obvious money grinders. Good luck, sucker.


I notice you do not address any of the plan's content. Again. It's almost as if you have a predetermined political agenda and don't care about the facts of the matter.

For example, why don't you think the world can add 700 GW of installed wind power? We have 238 GW up globally today, and it's not exactly like we're going all-out to build it. Germany gets ~8% of their power from wind, and they have terrible geography for it. The US gets 3.3% despite a vast advantage in resources, largely out of political laziness. Several countries get more than 10%, and in Denmark it's about 25%.
 
2012-12-20 12:03:43 PM  

snocone: Damnhippyfreak: snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: I am patiently waiting for ANY realistic solution that does not involve short sighted amoral profitizing.

Princeton's Stabilization Wedges, as one example of many. It's been pointed out to you before, but you seem to want to pretend that such plans do not exist for some reason.

I was referri9ng to practical plans that could actually be implemented.
I will also throw out all obvious money grinders.
Good luck, sucker.


I believe the point of those particular solutions (Princeton's Stabilization Wedges) is that they are relatively practical and easy to implement with existing technology. Honestly, take a look if you have a chance.

It is a farking board game you moron.
I suspect a large component of humor.

What, you not in favor of the clown that wants money to study throwing chaff into orbit to "shade" the planet.



Not sure what you're trying to say here, but again I point out that the Princeton's Stabilization Wedges tend towards practical solutions with existing technology - an approach very different from the wide-scale engineering that you're referencing.

I suggest it might seem like much less of a 'board game' to you if you read up on some of this stuff. One of the advantages of the particular set of solutions that was linked to you is that they're presented in a very accessible way. I again urge you to take a look if you've got some time.
 
2012-12-20 12:04:30 PM  

snocone: It is a farking board game you moron. I suspect a large component of humor.


No, it's a tool to show the layman how one can level out carbon dioxide levels. The underlying calculations are included. I'm assuming you don't have the necessary subscriptions to various technical journals, so I'm linking a summary article.

So, wind. Why couldn't we add 700 GW of wind globally?
 
2012-12-20 12:08:39 PM  

chimp_ninja: snocone: It is a farking board game you moron. I suspect a large component of humor.

 
No, it's a tool to show the layman how one can level out carbon dioxide levels. The underlying calculations are included. I'm assuming you don't have the necessary subscriptions to various technical journals, so I'm linking a summary article.
 
So, wind. Why couldn't we add 700 GW of wind globally?
 
 
Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen.
 
No Federal Government Math, no Police Math.
 
Genocide or get used to it.
 
2012-12-20 12:11:53 PM  

make me some tea: chimp_ninja: Zasteva: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming. You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Actually when I was in college studying this stuff in the early 90s this was a topic of conversation, that is, the idea that "Global Climate Change" was a better name for the phenomenon because while the "Global Warming" was the net effect, that would confuse many people who would just expect that everything would get warmer, whereas actually we would see dramatic changes in weather patterns (aka climate). Gore didn't become a target for the anti-science crowd until 2006 when his movie was released.

It's also worth noting that the scientific community has been using "climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" (a subset of the former) as the preferred nomenclature in journals for decades. Here's a link to a Science article from 1979 by Carl Sagan illustrating this.

There was never any moment where some unspecified "they" changed the terminology on everyone for whatever reason.

I think pop culture favored "global warming" because it sounds more dramatic than climate change.


when presented with evidence that the data was being manipulated the "believers" seem to dismiss any negative. why is that?

Link

there was a time when the earth was completely uninhabitable. there was a time when the earth had this thing called the Ice Age. there was a time when scientists thought that the earth was flat. there was a time when scientists thought there was no water in the universe. there still is a time when scientists thing we are alone in this universe. those "scientists" change their mind more than Romney.
 
2012-12-20 12:14:15 PM  
snocone:

chimp_ninja: snocone: It is a farking board game you moron. I suspect a large component of humor.

No, it's a tool to show the layman how one can level out carbon dioxide levels. The underlying calculations are included. I'm assuming you don't have the necessary subscriptions to various technical journals, so I'm linking a summary article.

So, wind. Why couldn't we add 700 GW of wind globally?


Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen.

No Federal Government Math, no Police Math.

Genocide or get used to it.


Your fondness for genocide is noted, but you may have missed how a lot of governments, utilities, and individual companies like Walmart have been supplanting their power needs with wind and solar.

Not replacing, not yet. but taking care of business with renewables.
 
2012-12-20 12:14:33 PM  

snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.


The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."
 
2012-12-20 12:16:41 PM  

trey101: when presented with evidence that the data was being manipulated the "believers" seem to dismiss any negative. why is that?


Because at least seven different cases have been tried, and precisely zero people have been shown to have committed scientific misconduct. The NSF Inspector General's report is particularly damning.

Next question?
 
2012-12-20 12:18:37 PM  

chimp_ninja: snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.

The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."


According to you and your "concensus" buttbuddies, we are already past the "tipping point".
So an expensive bandaid?
Like I said, it, and you by your sycophancy, are all about THE MONEY.
 
Nuttin but THE MONEY
 
2012-12-20 12:20:42 PM  
Not sure if she's Russian but this scene is why I went through puberty so I'll post it.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-20 12:20:48 PM  

snocone: The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.


Look how stupid you are

This is what Global Warming Denialists actually believe
 
2012-12-20 12:22:09 PM  

chimp_ninja: snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.

The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."


I first read what little is there a few years ago.
Time has not improved their assumptions at all.
 
So, all we get from you today is the usual strawcritters?
 
2012-12-20 12:23:29 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.

Look how stupid you are

This is what Global Warming Denialists actually believe


Watch your language!
Oh dear!
 
THE WORLD CLIMATE APPEARS TO BE WARMING.
 
Whar your made up denial???
 
2012-12-20 12:27:29 PM  
I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.
 
2012-12-20 12:28:40 PM  

trey101: make me some tea: chimp_ninja: Zasteva: trey101: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming. You are the worst.

it is now called climate change after Gore was put in his place by scientists.

Actually when I was in college studying this stuff in the early 90s this was a topic of conversation, that is, the idea that "Global Climate Change" was a better name for the phenomenon because while the "Global Warming" was the net effect, that would confuse many people who would just expect that everything would get warmer, whereas actually we would see dramatic changes in weather patterns (aka climate). Gore didn't become a target for the anti-science crowd until 2006 when his movie was released.

It's also worth noting that the scientific community has been using "climate change" or "anthropogenic climate change" (a subset of the former) as the preferred nomenclature in journals for decades. Here's a link to a Science article from 1979 by Carl Sagan illustrating this.

There was never any moment where some unspecified "they" changed the terminology on everyone for whatever reason.

I think pop culture favored "global warming" because it sounds more dramatic than climate change.

when presented with evidence that the data was being manipulated the "believers" seem to dismiss any negative. why is that?

Link

there was a time when the earth was completely uninhabitable. there was a time when the earth had this thing called the Ice Age. there was a time when scientists thought that the earth was flat. there was a time when scientists thought there was no water in the universe. there still is a time when scientists thing we are alone in this universe. those "scientists" change their mind more than Romney.


Oh, that link is rich with dog whistle words: "Al Gore", "ivory tower", "cooking the data". LOL
 
The only thing those emails revealed is that there are and were disagreements between scientists over various items. That doesn't automatically mean that they're fabricating data. In fact, that's how science works! Not everyone agrees with everything at first. Imagine that, huh?
 
2012-12-20 12:31:03 PM  

Amos Quito: Troll troll troll your boat
Modmins make it green
Merrily merrily merrily merrily
Make the Farkers scream


lol. I came for the butthurt caused by subby's headline.

Leaving satisfied and amused.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:33 PM  

lexslamman: That's funny. Where I live we're wondering if there will be enough ice on the river to go ice fishing this year. It used to be an annual tradition, but the weather has been too warm the last 3 years.

/CSB

 
It's late December and for the about the 8th year in a row it's raining instead of snowing during the lead up to Christmas.  Years ago, the snow was guaranteed to be falling by at least November.  Now I'm lucky to see snow by January.
 
Anyone who has lived in the same area for the last 15 years has likely noticed similar trends with their local climate.
 
2012-12-20 12:32:43 PM  

snocone: THE WORLD CLIMATE APPEARS TO BE WARMING.

Whar your made up denial???


"APPEARS TO BE"
Weasel words from an AGW denialist.

I'm guessing stage 2 denial "Yeah, the globe may be warming but there's no proof that humans are responsible, the earth cools and warms all on its own." Though your pessimism about CO2 may indicate stage 3 denial "Yeah humans may be responsible but there's NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT"

snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.


Stage 2 it is, then
 
2012-12-20 12:34:03 PM  

snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.

And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.


Questionable grip on the age of the earth aside, the fact that climate has changed due to natural as well as anthropogenic causes does not mean that anthropogenically-driven changes won't have detrimental effects. We can't affect all change, but we do have control over what we ourselves cause.
 
2012-12-20 12:37:25 PM  

snocone: chimp_ninja: snocone: Your objective, that you have alredy motored right by, was to find a way to reduce CO2 production.
Unless you REPLACE power generation, you have not done that. And that is simply not gonna happen. No Federal Government Math, no Police Math. Genocide or get used to it.

The calculations account for this. Most power plants have a 40 year lifetime or so. For example, we're retiring 27 GW of coal capacity in the US alone, just in the next 5 years. We have a choice to replace that with "more coal" or "wind" or "something else". Why not wind?

You should really read what's there, so that you don't say something as monumentally stupid as "Genocide or get used to it."

I first read what little is there a few years ago.
Time has not improved their assumptions at all.

So, all we get from you today is the usual strawcritters?



I suggest that you may not have read very much, or that deeply into it or the only viable solution you can think of is genocide. I can only suggest it so many times, but do take a look at those Princeton Stabilization Wedges that have been linked to you repeatedly. This one subset of potential solutions alone strongly argues against what you're saying.
 
2012-12-20 12:41:55 PM  
Ah, here is the usual suspects en mase.
 
Having fun changing what I say?
Having fun saying your chit for me?
 
Same ole, same ole
 
2012-12-20 12:43:17 PM  

snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.


Holy fark, you're unbelievably stupid.  Please visit more threads I'm in.  This is hilarious.
 
2012-12-20 12:43:23 PM  
I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.
 
Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.
 
2012-12-20 12:44:58 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.

Holy fark, you're unbelievably stupid.  Please visit more threads I'm in.  This is hilarious.


And you would be incredibly incorrect, but you are used to that.
I got papers!
 
2012-12-20 12:46:09 PM  
My concensus of behavior scientists and psychologists have certified and documented my IQ.
Go fish.
 
2012-12-20 12:49:24 PM  

snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.


If your supporting evidence is a number that is not only wrong, but is off by two orders of magnitude, it's time to re-evaluate how much you think you know know about this subject, and how bad the information that you're using to reach your conclusions is.

So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning


These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy
 
2012-12-20 12:53:20 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.

If your supporting evidence is a number that is not only wrong, but is off by two orders of magnitude, it's time to re-evaluate how much you think you know know about this subject, and how bad the information that you're using to reach your conclusions is.

So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning


These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy

 
The issue is climate change.
Could we focus??
 
NO
 
2012-12-20 12:56:24 PM  

Drasancas: Tommy Moo: make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

The base prediction is a warming planet, which is demonstrably happening. That doesn't mean that every point on the surface of the planet is going to be hotter than it was before at all points at all times.

It'd be like predicting that the ocean level is rising, overall, and then some guy points at some small harbor that's experiencing low tide at that exact moment, and saying "Nah uh! the ocean levels are DROPPING"

It's the difference between a point sample and a long term averaged trend-line.


Fair enough. So call it Global Warming then. Don't shy away from the model. It makes them look like the guy who puts $50 on black and $50 on red and pumps his fist as he wins $90 at the roulette wheel.
 
2012-12-20 12:57:49 PM  

maxheck: Tommy Moo:

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

Ok... So in your understanding, the various models haven't predicted anything?

Actually, do you know ANYTHING about the models at all, or are you just spouting at random?

Seriously... What (in your mind) do the models predict?


The models predict that the earth should be warming. So quit being a pantywaist with this "climate change" BS and go back to calling it global warming like you're taking a stand.
 
2012-12-20 01:00:56 PM  
Just saw the best commercial evar made.
Allyie Bank, asks the Financial Expert, "can you tell us what the rate will be in two years?"
"No"
 
Go right ahead spewing your predictions for the future.
You are joining the Greatest Fail Club of all time.
 
2012-12-20 01:03:39 PM  
This headline works every time it is tried. It reminds me of a Christianity message board but with Jesus replaced by climate change.
 
2012-12-20 01:04:07 PM  

snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.


You did? Let me scroll back up and look. I'l admit when you came out with that whopper about "The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide" I was stunned for a moment Gimme a sec...

Ah, no. No you didn't ask for a reduction in human CO2 production - you claimed that it is impossible, and and then tossed out a challenge for anyone to provide you with a reduction effort which wasn't just a wealth redistribution scheme.

So since you feel so put out and misunderstood, perhaps you can clear this all up with a few simple answers.

1) Do you believe that average global temperatures are and have been getting warmer?
2) Do you beleive that human activity is responsible for any part of this rise? If so, how much?
3) Do you think that it is still possible to reverse, contain, or mitigate the human contribution to this problem?
 
2012-12-20 01:05:00 PM  

snocone: Spaced Cowboy: snocone: I will guarenfarkingtee you that the climate will change all by itself, regardless of human activity, or lack of it.
 
And I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning as citation.
And, I am betting the climate will change faster than anything your puny money redistribution will effect.

Holy fark, you're unbelievably stupid.  Please visit more threads I'm in.  This is hilarious.

And you would be incredibly incorrect, but you are used to that.
I got papers!


Sense, motherfarker, do you make any?
 
/that roar you hear is everyone laughing at you
 
2012-12-20 01:06:00 PM  

snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.



Yowch. Alright, since you seem to be somewhat hesitant to take a look at the link repeatedly provided to you, let's highlight one potential part of the solution (that chimp_ninja has pointed out to you already):

i45.tinypic.com
The idea behind the use of wind power is that it does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, therefore displacing energy production through, say, coal should result in "human CO2 production".

Come on now - the fact that you're searching for an example of "reduction in human CO2 production" when strategies for doing exactly this are ubiquitous highly suggests you haven't read much into this subject.
 
2012-12-20 01:06:38 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: should result in a reduction of "human CO2 production".


That makes more sense.
 
2012-12-20 01:06:44 PM  
21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY
 
2012-12-20 01:08:54 PM  

snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY


Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.
 
2012-12-20 01:11:16 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: snocone: I asked for reduction in human CO2 production.

Repetition is prolly a waste of time on ya'll.
Alwats has been.


Yowch. Alright, since you seem to be somewhat hesitant to take a look at the link repeatedly provided to you, let's highlight one potential part of the solution (that chimp_ninja has pointed out to you already):

[i45.tinypic.com image 640x640]
The idea behind the use of wind power is that it does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, therefore displacing energy production through, say, coal should result in "human CO2 production".

Come on now - the fact that you're searching for an example of "reduction in human CO2 production" when strategies for doing exactly this are ubiquitous highly suggests you haven't read much into this subject.


So, there is no way to REDUCE human CO2 production, like I said.
Mitigation of the future is your favorite strawman for this, I see.
 
The link you pukes are so proud of is a THEORY for future production of energy, that MAY produce less CO2, MAYBE.
'Course the big picture of overall CO2 production of the high tech windmills is kinda overlooked.
 
2012-12-20 01:11:33 PM  

snocone: So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning

These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy

The issue is climate change.
Could we focus??


The general topic is climate change. The specific subtopic we are discussing is whether or not you are well versed enough in even the most rudimentary grade school scientific basics that anyone should take your opinion seriously on the larger issue of climate change. Given that you think that the planet is between 6K and 60M years old, I'm going to go with "definitely not"
 
2012-12-20 01:12:01 PM  

Spaced Cowboy: snocone: 21st Century Business Profit Plan
 
1) Point out future disaster
2) Fearmonger like a bastard
3) Instill "Right Now" urgency
4) Offer Sweet Salvation,,,, for a PRICE
5) Attack all opposition and establish your concensus to get the "big herd" going
6) Hire Hollywood and UN, they work cheap for futures
7) PROFITY PROFITY PROFITY

 
Just because you switched tracks from sheer ignorance to really bad trolling doesn't mean we're done making fun of you.
 
 
You the fun one. just looky.
 
2012-12-20 01:13:12 PM  
Tommy Moo:

maxheck: Tommy Moo:

make me some tea: Submitter, it's climate change, not global warming.

You are the worst.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

Ok... So in your understanding, the various models haven't predicted anything?

Actually, do you know ANYTHING about the models at all, or are you just spouting at random?

Seriously... What (in your mind) do the models predict?

The models predict that the earth should be warming. So quit being a pantywaist with this "climate change" BS and go back to calling it global warming like you're taking a stand.


Well happy day! Someone *did* take a stand.

You do know the nomenclature has been twiddled a bit, mostly through ignorance and the inability of Fox Newsbabes being able to pronounce "anthropogenic" right? And you're aware of what I pointed out in this very thread about Frank Luntz's contribution?

Somehow I still suspect you don't know a damn thing about what the models say. You're just bloviating.
 
2012-12-20 01:13:17 PM  

snocone: Just saw the best commercial evar made.
Allyie Bank, asks the Financial Expert, "can you tell us what the rate will be in two years?"
"No"

Go right ahead spewing your predictions for the future.
You are joining the Greatest Fail Club of all time.



The fact that you're conflating finance with climatology says something about how superficially you may be approaching this topic. They would seem the same if you're not appreciating the fact that there is a great deal of scientific information behind the broad predictions of anthropogenic climate change.

I can appreciate that you're probably somewhat mistrustful of predictions made by experts. I suggest to you that some predictions are better than others - especially when some are based on scientific inquiry. How can you tell? By learning about this stuff. You're sitting in front of an incredibly powerful information tool - use it!
 
2012-12-20 01:13:19 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: snocone: So far you've given us
The only way to reduce human CO2 production is genocide.
and
I submit the somewhere between 6K and 60M years the planet has been spinning

These two items do not speak well of your scientific literacy

The issue is climate change.
Could we focus??

The general topic is climate change. The specific subtopic we are discussing is whether or not you are well versed enough in even the most rudimentary grade school scientific basics that anyone should take your opinion seriously on the larger issue of climate change. Given that you think that the planet is between 6K and 60M years old, I'm going to go with "definitely not"


So now you switbh to openly attacking me.
This is my suprised face.
 
You poor schlubs.
 
2012-12-20 01:14:36 PM  

snocone: 1) Point out future disaster


I suspect that will be the hard part. No matter how much science you use to show people that the disaster is coming or how it could be averted, you'll still have morons arguing that your science is wrong because god, or because some pseudoscience, or because aliens, or because some logical fallacy or something.
 
Hey, if you can point out a disaster in the making, AND you have a reliable way of preventing the disaster, you deserve all the profit you can get your grubby hands on.
 
2012-12-20 01:14:51 PM  
BTW, "6K to 60M" is just too obscure a snark for you.
 
Displayed 50 of 285 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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