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 17
    More: Interesting, climate change, liturgical year, War on Christmas  
•       •       •

4470 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 (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
2012-12-24 10:49:45 AM
4 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.


Trying too hard
2012-12-24 10:35:25 AM
3 votes:
Climate change is the tinfoil that leftists, minorities, and nearsighted bassoonists use to keep snow off of their rooftops.
2012-12-24 10:46:47 AM
2 votes:

Actor_au: It was 34c today for me.

Those are pretty much my favorite size boobs too. Good choice!
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:


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.
2012-12-24 05:03:49 PM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: 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.

Actually if I was paid that much for every paper I find on a particular research topic, I'd be able to afford a second fleet of limousines (I do wear out the first one occasionally. What? My mailbox is all the way at the end of my driveway.).
2012-12-24 04:12:37 PM
1 votes:
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 02:30:51 PM
1 votes:
2012-12-24 02:17:47 PM
1 votes:
Do you know what the best part of Climate Change is? That it looks like the red states are going to burn first!

/deny, deny, deny ... delay action as long as you can for your corporate masters
2012-12-24 01:44:47 PM
1 votes:

abb3w: Jim from Saint Paul:When I went to work this morning it was 17 degrees Faren. The Wind chill was 5 degrees and it was snowing.
Pretty sure that's what everyone EXPECTS from my state.

Actually, (positive) double digits before windchill sounds like it might be a bit warm for Minnesota this time of year, depending on what part of the state you're in.

Well, I like to keep my whearabouts secret, so I guess you'll never truly know what part of the state I am in.
2012-12-24 01:42:25 PM
1 votes:

Meanwhile, the land down under has had summer Christmas technology for ages. WHY IS AMERICA FALLING BEHIND
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'?

2012-12-24 12:23:11 PM
1 votes:
Every year we hear about some new front in the "War on Christmas" that liberals are supposedly waging against this most important of all Christian holidays. But an actual war on Christmas is coming-and it's spurred by climate change. It's a liberal conspiracy!

The summer drought caused many Christmas holiday tree seedlings in Tennessee to die this year, The Tennessean reports:

Took a whole three sentences before conflating weather and climate this time. Not bad for internet journalism.
2012-12-24 11:21:38 AM
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'm not even sure he's trying. I think he's just naturally bad at this.
2012-12-24 10:48:45 AM
1 votes:

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 10:42:59 AM
1 votes:

Actor_au: It was 34c today for me. Don't tell me climate change isn't real.

Sounds cold. What's that in Real American degrees?
2012-12-24 10:27:35 AM
1 votes:
Climatology IS EXACTLY THE SAME as Scientology.
2012-12-24 10:14:58 AM
1 votes:
Climate change was created by Baby Boomers so that more hurricanes hit the northeast; making it possible for them to get their musical nostalgia fix every year.
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »