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.

(Mother Jones)   Forget atheists and other non-believers, the real war on Christmas is climate change   (motherjones.com) divider line 24
    More: Interesting, climate change, liturgical year, War on Christmas  
•       •       •

4463 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 9:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2012-12-24 10:49:45 AM
3 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.


THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.


THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.


THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net

Trying too hard
2012-12-24 10:41:09 AM
2 votes:

Zarquon's Flat Tire: About two years ago I saw my first white christmas. It was fun for a few hours, but with Atlanta's notorious lack of plows and salt trucks it just became a nuisance the next day.


I have lived here all my life, and I missed Atlanta's white Christmas because that was the year the family decided to go to Florida for the Holiday.
Just my luck.

iwatts: Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.


But fake trees are made of plastic (oil). Real Christmas trees are grown for only one purpose so "wild" trees are not depleted. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Plus you get the benefits of the tree for the years it is growing.
2012-12-24 10:24:27 AM
2 votes:
Then Christmas is safe, because climate change, being based on superstition, pseudoscience and political hype, is not real.
2012-12-24 09:55:51 AM
2 votes:
Fake Christmas tree. No insect invasion. No lights. problem solved.
2012-12-27 09:17:41 PM
1 votes:
Damnhippyfreak:
omeganuepsilon: I understand the general purpose of citations just fine, what you posted earlier was a good rule of thumb. As you yourself state it isn't always needed. Being as stubborn as you are over it this time is plain silly, and a little aggrandizing.

While you're probably right about me being stubborn, the discussion we've been having is the only recourse we have about that specific claim we've been talking about, as the guy who presented it refuses to back it up. We can't have a discussion about the merits or problems of the evidence if there's no evidence, can we?

No, it's not, and quit being an idiot. YOU, YOURSELF, can look up papers which question the basics of evolution and gravity. They abound. Are you suddenly so farking stupid that you can't find them, when you have, first off, more access to papers than I do, and second, if you want a paper saying a specific thing about climatology, you always find it?

You can't have it both ways, as I have been saying. You can't claim various points I make are false, simply because you find an obscure paper suggesting that, while claiming to be able to find any of a broad range of papers on a general subject. You are either a decent researcher, with paywall access, or a bumbling n00b, unable to research your way out of a paper bag. You can't claim BOTH of these, at various times, when one or the other appears to serve you better.

And, as to my specific post -- well, I can't find it. I did the research, posted the results, and taunted Monkey Boy with those results. You are a prime asshole if you believe that my inability to find a specific post means I lied about it. You are morally repugnant. And, since, of course, you will question THAT statement of mind, pro forma, here's one to chew on:

I fully accept that there may be a way to do what I want to do, of which I am not aware. I have contacted Farkback, and was unable to obtain a useful response. But, from some of the electronic detritus on my hard drive, I can give you a clear example of what I mean.

I claim I wrote a post on Fark which contained the phrase "those readings DO fly in the face of a pet theory held by a pretentious ass like yourself" and that it was published, and not deleted. Can anyone find that post? If you CAN, could you please describe the method used? TIA.
2012-12-27 02:42:09 PM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Your misguided attempt to look for some sort of all-or-nothing "either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do" without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.

That's a mighty fine log you have in your eye.

Listen, Mr. Whistle -- you have not the tiniest bit of room to talk. In EVERY instance, your "evaluation of the quality of research" has fallen according to whether or not that research supports AGW.


I don't think this is the case. The problem is that the vast majority of the evidence you attempt to use is somewhat shaky, like the example in this very thread. When a piece of evidence you provide tends to be better, you tend to overstate what it says or outright misrepresent it.

The fact that, again, this reasoning you use about the person instead of the quality of the evidence itself shows that you tend to operate "without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented" and "shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place."


GeneralJim: When I have shown you how you can prove Michael Mann has engaged in deliberate fraud for yourself, you have ignored it.


I try to not ignore information. If you can find an example otherwise, I would be glad to rectify it immediately. The problem is that the evidence you present for this claim, like many of the others you make, is very shaky when not outright false.


GeneralJim: Meanwhile, Miskolczi publishes a major work that shot the then current AGW theory in the heart, and which goes unchallenged for nearly five years, and it's nothing, or badly done, according to you. Really?


This is an outright falsehood:

De Bruin H. 2010. Comments on "Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres" by Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Idojaras - Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Society 114(4):319-324.

This is exactly what I mean when I state that your claims tend not to be true, or are based on shaky evidence.


GeneralJim: You display the massive ignorance you enjoy in this subject -- science does not work that way. Should another Velikovsky paper be discovered, with more of his planet-slinging physics-denying crap, it would be eviscerated in no time. Bad science which claims to overturn current science in ANY field is contested with cold facts in a time frame most conveniently measured in single-digit weeks -- unless the bad science is supported by government money. But, the "official" take on climatology is upended, and there is no peer-reviewed comment for almost five years? That is the ACTUAL pattern of an "inconvenient truth."


There is, of course, another explanation that you haven't considered. There are many journals, and many of them are obscure. A flawed paper in an obscure Hungarian meteorological journal isn't going to get much play regardless of its content. This is one of the reasons why much of the commentary about this paper has been outside of the scientific literature.

That aside, you're yet again proving me right. Nowhere are you considering the actual validity of the evidence presented, but whether people have responded to it. Again, your non-evidence-based reasoning, "without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place."


GeneralJim: The fact that the planet is backing Miskolczi up with a stoppage of warming, impossible, according to all the warmer alarmist models, despite all the after-the-fact attempts to back-pedal by warmer alarmists. I note that NO warmer alarmist ever claimed that a more-than-a-decade "pause" in warming was either expected or possible. Rather, the patently absurd idea of "tipping points" being reached, which would cascade and accelerate "dangerous warming" was a topic of discussion.


This is absurd given the numerous periods in the past where supposed "stoppage of warming" has already occurred in the past. Remember this:

www.skepticalscience.com

Of course, there's also the issue that:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate



GeneralJim: The planet is telling you to fark off, you have it wrong. And all the bluster about an "expected pause" in warming is bollocks. NOTHING was said of such a thing -- until it happened.


Nothing was said because it has happened repeatedly in the past, and therefore was expected to do so again. Internal variability or variability due to decadal-level (or shorter) processes continue to exist.


GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming caught the warmer alarmists flat-footed, and they have countered with ever more dire, and ever more urgent warnings about the dangerous warming -- which isn't taking place.


Again, I'll have to refer you to this fellow:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate



GeneralJim: Things have gotten so surreal that the claim has been made that one of the effects of global warming is global cooling. The desperation is palpable.


Given that I've caught you in at least two outright falsehoods already this thread, I'll have to ask you to back this up in some way.
2012-12-27 02:24:06 PM
1 votes:

HighZoolander: RedVentrue: He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politely

Dear Sir,

Please accept this note with my humblest condolences for the recent passing of your critical thinking skills.

Yours sincerely in grief,

HighZoolander


I don't think it really matters, anyway. Climate changes, and we'll just have to deal with the changes as they happen. Shutting down the world economy is not the answer. This is a politically driven problem, not a scientific one, and there is more going on here than the question of whether AGW is real or not.
2012-12-27 01:28:32 PM
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: GeneralJim: Actually, in this case, YES, the laws of physics would have to change to have changes in carbon dioxide level be a significant factor in planetary temperature.

See everyone. Not only does the green-threadshiatter preach brain-dead conspiracy theories ... he actually denies the greenhouse effect. Something that is based on extremely solid science and that can be reproduced in a lab.

This is how far out of whack with reality deniers are.

How about you repost the paper supporting how CO2 lags warming. I always enjoyed when you trotted that one out so we could show you the quotes from the paper where it shows CO2 as a major driver of the warming brings the earth out of the ice age and the part where the author explicitly states that the results do not apply to the current warming.

You posted that crap >100 times, you were slapped down every time and here you are repeating the same crap over and over again. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.


He makes more sense than you do, and he does it more politely.

Claiming victory is not an automatic win, nor does it make what you support any truthier.

I thought Canadians were supposed to be polite?
2012-12-27 12:04:35 PM
1 votes:
Damnhippyfreak:
Your misguided attempt to look for some sort of all-or-nothing "either any peer-reviewed paper carries weight, or none of them do" without any consideration of the quality or veracity of the evidence presented, shows, again, how little you consider the actual evidence behind a claim in the first place.

That's a mighty fine log you have in your eye.

Listen, Mr. Whistle -- you have not the tiniest bit of room to talk. In EVERY instance, your "evaluation of the quality of research" has fallen according to whether or not that research supports AGW. When I have shown you how you can prove Michael Mann has engaged in deliberate fraud for yourself, you have ignored it. Meanwhile, Miskolczi publishes a major work that shot the then current AGW theory in the heart, and which goes unchallenged for nearly five years, and it's nothing, or badly done, according to you. Really?

You display the massive ignorance you enjoy in this subject -- science does not work that way. Should another Velikovsky paper be discovered, with more of his planet-slinging physics-denying crap, it would be eviscerated in no time. Bad science which claims to overturn current science in ANY field is contested with cold facts in a time frame most conveniently measured in single-digit weeks -- unless the bad science is supported by government money. But, the "official" take on climatology is upended, and there is no peer-reviewed comment for almost five years? That is the ACTUAL pattern of an "inconvenient truth." The fact that the planet is backing Miskolczi up with a stoppage of warming, impossible, according to all the warmer alarmist models, despite all the after-the-fact attempts to back-pedal by warmer alarmists. I note that NO warmer alarmist ever claimed that a more-than-a-decade "pause" in warming was either expected or possible. Rather, the patently absurd idea of "tipping points" being reached, which would cascade and accelerate "dangerous warming" was a topic of discussion.

The planet is telling you to fark off, you have it wrong. And all the bluster about an "expected pause" in warming is bollocks. NOTHING was said of such a thing -- until it happened. And scientists are generally not that good at lying -- their "we expected this" rings as hollow as the adolescent bicyclist who faceplants, and then gets up saying "I meant to do that." No, no you didn't. The last fifteen years of no warming caught the warmer alarmists flat-footed, and they have countered with ever more dire, and ever more urgent warnings about the dangerous warming -- which isn't taking place. Things have gotten so surreal that the claim has been made that one of the effects of global warming is global cooling. The desperation is palpable.
2012-12-25 06:18:39 PM
1 votes:
omeganuepsilon:
Wait, are you asking for a citation where he makes the claim?
Isn't that kind of pointless as he explained exactly what he meant? He set up a very basic theory, gave you all the information you needed to find a few papers.

Or do you mean citation for the validity of the claim?

What is the claim exactly? Lets review:

Lots of studies and papers consistantly re-examine physics(to include gravity) as well as evolution, as both are theories that we don't have a precise handle on one level or another. (I see that as common knowledge, if you need a cite for that you're woefully deficient)

And that GW piece, which the picture was posted in this very thread, the pie chart where there is a tiny tiny amount of re-evaluation on par with that, which made up a fark thread a couple weeks back. The whole "consensus makes us right" thread.

Where is there a need for citation, precisely?

Well, you certainly understand the situation. The whole business is a deflection. Monkey Boy said something stupid to the effect that questioning AGW was like questioning evolution or gravity. On a whim, I actually looked up quite a few examples of papers questioning the basics of gravity or evolution which were published in the previous year. Monkey Boy could not understand why the fact that, according to him, NOTHING critical of AGW had been published over many years is suspicious in and of itself.

But making this an issue takes the focus off of the poor scientific showing (being falsified multiple times) that the AGW hypothesis is making. It is clear that the warmers are taking a stand in which the "success" of the AGW hypothesis is more important than the science involved. I see this, but I do not understand. What is the benefit to the warmers? I doubt any of them are on the government funding bandwagon, so it must be some sort of personal motive.

I mean, the scientific process is BUILT upon false hypotheses. Each one that is falsified increases our knowledge. But, backing a hypothesis as if it were a sports team runs counter to the entire scientific process. It actively IMPEDES the accumulation of scientific knowledge. And having the warmers deny the scientific process, and denigrate anyone presumptuous enough to publish a paper falsifying AGW, provides a level of hypocritical warmth to counter the cold winter nights. The warmers deny the validity of the scientific process, and any paper which runs counter to their position. Meanwhile, the "deniers" are only denying that votes in a political organization of scientists mean anything, and that cooked data proves anything, and that the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, visible ONLY if one cherry-picks a certain time frame, proves that carbon dioxide is the proximate cause of the warming we have seen.
2012-12-25 03:25:18 AM
1 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?
Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...


Well, it's up to you, but your extreme unwillingness to back up a claim you've made renders it indistinguishable from an outright lie.

It's only true if someone else says it?

WTF

More that it's only true if you can back it up in some way.

Another way to rephrase:
It can only be true if supported by facts that agree with my position.

The Inquisitors used similar tactics. Just sayin'


I'm also sure that, just like me, the Inquisitors wore shoes.

In my opinion, when someone makes a specific claim, simply taking someone's word that they once posted information in a thread proving it sometime in the past isn't really convincing. I politely asked for the fellow to back up the claim (that he himself brought up) in some way, and he vehemently refused to do so repeatedly.

What you should be asking yourself is why one (potentially including you) should accept the guy's word without a shred of evidence or critical thought.


I don't, but I don't accept the "concensus" opinion without reasoning it out for myself.The deceptions on both sides muddy the waters to the point that I can't accept either position completely.

Climate changes.

It won't be the end of the Earth, or the end of us. Some people will have to move.

I don't get the urgency.
2012-12-24 04:40:45 PM
1 votes:
Damnhippyfreak:
Well, it's up to you, but your extreme unwillingness to back up a claim you've made renders it indistinguishable from an outright lie.

We've been over this before. You "assign" research as a punishment for not agreeing with you. A couple years ago, I spent probably 8 hours looking up and reading papers published on the subjects of gravity and evolution, just to prove to Monkey Boy that papers DO question the basics of pretty much everything -- except, of course, AGW. They skipped that whole "theory" step, and promoted the AGW hypothesis right to Natural Law, and gave it diplomatic immunity.

Your continual requests for repeats of research are abusive. If I do this, you have to agree to pay me, say, $25 for every 2011 peer-reviewed paper I find which questions our fundamental understanding of either gravity or evolution. How does that sound? That's probably cheap for professional research.
2012-12-24 04:12:37 PM
1 votes:
Damnhippyfreak:
I've seen you make this claim before. Can you back it up in some way?

Fark you, you lying ass. You're EXCELLENT at finding my posts if you think you can score a point off of it. Find this one yourself. It's amazing how your Google-Fu disappears when you (allegedly) want to find something that supports what I say. Alternatively, since you have paywall access, look up papers published last year on gravity and/or evolution -- It shouldn't be any different than 2009 or 2010, whichever one it was that I looked at. You'll see LOTS of questioning of basic principles... in ANY field, with the exceptions of climatology and cancer research. No published dissent there...
2012-12-24 03:49:11 PM
1 votes:
THE GREAT NAME:
He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Exactly correct. It is the same with the Oreskes study, which certain morons here continue to quote after having it explained to them. I answered the questions on several surveys, and so far ALL of them find me to be a "supporter" of the AGW hypothesis.

2012-12-24 03:10:54 PM
1 votes:

dready zim: RedVentrue: THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

Ooooh, that's a good one, and I'm taking it to use on AGW believers later. :)

In that, "We can`t think of an alternative so GOD/AGW!"?


Both have a HEAVY dose of confirmation bias.
2012-12-24 03:04:32 PM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: rkane1: THE GREAT NAME: Mayhem_2006: [www.desmogblog.com image 798x542]

Do you have a source for that info? It's fair to say that without proof, we can discard such a ridiculously extreme claim.

Here are some details: http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

And the methodology: http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html

Did you even read the links you supplied?

He's a script kiddie. He's used scripts to filter for anti-AGW articles using very strict textual conditions. He's then lumped everything else into the pro- bucket. Articles that are ambiguous are counted as pro- as well as ones that express strong doubts about AGW without flatly contradicting it. And many of those will be counted as pro- if their wording does not match his filter terms. Utter BS.

Why do you waste everybody's time posting such blatant rubbish on public forums?


Er...I didn't originally post the image, I just supplied you with the source, as you requested. You just assumed I made the original post without checking the facts.

Also, nowhere in the image does it state that the remaining 13950 ambiguous articles were counted as 'pro'. You just assumed that to be the case, again without checking the facts.

Based on how quickly you're ready to jump down someone's throat who might be presenting a world view that's in opposition to yours, I'd bet there are a whole lot of things that you just assume without checking the facts.
2012-12-24 02:34:46 PM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: Those corporations you love to hate are all profiting from green tech, renewable energy, carbon trading etc.


Yes ... they are very smart people. They know that this denial campaign can only last so long before the facts are too obvious. Just like their mentors in the '70s, Big Tobacco, who knew they were going to lose the lawsuits but were able to delay it by about a decade to keep profits high for as long as possible.

They know that eventually their primary source of revenue will be hit so they are making inroads into future tech.

A brilliant strategy: delay action as long as possible to keep the billions of $$$ of profit flowing while buying time to get a strong foothold into the new fields.

Brilliant for their bottom line ... we will pay the price for the actions of these people and their willing puppets (like yourself).
2012-12-24 02:30:19 PM
1 votes:
Your picture says "13,950 peer-reviewed climate articles 1991-2012. 24 reject global warming."

Wow. Considering that climate (and weather) are mathematically chaotic systems in which the basic systems are STILL being investigate, it is MOST impressive that that high a percentage of articles do not question AGW. If you will check, you will find MORE articles on gravity which question the basics, by percentage. I guess that means that climate science is WAY more certain than gravity.

Either that, or any articles skeptical of AGW were kept from publication. Oh, but scientists are infallible!
2012-12-24 01:40:59 PM
1 votes:
Obviously you are not well read on the subject. Trees growing are now a problem because they pull carbon from the ground and release it. It's not enough that they sequester co2 anymore

lol, wut? I hope you are joking.
Plants get their carbon from the air not the ground. It is where the C goes when they breathe in C02 and out O2.
2012-12-24 01:35:05 PM
1 votes:

Ctrl-Alt-Del: THE GREAT NAME: climate change... is not real.

THE GREAT NAME: Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.

THE GREAT NAME: Climate change isn't real.

THE GREAT NAME: There is NO DIFFERENCE between climatology and intelligent design.

[images4.wikia.nocookie.net image 593x338]

Trying too hard


I am so stealing that. A perfect response to these lazy trolls that can't even put minimal effort into the intellectual hairballs they hock into our midst.
2012-12-24 12:42:57 PM
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: fYou appear unable to debate the issues, instead resorting to personal attacks. I wonder why?


Wait... That was your actual argument before?  That was you 'debating the issue'?

Wow.
2012-12-24 11:54:51 AM
1 votes:
Rochester, NY had its first snowfall of the winter on Saturday.

Average for December used to be 21 inches, though not this year (or last). Between October and the end of the year, we usually average 29 inches, but not this time.
2012-12-24 10:48:45 AM
1 votes:

ManRay:
iwatts: Christmas Trees are a fairly wasteful thing anyway, Grow a tree for seven years so you can cut it down at let it dry out in your house for a few days. I'm not a Grinch, but the artificial ones look better, and are WAY more environmentally conscious if that is indeed the type of thing that you worry about.

But fake trees are made of plastic (oil). Real Christmas trees are grown for only one purpose so "wild" trees are not depleted. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. Plus you get the benefits of the tree for the years it is growing.


But ManRay, has has told the internet that he is environmentally conscious, and that is enough to sate his thought masters for now.
2012-12-24 10:27:35 AM
1 votes:
Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report