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.

(Reuters)   China's ships frozen in coldest global warming in 30 years   (reuters.com) divider line 172
    More: Amusing, global warming, square kilometres, China Daily, Shandong Province, China Meteorological Administration, loading  
•       •       •

12303 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2013 at 12:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-06 11:57:12 PM

STRYPERSWINE: Has there ever been a time in the last 4 billion years when the Earth's climate wasn't changing??


Most intelligent comment there will ever be in this thread.
 
2013-01-07 12:34:11 AM

AssAsInAssassin: Hollie Maea: DesertDemonWY: AssAsInAssassin: Fact is, the only consistent theory is the one held by the vast majority of climatologists: man-made CO2 does exactly what it was predicted to do way back in the mid-19th Century: trap heat in the atmosphere.

So, to repeat myself: Shut your whore mouth, you moronic fark-knuckle.

right, so exactly predicted that CO2 has gone up roughly 10% since 1996...
[www.esrl.noaa.gov image 792x612]
and yet global temperatures have been flat and beginning to show a decrease since then
[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 640x480]

that's some correlation you have going there ASShat, go fark yourself

Here's an idea: why don't you fark off and go play with the Big Green Douchemonster in the "ring ring this is Adam" iceburg thread. The two of you can have a fun time having a disinformation contest.

No irony there, when a climate denier whines about disinformation. All you delusional idiots have going for you is a well funded misinformation industry that caters to ignorant fools who can't separate reality from fantasy. You have to convince yourselves that 99% of climatologists are in cahoots with an anti-technology conspiracy that wants, for some reason, to bring the world as we know it to an end.

You've got nothing. Nothing but paranoid fantasies and a feeble grasp of science, and your mutual masturbation club.

You are what's wrong with the world You cannot think. You cannot process information that conflicts with your fever dreams. Please, just crawl into a hole and die. You have nothing to offer anyone.


Wait, what made you think I am a denier? In the post you quoted I told a denier to fark off.
 
2013-01-07 12:36:10 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The wonderful travels of a turd: What about 'extreme weather events' is so bloody hard to understand? The retardation is strong with subby.

What is so wonderful about the current version of Global Climate Change is that any (or no) events can be blamed on it, depending on the agenda of the person arguing for it. It is totally unfalsifiable.

Just like belief in God.

Question: do you believe that CO2 does not trap heat, or do you believe that we have released millions of years worth of stored carbon in the last 300 years?

I need to know so that I can know whether to enroll you in a high school chemistry class or a high school history class.

LOL! Another brief (alt) profile relying on name calling as, apparently, their only argument.

Should I enroll you in grade school? Are you 12?


First time I have been called an alt. That's got to count for something.
 
2013-01-07 01:55:49 AM

LavenderWolf: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The wonderful travels of a turd: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The wonderful travels of a turd: What about 'extreme weather events' is so bloody hard to understand? The retardation is strong with subby.

What is so wonderful about the current version of Global Climate Change is that any (or no) events can be blamed on it, depending on the agenda of the person arguing for it. It is totally unfalsifiable.

What is so unfalsifiable about North America not having had years that were below average in temperature for 28 years now? You do realise that it is pretty odd for something as chaotic as weather not to result in years with temperatures below average for about a generation, don't you?

The unfalsifiable element I refer to is the ability of the Global Warming bunch to blame any damned change in weather - including cold spells - they want on GW.

A "below average" temp for 28 years? Horrors! The farking Earth is 4.5 billion years old and climate change cycles generally take a bit longer than 28 or even 2800 years to occur. Is climate change happening? Hell yes. Is it due to human activity? Probably a very small part. Can we change it? No. Should we try to change it? No. Should we strip 1st world nations of productive capacity and wealth to try to stop it? No. Should we prevent China and other 3rd World nations from industrializing to stop it? No. Should we be taking measured steps to adapt to changing weather? Yes.

This is the problem with you retards.

You think that anyone who accepts anthropogenic climate change thinks we should abandon technology and cull populations. There ARE things we can do about it, and if you haven't learned from the last time I told you (Yes, you specifically) how we can directly change the climate, what use is it this time? In any case, the simplest solution is probably the best: Grow and bury trees to sequester carbon from the atmosphere.


Actually, I think there's a small chance that it isn't retarded. Or at least the leadership isn't retarded. The "useful idiot" followers are the retards. The leadership has an agenda.

Anyone familiar with the origin of the political concept of "two steps forward one step back"? Old warhorses don't change their core beliefs, though they may change their coats. This is probably obscure to many, but consider the leadership change in the "international umbrella" Green Cross organization in the mid-80s. Or just about the time the whole Global Warming agenda started "heating up" (pun intended). Anyone think that the timing is.... interesting?

Naaa. Probably nothing to it.
 
2013-01-07 01:57:57 AM

Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Hollie Maea: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The wonderful travels of a turd: What about 'extreme weather events' is so bloody hard to understand? The retardation is strong with subby.

What is so wonderful about the current version of Global Climate Change is that any (or no) events can be blamed on it, depending on the agenda of the person arguing for it. It is totally unfalsifiable.

Just like belief in God.

Question: do you believe that CO2 does not trap heat, or do you believe that we have released millions of years worth of stored carbon in the last 300 years?

I need to know so that I can know whether to enroll you in a high school chemistry class or a high school history class.

LOL! Another brief (alt) profile relying on name calling as, apparently, their only argument.

Should I enroll you in grade school? Are you 12?

First time I have been called an alt. That's got to count for something.


And the name calling. Don't forget the name calling.

Should I enroll you in grade school? Are you 12?
 
2013-01-07 02:14:06 AM
Hottest temps in rercorded history to hit Australia this week

Pacific islands are being slowly devoured as ocean level rises.
 
2013-01-07 02:36:38 AM
Evil Twin Skippy:
Long answer...[Begin hyper graphic that illustrates the formation of the earth, how life on Earth completely changed the composition of the atmosphere...finish up with the fact that humanity managed to spring up in between ice ages and that we are headed for one within the next thousand years or so...]

Actually, we are IN an ice age, geologically speaking. Any time there is an ice cap on the planet, it's an ice age. What is called, in the vernacular, an "ice age" is, geologically, a "major glaciation." We are as cold now as it has EVER been since life became diverse on this planet. The last time it was this cold was over 250 MILLION years ago. Normally, Earth does not have ice caps at all. And, normally, temperatures on Earth are about 10 K warmer. The "cold snap" should last about another 20 million years, during which time the eccentricities of our orbital geometry will keep us in major glaciations for about 110,000 years, followed by a brief interglacial period of roughly 12,000 years, plus or minus, over and over.

But yes, our next "scheduled" event is the next major glaciation, and my guess would be that it is about 1500-1600 years from now, barring a trigger such as a VEI 8 or above volcanic eruption. While the warm-mongers wring their hands and douse their drawers over the fact that winter wheat might not grow as well at the southern end of its growing range (while ignoring that every crop grown could be grown further north) should temperatures rise a couple degrees, what are they missing? Please, if you will, imagine the effects on crop production if the entire globe were covered with an ice sheet two miles thick, a sheet which reached as far south as about Kentucky? Not pretty.


csccc.fcpp.org
 
2013-01-07 02:39:40 AM
2012 was the coldest year in Alaska in 40 years. That should make you feel a little better. It doesn't make me feel better, because I live here, and it's freaking cold!
 
2013-01-07 03:14:55 AM
The wonderful travels of a turd:
What is so unfalsifiable about North America not having had years that were below average in temperature for 28 years now? You do realise that it is pretty odd for something as chaotic as weather not to result in years with temperatures below average for about a generation, don't you?

No, that is not "pretty odd," or even ugly. It's NORMAL. It is what happens. There is a ~60-year cycle of temperature: 30 years up, thirty years down. Temperatures dropped from around the 1940s to the 1970s. This led some to conclude that temperatures had been dropping for decades, they always would drop, and that somehow people were responsible for it. Sound familiar? Here's a Time Magazine article. You need to be a subscriber to get the whole thing.

Following is a diagram of at least one ~60 year cycle which has a strong effect on temperatures. Read about it HERE.



www.surfacestations.org
 
2013-01-07 03:16:35 AM

GeneralJim: Evil Twin Skippy: Long answer...[Begin hyper graphic that illustrates the formation of the earth, how life on Earth completely changed the composition of the atmosphere...finish up with the fact that humanity managed to spring up in between ice ages and that we are headed for one within the next thousand years or so...]
Actually, we are IN an ice age, geologically speaking. Any time there is an ice cap on the planet, it's an ice age. What is called, in the vernacular, an "ice age" is, geologically, a "major glaciation." We are as cold now as it has EVER been since life became diverse on this planet. The last time it was this cold was over 250 MILLION years ago. Normally, Earth does not have ice caps at all. And, normally, temperatures on Earth are about 10 K warmer. The "cold snap" should last about another 20 million years, during which time the eccentricities of our orbital geometry will keep us in major glaciations for about 110,000 years, followed by a brief interglacial period of roughly 12,000 years, plus or minus, over and over.

But yes, our next "scheduled" event is the next major glaciation, and my guess would be that it is about 1500-1600 years from now, barring a trigger such as a VEI 8 or above volcanic eruption. While the warm-mongers wring their hands and douse their drawers over the fact that winter wheat might not grow as well at the southern end of its growing range (while ignoring that every crop grown could be grown further north) should temperatures rise a couple degrees, what are they missing? Please, if you will, imagine the effects on crop production if the entire globe were covered with an ice sheet two miles thick, a sheet which reached as far south as about Kentucky? Not pretty.

[csccc.fcpp.org image 660x417]



Keep in mind that worrying about something happening now is not somehow mutually exclusive with worrying about something that you guess will happen "1500-1600 years from now".

That, and also keep in mind that the time scale you've chosen to consider when for what you consider "normal" makes it of very, very limited utility given the context. As I've pointed out before, the scale you've chosen would consider even the non-existence of the human race to be "normal". Again, there's very limited usefulness in your definition of "normal". In the context of climate change, we're primarily interested in the effects upon something closer to today's world, human society and the biophysical systems upon which we depend.
 
2013-01-07 03:27:24 AM
SomeoneDumb:
It's colder than average where I am, too, but I think to figure out the average world's temperature for the year we have to wait awhile and do some fancy arithmetic involving both addition and division before we know if this year is hotter or colder than previous ones.

Not really. We have ONE way to take the temperature of the whole planet, without over-weighting some areas, and under-reporting others, with no stations in jet wash or air conditioner output: satellite readings. We have them since 1979. Here's what they show:


www.drroyspencer.com
 
2013-01-07 03:30:57 AM
Representative of the unwashed masses:
That's more like it. graphs of the last couple hundred or 30 or so years tell only part of the story. Big picture people!

When one of the major temperature determinants is on a 60-year cycle, YES, a 30 year graph only shows one side of it. If you start your 30 years with 1940, you'll be alarmed about global cooling, assuming equal levels of ignorance.
 
2013-01-07 03:35:32 AM
Farking Canuck:
Ok ... so there are clearly deniers here saying that GW isn't happening. Just look up the thread.

In the next thread, when you state that "we don't deny that the earth is warming ... we are just saying it is not man-made", understand why we call you liars.

At the risk of being accused of calling you a liar, how about some examples of these "deniers" who say the planet hasn't been warming, scale issues aside? I don't see any.
 
2013-01-07 03:37:27 AM

GeneralJim: The wonderful travels of a turd:
What is so unfalsifiable about North America not having had years that were below average in temperature for 28 years now? You do realise that it is pretty odd for something as chaotic as weather not to result in years with temperatures below average for about a generation, don't you?

No, that is not "pretty odd," or even ugly. It's NORMAL. It is what happens. There is a ~60-year cycle of temperature: 30 years up, thirty years down. Temperatures dropped from around the 1940s to the 1970s. This led some to conclude that temperatures had been dropping for decades, they always would drop, and that somehow people were responsible for it. Sound familiar? Here's a Time Magazine article. You need to be a subscriber to get the whole thing.


It's stuff like this why the popular press, such as Time Magazine, gets such a bad rap in terms of science reporting. Meanwhile, in the actual scientific literature at the time:

i50.tinypic.com
From Petersen et al. 2008


GeneralJim: Following is a diagram of at least one ~60 year cycle which has a strong effect on temperatures. Read about it HERE.


Let me tack onto this a reminder (for you or for others reading) that the PDO in this form is calculated by subtracting a broader SST anomaly (which includes much of the contribution of anthropogenic climate change).
 
2013-01-07 03:53:53 AM
AssAsInAssassin:
No irony there, when a climate denier whines about disinformation. All you delusional idiots have going for you is a well funded misinformation industry that caters to ignorant fools who can't separate reality from fantasy. You have to convince yourselves that 99% of climatologists are in cahoots with an anti-technology conspiracy that wants, for some reason, to bring the world as we know it to an end.

Nope, that's just your stupidity talking... and boy, is that sucker LOUD.

Don't get me wrong -- there IS scientific malfeasance going on, but it is probably fewer than a dozen people doing it. It's just that those who are in control of the data are corrupt. They got in control because moneyed interests WANT malleable farktards running things, so the science says what it is SUPPOSED to say. The IPCC is a POLITICAL body, and their reports are edited AFTER scientific review. So, in the leaked AR5 from the IPCC, they leave off the last five years of collected data. Why? Could it be that the last five years of observations show us to be below the error bars on EVERY model they use? I'd say so. But, READ ABOUT IT for yourself. NASA's historical data changes ever few years, showing the past to be colder, and the present warmer, than before. And, the numbers in the NASA GISS and Hadley CRUT databases do NOT pass an integrity test, indicating that they were man-made numbers, not collected data.

And WHY do people continue to support these frauds? Mark Twain said it best:


www.atheistmemebase.com
 
2013-01-07 03:58:20 AM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Ok ... so there are clearly deniers here saying that GW isn't happening. Just look up the thread.

In the next thread, when you state that "we don't deny that the earth is warming ... we are just saying it is not man-made", understand why we call you liars.
At the risk of being accused of calling you a liar, how about some examples of these "deniers" who say the planet hasn't been warming, scale issues aside? I don't see any.



GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming [...]

 
2013-01-07 04:00:33 AM
Fuggin Bizzy:
GeneralJim: Caps? Where did YOU check? Where I checked, the Antarctic sea ice sheet is still growing.

Oh spiffy. Then there's no problem.

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 600x384]

So, you claim BOTH ice caps are shrinking, I point out that the Antarctic is NOT, and you counter that with "Well, the NORTHERN ice cap is.." Uh... Thanks for agreeing with me that you lied. (?) Are you normally this brain-dead, or is this a special performance for me?
 
2013-01-07 04:04:51 AM

GeneralJim: AssAsInAssassin: No irony there, when a climate denier whines about disinformation. All you delusional idiots have going for you is a well funded misinformation industry that caters to ignorant fools who can't separate reality from fantasy. You have to convince yourselves that 99% of climatologists are in cahoots with an anti-technology conspiracy that wants, for some reason, to bring the world as we know it to an end.
Nope, that's just your stupidity talking... and boy, is that sucker LOUD.

Don't get me wrong -- there IS scientific malfeasance going on, but it is probably fewer than a dozen people doing it. It's just that those who are in control of the data are corrupt. They got in control because moneyed interests WANT malleable farktards running things, so the science says what it is SUPPOSED to say. The IPCC is a POLITICAL body, and their reports are edited AFTER scientific review. So, in the leaked AR5 from the IPCC, they leave off the last five years of collected data. Why? Could it be that the last five years of observations show us to be below the error bars on EVERY model they use? I'd say so. But, READ ABOUT IT for yourself. NASA's historical data changes ever few years, showing the past to be colder, and the present warmer, than before. And, the numbers in the NASA GISS and Hadley CRUT databases do NOT pass an integrity test, indicating that they were man-made numbers, not collected data.

And WHY do people continue to support these frauds? Mark Twain said it best:

[www.atheistmemebase.com image 324x216]



Heh. Keep in mind that Twain's adage there can apply to you yourself as well. It's not all that effective to try to counter something only very slightly resembling a conspiracy theory with your own full-blown, widespread and vague conspiracy theory.
 
2013-01-07 04:18:09 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
That, and also keep in mind that the time scale you've chosen to consider when for what you consider "normal" makes it of very, very limited utility given the context. As I've pointed out before, the scale you've chosen would consider even the non-existence of the human race to be "normal". Again, there's very limited usefulness in your definition of "normal". In the context of climate change, we're primarily interested in the effects upon something closer to today's world, human society and the biophysical systems upon which we depend.

Bugger off with your nit-picking douchebaggery. You are probably the least honest debater on Fark, and that is saying a LOT.

When looking at a system with firm, well-established cycles of 60, 400, 800, 1600, and 120,000 years, looking at less than two centuries of data is just plain stupid -- or, misleading, if you KNOW what you are doing. The current warming trend -- if you look at the proper time frame, has been going on for over 300 years -- and it started BEFORE the industrial revolution, so is NOT caused by carbon dioxide. If you are going to make the "Well, the planet WAS warming from natural causes, and, yes, it is still warming at about the same rate, but NOW it is caused by humans" argument, that's a tough one, and it requires extraordinary evidence. Models that consistently predict way high, after their math has been proven incorrect are certainly NOT that evidence.

It's simple -- to get the alarmist figures the IPCC wants, they must (and did) assume that water vapor is a large positive feedback to carbon dioxide. Measurements from multiple studies (and, NO, model runs are NOT studies) indicate that water vapor is a NEGATIVE feedback, and a rather large one, to carbon dioxide. Your claims have no support, and you consistently deny any science that doesn't back you up. The planet would be warming now if humans had never evolved, probably almost exactly as much. So, bugger off, and pick some of your OWN nits.
 
2013-01-07 04:21:27 AM

Straelbora: Why are these stupid 'Derp- it's cold in one place, so the planetary trend towards a hotter climate isn't happening' headlines even greenlighted?


For the lulz, the same reason anyone does anything. Any attention is good attention, that's why people troll, and that's why articles like this are greened.
 
2013-01-07 04:27:46 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Ok ... so there are clearly deniers here saying that GW isn't happening. Just look up the thread.

In the next thread, when you state that "we don't deny that the earth is warming ... we are just saying it is not man-made", understand why we call you liars.

At the risk of being accused of calling you a liar, how about some examples of these "deniers" who say the planet hasn't been warming, scale issues aside? I don't see any.


GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming [...]

Jesus, you're a dumbass. There hasn't been any warming over 15 years. See that part there about "scale issues?" Need me to explain that? Okay, "real" temperature is the trend over 8,000 years, I am decreeing. Therefore, we are in a temporary lull in the global cooling.

And, by the way, you lying weasel.... I did NOT write that in this thread, and it was this thread that was under discussion.
 
2013-01-07 04:34:01 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
That, and also keep in mind that the time scale you've chosen to consider when for what you consider "normal" makes it of very, very limited utility given the context. As I've pointed out before, the scale you've chosen would consider even the non-existence of the human race to be "normal". Again, there's very limited usefulness in your definition of "normal". In the context of climate change, we're primarily interested in the effects upon something closer to today's world, human society and the biophysical systems upon which we depend.

Bugger off with your nit-picking douchebaggery. You are probably the least honest debater on Fark, and that is saying a LOT.


You're welcome to your opinion - whether said opinion is based on evidence (and therefore true or not) is another matter.


GeneralJim: When looking at a system with firm, well-established cycles of 60, 400, 800, 1600, and 120,000 years, looking at less than two centuries of data is just plain stupid -- or, misleading, if you KNOW what you are doing. The current warming trend -- if you look at the proper time frame, has been going on for over 300 years -- and it started BEFORE the industrial revolution, so is NOT caused by carbon dioxide. If you are going to make the "Well, the planet WAS warming from natural causes, and, yes, it is still warming at about the same rate, but NOW it is caused by humans" argument, that's a tough one, and it requires extraordinary evidence. Models that consistently predict way high, after their math has been proven incorrect are certainly NOT that evidence.

It's simple -- to get the alarmist figures the IPCC wants, they must (and did) assume that water vapor is a large positive feedback to carbon dioxide. Measurements from multiple studies (and, NO, model runs are NOT studies) indicate that water vapor is a NEGATIVE feedback, and a rather large one, to carbon dioxide. Your claims have no support, and you consistently deny any science that doesn't back you up. The planet would be warming now if humans had never evolved, probably almost exactly as much. So, bugger off, and pick some of your OWN nits.


Interesting tangent, but is irrelevant to the point you're supposedly attempting to respond to. Again, the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.

That aside, if you consider my counter-argument to be nitpicking, your argument was nothing but nits in the first place.
 
2013-01-07 04:35:52 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Ok ... so there are clearly deniers here saying that GW isn't happening. Just look up the thread.

In the next thread, when you state that "we don't deny that the earth is warming ... we are just saying it is not man-made", understand why we call you liars.

At the risk of being accused of calling you a liar, how about some examples of these "deniers" who say the planet hasn't been warming, scale issues aside? I don't see any.


GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming [...]

Jesus, you're a dumbass. There hasn't been any warming over 15 years. See that part there about "scale issues?" Need me to explain that? Okay, "real" temperature is the trend over 8,000 years, I am decreeing. Therefore, we are in a temporary lull in the global cooling.

And, by the way, you lying weasel.... I did NOT write that in this thread, and it was this thread that was under discussion.



Hey, you didn't say anything about this thread only, and you did say "scale issues aside". They're your own words - you should probably own up to them.
 
2013-01-07 04:36:54 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Heh. Keep in mind that Twain's adage there can apply to you yourself as well. It's not all that effective to try to counter something only very slightly resembling a conspiracy theory with your own full-blown, widespread and vague conspiracy theory.

Fewer than 12 corrupt people is a "widespread conspiracy?" And, I have given specifics, many times.... by the way, thanks for the excuse!



Errors in Scientific Data, Programs, and Methodology

Computer source code shows data manipulation. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer-Review is Completely Corrupt

Climate Science Needs Light -- Climatology Peer Review Process Irreparably Broken. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Used Greenpeace Campaigner To Write 'Impartial' Report On Renewable Energy, and review his own work. Article HERE. (new window)

Climatology Peer Review Process Failure: "Impossible" Conclusions in alarmist paper pass peer-review; AAAS withdraws paper. Article HERE. (new window)

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters. Article HERE. (new window)

And, here is a list of some of the gross errors in scientific method and practice which have become part of the IPCC credo. List HERE. (new window)

Scientific Errors Made by the IPCC

IPCC science includes the idea that carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere more than 100 years, contradicting ALL of the available peer-reviewed research. Chart HERE. (new window)

Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum (new window)

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (new window)

Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts (new window)

Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming (new window) (This paper not published in a peer-reviewed journal.)

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (new window) (This research may be a flier.)

On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing (new window)

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (new window)

Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations (new window)

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (new window)

Note that when the suggested correction to the math error is included in the models, they at least sort of accurately predict the present from historical data. Without the corrections, they do not. Awkward.
Descriptions of and discussion about the above article:

0. Modeling Global Warming (Miskolczi Part 1)
4. Models of Greenhouse Effect
5. Greenhouse Effect Physics
6. Greenhouse Heat Engine

Attempts to Deny the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age

History of climate gets 'erased' online. Article HERE. (new window)

CRU Director Phil Jones: "...surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated." Article HERE. (new window)

First, the metric arse-load of data points showing the MWP was world-wide is HERE. (new window)

M.I.T. Technology Review: Hockey Stick is Bogus. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones admits MWP was real. Article HERE. (new window)

U.N., IPCC, CRUnies, and Dr. Pachauri Specific Corruption

IPCC Official: "Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth." Article HERE. (new window)

The curious case of the expanding environmental group with falling income. Article HERE. (new window)

Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief. Article HERE. (new window)

Michael Mann Accused of More False Reporting. Article HERE. (new window)

IPCC Literature is not peer-reviewed or error-checked. Report HERE. (new window)

Data Manipulation Fraud

Accounting auditing brought to bear on climate data. It is discovered that NASA's GISS data and the Hadley CRU's data have been manufactured. That is, faked. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data Again. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption At GISS. Article HERE. (new window)

US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal - NOAA Disgraced. Article HERE. (new window)

Pre-Climategate: "Unprecedented" Data Purge At CRU. Article HERE. (new window)

Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero. Article HERE. (new window)

Phil Jones: the Secret Agent in Hawaii. Article HERE. (new window)

Hockey Stick, 1998-2005, R.I.P. Article HERE. (new window)

NASA's James Hansen's Lies, Miscues, Incorrect Forecasts, and Fraud

James Hansen Apologizes for Using Next Year's Climate Data in October Report. Article HERE. (new window)

James Hansen Caught Altering Data to Eliminate Cooling. Article HERE. (new window)

Data Corruption at NASA's GISS - Article HERE. (new window)

Some of his lies, follies, and idiocies are documented HERE. (new window)

Examination and analysis of James Hansen's bullshiat forcing claims is HERE. (new window)

Climate Models that Don't

IPCC model for climate sensitivity is not supported by experimental observation on ancient ice ages and recent satellite data. Article HERE. (new window)

Climate Models Ignore Effect of Albedo, which is larger than GHE. Article HERE. (new window)

Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery (new window)

CERN's CLOUD Experiment Trashes AGW Theory, massively supports Svensmark (new window)

Solar activity affects cosmic rays, cloud formation is suppressed, and the planet warms. A good article, including a link to the original paper, is found HERE. (new window)

The Consensus itself is a Fraud

Climate Change Now Questioned At German Universities - Professors Speaking Up. Article HERE. (new window)

The 97% 'Consensus' plummets to 34.7%. Article HERE. (new window)

No Proof Man Causes Global Warming. Article HERE. (new window)

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider. Article HERE. (new window)

Personal, Financial, Professional Attacks on Skeptics and the public.

Daily Kos Editor Says Skeptics Should Commit Suicide. Article HERE. (new window)

Scientists propose using "climate crisis" as excuse to set up scientific dictatorship. Review of their book HERE. (new window)

PNAS publishes a paper based on a skeptic blacklist. Article HERE. (new window)



 
2013-01-07 04:43:34 AM

GeneralJim: Fuggin Bizzy: GeneralJim: Caps? Where did YOU check? Where I checked, the Antarctic sea ice sheet is still growing.

Oh spiffy. Then there's no problem.

[farm9.staticflickr.com image 600x384]
So, you claim BOTH ice caps are shrinking, I point out that the Antarctic is NOT, and you counter that with "Well, the NORTHERN ice cap is.." Uh... Thanks for agreeing with me that you lied. (?) Are you normally this brain-dead, or is this a special performance for me?



You both have some claim to being right, but probably not for the reasons you think. Keep in mind that land ice in the Antarctic is decreasing:

i48.tinypic.com
from Shepherd et al. 2012

And while you're correct about sea ice, also keep in mind that there's some indication that its volume is decreasing.

I think it's a wash.
 
2013-01-07 04:58:31 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Heh. Keep in mind that Twain's adage there can apply to you yourself as well. It's not all that effective to try to counter something only very slightly resembling a conspiracy theory with your own full-blown, widespread and vague conspiracy theory.

Fewer than 12 corrupt people is a "widespread conspiracy?" And, I have given specifics, many times.... by the way, thanks for the excuse!



That, and your previous contentions about the UN, for example:

GeneralJim: It's very simple: Buy a few scientists at the top of the food chain, and what the rest think doesn't matter. The corrupting is being done by U.N. bureaucrats -- that is, by PROFESSIONAL bribers.


GeneralJim: The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.


GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator

The UN, with its shadowy bureaucrats and diplomats, as well as "environmental activist retards" - that's a bit more widespread than just "12 corrupt people", isn't it?

I mean, your conspiracy theory is so vague, you yourself are apparently unaware of how widespread it really is ;)
 
2013-01-07 05:03:24 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Interesting tangent, but is irrelevant to the point you're supposedly attempting to respond to. Again, the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.

I am tired of your lying. You (I believe) are NOT dumb enough to think that looking at the last 150 years of a 300 year trend is adequate to describe the system. Yet you claim that.

Why not go whole hog? Take temperature readings at 5:00 a.m., and then again at 5:00 p.m. on the middle day of the year, June 30th. I'll use Hilo, because the numbers are 70 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. That's warming of ten degrees over half a day. That means 20 degrees a day. So, one year from that date, the temperature will be 7380 degrees Fahrenheit. Simple math. Simple, but stupid.

The reason it is stupid is that the time frame is smaller than one of the important cycles, the diurnal cycle. The above method only measures during half of that cycle, roughly the increasing temperature part of the cycle. Which is EXACTLY what ONLY looking at temperatures since 1850 does. That's less than half of the warming part of a 400 year cycle, and as likely to give an accurate answer as the above described method -- although the error will be rather less spectacular.

The whole concept that you label ANY attempt to look at any time frame OTHER than around 1850 to the present as "cherry-picking" and dishonest is amazing. Stupid, but amazing.



i47.tinypic.com
"Cherry-picking"
You keep using that word...
 
2013-01-07 05:07:04 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Ok ... so there are clearly deniers here saying that GW isn't happening. Just look up the thread.

In the next thread, when you state that "we don't deny that the earth is warming ... we are just saying it is not man-made", understand why we call you liars.

At the risk of being accused of calling you a liar, how about some examples of these "deniers" who say the planet hasn't been warming, scale issues aside? I don't see any.


GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming [...]

Jesus, you're a dumbass. There hasn't been any warming over 15 years. See that part there about "scale issues?" Need me to explain that? Okay, "real" temperature is the trend over 8,000 years, I am decreeing. Therefore, we are in a temporary lull in the global cooling.

And, by the way, you lying weasel.... I did NOT write that in this thread, and it was this thread that was under discussion.


Hey, you didn't say anything about this thread only, and you did say "scale issues aside". They're your own words - you should probably own up to them.

You lying sack, I'll make it so clear even you can't miss it.

And, I own up to everything I've said. I've not always been right, but I have ALWAYS been honest -- unlike yourself.
 
2013-01-07 05:16:13 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Heh. Keep in mind that Twain's adage there can apply to you yourself as well. It's not all that effective to try to counter something only very slightly resembling a conspiracy theory with your own full-blown, widespread and vague conspiracy theory.

Fewer than 12 corrupt people is a "widespread conspiracy?" And, I have given specifics, many times.... by the way, thanks for the excuse!


That, and your previous contentions about the UN, for example:

GeneralJim: It's very simple: Buy a few scientists at the top of the food chain, and what the rest think doesn't matter. The corrupting is being done by U.N. bureaucrats -- that is, by PROFESSIONAL bribers.

GeneralJim: The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.

GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator
The UN, with its shadowy bureaucrats and diplomats, as well as "environmental activist retards" - that's a bit more widespread than just "12 corrupt people", isn't it?

I mean, your conspiracy theory is so vague, you yourself are apparently unaware of how widespread it really is ;)

More misunderstanding to the point of lying....

My comment was in response to "You have to convince yourselves that 99% of climatologists are in cahoots with "

"Climatologists" does NOT include U.N. bureaucrats. U.N. bureaucrats are assumed to be corrupt, any time the price gets high enough.

How about you quit lying?

And, how about you MYOFB when I'm discussing something with someone? You don't do it well, and then I have to explain how you lied, and that takes time.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-07 05:18:18 AM

GeneralJim: Errors in Scientific Data, Programs, and Methodology [...]


As for all of that, while I don't have the time to go through all of it right now (while I would be more than willing to do so some other time), I do note that many of these points have been addressed in the past. Even though severe flaws have been pointed out before in regards to much of these, you continue to post them unabated.

Here's an example.
 
2013-01-07 05:20:59 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Interesting tangent, but is irrelevant to the point you're supposedly attempting to respond to. Again, the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.

I am tired of your lying. You (I believe) are NOT dumb enough to think that looking at the last 150 years of a 300 year trend is adequate to describe the system. Yet you claim that.


I'm afraid you're misrepresenting my opinion. You're battling a straw-man here.


GeneralJim: Why not go whole hog? Take temperature readings at 5:00 a.m., and then again at 5:00 p.m. on the middle day of the year, June 30th. I'll use Hilo, because the numbers are 70 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit. That's warming of ten degrees over half a day. That means 20 degrees a day. So, one year from that date, the temperature will be 7380 degrees Fahrenheit. Simple math. Simple, but stupid.

The reason it is stupid is that the time frame is smaller than one of the important cycles, the diurnal cycle. The above method only measures during half of that cycle, roughly the increasing temperature part of the cycle. Which is EXACTLY what ONLY looking at temperatures since 1850 does. That's less than half of the warming part of a 400 year cycle, and as likely to give an accurate answer as the above described method -- although the error will be rather less spectacular.

The whole concept that you label ANY attempt to look at any time frame OTHER than around 1850 to the present as "cherry-picking" and dishonest is amazing. Stupid, but amazing.



Again, you're trying to change the subject, and misrepresenting my opinion while you're attempting to do so. Again, I'll point out that the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.
 
2013-01-07 05:23:47 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: Ok ... so there are clearly deniers here saying that GW isn't happening. Just look up the thread.

In the next thread, when you state that "we don't deny that the earth is warming ... we are just saying it is not man-made", understand why we call you liars.

At the risk of being accused of calling you a liar, how about some examples of these "deniers" who say the planet hasn't been warming, scale issues aside? I don't see any.


GeneralJim: The last fifteen years of no warming [...]

Jesus, you're a dumbass. There hasn't been any warming over 15 years. See that part there about "scale issues?" Need me to explain that? Okay, "real" temperature is the trend over 8,000 years, I am decreeing. Therefore, we are in a temporary lull in the global cooling.

And, by the way, you lying weasel.... I did NOT write that in this thread, and it was this thread that was under discussion.


Hey, you didn't say anything about this thread only, and you did say "scale issues aside". They're your own words - you should probably own up to them.

You lying sack, I'll make it so clear even you can't miss it.

And, I own up to everything I've said. I've not always been right, but I have ALWAYS been honest -- unlike yourself.



A strange claim to make, considering the last thread:

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement.


I highly doubt you have similar evidence to back up your contention about me.
 
2013-01-07 05:30:52 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Heh. Keep in mind that Twain's adage there can apply to you yourself as well. It's not all that effective to try to counter something only very slightly resembling a conspiracy theory with your own full-blown, widespread and vague conspiracy theory.

Fewer than 12 corrupt people is a "widespread conspiracy?" And, I have given specifics, many times.... by the way, thanks for the excuse!


That, and your previous contentions about the UN, for example:

GeneralJim: It's very simple: Buy a few scientists at the top of the food chain, and what the rest think doesn't matter. The corrupting is being done by U.N. bureaucrats -- that is, by PROFESSIONAL bribers.

GeneralJim: The U.N., as premiere scam artists, know the process works best when only a few are actually in on the scam. They arranged this by taking ALL their information from ONE place, and then corrupting the upper levels of administration at that place.

GeneralJim: [The scientific community] is now carrying water for the environmental activist retards in hopes of scaring people into making the U.N. the world's dictator
The UN, with its shadowy bureaucrats and diplomats, as well as "environmental activist retards" - that's a bit more widespread than just "12 corrupt people", isn't it?

I mean, your conspiracy theory is so vague, you yourself are apparently unaware of how widespread it really is ;)
More misunderstanding to the point of lying....

My comment was in response to "You have to convince yourselves that 99% of climatologists are in cahoots with "

"Climatologists" does NOT include U.N. bureaucrats. U.N. bureaucrats are assumed to be corrupt, any time the price gets high enough.

How about you quit lying?

And, how about you MYOFB when I'm discussing something with someone? You don't do it well, and then I have to explain how you lied, and that takes time.

[i1.kym-cdn.com image 165x115]



Just stating that the UN, environmental activists, and vague "moneyed interests" is a bit more widespread than your claim about "fewer than 12 corrupt people".

But then again, it's your own personal paranoid-leaning conspiracy theory. I'm certain you know more about it than anyone else.
 
2013-01-07 05:52:04 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
As for all of that, while I don't have the time to go through all of it right now (while I would be more than willing to do so some other time), I do note that many of these points have been addressed in the past. Even though severe flaws have been pointed out before in regards to much of these, you continue to post them unabated.

I suppose your Canadian girlfriend has all the rebuttals? Get bent. Flaws in warmer alarmist propaganda have been pointed out time and again -- and YOU still use it. Yeah, yeah, I know -- everybody who disagrees with you has RULES to follow as punishment. Those who agree with you get a pass; the same as always. I recall a recent "addressing" of these points. One word for each paper: Irrelevant, sloppy, stupid. I mean, seriously. And three of you monkeys do that, and from then on the issues have been "repeatedly addressed."

So, just ONE issue... What about the FACT that every study which has MEASURED the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide shows it to be WAY less than the IPCC claims? And, again, before you lie again, model runs do NOT count -- models are just automated theories... theories which the planet keeps falsifying, and you keep denying.
 
2013-01-07 05:53:56 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
I'm afraid you're misrepresenting my opinion. You're battling a straw-man here.

Oh, so now you're claiming you DON'T complain when any time frame other than 1850-1880 to present is used? Do you just say anything you want, and hope people don't remember?
 
2013-01-07 07:12:23 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Again, you're trying to change the subject, and misrepresenting my opinion while you're attempting to do so. Again, I'll point out that the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.

Human beings are NOT a "normal" feature of this planet. We're brand-spanking new, geologically speaking. Humans have been around -- let's be generous and say five million years at most -- a blink, geologically.

And, you lying sack, here's the deal....

- The planet is very cold right now.
- The planet is COOLING off at a reasonable time scale, the last 8000 years, preparatory to yet another major glaciation.
- Some 450 years ago, we had a large cold spell, the "little ice age," or LIA, after the medieval warm period.
- Despite lies by a couple of researchers, many studies have shown this LIA to have been global.
- Since around 300 years ago, we have been warming up after the LIA.
- With all the known cycles filtered out, the temperature rise has been 0.76 K/century
- The rate has not increased noticeably over the run-up, and in fact, was much steeper just after A.D. 1700.
- You are claiming that this run up USED to be natural, but is now man-made.

And you have the balls to claim that looking before the industrial revolution is dishonest? Really? How do you get in a car with those things? Let's look at the data...



i46.tinypic.com


You insist that we ONLY look at the information in the black box above. Really?

VERY clearly, one can see the 1600-year cycle as a crisp sine wave. The part within the rectangle, in context, can be seen as part of the normal cycle. And, I note that the little segment in the rectangle has only about 1/3 the rise of a whole cycle.

In visual form, THIS is why it is necessary to look at more time than just since the beginning of the industrial revolution to evaluate any potential anthropogenic effects on temperature. If one leaves this vital information out, one is being less than honest, and most likely misleading. And, if one not only refuses to present this vital information, AND accuses anyone who points it out of dishonesty, well, that's dickery of the first order.
 
2013-01-07 07:41:27 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Hey, you didn't say anything about this thread only, and you did say "scale issues aside". They're your own words - you should probably own up to them.

You lying sack, I'll make it so clear even you can't miss it.

And, I own up to everything I've said. I've not always been right, but I have ALWAYS been honest -- unlike yourself.



A strange claim to make, considering the last thread:

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement.

I highly doubt you have similar evidence to back up your contention about me.

First off, since you don't reply, I'll take it that the "big and bold" bit of the discussion did make clear that the "deniers" comment was about this thread... and that this is as close as an admission as I'm likely to get.

Second, thanks for making my point for me. I deliberately said something incorrect in order to generate a response from you. You have CONSISTENTLY REFUSED to criticize anyone who is a warmer alarmist on anything -- including when they say that the Oreskes study shows that 98% of scientists agree with AGW. But, when I say I show up as a supporter of AGW on that test, you jump on ME, and say that it wasn't a test of scientists' opinions at all. It took that to get you to open your shill mouth on the subject; apparently, you couldn't resist the temptation to "prove me wrong," even if it crapped on one of your talking points. And, note, very shortly after writing that, I announced the fact that it was untrue, and the reason I did it. It was a nice bonus that it worked. It did not remain in an "untrue" state any longer than necessary. By way of contrast, you have YET to retract any of your lies.
 
2013-01-07 08:10:07 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Just stating that the UN, environmental activists, and vague "moneyed interests" is a bit more widespread than your claim about "fewer than 12 corrupt people".

But then again, it's your own personal paranoid-leaning conspiracy theory. I'm certain you know more about it than anyone else.

Oh, really? You missed the fact that we were discussing CLIMATOLOGISTS... still?

So, how do YOU explain WWF and Greenpeace activist propaganda showing up in IPCC reports as "peer-reviewed" science? Doesn't that smell just a tad of undue influence, to say the very least?

So, what is it with you? Are you paid by an environmental activist group? Are you a professional liar just keeping on your game? Just a freelance twuntwhistle with a stupid streak?
 
2013-01-07 10:25:45 AM

GeneralJim: So, you claim BOTH ice caps are shrinking, I point out that the Antarctic is NOT, and you counter that with "Well, the NORTHERN ice cap is.." Uh... Thanks for agreeing with me that you lied. (?) Are you normally this brain-dead, or is this a special performance for me?


Herpaderp. I thought both ice caps were shrinking. Turns out one of them is actually growing, but not as much as the other one's shrinking. So there's still a net loss of ice, but the loss isn't distributed like I'd assumed.

GeneralJim: Liar! Liarhead! Liary liar liarpants!! Fire fire liarpants waaa!! Poopnose liarface!

I'd put you on ignore, but you're kind of amusing.
 
2013-01-07 12:15:11 PM

GeneralJim: And, you lying sack


GeneralJim calling someone else a liar is like a can of lard calling a toothpick fat.

/good jorb, you lying blowhole
 
2013-01-07 01:51:54 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: As for all of that, while I don't have the time to go through all of it right now (while I would be more than willing to do so some other time), I do note that many of these points have been addressed in the past. Even though severe flaws have been pointed out before in regards to much of these, you continue to post them unabated.
I suppose your Canadian girlfriend has all the rebuttals? Get bent. Flaws in warmer alarmist propaganda have been pointed out time and again -- and YOU still use it. Yeah, yeah, I know -- everybody who disagrees with you has RULES to follow as punishment. Those who agree with you get a pass; the same as always. I recall a recent "addressing" of these points. One word for each paper: Irrelevant, sloppy, stupid. I mean, seriously. And three of you monkeys do that, and from then on the issues have been "repeatedly addressed."

So, just ONE issue... What about the FACT that every study which has MEASURED the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide shows it to be WAY less than the IPCC claims? And, again, before you lie again, model runs do NOT count -- models are just automated theories... theories which the planet keeps falsifying, and you keep denying.



Actually, the link I provided was an example of the evidence you're attempting to use for your contentions about climate sensitivity being problematic - and of course you ignoring said problems. No Canadian girlfriend required - the link was right there.

In addition, the bit in bold is completely absurd, given that the IPCC review includes more observationally-based estimates of climate sensitivity:

i46.tinypic.com
Box 10.2, Figure 1. (a) PDFs or frequency distributions constrained by the transient evolution of the atmospheric temperature, radiative forcing and ocean heat uptake, (b) as in (a) and (b) but 5 to 95% ranges, medians (circles) and maximum probabilities (triangles), (c) and (d) as in (a) but using constraints from present-day climatology, and (e) and (f) unweighted or fitted distributions from different models or from perturbing parameters in a single model. Distributions in (e) and (f) should not be strictly interpreted as PDFs. See Chapter 9 text, Figure 9.20 and Table 9.3 for details. Note that Annan et al. (2005b) only provide an upper but no lower bound. All PDFs are truncated at 10°C for consistency, some are shown for different prior distributions than in the original studies, and ranges may differ from numbers reported in individual studies

From the IPCC AR4 WGI report.

That you would post such an obvious and easily-disproven falsehood indicates once again you're not really looking at the evidence. In addition, you really need to get over the somewhat knee-jerk reaction that models are bad - keep in mind that the papers you yourself used also use them.
 
2013-01-07 01:55:10 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: I'm afraid you're misrepresenting my opinion. You're battling a straw-man here.
Oh, so now you're claiming you DON'T complain when any time frame other than 1850-1880 to present is used? Do you just say anything you want, and hope people don't remember?


I explained this last time, but I apparently have to repeat myself:

Damnhippyfreak: I consider looking at a variety of scales to be appropriate, not just making potentially-misleading inferences from one, as you and the person I was responding to are in the habit of doing.


You really need to start to understand that someone pointing out the problems with your argument does not mean they're trying to advocate for the exact opposite.
 
2013-01-07 02:00:48 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Again, you're trying to change the subject, and misrepresenting my opinion while you're attempting to do so. Again, I'll point out that the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.

Human beings are NOT a "normal" feature of this planet. We're brand-spanking new, geologically speaking. Humans have been around -- let's be generous and say five million years at most -- a blink, geologically.


That's fine. It's just that such a scale, and such a determination as it leads to, is of very limited use. Think about it like this - if you consider human beings not to be "normal", then impacts that would include even our extinction, could be considered "normal" by you. Again, your definition of "normal" is of very, very limited usefulness.


GeneralJim: And, you lying sack, here's the deal....

- The planet is very cold right now.
- The planet is COOLING off at a reasonable time scale, the last 8000 years, preparatory to yet another major glaciation.
- Some 450 years ago, we had a large cold spell, the "little ice age," or LIA, after the medieval warm period.
- Despite lies by a couple of researchers, many studies have shown this LIA to have been global.
- Since around 300 years ago, we have been warming up after the LIA.
- With all the known cycles filtered out, the temperature rise has been 0.76 K/century
- The rate has not increased noticeably over the run-up, and in fact, was much steeper just after A.D. 1700.
- You are claiming that this run up USED to be natural, but is now man-made.

And you have the balls to claim that looking before the industrial revolution is dishonest? Really? How do you get in a car with those things? Let's look at the data...

You insist that we ONLY look at the information in the black box above. Really?

VERY clearly, one can see the 1600-year cycle as a crisp sine wave. The part within the rectangle, in context, can be seen as part of the normal cycle. And, I note that the little segment in the rectangle has only about 1/3 the rise of a whole cycle.

In visual form, THIS is why it is necessary to look at more time than just since the beginning of the industrial revolution to evaluate any potential anthropogenic effects on temperature. If one leaves this vital information out, one is being less than honest, and most likely misleading. And, if one not only refuses to present this vital information, AND accuses anyone who points it out of dishonesty, well, that's dickery of the first order.


Again, you're just throwing random stuff out there in an attempt to change the subject, while misrepresenting what I've claimed while doing so. Yet again, none of this counters what I've said. I'll point out yet again that the scale you chose to use as a yardstick for "normal" is of very limited use since it would also consider our existence as human beings not "normal". Trying to change the subject does not somehow invalidate this point.
 
2013-01-07 02:02:47 PM

Damnhippyfreak:
That you would post such an obvious and easily-disproven falsehood indicates once again you're not really looking at the evidence. In addition, you really need to get over the somewhat knee-jerk reaction that models are bad - keep in mind that the papers you yourself used also use them.


Doesn't matter how well you disprove them, the same green walls of lies will be reposted in the next AGW thread.

His concerns are not about honesty or integrity. All that matters is spreading disinformation and delaying action.
 
2013-01-07 02:59:21 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Hey, you didn't say anything about this thread only, and you did say "scale issues aside". They're your own words - you should probably own up to them.

You lying sack, I'll make it so clear even you can't miss it.

And, I own up to everything I've said. I've not always been right, but I have ALWAYS been honest -- unlike yourself.


A strange claim to make, considering the last thread:

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement.

I highly doubt you have similar evidence to back up your contention about me.

First off, since you don't reply, I'll take it that the "big and bold" bit of the discussion did make clear that the "deniers" comment was about this thread... and that this is as close as an admission as I'm likely to get.


Whoops. I did miss that bolding, as your comment didn't reference it at all. If you wish to constrain the discussion to this thread only, I thought the person you originally responded to was referring to this:

clane: it's a hoax the world has always done this. What will kill every living man on the planet is the next ice age.

[www.americanthinker.com image 850x637]

 
2013-01-07 03:27:54 PM

GeneralJim: Second, thanks for making my point for me. I deliberately said something incorrect in order to generate a response from you. You have CONSISTENTLY REFUSED to criticize anyone who is a warmer alarmist on anything -- including when they say that the Oreskes study shows that 98% of scientists agree with AGW.


I'll have to call bullshiat on this, for several reasons that I'll outline. First, the thing is that you are the only person I know of who states that "the Oreskes study shows that 98% of scientists agree with AGW" - it's a falsehood that seems to be particular to just you.


GeneralJim: But, when I say I show up as a supporter of AGW on that test, you jump on ME, and say that it wasn't a test of scientists' opinions at all. It took that to get you to open your shill mouth on the subject; apparently, you couldn't resist the temptation to "prove me wrong," even if it crapped on one of your talking points.


Second, there's the more important point that a lie is a lie, regardless of the motivation you claim you had. That aside, the 'talking point' is still valid - the source is just different than the one you claim it is.


GeneralJim: And, note, very shortly after writing that, I announced the fact that it was untrue, and the reason I did it. It was a nice bonus that it worked. It did not remain in an "untrue" state any longer than necessary.


Third, you only said something in a later thread after I called you out on the falsehood, twice in one thread. If indeed "it did not remain in an "untrue" state any longer than necessary", then why have you been putting forward this falsehood (and me trying to correct you) for over two years:

GeneralJim: Certain parrots squawk "97%" again and again, and quote a dumb-ass study that has as much relevance to the real world as Castro's 100% of the vote election. Surveying specific literature, she found that there was "NO DISAGREEMENT," thus forgetting one of the cardinal rules of pulling data out of one's arse: Make it within reason.


Damnhippyfreak: First off, the 97% number comes from Doran 2009, not Oreskes.



Fourth, if indeed "it did not remain in an "untrue" state any longer than necessary", why do you put forward yet another falsehood in the comment in which supposedly isn't in an "untrue" state :

GeneralJim: And, incidentally, my claim that I took the test used by Oreskes and was labelled an "AGW believer" was a deliberate misstatement. The test was published in Scientific American; I did take it, and was listed as an AGW supporter. I did this bit of subterfuge because, up until now, you had refused to admit that Oreskes' survey did NOT claim that 98% + of scientists support AGW, as Monkey Boy had been claiming. I knew that you would NEVER correct him, unless I set up a situation in which you could prove me wrong by doing so. So, now you have announced that Oreskes' survey has NOTHING to do with the support of scientists. Thank you. And I apologize to the other Fark readers for the misdirection, now corrected. YOU should apologize for making it necessary.


Again, the 98% number (which is in actuality is 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) comes from Doran & Zimmerman 2009, not Scientific American:

scienceblogs.com

For these four reasons, to put it bluntly, you're trying to cover up a lie with more lies.

GeneralJim: By way of contrast, you have YET to retract any of your lies.


I'm not aware of anywhere I have lied. If you can find an example of such, I would be happy to address it. Regardless, I highly doubt you would be able to come up with something even remotely close to the dishonesty on your part that I've highlighted in this post.
 
2013-01-07 03:51:10 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Just stating that the UN, environmental activists, and vague "moneyed interests" is a bit more widespread than your claim about "fewer than 12 corrupt people".

But then again, it's your own personal paranoid-leaning conspiracy theory. I'm certain you know more about it than anyone else.

Oh, really? You missed the fact that we were discussing CLIMATOLOGISTS... still?


This isn't quite true, as you yourself bring up "moneyed interests" and the IPCC:

GeneralJim: They got in control because moneyed interests WANT malleable farktards running things, so the science says what it is SUPPOSED to say. The IPCC is a POLITICAL body, and their reports are edited AFTER scientific review.



GeneralJim: So, how do YOU explain WWF and Greenpeace activist propaganda showing up in IPCC reports as "peer-reviewed" science? Doesn't that smell just a tad of undue influence, to say the very least?


Be aware the IPCC reports are what is termed "grey literature", not strictly "peer-reviewed" as the scientific literature proper (while they do share some processes). For example, the scientific literature doesn't follow a consensus model (as the IPCC does for executive summaries). Especially in areas in which the scientific literature isn't as active (as with adaptation, mitigation, and social impacts) sometimes all you have to go on is more grey literature from NGOs. That's not to say that the inclusion of such isn't problematic, but yet again, you're assuming some sort of skullduggery. Then again, I suppose it wouldn't be a proper vague conspiracy theory without such filling in the blanks. Regardless, this conspiracy of yours is certainly more widespread than "fewer than 12 corrupt people", hm?


GeneralJim: So, what is it with you? Are you paid by an environmental activist group? Are you a professional liar just keeping on your game? Just a freelance twuntwhistle with a stupid streak?


Just a scientist who tends to base their opinions more on evidence rather than vague conspiracy theories ;)
 
2013-01-07 05:22:51 PM
Oh look, the green wall of text is off hiatus.
 
2013-01-07 05:26:41 PM

thamike: Oh look, the green wall of text is off hiatus.


What gets me, is that he's still around while the doctor with the magic, that based their assessments, of both people and issues, on established observations, has been hit with the delete-o-tron 5000.
 
2013-01-07 05:44:30 PM

Zafler: thamike: Oh look, the green wall of text is off hiatus.

What gets me, is that he's still around while the doctor with the magic, that based their assessments, of both people and issues, on established observations, has been hit with the delete-o-tron 5000.


Permanently?

That's just not right.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 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 »






Report