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.

(LA Times)   NOAA: 2012 was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 United States. But global warming is totally not happening 'cuz there's snow in your backyard right now   (latimes.com) divider line 297
    More: Interesting, global warming, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, average surface temperature, United States, State of the Climate, Public Works Committee, National Climatic Data Center, Upper Midwest  
•       •       •

2635 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-08 11:16:28 PM
Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.
 
2013-01-08 11:34:47 PM

Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.


Yup.
 
2013-01-09 12:07:10 AM
No big deal. It just means I have to shave my head and break out the sunscreen in March instead of June from now on.
 
2013-01-09 12:21:55 AM
I like Friedman's term better: "Global Weirding".
 
2013-01-09 12:25:22 AM
Your headline reeks of ignorance, subby. And it pains me to explain this to you, because I'm sure you won't understand, but I'm a glutton for punishment so I guess I'll try anyway.

See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

Please. I implore you. Study what you're talking about before you post your next headline. There's enough misunderstanding and stupidity on here as it is, and it would behoof you to not be a part of it.
 
2013-01-09 12:37:04 AM

Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.


And Leon's getting laaaarrrrger!
 
2013-01-09 12:53:15 AM
All I want to know is how soon until I can plant grapefruit trees in my backyard?
 
2013-01-09 12:56:19 AM

Pocket Ninja: Your headline reeks of ignorance, subby. And it pains me to explain this to you, because I'm sure you won't understand, but I'm a glutton for punishment so I guess I'll try anyway.

See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

Please. I implore you. Study what you're talking about before you post your next headline. There's enough misunderstanding a ...


Oh, snap
 
2013-01-09 12:56:21 AM

Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.


Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.
 
2013-01-09 01:08:29 AM

DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.


i575.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 01:12:57 AM
It's a damn good thing we've been keeping records since the end of the last ice age, otherwise this would be completely out of context.
 
2013-01-09 01:28:31 AM

Triumph: All I want to know is how soon until I can plant grapefruit trees in my backyard?


Any time you want,  just not sure thy would survive.
 
2013-01-09 01:36:38 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Triumph: All I want to know is how soon until I can plant grapefruit trees in my backyard?

Any time you want,  just not sure thy would survive.


Grapefruit trees can kill you??
 
2013-01-09 01:55:37 AM

GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]


and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:

www.woodfortrees.org

No
Warming
For
16
years
.
 
2013-01-09 01:57:47 AM

Darth_Lukecash: Triumph: All I want to know is how soon until I can plant grapefruit trees in my backyard?

Any time you want,  just not sure thy would survive.


Methinks thou art overstating his investment in this grapefruit endeavour.
 
2013-01-09 02:18:22 AM
We need a story that guns cause global warming...

so we can marry two awesome Fark pastimes in one thread.
 
2013-01-09 02:38:44 AM
I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:
farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2013-01-09 02:59:47 AM

DesertDemonWY: No
Warming
For
16
years


Psst.... here's something from the very same folks who provided many of the numbers misused in your chart (they generated all the ones that start with "had").

But... since you won't read it and likely couldn't understand it even if you bothered, I can summarize it.

The TLDR; says that you, David Rose, and the Daily Fail are full of hot air, so to speak. Personally I think you're all full of something else that's warm and steaming.
 
2013-01-09 03:55:43 AM

Pray 4 Mojo: We need a story that guns cause global warming...

so we can marry two awesome Fark pastimes in one thread.


That one is easy. People buy guns to feel safer. That's also the reason people buy large SUVs. SUVs cause global warming. Therefore, people who want to feel safer cause global warming and, by extension, gun owners cause global warming. Tada!
 
2013-01-09 04:00:34 AM
Move on down here to Yuma, Arizona.

You only had to run AC from around May through September.

These days, you'll get 100+ degree heat from April through November.  Though I'd gladly pay the electric bills if it kept the snowbirds off the streets.  Driving 10 MPH under the speed limit and coming to a stop at green lights is a thing down here.
 
2013-01-09 04:24:01 AM

Pocket Ninja: ...But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest...


You had to ruin it, didn't you? You just had to. :(
 
2013-01-09 04:24:27 AM

L.D. Ablo: and coming to a stop at green lights


eh?
 
2013-01-09 04:28:28 AM

TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:
[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]


The problem with this is that the global whaarrrrgarblers aren't creating a better world. They're sniping at the environmental programs that are based in actual science, to benefit the social cause of greenhouse gases. They don't give a flying fark about water pollution, coastal erosion, overfishing, or even rainforest deforestation for the most part, because it's just easier to biatch about carbon dioxide than to stop eating sushi or putting chemicals down stormdrains.
 
2013-01-09 04:31:28 AM

starsrift: Pocket Ninja: ...But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest...

You had to ruin it, didn't you? You just had to. :(


Are the purposes more intensive than last year?
 
2013-01-09 04:33:47 AM
When I was a kid, you could expect it to reach -20 F in the Twin Cities maybe 10-15 days per winter. Heck, it even reached -30 F in Saint Paul back in the mid-Eighties. Nowadays, it maybe goes below zero a handful of times each winter and early last March, it hit an astonishing 80 degrees, smashing the previous high temperature. I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.

Let's hope this is just a random, transient climate change. If it's global warming, we're in for a shiatstorm of freaky climate change in the near future. I don't have any kids, so it doesn't matter much to me if the world goes to hell ten minutes after I'm buried, but you parents out there might want to take this seriously...
 
2013-01-09 04:36:14 AM
Climate changes. Warmer, then colder, then warmer again. More CO2, less CO2, then more again. Been doing it for billions of years. The best conditions for life are warmer and CO2-rich. We're coming out of an ice age... what do you expect?
 
2013-01-09 04:39:10 AM
Here's how to verify Global Warming. Go to Conservapedia and see what they have to say about it. Since Conservapedia is 180-degrees out of whack on everything from evolution to Einstein's relativity, just take what they have to sway about Global Warming and invert it to find the absolute truth...
 
2013-01-09 04:39:49 AM

Psycat: I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.


You get that weather and climate are two completely different things, right?
 
2013-01-09 04:41:28 AM

TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:


farm5.static.flickr.com

"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better bankrupt the world for nothing?"

FTFTC*

* - fixed that for the cartoonist.
 
2013-01-09 04:41:50 AM

Psycat: to Einstein's relativity,


that's the one that gets me the most. They are so crazy that they think physics theories can be liberal.
 
2013-01-09 04:42:35 AM

DrPainMD: The best conditions for life are warmer and CO2-rich.


If you are a tropical plant.
 
2013-01-09 04:43:06 AM

Psycat: Here's how to verify Global Warming. Go to Conservapedia and see what they have to say about it. Since Conservapedia is 180-degrees out of whack on everything from evolution to Einstein's relativity, just take what they have to sway about Global Warming and invert it to find the absolute truth...


I'm still not sure if that site is serious or just trolling all of us.
 
2013-01-09 04:43:40 AM

HotWingAgenda: Psycat: I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.

You get that weather and climate are two completely different things, right?


Yes. I'm talking about 30 years, not 30 days.
 
2013-01-09 04:44:22 AM

Pocket Ninja: There's enough misunderstanding and stupidity on here as it is, and it would behoof you to not be a part of it.


And it would behoove you to not share your ignorance in such detail.
 
2013-01-09 04:46:14 AM

Pocket Ninja: But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

Please. I implore you. Study what you're talking about before you post your next headline. There's enough misunderstanding a ...


Well played at the start, but the typos towards the end are too obvious. 6/10, not up to your normal efforts.
 
2013-01-09 04:53:16 AM

DesertDemonWY: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

No
Warming
For
16
years
.


Why did you choose 16 years exactly?
Is it because it's a perfect square?
I also like perfect squares. I think I'm going to look at the last 25 years of data.
My god...
 
2013-01-09 04:55:35 AM

log_jammin: Psycat: to Einstein's relativity,

that's the one that gets me the most. They are so crazy that they think physics theories can be liberal.


This is how their reasoning works. One of the bigger bugs up their butts is "moral relativity"; that is, the idea that morality might depend on the particular situation rather than having some sort of absolute, Bible-based moral system. Apparently, that's the ultimate moral failure of liberals. Never mind that conservatives themselves practice moral relativity--for example, the Biblical commandment against murder doesn't apply in military combat, execution of criminals, etc. And, in the very cramped minds of the idiots who write for the Conservapedia, relativity in the physics sense somehow translates into relativity in the moral sense. Teach E=MC^2 and suddenly cats are marrying dogs and kids are mainlining reefer while sodomizing each other. Yes, this is how these mental eunuchs really think...
 
2013-01-09 04:57:58 AM

Psycat: relativity in the physics sense somehow translates into relativity in the moral sense.


ah...
 
2013-01-09 04:59:54 AM

ChrisDe: Psycat: Here's how to verify Global Warming. Go to Conservapedia and see what they have to say about it. Since Conservapedia is 180-degrees out of whack on everything from evolution to Einstein's relativity, just take what they have to sway about Global Warming and invert it to find the absolute truth...

I'm still not sure if that site is serious or just trolling all of us.


Having spent a few years of my childhood in close proximity of Southern Baptists, I'm afraid these folks are real. I can't read Conservapedia for more than 10 minutes without getting a serious headache. Seriously, there should be a picture of Einstein pointing to the number 70 and saying "Your IQ must be lower than this to enter."
 
2013-01-09 05:00:27 AM

dougfm: Pocket Ninja: There's enough misunderstanding and stupidity on here as it is, and it would behoof you to not be a part of it.

And it would behoove you to not share your ignorance in such detail.


There's always at least one, isn't there?
 
2013-01-09 05:00:57 AM

Psycat: Here's how to verify Global Warming. Go to Conservapedia and see what they have to say about it. Since Conservapedia is 180-degrees out of whack on everything from evolution to Einstein's relativity, just take what they have to sway about Global Warming and invert it to find the absolute truth...


Let me guess, relativity is just a "theory?"
 
2013-01-09 05:04:05 AM

Pocket Ninja:
*long, pointless, unprovoked argument*
But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums.

*/long, pointless, unprovoked argument*



well, you sure showed him.
 
2013-01-09 05:05:10 AM

ChrisDe: I'm still not sure if that site is serious or just trolling all of us.


oh it's very very real.
 
2013-01-09 05:05:54 AM

Herr Docktor Heinrich Wisenheimer: DesertDemonWY: No
Warming
For
16
years

Psst.... here's something from the very same folks who provided many of the numbers misused in your chart (they generated all the ones that start with "had").

But... since you won't read it and likely couldn't understand it even if you bothered, I can summarize it.

The TLDR; says that you, David Rose, and the Daily Fail are full of hot air, so to speak. Personally I think you're all full of something else that's warm and steaming.


is it shiat?
I think it shiat.
 
2013-01-09 05:06:39 AM

It's pronounced pacKAGE: Psycat: Here's how to verify Global Warming. Go to Conservapedia and see what they have to say about it. Since Conservapedia is 180-degrees out of whack on everything from evolution to Einstein's relativity, just take what they have to sway about Global Warming and invert it to find the absolute truth...

Let me guess, relativity is just a "theory?"


No doubt. On the other hand, it's been proven to a zillion decimal places that atheism invariably leads to homosexuality, obesity, and mass murder. Also, one puff of demon weed will turn you into an axe-murdering heroin addict while Oxycontin and other drugs made by the drug industry for conservatives to drug themselves aren't really* drugs...

*Unless you buy them from some black kid on the street. Then they're as murderous as the Devil's Weed...
 
2013-01-09 05:08:04 AM

It's pronounced pacKAGE: Let me guess, relativity is just a "theory?"

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[64]

 
2013-01-09 05:08:38 AM

It's pronounced pacKAGE: Psycat: Here's how to verify Global Warming. Go to Conservapedia and see what they have to say about it. Since Conservapedia is 180-degrees out of whack on everything from evolution to Einstein's relativity, just take what they have to sway about Global Warming and invert it to find the absolute truth...

Let me guess, relativity is just a "theory?"


Nope. Shaftfly believes General and Special Relativity beget moral relativity and liberalism. He's written reams and reams of "proofs" demonstrating (for a certain value of the word) that the Theory of Relativity is completely useless to science and engineering and leads to moral and ethical decay.

Somehow the man actually has a B.S.E. in electrical engineering. Thinking about that for too long will give you a migraine.
 
2013-01-09 05:09:19 AM
 
2013-01-09 05:12:19 AM

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: It's pronounced pacKAGE: Psycat: Here's how to verify Global Warming. Go to Conservapedia and see what they have to say about it. Since Conservapedia is 180-degrees out of whack on everything from evolution to Einstein's relativity, just take what they have to sway about Global Warming and invert it to find the absolute truth...

Let me guess, relativity is just a "theory?"

Nope. Shaftfly believes General and Special Relativity beget moral relativity and liberalism. He's written reams and reams of "proofs" demonstrating (for a certain value of the word) that the Theory of Relativity is completely useless to science and engineering and leads to moral and ethical decay.

Somehow the man actually has a B.S.E. in electrical engineering. Thinking about that for too long will give you a migraine.


Really? Mark Schafted has an engineering degree? What a waste of sheepskin. Seriously, he should get together with the Time Cube Guy--they might get bulk-rate discounts on their tinfoil...
 
2013-01-09 05:17:08 AM

believe the hype: well, you sure showed him.


Think of Pocket Ninja's posts as skewering a particular view rather than espousing it.
 
2013-01-09 05:17:51 AM
Wow,.. hottest year on record... given that the records go back a whopping 100-120 years, and what's commonly referred to as geologic timeline is at least three orders of magnitude greater than that, and, if you go back forty years to when the theory of global cooling was king, suffice it to say, yet again, nothing to see here.

Thanks for playing.

/btw: your opinions on this are worthless. the only thing that would cause you to type a response to this would be your inexplicable desire to hear yourself talk.
 
2013-01-09 05:22:39 AM
You know what, let's just go ahead and hand the reins of the economy over to the likes of Al Gore, who will surely save us. I mean, if we give him all the money and power he asks for to re-write modern economies back into the stone age, that'll save us, right?

Oh, wait, Al Gore is filthy rich right now with Saudi Oil money?

Now who will we turn to for salvation from our carbon sins?
Where can I buy a carbon indulgence?!?!

(Hey, have you ever tried to get parking for your private jet at one of those Global Warming conferences? It's damn near impossible, every airport for two hundred miles is full!)
 
2013-01-09 05:23:52 AM

CountryClubRepublican: Busted


A shocking revelation from a man who appears to have never written an honest, non-partisan, reliable or trustworthy article. Well, I'm sold.
 
2013-01-09 05:24:25 AM
All you conspiracy theorists do my farking head in.
 
2013-01-09 05:24:31 AM

GandalfTheWhite: /btw: your opinions on this are worthless. the only thing that would cause you to type a response to this would be your inexplicable desire to hear yourself talk.


Wow, folks, this is a textbook example of a self-refuting post...
 
2013-01-09 05:31:41 AM
If the stream splits into two streams while I'm peeing does that mean the pee is coming out twice as fast?

/A question as valid as anything else in this thread
 
2013-01-09 05:33:42 AM

illannoyin: If the stream splits into two streams while I'm peeing does that mean the pee is coming out twice as fast?

/A question as valid as anything else in this thread


If a Buddhist monk claps with one hand in the middle of a forest when a tree falls on him, do all bears shiat in the woods?
 
2013-01-09 05:36:07 AM
icecap.us

http://www.voanews.com/content/article--global-warming-could-delay-ne x t-ice-age-137029543/169712.html
 
2013-01-09 05:36:16 AM

illannoyin: If the stream splits into two streams while I'm peeing does that mean the pee is coming out twice as fast?

/A question as valid as anything else in this thread


Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
 
2013-01-09 05:36:39 AM

Psycat: Having spent a few years of my childhood in close proximity of Southern Baptists, I'm afraid these folks are real. I can't read Conservapedia for more than 10 minutes without getting a serious headache. Seriously, there should be a picture of Einstein pointing to the number 70 and saying "Your IQ must be lower than this to enter."


Actually people with high IQs can be especially good at creating bulletproof alternative realities where they are right about everything because they are good at rationalizing why all the contrary evidence is wrong/inapplicable/biased etc.
 
2013-01-09 05:40:15 AM

CountryClubRepublican: Busted


Actually, a quick look through the NOAA site shows that all of their reported temps are higher than what is on the website. Looks like they're using different methods of averaging somewhere (no idea where or why). If you click through to Watt's site, you'll see that graphic that compares July's 1936 and 2012, but he didn't correct the 1936 number to match NOAA's internal stuff (it's also lower). Whatever is causing the admittedly strange discrepancies looks like it's systematic, though, and 2012 is still the warmest if you just use the site's data.

It is pretty odd that they'd use different numbers in their reports, though. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm sure there's a farker out there that has a better grasp of the situation.
 
2013-01-09 05:44:28 AM

xria: Psycat: Having spent a few years of my childhood in close proximity of Southern Baptists, I'm afraid these folks are real. I can't read Conservapedia for more than 10 minutes without getting a serious headache. Seriously, there should be a picture of Einstein pointing to the number 70 and saying "Your IQ must be lower than this to enter."

Actually people with high IQs can be especially good at creating bulletproof alternative realities where they are right about everything because they are good at rationalizing why all the contrary evidence is wrong/inapplicable/biased etc.


I don't doubt it--consider the success of scam artists like Benny Hinn, etc. The IQ test is strictly for people reading Conservapedia, not the people shiatting, er, writing this crap.

BTW, when I was in Mensa* years ago, there was a member who--I kid you not--was a Young Earth Creationist. He was in a debate-all-comers mood, but when I debated him--politely, I might add--he suddenly decided he had something more important to do after a mere five minutes of me browbeating him...

*Yes, it was a silly waste of time. It's mostly a support group for smart people who aren't doing as well as they should. Instead of scheming ways of taking back society from the permanently brain-dead, they spend time at Annual Gatherings playing Boggle and Scrabble...
 
2013-01-09 05:44:29 AM

hawcian: I'm sure there's a farker out there that has a better grasp of the situation nonsensical conspiracy theory.


FTFY.
 
2013-01-09 05:45:12 AM

Psycat: If a Buddhist monk claps with one hand in the middle of a forest when a tree falls on him, do all bears shiat in the woods?


Only in months with a 'Y' but using the Farsi month names not the English ones.

SnarfVader: Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?



No. But I have engaged in a practice called "Turkish delight" where you take a bar of chocolate in one hand and gummi candies in the other and...

Wait, I'm here to get answers not give them!
 
2013-01-09 05:46:59 AM

SnarfVader: illannoyin: If the stream splits into two streams while I'm peeing does that mean the pee is coming out twice as fast?

/A question as valid as anything else in this thread

Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?


Do you like Greco-Roman wrestling?*

*(or was it gladiator films?)
 
2013-01-09 05:52:23 AM
How about "Acting like the sun shines out of the crack of your ass because yo can afford an ISP"? Or for that matter, selling broad cultural pronouncements as journalism. Here's one. "Stop being mean to people". I want my 30 seconds back.
 
2013-01-09 05:54:13 AM
Not this derp again.
 
2013-01-09 05:55:12 AM

Psycat: Do you like Greco-Roman wrestling?*

*(or was it gladiator films?)


It was gladiator films and no I don't.

But, I do have a dog named Scraps that likes to hump my leg.

/Before anyone asks yes, I have seen a grown man naked
 
2013-01-09 05:56:22 AM
So we should nuke China to stop global warming obviously...
 
2013-01-09 05:56:55 AM
Good, anything to make a Liberal whine, is ok by me... Hell, nevermind, they do that anyway.
 
2013-01-09 06:00:34 AM

illannoyin: Psycat: Do you like Greco-Roman wrestling?*

*(or was it gladiator films?)

It was gladiator films and no I don't.

But, I do have a dog named Scraps that likes to hump my leg.

/Before anyone asks yes, I have seen a grown man naked


Yes, but have you seen a naked man groan?

/i hate gladiator films myself
//and basically any stupid spear-and-sandal film
///c b de mille is seriously over-rated
////and the liz taylor version of cleopatra really really sucked
 
2013-01-09 06:00:34 AM
Getting tired of snowblowing my driveway.
 
2013-01-09 06:02:06 AM
It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

i.imwx.com

The rest of the country looks far too cold.
 
2013-01-09 06:06:37 AM
Woo, wrong thread post. Need more coffee.
 
2013-01-09 06:07:25 AM
OK, so this is off-topic a bit, but has anybody else heard this?

I read somewhere that back in the 1920s when they made the first chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants, they were seriously considering using bromine as well. Turns out that, years later, they found out that bromine-carbon compounds are far, far, far more dangerous to the ozone layer than chlorofluorocarbons by a wide margin. If we had gone with bromine in the 20s, we wouldn't have much of an ozone layer left by the time we discovered what was happening. Without an ozone layer, the ultra-violet radiation out there would be a hell of a lot higher--anything from an epidemic of skin cancer to the destruction of basically all life on Earth. I can't find anything on Wikipedia about this ('natch), and was wondering if there's anything else out there on this...
 
2013-01-09 06:13:26 AM

DesertDemonWY:
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
No Warming For 16 years


Hello SevenizGud. Could you please explain what the significance of 16 years is, and why that particular time span has been chosen instead of, say, 10 years or 20 years? In other words, can you explain to us the criteria for choosing the time window to evaluate the data with?

Thanks in advance;
=Smidge=
 
2013-01-09 06:15:36 AM
Wasn't Enrico Fermi the guy who first came up with the idea that the reason we're not finding intelligent extra-terrestrial life out there is because when a species gets smart enough, they find a way to destroy themselves? We've already had several close calls during the Cold War--even Kennedy said that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a 50/50 shot of turning into nuclear war. Between nuclear proliferation, global warming, genetic engineering, and Justin Bieber, I wonder if Fermi was right...

/i'm almost 50, so i still outlived most of humanity if i die today
//no kids, so i'm not too concerned if the world falls apart five minutes after i'm buried
///actually, i'll get cremated and pollute the atmosphere because why should i care?
////and make an 'ash' of myself
 
2013-01-09 06:28:58 AM

Dadoody: [icecap.us image 818x526]

http://www.voanews.com/content/article--global-warming-could-delay-ne x t-ice-age-137029543/169712.html


Global Warming Could Delay Next Ice Age

[OKWithThis.jpg]
 
2013-01-09 06:29:52 AM

arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.



The rest of the country looks far too cold.


It's the price we pay to not live in Florida.
 
2013-01-09 06:35:46 AM

SnarfVader: Pray 4 Mojo: We need a story that guns cause global warming...

so we can marry two awesome Fark pastimes in one thread.

That one is easy. People buy guns to feel safer. That's also the reason people buy large SUVs. SUVs cause global warming. Therefore, people who want to feel safer cause global warming and, by extension, gun owners cause global warming. Tada!


Global warming causes guns you cause and effect confusing jerkfaces.
 
2013-01-09 06:37:15 AM

GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]


same old strawman image. Cite the sceptic who created the image Oh yeah, it was skepticalscience.com, a warmista who creates false memes
 
2013-01-09 06:38:22 AM
This thread looks YouTube comments stupid already.
 
2013-01-09 06:38:52 AM

T.rex: Good, anything to make a Liberal whine, is ok by me... Hell, nevermind, they do that anyway.


See? If science proves a "liberal*" right, then THE SCIENCE MUST BE WRONG!

*Liberal meaning, as usual, people capable of accepting facts.
 
2013-01-09 06:39:07 AM

dstanley: arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

The rest of the country looks far too cold.

It's the price we pay to not live in Florida.


If I ever get rich, I'm staying the hell away from Florida. Hawaii's much better; more liberal, more pot-smoking, better climate, no yahoos, no Scientology center, no John Revolta or Rash Lamebrow, and more laid back. Believe it or not, Hawaii is cooler in the summer than Minnesota by about 10 degrees--and it'll probably still have an awesome climate even when global warming means that it's 120 F in Tallahassee...
 
2013-01-09 06:41:39 AM
it's going to be 72 degrees here on friday...
 
2013-01-09 06:43:41 AM

Alphax: This thread looks YouTube comments stupid already.


Go bak to playin CoD tard!!
 
2013-01-09 06:48:29 AM

DesertDemonWY: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:



No
Warming
For
16
years
.


Step 1: criticize charts that show a warming trend as inadequate because they aren't capturing enough data points to sufficiently show a warming trend.
Step 2: reference a chart that covers an even less data points and use that to debunk climate change theories.
 
2013-01-09 06:49:46 AM

dstanley: arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

The rest of the country looks far too cold.

It's the price we pay to not live in Florida.


I can't believe that I'm saying this but... Florida really isn't that bad. I still wish that our waters weren't shark and gator infested but I've met some pretty great people since I've moved here. We have TONS of awesome beer bars, Miami and the Keys are a short drive away, and the theme parks are actually pretty fun when you can get into them for free.

Oh yeah, and I work outside (overnight, to boot) and I've only seen frost twice so far this winter. Have fun shoveling your snow :)
 
2013-01-09 06:50:09 AM

hawcian: CountryClubRepublican: Busted

Actually, a quick look through the NOAA site shows that all of their reported temps are higher than what is on the website. Looks like they're using different methods of averaging somewhere (no idea where or why). If you click through to Watt's site, you'll see that graphic that compares July's 1936 and 2012, but he didn't correct the 1936 number to match NOAA's internal stuff (it's also lower). Whatever is causing the admittedly strange discrepancies looks like it's systematic, though, and 2012 is still the warmest if you just use the site's data.

It is pretty odd that they'd use different numbers in their reports, though. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm sure there's a farker out there that has a better grasp of the situation.


One factor is that some weather stations don't make their data available in real time. The monthly State of the Climate reports can only include what's been reported to that date, and aren't updated as new data comes in. Conversely, the database is regularly updated.

Looking at the table in CountryClubRepublican's link you can see the last two months have identical entries in database and SOTC report, which supports that there is probably an influence of station reporting lag.
 
2013-01-09 06:50:42 AM
Do any of the pundits at Fox News own any beachfront property? Because if the seas swallow them it would be the perfect comeback.
 
2013-01-09 06:53:35 AM

Psycat: log_jammin: Psycat: to Einstein's relativity,

that's the one that gets me the most. They are so crazy that they think physics theories can be liberal.

This is how their reasoning works. One of the bigger bugs up their butts is "moral relativity"; that is, the idea that morality might depend on the particular situation rather than having some sort of absolute, Bible-based moral system. Apparently, that's the ultimate moral failure of liberals. Never mind that conservatives themselves practice moral relativity--for example, the Biblical commandment against murder doesn't apply in military combat, execution of criminals, etc. And, in the very cramped minds of the idiots who write for the Conservapedia, relativity in the physics sense somehow translates into relativity in the moral sense. Teach E=MC^2 and suddenly cats are marrying dogs and kids are mainlining reefer while sodomizing each other. Yes, this is how these mental eunuchs really think...


Mass hysteria!

/Hey remember when storylines in movies could include things like real ghosts, and logical explanations of skeptical dickish villains, but it wasn't all considered political partisan messages either way?
 
2013-01-09 06:55:27 AM
I was going to give Pocketninja a 4/10, for being so obvious, but then he kept getting bites, so I guess he's at least an 9/10.
 
2013-01-09 06:55:44 AM

david_gaithersburg: Not this derp again.


Where's your peer-reviewed, widely-accepted contrary data?
 
2013-01-09 06:57:45 AM
Meh. Even assuming the most disastrous models are correct, it's clear no we won't be motivated as a society to actually do anything until so many people are affected, it's too late. (cue "What if we do all this for nothing?" comic).

Once this became a political issue, it was never going to be resolved intelligently.

Maybe the Climate Change people should call the ozone layer people and find out what they did to get changes enacted that prevented us all from having skin cancer.
 
2013-01-09 06:58:12 AM
the world is going to freeze!
Everybody will get aids!
bird flu/swine flu!
Global warming will kill us all in a decade!
Sorry make that 15 years
my bad, make that 20 years
oops, got the numbers wrong, we'll make that 50 to 100 years
Ignore the scientific teams that got busted for faking evidence
we should all still be panicking.
start the panicking

If it's warming it's a natural trend.
Stop being so vain as to say
'we made this happen'
or
'we can stop it from happening'
insignificant little things that we are
 
2013-01-09 06:59:17 AM

Summercat: I was going to give Pocketninja a 4/10, for being so obvious, but then he kept getting bites, so I guess he's at least an 9/10.


Well, Pocket Ninja is effective because people actually believe his arguments. There have been a few times people agreed with him.
 
2013-01-09 07:00:32 AM

arghyematey: dstanley: arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

The rest of the country looks far too cold.

It's the price we pay to not live in Florida.

I can't believe that I'm saying this but... Florida really isn't that bad. I still wish that our waters weren't shark and gator infested but I've met some pretty great people since I've moved here. We have TONS of awesome beer bars, Miami and the Keys are a short drive away, and the theme parks are actually pretty fun when you can get into them for free.

Oh yeah, and I work outside (overnight, to boot) and I've only seen frost twice so far this winter. Have fun shoveling your snow :)


Different strokes. I have nothing against the land of Florida, but I'm not a tropical type of person. I like winter, skiing, snow and mountains. All things that seem to be consipicuously absent in Florida. I do sail though, and imagine doing that everyday could keep me pretty happy along with lots of scantily clad femaile beach goers.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, going in circles about global warming. Florida may actually be more interesting conversation at this point.
 
2013-01-09 07:07:00 AM
i26.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 07:07:03 AM
i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 07:07:24 AM

AdamK: it's going to be 72 degrees here on friday...


Yesterday for work I had to drive to Murphy, NC, took two different Appalachian mountain passes (I-40 at Black Mountain and Winding Stair in the Nantahala Forest.

I did not see any snow whatsoever the entire trip, and it was 55 in Murphy.

/CSB
 
2013-01-09 07:11:45 AM

Mose:

Different strokes. I have nothing against the land of Florida, but I'm not a tropical type of person. I like winter, skiing, snow and mountains. All things that seem to be consipicuously absent in Florida. I do sail though, and imagine doing that everyday could keep me pretty happy along with lots of scantily clad femaile beach goers.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, going in circles about global warming. Florida may actually be more interesting conversation at this point.


Even though we don't agree on climate, I think I like you, sir.

I am definitely a tropical type person, but I understand the appeal in any outdoor activity as long as you are dressed appropriately. That being said, driving in snow is pretty intimidating to me at this point, seeing that I've never driven in it. But I can drive circles around tourists during monsoons!
 
2013-01-09 07:13:23 AM

Psycat: OK, so this is off-topic a bit, but has anybody else heard this?

I read somewhere that back in the 1920s when they made the first chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants, they were seriously considering using bromine as well. Turns out that, years later, they found out that bromine-carbon compounds are far, far, far more dangerous to the ozone layer than chlorofluorocarbons by a wide margin. If we had gone with bromine in the 20s, we wouldn't have much of an ozone layer left by the time we discovered what was happening. Without an ozone layer, the ultra-violet radiation out there would be a hell of a lot higher--anything from an epidemic of skin cancer to the destruction of basically all life on Earth. I can't find anything on Wikipedia about this ('natch), and was wondering if there's anything else out there on this...


A bit off topic? Is that like a little pregnant?
 
2013-01-09 07:20:40 AM
Good, f*ck winter
 
2013-01-09 07:20:40 AM

born_yesterday: Maybe the Climate Change people should call the ozone layer people and find out what they did to get changes enacted that prevented us all from having skin cancer.


It became a political issue, which was then resolved intelligently.
 
2013-01-09 07:21:33 AM
According to Al Bore, global warming causes snow, rain, hurricane and drought!! Can't lose!!!
 
2013-01-09 07:22:29 AM

Circusdog320: Psycat: OK, so this is off-topic a bit, but has anybody else heard this?

I read somewhere that back in the 1920s when they made the first chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants, they were seriously considering using bromine as well. Turns out that, years later, they found out that bromine-carbon compounds are far, far, far more dangerous to the ozone layer than chlorofluorocarbons by a wide margin. If we had gone with bromine in the 20s, we wouldn't have much of an ozone layer left by the time we discovered what was happening. Without an ozone layer, the ultra-violet radiation out there would be a hell of a lot higher--anything from an epidemic of skin cancer to the destruction of basically all life on Earth. I can't find anything on Wikipedia about this ('natch), and was wondering if there's anything else out there on this...

A bit off topic? Is that like a little pregnant?


It's not as far off as you'd think CFC and the subsequent HCFC's and HFC's are greenhouse gasses.
 
2013-01-09 07:23:03 AM

Psycat: log_jammin: Psycat: to Einstein's relativity,

that's the one that gets me the most. They are so crazy that they think physics theories can be liberal.

This is how their reasoning works. One of the bigger bugs up their butts is "moral relativity"; that is, the idea that morality might depend on the particular situation rather than having some sort of absolute, Bible-based moral system. Apparently, that's the ultimate moral failure of liberals. Never mind that conservatives themselves practice moral relativity--for example, the Biblical commandment against murder doesn't apply in military combat, execution of criminals, etc. And, in the very cramped minds of the idiots who write for the Conservapedia, relativity in the physics sense somehow translates into relativity in the moral sense. Teach E=MC^2 and suddenly cats are marrying dogs and kids are mainlining reefer while sodomizing each other. Yes, this is how these mental eunuchs really think...


Why would murder apply to military combat? Surely, you wouldn't be calling our soldiers murderers.

/Don't call me surely
 
2013-01-09 07:25:19 AM

born_yesterday: Once this became a political issue, it was never going to be resolved intelligently.


It's more true that the fact that we've built our entire global economy on fossil fuel combustion is what made it political, 'cause, you know, people love their warm and cool dwellings and to eat regularly and all the other benefits of relatively cheap energy, including driving their freedom machines where ever they want, whenever they want. Any politician who steps in front of that way of life will be smashed like a bug on a windshield. Also, as long as the richest corporations on the planet control the political discourse, nothing will change -- they own you and the government.

/It's 150 years of data, wow.
//Aren't we a superlative bunch?!
///So intelligent, so insightful!
 
2013-01-09 07:27:43 AM

Mean Daddy: According to Al Bore, global warming causes snow, rain, hurricane and drought!! Can't lose!!!


They do seem to have an answer for everything, just like religious fundies, hence my skepticism
 
2013-01-09 07:32:54 AM
On the plus side, Global Warming threads are great for sprucing up the ignore list.
 
2013-01-09 07:38:28 AM
Given that I work with climatologists, their data, and the impact of sea level rise on coastal economics for a very meager living, I'd like to say this:

It's happening. The seas have been getting warmer, have been rising because of water expansion and the melting of ice sheets (on land). The IPCC 2007 report modeled a conservative range of sea-level rise for the next century. Using satellite data to plot the actual data of sea level rise, the IPCC report has the trajectory correct but underestimated the actual amount. The majority of the human population lives in coastal areas, so let's stop pretending that just because it happened in the earth's history means that it is inconsequential that it is happening now. It will cost lives and will cost a LOT of money. Maybe mitigation isn't realistic, but we have to farking stop pretending it's NOT happening so we can at least prepare for the changes that are on track with the models to be accelerating over the next century.
 
2013-01-09 07:39:03 AM

Psycat: I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years.


It's certainly gotten a lot dumber over the last 30 years...
www.grayflannelsuit.net
 
2013-01-09 07:39:33 AM

GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.


You done got charted
 
2013-01-09 07:43:53 AM

log_jammin: DrPainMD: The best conditions for life are warmer and CO2-rich.

If you are a tropical plant.


FTFY
 
2013-01-09 07:45:00 AM

Kuroshin: On the plus side, Global Warming threads are great for sprucing up the ignore list.


Yep FARK is much more fun as an echo chamber, you never learn anything new, but you're never wrong either.
 
2013-01-09 07:48:36 AM
Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd's Talk about Climate, Carbon, and Controversy

It's long, but if you can watch an episode of Game of Thrones, you have time for some 'reality,' too.

/Winter is not coming
 
2013-01-09 07:52:06 AM

arghyematey: I work outside (overnight, to boot) and I've only seen frost twice so far this winter. Have fun shoveling your snow :)


I'm at work right now, and it's 24F and snowing outside.  In Hawaii.  I don't work outside, but I can go outside and run around in it if I feel like it...
 
2013-01-09 07:59:44 AM
members.iinet.net.au
 
2013-01-09 08:00:48 AM
It seems obvious to me... We used to get a lot more snow and our winters were far colder here on the South Coast of Massachusetts when I was kid. I'm 41 now, so it wasn't all that long ago. The Taunton River used to freeze over every year, as did the Watuppa pond. People haven't been able to skate on either of those in the Winter for a while. There are pictures of wagons being driven across the river to Somerset (before the bridges were built) in the early 20th century. There's no way that could be done these days.

Of course, I know a few decades doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things, and I'm certainly no scientist, but it seems silly to deny things have gotten warmer in the last few decades. Essentially, we're just in between ice ages, from the little I have read about it.

*Shrug* What does it all mean? farked if I know. I'm just glad the wife and I have no intention of having any children and with a little luck we'll be long gone before things get critical.
 
2013-01-09 08:04:32 AM

DesertDemonWY: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

No
Warming
For
16
years
.


That's funny. When I look at the global mean using that same web site over the same period, here's what I get:

woodfortrees.org

0.2 degrees over 16 years
 
2013-01-09 08:04:35 AM
Get out of my damn back yard!!
 
2013-01-09 08:06:57 AM
Change is constant.
 
2013-01-09 08:08:34 AM

Summercat: I was going to give Pocketninja a 4/10, for being so obvious, but then he kept getting bites, so I guess he's at least an 9/10.


Yeah, I'd say he's intentionally going after the low hanging fruit with this one.
 
2013-01-09 08:10:44 AM

Dadoody: [icecap.us image 818x526]

http://www.voanews.com/content/article--global-warming-could-delay-ne x t-ice-age-137029543/169712.html


From that article:

"While a delayed ice age may sound like good news, Channell says, it isn't.

The high concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is beginning to destabilize ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

"Once you slough off the continental ice into the ocean, of course the consequence is sea level rise," said Channell.

"And it's not being, I think, over-dramatic to say that considering the proportion of the world's population that lives close to sea level, the implications of this sort of accelerated sea level rise are enormous."

Channel says those ice sheets are expected to continue to melt until the next phase of cooling begins. And when that will be is now in serious doubt."
 
2013-01-09 08:13:00 AM
What snow subby? Its going to be 52 today in New York
 
2013-01-09 08:13:14 AM

DesertDemonWY: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

No
Warming
For
16
years
.


You are the one who's lying, or maybe you're just delusional.
 
2013-01-09 08:18:09 AM
I love these "My graph is prettier than your graph" threads.
That and the derp as well.
Deniers = dead weight
 
2013-01-09 08:18:22 AM
Global warming? I'd never notice.

/Wearing shorts right now
//Forecast for today - 82
///RLY
 
2013-01-09 08:20:12 AM

GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.


Why did you choose 73 to start? That was a local minimum cool period.
 
2013-01-09 08:22:56 AM

Mean Daddy: According to Al Bore, global warming causes snow, rain, hurricane and drought!! Can't lose!!!


First, that's according to scientists, not to Al Gore.

Second, what generates those things? Let's take hurricanes -- they are caused by storms building in strength because they are energized by passing over warm water. If the planet warms (overall, not every place evenly) then the water will warm too (overall, not every place evenly). So more storms will turn into hurricanes because there is more warm water energy in the system to feed the hurricanes.

That doesn't mean that we can say with any certainty that "this particular hurricane was caused by global warming". But it does mean than we can say with certainty that as the planet warms we will have more energetic hurricane system. I'm personally not sure whether that means more hurricanes or stronger hurricanes or both, perhaps the folks at NOAA do.

Other extreme weather events have similar patterns of effect. And there are ways that global warming could make things much colder in some areas, for instance if sufficient fresh water melts off glaciers to stall the gulf stream that keeps warm water circulating into the north atlantic thus moderating air temperatures in north america and europe.
 
2013-01-09 08:25:06 AM

Onkel Buck: Mean Daddy: According to Al Bore, global warming causes snow, rain, hurricane and drought!! Can't lose!!!

They do seem to have an answer for everything, just like religious fundies, hence my skepticism


You obviously haven't ever talked to an actual climate scientist. We don't know that yet is a common phrase in science.
 
2013-01-09 08:27:22 AM

UberDave: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

And Leon's getting laaaarrrrger!


C|N>K
 
2013-01-09 08:27:32 AM

Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.


I know of very few who deny warming is occurring, what I am seeing are people who are not sure what is causing it, there is not proof that man is 100% responsible.
 
2013-01-09 08:30:54 AM

steamingpile: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

I know of very few who deny warming is occurring, what I am seeing are people who are not sure what is causing it, there is not proof that man is 100% responsible.


Except for 97% of climate scientists, fo shiz.
 
2013-01-09 08:33:12 AM

natas6.0: If it's warming it's a natural trend.
Stop being so vain as to say
'we made this happen'
or
'we can stop it from happening'
insignificant little things that we are


Just like there's no way that insignificant little things like bacteria could ever have caused massive shifts in climate by changing the atmosphere, right?
 
2013-01-09 08:36:46 AM
Subby, please read the update to your libtard marching orders. It's not called "global warming" anymore. Page 3, Section 4.3 tells you that all references to global warming are to be referred as, "climate change."

/stoopid libtards
//it's not manmade.
 
2013-01-09 08:36:58 AM
Some good news: US CO2 emissions are down in the last few years.

It turns out fracking and a recession did what Kyoto couldn't do.
 
2013-01-09 08:37:20 AM

dfenstrate: Al Gore


DRINK!

Mean Daddy: Al Bore


DRINK!
 
2013-01-09 08:38:39 AM

TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:
[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]


So that cartoon represents it being okay to spend money nobody has even if we're wrong or say we spend all our money trying to control temperature but Yosemite blows up in our face anyway or sun flares start doing real damage or we simply have a regularly scheduled global virus epidemic? Nobody has the right balanced economy to just start chipping into the world fund yet.
 
2013-01-09 08:42:04 AM
Well, I thought I was funny.
 
2013-01-09 08:42:47 AM

Psycat: I don't have any kids, so it doesn't matter much to me if the world goes to hell ten minutes after I'm buried, but you parents out there might want to take this seriously...


By doing what? Wringing of the hands? Taking anxiety medicine?
 
2013-01-09 08:43:16 AM

MyRandomName: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

Why did you choose 73 to start? That was a local minimum cool period.


I have a very hard time accepting 199X as a start date... I have a hard time with 73, 1880... No one has ever really explained to me (or provided a link) to why they chose the exact dates and why they are the most valid. Because they do seem so finely chosen, I assume every single one of those dates on both sides is cherry picking dates for the exaggerated effect.

The only date that isn't totally sketchy to me... is using the 2 billion year. However that one is very hard to judge since it's mostly extrapolation, and seeing non climate scale is impossible. They were quite specific in elementary school climate wasn't a year... or a decade... it was a very long time.

Anything prior to when we started keeping accurate temperature records, and any data using points where data haven't been kept in the exact same spot since the chosen dates seem highly suspect to me. Of course due to cities retaining heat, all the sensors within cities that got bigger and bigger are also suspect... so... maybe we're warming slightly, maybe we're not... but raising a degree or two on average over the world... doesn't really seems very problematic.
 
2013-01-09 08:45:07 AM

UberDave: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

And Leon's getting laaaarrrrger!


Thank you, I needed that.
 
2013-01-09 08:48:41 AM

Psycat: When I was a kid, you could expect it to reach -20 F in the Twin Cities maybe 10-15 days per winter. Heck, it even reached -30 F in Saint Paul back in the mid-Eighties. Nowadays, it maybe goes below zero a handful of times each winter and early last March, it hit an astonishing 80 degrees, smashing the previous high temperature. I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.

Let's hope this is just a random, transient climate change. If it's global warming, we're in for a shiatstorm of freaky climate change in the near future. I don't have any kids, so it doesn't matter much to me if the world goes to hell ten minutes after I'm buried, but you parents out there might want to take this seriously...


So... if your anecdotal evidence was right, you'd see something like a 15 degree higher average than 30 years ago in Minnesota right? That's not really what I see happening... maybe a few degrees if you pick the right comparison year. Linkie... certainly no 15 degree warm-up.

You are mis-remembering.
 
2013-01-09 08:49:42 AM
Apparently it's OK to assume the US is the whole world again.
 
2013-01-09 08:53:46 AM
I recognize that the data is correct. I agree that the human causation is partially correct. Those who argue otherwise are fighting a losing battle.

Here is what eats at me in all of this. ONE: I don't see a global increase in temps to be a bad thing. It will be different, but not just bad. I do not FEAR a warmer planet. TWO: It is the GW wackos screaming total doom scenarios that makes me wish to disassociate with the whole movement. Mankind will probably destroy a lot of good stuff, but temps will not accelerate and turn th globe into a cinder. Nonsense. THREE: GW people believe that all 'solutions' are government solutions, requiring massive coercive interventions which will disrupt everybody's lives and cost trillions and then more trillions. FIVE: Barring a population collapse, mankind will at some point completely overwhelm the planet, driving most species into extinction and using up most readily available resources - no matter what GW solutions are forced upon us by the state. But in my own perspective, this problem will probably self-correct, and is a problem for another generation, not ours.

If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.
 
2013-01-09 08:55:08 AM

sendtodave: starsrift: Pocket Ninja: ...But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest...

You had to ruin it, didn't you? You just had to. :(

Are the purposes more intensive than last year?


The purposes on the most intensive on record. BUT, what if they are MORE intensive NEXT year? Then the purposes this year are NOT the most intensive. See how smart I am?

Me: 6 kabillion You: -57
 
2013-01-09 08:56:09 AM

EVERYBODY PANIC: I recognize that the data is correct. I agree that the human causation is partially correct. Those who argue otherwise are fighting a losing battle.

Here is what eats at me in all of this. ONE: I don't see a global increase in temps to be a bad thing. It will be different, but not just bad. I do not FEAR a warmer planet. TWO: It is the GW wackos screaming total doom scenarios that makes me wish to disassociate with the whole movement. Mankind will probably destroy a lot of good stuff, but temps will not accelerate and turn th globe into a cinder. Nonsense. THREE: GW people believe that all 'solutions' are government solutions, requiring massive coercive interventions which will disrupt everybody's lives and cost trillions and then more trillions. FIVE: Barring a population collapse, mankind will at some point completely overwhelm the planet, driving most species into extinction and using up most readily available resources - no matter what GW solutions are forced upon us by the state. But in my own perspective, this problem will probably self-correct, and is a problem for another generation, not ours.

If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.


How..myopic. Your perspective alone, of course, is all that matters. Not the coastal communities.
 
2013-01-09 08:56:26 AM

symbolset: Apparently it's OK to assume the US is the whole world again.


Would the term "national warming" sooth that sore vag?
 
2013-01-09 09:02:03 AM

Dadoody: [icecap.us image 818x526]
icecap.us


img541.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-09 09:06:42 AM
You'd think that Al Gore was a republican the way they always mention him.

Everyone else realizes he is a washed up politician who made a movie once. But republicans are fascinated by him.
 
2013-01-09 09:09:56 AM

generallyso: believe the hype: well, you sure showed him.

Think of Pocket Ninja's posts as skewering a particular view rather than espousing it.


You can't fault them, his post did cross the uncanny valley of POEs law and is better articulated than most of the deniers in this very thread. I can't tell which of the deniers in this thread are making derptastic arguments to be funny and which ones are being sincere. PN is favorited for obvious reasons, but I have no interest in tracking all the others for constancy.
 
2013-01-09 09:23:07 AM
Looks like DesertDemonWY successfully trolled you guys... he came in, posted a couple of known bad data diagrams, then dropped out without defending his actual position... Something tells me he's just sitting back watching the chaos...

Like watching a tank full of piranha going nuts after a drop of blood hit the water...
 
2013-01-09 09:36:27 AM

Quantumbunny: I have a very hard time accepting 199X as a start date... I have a hard time with 73, 1880... No one has ever really explained to me (or provided a link) to why they chose the exact dates and why they are the most valid. Because they do seem so finely chosen, I assume every single one of those dates on both sides is cherry picking dates for the exaggerated effect.


Pick every year for which we have accurate data up to the current time. Then, put the data in two bins. When your data for the bin that corresponds to "warming" has data in it and your bin that corresponds to "cooling" has 1996 in it, tell me again how both sides are bad.
 
2013-01-09 09:41:14 AM
If this warming keeps up, the average temperature will be 125 degrees F. by 2050!

/I keed. Sky, it is not falling.
 
2013-01-09 09:42:41 AM

arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

[i.imwx.com image 600x405]

The rest of the country looks far too cold.


That little 32 at the top of Michigan, at 9am in early January that's about 25 above normal. Actually that 32 is about 10 above the average high.  Supposedly it's supposed to be back into the 20's and teens next week but the way this winter is going I'll believe it when I see it.
 
2013-01-09 09:43:57 AM
Link

Anyone who thinks that man has no effect on the environment is an idiot. The question is how much are we effecting it? Well I've never enjoyed being told I am the problem, so I never fully subscribed to Global Warming. Now I know for certain that the agenda is simply a money making machine built on relevant facts, half truths, blatant lies, and doctored statistics. Read the link.
 
2013-01-09 09:46:46 AM
lol... this shiat again.

The US was hotter in 1934 in all fifty states.

These beautiful quotes are batshiat insane context amputations.

I don't deny anything, we're farking up the globe. It is just not physically possible for the 0.05% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide WE ACTUALLY PRODUCE to make a difference in the environment.

The real hazard comes from the pollution that comes from destruction of the environment, the disturbance of settled heavy toxic metals and the way people dispose of what they consider garbage.

I'm doing much much more to save the planet than any of you. I use my old car engine oil in my lawn mower's engine after it settles.


TheGogmagog... the problem with the word "denier" is a "denier" has to refuse to believe a fact. ZERO facts have been presented.
They can't even measure the atmosphere at the level they CLAIM these things are going on at because their definition is a mathematical equation that ends up varying the altitude by up to thirty thousand feet on any given millisecond.

So... I deny the claim that the IPCC and global warmists are making claims based on science. They just simply aren't basing anything on science.

Science is not "putting data into your equation that proves your theory"... science is "producing an equation from your theory that verifies the data".
This ^^^ has NOT happened. It hasn't happened in several thousand models, five theories, five major international publications and more than four hundred thousand different "peer reviewed" "studies" that claim to support "global warming"...

I have a series of books that discuss the adventures of some guy named John Carter as he explores another planet. It has been published more often, gone through more volumes and been peer reviewed so heavily that its credibility FAR outweighs anything produced about "global warming" yet people call it a "work of fiction" even though it has more facts in it.

Peer review is the process by which you and your friends all agree to go out for beer and biatches. It is NOT a scientific analysis of the results nor is it a replication of the work. It is a means by which a group of people can BLOCK the publication of things they do not agree with.

Kinda like a school board deciding Catcher in the Rye is way way too harsh for children who've seen house fires, crushed cars at the railroad crossing and neighbors lose fingers to machinery. It is ALSO not a scientific process.

The premise that "peer review" is some sort of credibility creator is a joke. Peer review is simply there to catch people who plagerize the works of others. It exists as a means by which to have other more experienced authors review your presentation, writing style and coordination in the production of documentation. No verification of the science occurs in a peer review.

I think, by far the funniest thing I see in this thread is the flashing diagram of "this is how warmists see the / this is how deniers see the"... that chart was actually produced by people who KNOW how the atmosphere and weather work... and it was produced to support the refutation of "global warming". None of you knew that, eh? Now you do.

What the whole argument comes down to is the old witch hunt. McCarthy et all.

So what you do with your life is your problem, what I do with my life is mine. How stupid you are in public and whether you peep away with all the propaganda produced by people who REFUSE TO PUBLICLY PROVE THEIR THEORIES is your problem.

The fact that I cite actual hard science that proves them wrong is mine. .... not really. It just proves how dumb the "believers" are.

There is no global warming. If we burnt everything on the face of the planet right now the average temperature wouldn't go up.
Law of Thermodynamics. Temperature, volume, pressure.

ZERO of the models take into account that the atmosphere is not a closed system.
ZERO of the models take into account that CO2 is heavier than N2.
ZERO of the models take into account the affects of gravity on pressure.
ZERO of the models take into account the curvature of the earth.
ZERO of the models can predict the past based on exceptionally accurate readings.
ZERO of the models accept that that bright thing that makes daylight can vary its heat output.
ZERO of the models obey the way infrared radiation actually works.

All these things listed above have immediate and direct affect on the atmosphere's temperature. None are included in the models these people claim to have made.
 
2013-01-09 09:49:37 AM

EVERYBODY PANIC: I recognize that the data is correct. I agree that the human causation is partially correct. Those who argue otherwise are fighting a losing battle.

Here is what eats at me in all of this. ONE: I don't see a global increase in temps to be a bad thing. It will be different, but not just bad. I do not FEAR a warmer planet. TWO: It is the GW wackos screaming total doom scenarios that makes me wish to disassociate with the whole movement. Mankind will probably destroy a lot of good stuff, but temps will not accelerate and turn th globe into a cinder. Nonsense. THREE: GW people believe that all 'solutions' are government solutions, requiring massive coercive interventions which will disrupt everybody's lives and cost trillions and then more trillions. FIVE: Barring a population collapse, mankind will at some point completely overwhelm the planet, driving most species into extinction and using up most readily available resources - no matter what GW solutions are forced upon us by the state. But in my own perspective, this problem will probably self-correct, and is a problem for another generation, not ours.

If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.


I'll see if i can respond sensibly without stirring up too much crap:

one: The problem with the warmer planet are sea levels... the models are saying that by 2050 coastal cities like NYC will be a couple of feet underwater... I'm sure some of the yokels out in BFE, AK would be ok with scenario, it would be as bad for the economy to have to deal with it as much as it would be bad for the people who live and work there.

two: i can see how you would feel that way, but there is a sort of "doomsday" scenario involved here, and that's what happens to ocean life... If the PH levels of the oceans become as unbalanced as they are predicting, and the salinity levels are affected like they predict, then both plant and wildlife in the oceans could be tremendously impacted, and without going into the complexities, let's just say that too would be bad for people...

three: they don't believe this can only be fixed with gov't. there are plenty of campaigns directed at individuals and companies begging to change things for the better... but as indicated by the fact that it appears your don't even know they exist is all the evidence i need to present how effective those campaigns are. GW changes in companies means less profit, so they not only ignore the warnings, they have gone out of their way to produce a counter science to disprove it. Companies in turn have also turned to the gov't for the sole purpose of turning the issue into a political wedge. They know that if both sides of any gov't see the issue as something that needs to be addressed, then steps will be taken to secure the future, which in turn means less profit for themselves. By making it a political wedge issue though, they have successfully crippled the movement because the two sides are too busy squabbling over it ensuring nothing will ever be done.
     In short they HAVE to appeal directly to the gov't and ask for gov't assistance on the issue because there are powerful and influential entities fighting against them who have ALREADY involved the gov't, all in the name of Profit and Money...

"Five" though really four: putting the problem onto future generations is by far the poorest attitude i've ever encountered... What you are effectively saying is that you don't care that your grandchildren will suffer because it doesn't benefit you right now... I don't have grandkids yet, but i can tell you that i hope one day i have them, and that the things i do today will benefit them 30 years from now... My parents set up trust funds for grandchildren they weren't even sure they were going to get, and now that i have kids, it's comforting to me and my parents that my kids, their grandchildren, will have money for higher education withough worrying about loans or money for it... they secured a better future for their grandchildren, the same i am going to do for mine...
 
2013-01-09 09:52:29 AM

prjindigo: lol... this shiat again.

The US was hotter in 1934 in all fifty states.

These beautiful quotes are batshiat insane context amputations.

I don't deny anything, we're farking up the globe. It is just not physically possible for the 0.05% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide WE ACTUALLY PRODUCE to make a difference in the environment.

The real hazard comes from the pollution that comes from destruction of the environment, the disturbance of settled heavy toxic metals and the way people dispose of what they consider garbage.

I'm doing much much more to save the planet than any of you. I use my old car engine oil in my lawn mower's engine after it settles.


TheGogmagog... the problem with the word "denier" is a "denier" has to refuse to believe a fact. ZERO facts have been presented.
They can't even measure the atmosphere at the level they CLAIM these things are going on at because their definition is a mathematical equation that ends up varying the altitude by up to thirty thousand feet on any given millisecond.

So... I deny the claim that the IPCC and global warmists are making claims based on science. They just simply aren't basing anything on science.

Science is not "putting data into your equation that proves your theory"... science is "producing an equation from your theory that verifies the data".
This ^^^ has NOT happened. It hasn't happened in several thousand models, five theories, five major international publications and more than four hundred thousand different "peer reviewed" "studies" that claim to support "global warming"...

I have a series of books that discuss the adventures of some guy named John Carter as he explores another planet. It has been published more often, gone through more volumes and been peer reviewed so heavily that its credibility FAR outweighs anything produced about "global warming" yet people call it a "work of fiction" even though it has more facts in it.

Peer review is the process by which you and your friends ...


So... you're saying your smarter than scientists at NASA? Do they know this?
 
2013-01-09 09:56:30 AM
Smart enough to know ;
your= possessive form
you're= contraction of you are
 
2013-01-09 09:58:33 AM

snocone: Smart enough to know ;
your= possessive form
you're= contraction of you are


yet not smart enough to know a simple typo when you see one... shame really
 
2013-01-09 10:10:41 AM

symbolset: Apparently it's OK to assume the US is the whole world again.


I'm sure if the global data was warmer the press release would have been about that instead.
 
2013-01-09 10:11:10 AM

CeroX: snocone: Smart enough to know ;
your= possessive form
you're= contraction of you are

yet not smart enough to know a simple typo when you see one... shame really


Smart enough to recognize a bookmark?
 
2013-01-09 10:11:22 AM

CeroX: two: i can see how you would feel that way, but there is a sort of "doomsday" scenario involved here,


In the natural world, change is constant.
From a human perspective, much of that change is a bad thing, because we only see the negative impacts.
Ultimately, nature finds equlibrium, regardless of which species gets the smackdown and the story of the Earth and all the creatures that have ever walked upon it is the story of species smackdowns through environmental alterations, cataclysmic events, or resource depletions.
Hell, humans even smack down each other for fun and profit!

So I wouldn't worry about it.
Live and adapt if you're intelligent enough.
And by "adapt" I mean don't live beside the ocean with all your crap.
 
2013-01-09 10:13:06 AM
Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.
 
2013-01-09 10:13:35 AM
But... we've absolutely got to keep GROWING everything!!! So the economy can keep expanding! So the government can collect more and more taxes! So they can keep throwing money around like drunken sailors on shore leave! To buy votes!
 
2013-01-09 10:14:00 AM
"Doing something" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who would profit handsomely from the action required.

/Coming soon from a government near you.
 
2013-01-09 10:16:16 AM
tarpon.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-09 10:20:01 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: "Doing something" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who would profit handsomely from the action required.

/Coming soon from a government near you.


Not doing something is continuing to play in the hands of those who already profit handsomely by endangering the human race

It's apparent at this point that your original post was rhetorical and i'm kind of mad at myself for not seeing that and spending as much effort as i did in trying to show things intelligently...

At this point you should just post a giant HAHA finger point and pat yourself on the back for a job well done...
 
2013-01-09 10:20:47 AM

arghyematey: Mose:

Different strokes. I have nothing against the land of Florida, but I'm not a tropical type of person. I like winter, skiing, snow and mountains. All things that seem to be consipicuously absent in Florida. I do sail though, and imagine doing that everyday could keep me pretty happy along with lots of scantily clad femaile beach goers.

What was this thread about again? Oh yeah, going in circles about global warming. Florida may actually be more interesting conversation at this point.

Even though we don't agree on climate, I think I like you, sir.

I am definitely a tropical type person, but I understand the appeal in any outdoor activity as long as you are dressed appropriately. That being said, driving in snow is pretty intimidating to me at this point, seeing that I've never driven in it. But I can drive circles around tourists during monsoons!


You can drive circles around people in a monsoon?

You're one of those farkers, eh?
 
2013-01-09 10:21:16 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: "Doing something" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who would profit handsomely from the action required.

/Coming soon from a government near you.


What a useless, vapid statement to make. I could make virtually the same statement about virtually any action or lack thereof.

"Doing nothing" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who profit handsomely from not taking the action required.

"shiatting" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from spiriting that waste away from me.

"Eating" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from growing and getting that food to me.

"Not eating or shiatting" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from treating me for anorexia.

"Using a condom" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from manufacturing condoms.

"Not using a condom" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from making baby products.

"Not having sex" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from WoW subscriptions.

"Using a computer" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from mining rare Earth minerals in the Congo.

"Not using a computer" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely by harvesting trees for paper.
 
2013-01-09 10:24:28 AM

clane: [tarpon.files.wordpress.com image 644x358]


Oh good, a graph that doesn't show the source of the data, is cut off on both sides, and still shows the temperature as having been above normal. How useful.
 
2013-01-09 10:26:10 AM

Kuroshin: On the plus side, Global Warming threads are great for sprucing up the ignore list.


Indeed they are. "Oh, you're a GW-denying moron. Great, I know everything else you'll ever say is idiotic too. Plonk."
 
2013-01-09 10:26:15 AM

Pocket Ninja: Your headline reeks of ignorance, subby. And it pains me to explain this to you, because I'm sure you won't understand, but I'm a glutton for punishment so I guess I'll try anyway.

See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

Please. I implore you. Study what you're talking about before you post your next headline. There's enough misunderstanding a ...


I love you.
 
2013-01-09 10:27:06 AM

Bullseyed: Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.


There is a lot of stupidity in this here post. The most glaring to me is the suggestion that the US does not have a climate. All regions have a climate ... it is the normal weather for a place for that season. The error people make is suggesting that one weather system represents climate.

As an aside ...
Personally I'm sad to see Australia burning but I will admit that I will be getting a bit of schadenfreude watching the red states burn over the next couple of decades. It will be a bad thing for the world but at least all the denier accounts quietly fade away from Fark.
 
2013-01-09 10:29:28 AM
Erix
you mean insignificant like bacteria helping build a liveable ecosystem etc etc

no, that happened billions of years ago..in numbers that are uncountable
their waste was oxygen, and it was a poison to them
so,
 slightly different than the vanity of man thinking he can destroy the world
 then bring it back.
nothing we can do to the world is worse than what it has already gone through
every single nuke -meh
total extinction of bipeds -snore
fist rogering your mother in front of a childrens choir -just for funsies
 
2013-01-09 10:32:22 AM

Pocket Ninja: It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR.


You would not have this confusion if the subject were sports instead of climate. "Hey, Patrik Sjoberg just made a record high jump, 2.42m." "Hey, Javier Sotomayor just broke Sjoberg's record with 2.43m." "What do you know, Sotomayor just set a new record at 2.45m" etc. Each new record does not mean that the old records didn't also happen. I think you understand that and are just playing stupid.
 
2013-01-09 10:34:35 AM

Farking Canuck: Personally I'm sad to see Australia burning but I will admit that I will be getting a bit of schadenfreude watching the red states burn over the next couple of decades. It will be a bad thing for the world but at least all the denier accounts quietly fade away from Fark.


You really think they will change their mind just because their states catch on fire? You don't know Republicans very well.

It will be kind fun, though, when they ask for assitance fighting the fires, to say "Remember hurricane Sandy? Fark you."
 
2013-01-09 10:35:37 AM

Farking Canuck: Bullseyed: Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.

There is a lot of stupidity in this here post. The most glaring to me is the suggestion that the US does not have a climate. All regions have a climate ... it is the normal weather for a place for that season. The error people make is suggesting that one weather system represents climate.

As an aside ...
Personally I'm sad to see Australia burning but I will admit that I will be getting a bit of schadenfreude watching the red states burn over the next couple of decades. It will be a bad thing for the world but at least all the denier accounts quietly fade away from Fark.


The rest of the world isn't having record cold years although some parts are colder than average.

He does have a point though that the us represents 2% of the earth's surface but is being used to push global warming policies.

Both sides use non-global data to push their agenda. A cold record in Alaska recently is proof global warming is a myth and tropical storm sandy is proof global warming is real.

Both sides suck.

You both lose. Along with the rest of us in this thread.
 
2013-01-09 10:35:39 AM

pciszek: Each new record does not mean that the old records didn't also happen. I think you understand that and are just playing stupid.


PN reels in another one. And you saw it LIVE, right here!
 
2013-01-09 10:37:48 AM

Zasteva: "And it's not being, I think, over-dramatic to say that considering the proportion of the world's population that lives close to sea level, the implications of this sort of accelerated sea level rise are enormous."


Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.
 
2013-01-09 10:38:35 AM

pciszek: I think you understand that and are just playing stupid.


You must understand art before you can criticize it.
 
2013-01-09 10:39:52 AM

HAMMERTOE: pciszek: Each new record does not mean that the old records didn't also happen. I think you understand that and are just playing stupid.

PN reels in another one. And you saw it LIVE, right here!


yeah i was going to say something about not know PN, and then posting a welcome to fark jpeg... but i figure someone will get to it eventually...
 
2013-01-09 10:44:16 AM

occamswrist: Both sides use non-global data to push their agenda. A cold record in Alaska recently is proof global warming is a myth and tropical storm sandy is proof global warming is real.

Both sides suck.

You both lose. Along with the rest of us in this thread.


One side uses science. The other uses political rhetoric and blogs.

There is nothing nefarious about a news story in the US discussing the weather of the US for 2012.

The proof of global warming is not local whether events. No scientists are suggesting this. The proof is in the data.

/and for the record: This is another thread where people are denying that GW is happening. So when, in the next thread, deniers claim "we don't deny that global warming is happening we just don't think it is man-made" you will all understand why we call you liars.
 
2013-01-09 10:44:18 AM

Pocket Ninja: Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?


Unless 2013 ends up being the coldest year on record, your point is non-existent, and you need to look up the definition of averages.  Then I'd suggest you look up what a trend is, but I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to grasp it, so never mind.
 
2013-01-09 10:44:45 AM

EVERYBODY PANIC: If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.


Given your skepticism, I expect that you will be behind the curve in trying to sell your property and immigrate to Canada. You will find the market for property in Florida is greatly reduced, since too many people are selling to move north, so you won't get much for your property. And you'll be disappointed to discover that the Canadian government has tightened immigration restrictions because of the influx of climate refugees. And if you do find a way to get in, you'll discover that Canadian bikini babes don't really want much to do with Americans whose stubborn refusal to moderate their behavior caused so many problems for everyone and made them the most unpopular set of immigrants ever.
 
2013-01-09 10:45:46 AM

HAMMERTOE: pciszek: Each new record does not mean that the old records didn't also happen. I think you understand that and are just playing stupid.

PN reels in another one. And you saw it LIVE, right here!


You do have to put the numbers into context.

If global temperatures are:

Year 1 55.0000000F
Year 2 55.0000001F
Year 3 55.0000002F

Then even though every year is record breaking I won't give a shiat.

We need to look at the degree of temperature rises, the effects of temperature rises, the causes, and any possible mitigation we can do.

"Hottest year on record" with the limited data we have is proof them climatoligists are trolling you.
 
2013-01-09 10:47:14 AM

Farking Canuck: occamswrist: Both sides use non-global data to push their agenda. A cold record in Alaska recently is proof global warming is a myth and tropical storm sandy is proof global warming is real.

Both sides suck.

You both lose. Along with the rest of us in this thread.

One side uses science. The other uses political rhetoric and blogs.

There is nothing nefarious about a news story in the US discussing the weather of the US for 2012.

The proof of global warming is not local whether events. No scientists are suggesting this. The proof is in the data.

/and for the record: This is another thread where people are denying that GW is happening. So when, in the next thread, deniers claim "we don't deny that global warming is happening we just don't think it is man-made" you will all understand why we call you liars.


Where was the press release about alaskas temperature? Alaska makes up a significant portion of the us, donchaknow.
 
2013-01-09 10:48:51 AM

Bullseyed: Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.


That would be amusing if it were true. Please see the chart above of global temperature I posted above.
 
2013-01-09 10:51:04 AM
These regional statistics aren't all that useful if the debate is about the global climate. The impact of last year's growing season on our food prices will be interesting to experience, though. Some states were reporting corn crop losses in excess of 80% because of the summer drought.
 
2013-01-09 10:51:22 AM

Zasteva: Given your skepticism, I expect that you will be behind the curve in trying to sell your property and immigrate to Canada. You will find the market for property in Florida is greatly reduced, since too many people are selling to move north, so you won't get much for your property. And you'll be disappointed to discover that the Canadian government has tightened immigration restrictions because of the influx of climate refugees. And if you do find a way to get in, you'll discover that Canadian bikini babes don't really want much to do with Americans whose stubborn refusal to moderate their behavior caused so many problems for everyone and made them the most unpopular set of immigrants ever.


The larger problem with the whole "we'll just keep heading north where the weather is still nice" is food production. The North American prairies cannot just migrate north ... there is very little soil on the Canadian Shield. It might work for a little while but the required migration is way faster than any process that naturally generates good soil.
 
2013-01-09 10:52:06 AM

spiderpaz: Pocket Ninja: Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

Unless 2013 ends up being the coldest year on record, your point is non-existent, and you need to look up the definition of averages.  Then I'd suggest you look up what a trend is, but I'm afraid you wouldn't be able to grasp it, so never mind.


Pocket Ninja is well known for brilliant satire. Unfortunately with Climate Denial it's difficult to tell brilliant satire from people who just don't know what they are talking about.
 
2013-01-09 10:56:02 AM

occamswrist: Where was the press release about alaskas temperature? Alaska makes up a significant portion of the us, donchaknow.


You're right ... it is all a conspiracy!!!!

Where's the green-thread shiatter?? He can explain how this news agency is a puppet of the UN and is just paving the way for their world take-over.

You remember the UN ... this is the agency that is eternally mocked on Fark because they are so ineffective. Apparently, according to the conspiracy nuts, this ineffective organization is about to gain control of the world!!! [insert evil laugh]
 
2013-01-09 10:58:31 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 10:58:54 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Why did you choose 16 years exactly?


Because 1998 is the 3rd-hottest year on record, which means, even if two of the next 15 years are hotter (which they are), the entirety of that time can be top 20 in terms of temperature and still trend slightly downward.
 
2013-01-09 11:00:15 AM

CeroX: HotIgneous Intruder: "Doing something" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who would profit handsomely from the action required.

/Coming soon from a government near you.

Not doing something is continuing to play in the hands of those who already profit handsomely by endangering the human race

It's apparent at this point that your original post was rhetorical and i'm kind of mad at myself for not seeing that and spending as much effort as i did in trying to show things intelligently...

At this point you should just post a giant HAHA finger point and pat yourself on the back for a job well done...


Relax. The human race is not in danger. At most, a lot of people will have to move inland a bit. I'm sure that the trade-off (a significant rise in the planet's biomass [IOW, more food to eat]) will be worth it.
 
2013-01-09 11:00:51 AM

DrPainMD: Zasteva: "And it's not being, I think, over-dramatic to say that considering the proportion of the world's population that lives close to sea level, the implications of this sort of accelerated sea level rise are enormous."

Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.


Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.
 
2013-01-09 11:02:32 AM

CountryClubRepublican: Busted


They use Watt's Up With That. That's the same site that the Daily Fail uses for its climate change research. I guarantee you anyone who cites Watt or Lord Monckton has never actually seen the papers they claim to be quoting...because usually those papers say the exact opposite of what Watt or Monckton claim.
 
2013-01-09 11:04:50 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's a damn good thing we've been keeping records since the end of the last ice age, otherwise this would be completely out of context.


You do realize that climatologists can look at historical climate data from before written records by using things like tree rings and ice core samples?
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-01-09 11:04:58 AM

Zasteva: EVERYBODY PANIC: If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.

Given your skepticism, I expect that you will be behind the curve in trying to sell your property and immigrate to Canada. You will find the market for property in Florida is greatly reduced, since too many people are selling to move north, so you won't get much for your property. And you'll be disappointed to discover that the Canadian government has tightened immigration restrictions because of the influx of climate refugees. And if you do find a way to get in, you'll discover that Canadian bikini babes don't really want much to do with Americans whose stubborn refusal to moderate their behavior caused so many problems for everyone and made them the most unpopular set of immigrants ever.


You're saying that those of us who like hot weather will be able to buy cheap land in the south? Excuse me, I have to go burn a pile of tires.
 
2013-01-09 11:06:02 AM

HotWingAgenda: Psycat: I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.

You get that weather and climate are two completely different things, right?


weather : climate :: single vote : an entire election
 
2013-01-09 11:06:52 AM

Zasteva: DrPainMD: Zasteva: "And it's not being, I think, over-dramatic to say that considering the proportion of the world's population that lives close to sea level, the implications of this sort of accelerated sea level rise are enormous."

Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.


He's also obviously not in any sort of job that requires precise calculations to be successful at his job, like, say, construction. There, if you're off by "a few feet", you likely not only don't get another job, you get to pay restitution to the victims of your previous job.
 
2013-01-09 11:09:01 AM

Zasteva: DrPainMD: Zasteva: "And it's not being, I think, over-dramatic to say that considering the proportion of the world's population that lives close to sea level, the implications of this sort of accelerated sea level rise are enormous."

Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.


When they start mixing science with speculation, stop listening to them. That is, if you can tell the difference. When the speculation is completely one-sided, you should be able to tell that it's BS.
 
2013-01-09 11:09:53 AM

Pocket Ninja: Your headline reeks of ignorance, subby. And it pains me to explain this to you, because I'm sure you won't understand, but I'm a glutton for punishment so I guess I'll try anyway.

See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

Please. I implore you. Study what you're talking about before you post your next headline. There's enough misunderstanding a ...


What's really sad is that I know people who actually argue this way, and mean it...

Geez, it's only lunchtime, and already I'm depressed enough for the brandy...
 
2013-01-09 11:10:15 AM
Global warming means more heat energy in the atmosphere. This means more violent weather. This means more hyperbolic descriptions of storm severity by meaty urologists the planet over.

But, what if they're correct? What can we possibly do? The only logical way to decrease our effect on the planet is to limit our numbers. The Democrats are not going to stand for this in a million years. Reproduction is a right, dammit! If you're going to tell people they can't reproduce, a logical component of this is deciding who can't reproduce. Immediately, this is going to erupt into a war between the haves and the have-nots.

Stalemate.
 
2013-01-09 11:21:56 AM
In other news it was so hot in Australia yesterday that they broke an all time record (59 celcius).
 
2013-01-09 11:22:18 AM

Pocket Ninja: See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.


LOL - That was as logical as the Chewbacca defense. You know why it's called moving the goalposts? Because the goalposts farking move! Despite your irrational clinging belief in the Mayans the world did not end in 2012. There will be new data in 2013, and 2014, and so on.

If 2013 turns out to be the hottest year on record then 2013 will be the hottest year on record. This does not magically undo the fact that 2012 was the hottest year on record EVAR .... as of 2012. Nobody is going to pretend they never said 2012 is hottest. It's hottest! Now I'm going to blow your little mind...

(Hear this in morpheous' voice..)
. What if I told you, Neo, that 1921 was the hottest year on record in 1921?

The hottest year on record does not stand all by itself. We are setting the hottest year on record very regularly now while the coolest year on record continues to be very occasional.

Hottest 5 years on record:
2012
1998
1934
1999
1921

Coolest 5 years on record:
1903
1924
1895
1912
1917

Please tell me you have the intellect to notice something about the 10 years listed above. Do any of them seem to be more recent than the others?  http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/us/2012/ann/YTD_allyears _Dec2012.png
 
2013-01-09 11:23:07 AM

occamswrist:
Where was the press release about alaskas temperature? Alaska makes up a significant portion of the us, donchaknow.


NOAA releases a report, named State of the Climate - National Overview, every year (and every month). As a government department, NOAA issues a press release to accompany each report. See here for Summary Information (which is presumably what the media are working from). You'll note that a report for Alaska is included.
 
2013-01-09 11:24:02 AM

GoGoGadgetLiver: Pocket Ninja: See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

LOL - That was as logical as the Chewbacca defense. You know why it's called moving the goalposts? Because the goalposts farking move! Despite your irrational clinging belief in the Mayans the world did not end in 2012. There will be new data in 2013, and 2014, and so on.

If 2013 turns o ...


Fish on...
 
2013-01-09 11:27:00 AM

prjindigo: ZERO of the models accept that that bright thing that makes daylight can vary its heat output.


CHeck out the link I provided up thread. You actually don't know the models that are actually being used, because this is factually incorrect.
 
2013-01-09 11:36:36 AM

SnarfVader: Fish on...


Aye. :)

When it comes to deniers you never know if they are that stupid or if you're about to get a hook in the mouth.
 
2013-01-09 11:41:26 AM

GoGoGadgetLiver: Pocket Ninja: See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

LOL - That was as logical as the Chewbacca defense. You know why it's called moving the goalposts? Because the goalposts farking move! Despite your irrational clinging belief in the Mayans the world did not end in 2012. There will be new data in 2013, and 2014, and so on.

If 2013 turns o ...


Wow, I didn't think he'd actually get a bite...

Y'see, this is kinda his schtick. He pretends to be a derphead, and almost always makes an intentional mistake like that to show that he's being funny. Unfortunately, he often falls victim to Poe's Law and someone thinks he's being serious and either rips him as you did, or completely agrees with him. He does break character on occasion, but that's rare, and not usually in the politics tab.
 
2013-01-09 11:41:36 AM
Quantumbunny
The only date that isn't totally sketchy to me... is using the 2 billion year.

The point is to minimize disruption to human life and industry and the environment. Changes that take thousands of years to occur can be adapted to. Changes that take decades can't.


EVERYBODY PANIC
Here is what eats at me in all of this. ONE: I don't see a global increase in temps to be a bad thing. It will be different, but not just bad. I do not FEAR a warmer planet.

Temperature is arbitrary. Rapid sea level rise, increased frequency of destructive storms in some places and droughts in others, and explosions in invasive species, weeds, and diseases (since they breed faster and therefore adapt faster) are not.

Mankind will probably destroy a lot of good stuff

this part, this right here
this is what it would be nice to avoid

but temps will not accelerate and turn th globe into a cinder

strawman

GW people believe that all 'solutions' are government solutions, requiring massive coercive interventions which will disrupt everybody's lives and cost trillions and then more trillions.

strawman
also, most responses will actually save money over the long run due to lower energy costs. Better-insulated buildings, better fuel efficiency, longer-lasting everything... what a bunch of hippies though am I right

If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it

that's not the issue


prjindigo
1934 ... fifty states.

wat

ZERO of the models accept that that bright thing that makes daylight can vary its heat output.

from upthread

"The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C."


HotIgneous Intruder
Ultimately, nature finds equlibrium

so let's fark with it by spewing unlimited amounts of toxic shiat into the air and coming up with some existential bullshiat to be able to say everything's fine even though millions of people will probably die
 
2013-01-09 11:44:52 AM

Farking Canuck: occamswrist: Where was the press release about alaskas temperature? Alaska makes up a significant portion of the us, donchaknow.

You're right ... it is all a conspiracy!!!!

Where's the green-thread shiatter?? He can explain how this news agency is a puppet of the UN and is just paving the way for their world take-over.

You remember the UN ... this is the agency that is eternally mocked on Fark because they are so ineffective. Apparently, according to the conspiracy nuts, this ineffective organization is about to gain control of the world!!! [insert evil laugh]


Calm down there chief.

Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.
 
2013-01-09 11:45:37 AM

thurstonxhowell: HotIgneous Intruder: "Doing something" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who would profit handsomely from the action required.

/Coming soon from a government near you.

What a useless, vapid statement to make. I could make virtually the same statement about virtually any action or lack thereof.

"Doing nothing" about global climate change will mean playing into the hands of those who profit handsomely from not taking the action required.

"shiatting" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from spiriting that waste away from me.

"Eating" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from growing and getting that food to me.

"Not eating or shiatting" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from treating me for anorexia.

"Using a condom" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from manufacturing condoms.

"Not using a condom" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from making baby products.

"Not having sex" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from WoW subscriptions.

"Using a computer" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely from mining rare Earth minerals in the Congo.

"Not using a computer" will play into the hands of those who profit handsomely by harvesting trees for paper.


All right. There are no rights violations or force involved in any of the things you listed. If there will be no force or rights violations involved in "doing something" about global warming, then do all the something you want.

/unless you use a condom for rape or shiat on people's shoes at the bus stop
 
2013-01-09 11:51:10 AM

DrPainMD: TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better bankrupt the world for nothing?"

FTFTC*

* - fixed that for the cartoonist.


I am pretty sure the major banks and the 1%ers won't let that happen to them.
/Your cartoon needs to have a 1%er with the big banks' logos around him, off to the side of the stage, saying 'We'll still be here'
 
2013-01-09 11:51:15 AM

HAMMERTOE: Global warming means more heat energy in the atmosphere. This means more violent weather.


Violent weather is caused by temperature differences. I'm told that the poles warm faster than the equator, thus lowering the temperature differences between latitudes. There are some pretty violent dust storms on cold-ass Mars.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:31 AM

occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.


A subset of stories and research results known colloquially as "reality".
 
2013-01-09 11:52:42 AM

occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.


Or maybe it isn't a conspiracy and this news agency just found a story they wanted to run.

I know that this is a wild idea that doesn't fit at all in your tinfoil hat world. That Occam and his razor ... crazy I tell ya!!!
 
2013-01-09 11:52:55 AM

sid244: DrPainMD: TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better bankrupt the world for nothing?"

FTFTC*

* - fixed that for the cartoonist.

I am pretty sure the major banks and the 1%ers won't let that happen to them.
/Your cartoon needs to have a 1%er with the big banks' logos around him, off to the side of the stage, saying 'We'll still be here'


Investment banks were the ones who were looking to rake in billions from CO2 exchanges and cap and trade.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:15 AM

RanDomino: Temperature is arbitrary.


Not particularly. The flora that so much of the food chain depends upon is acclimated to certain climates, certain temperatures, and a certain cycle of seasons. Start mucking about with these combinations, and you are risking disaster.

I don't deny climate change. I just deny the seriousness of the preachers, because when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, they are actually unwilling to make the necessary changes because the changes will be unpopular, and certainly will cost them political power. And that's what it's all about, for them.
 
2013-01-09 11:55:38 AM

Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.


Jesus runs my thermostat, heathen!
 
2013-01-09 11:57:52 AM

jigger: Violent weather is caused by temperature differences. I'm told that the poles warm faster than the equator, thus lowering the temperature differences between latitudes. There are some pretty violent dust storms on cold-ass Mars.


Yes, and no. Wind is certainly generated and exacerbated by difference in temperatures. But the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere (both latent and sensible,) directly relates to the amount of water vapor the air can contain. This translates to precipitation, and wind.

Thermodynamics.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:59 PM

HAMMERTOE: I don't deny climate change. I just deny the seriousness of the preachers, because when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, they are actually unwilling to make the necessary changes because the changes will be unpopular, and certainly will cost them political power. And that's what it's all about, for them.


This is just gibberish. AGW is no different than previous issues raised by scientists like acid rain or the ozone holes. Back then scientists raised the issue and governments pushed things in the right direction.

This time around the businesses that will lose profit have muddied the waters with anti-science propaganda and are using their lobby power to put political pressure on politicians. All in an effort to delay actions.

Delays that will cost us in hardships and way more money in the long run.
 
2013-01-09 12:11:58 PM

Farking Canuck: This time around the businesses that will lose profit have muddied the waters with anti-science propaganda and are using their lobby power to put political pressure on politicians. All in an effort to delay actions.

Delays that will cost us in hardships and way more money in the long run.


I don't think you git it, all the way. It's about more than just businesses. Certainly, they are involved, and exerting their influence to avoid costly change. But it's also about individuals. It's about clear-cutting of forests to make way for ever-expanding populations. It's about pollution (air and water, especially.) It's about emerging countries, and their efforts to expand their economies and arise out of poverty.

It's more about population than you realize, or are willing to admit.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:41 PM
Thanks for the explanation, realityologist.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:48 PM
I'm glad that FoxNews.com's front page has a story that covers this in great deta... wait, it doesn't mention it?

/ To be fair, MSNBC's doesn't either.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:33 PM
HAMMERTOE
The only logical way to decrease our effect on the planet is to limit our numbers.

no.


friday13
Wow, I didn't think he'd actually get a bite...

Three at least, and after the first one was openly mocked for it.
This is why reading the whole thread is important, people.
 
2013-01-09 12:22:57 PM

Farking Canuck: occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.

Or maybe it isn't a conspiracy and this news agency just found a story they wanted to run.

I know that this is a wild idea that doesn't fit at all in your tinfoil hat world. That Occam and his razor ... crazy I tell ya!!!


Met office just reported temperature rise due to global warming through 2017 will be ~20% below earlier estimates.

Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

But I'm sure *now* they're accurate...
 
2013-01-09 12:24:57 PM

occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.


What? I thought reporters were Democrats in the bag for poor people.. now they're climatologists, too?? Some sort of mutant Democratoligists?! No wonder you don't trust the news.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:58 PM

Farking Canuck: This time around the businesses that will lose profit have muddied the waters with anti-science propaganda and are using their lobby power to put political pressure on politicians. All in an effort to delay actions.


Exactly which businesses are going to "lose profits"? All businesses pass the costs of doing business off to the consumer in their prices. This also holds true for increases in the costs of doing business. So, it still falls down to the individual, and the backlash that's going to result from implementing these changes. we're hearing plenty about it right now in relation to the implementation of Obamneycare.
 
2013-01-09 12:28:59 PM
It's not what's measured that counts
It's not how it's measured that counts
It's not even who says what's measured that counts

It's that you listen to "experts" with a vested monied interest in the results that counts. They would never fudge numbers. No. That will never happend. Except for the hockey stick. And everything else ....

/more Grants, please
 
2013-01-09 12:32:00 PM

DrPainMD:

DrPainMD: Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Zasteva: Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.

DrPainMD: When they start mixing science with speculation, stop listening to them. That is, if you can tell the difference. When the speculation is completely one-sided, you should be able to tell that it's BS.


So according to your criteria I should stop listening to you?
 
2013-01-09 12:32:07 PM

GoGoGadgetLiver: Please tell me you have the intellect to notice


that you got trolled.
 
2013-01-09 12:35:18 PM

HAMMERTOE: jigger: Violent weather is caused by temperature differences. I'm told that the poles warm faster than the equator, thus lowering the temperature differences between latitudes. There are some pretty violent dust storms on cold-ass Mars.

Yes, and no. Wind is certainly generated and exacerbated by difference in temperatures. But the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere (both latent and sensible,) directly relates to the amount of water vapor the air can contain. This translates to precipitation, and wind.

Thermodynamics.


If you've got two air masses both with 100% humidity, but they are very similar in temperature, you'll have mild weather. Maybe it'll rain, but I wouldn't call that violent weather. You get cyclones when there is an initial temperature difference between water and air. What gets the storm rotating are the converging winds created by temperature differences. You get tornadoes when a cold dry air mass comes in from higher latitudes and slams into a warm wet air mass. If the two air masses were more similar in temperature, the weather would not be as violent.
 
2013-01-09 12:37:55 PM
HAMMERTOE
Not particularly. The flora that so much of the food chain depends upon is acclimated to certain climates, certain temperatures, and a certain cycle of seasons. Start mucking about with these combinations, and you are risking disaster.

Maybe I should have said "if all else is equal, temperature is arbitrary"- the effects of temperature changes, not so much.

I just deny the seriousness of the preachers, because when it comes to where the rubber meets the road, they are actually unwilling to make the necessary changes because the changes will be unpopular, and certainly will cost them political power. And that's what it's all about, for them.

I think you may be confusing the preachers with entrenched Democrats.

It's about clear-cutting of forests to make way for ever-expanding populations.

that's not what causes clear-cutting

It's about emerging countries, and their efforts to expand their economies and arise out of poverty.

except that the US alone is 25% of the problem
 
2013-01-09 12:39:11 PM

cranked: occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.

What? I thought reporters were Democrats in the bag for poor people.. now they're climatologists, too?? Some sort of mutant Democratoligists?! No wonder you don't trust the news.


I misspoke. Climatoligists issue press releases and reporters and editors select what to report. Way to be a deuch.
 
2013-01-09 12:41:36 PM

Farking Canuck: AGW is no different than previous issues raised by scientists like acid rain or the ozone holes.


Acid rain involves a very straightforward cause and effect with directly measurable effects that are relatively harmlessly mitigated. The ozone hole had a tenuous and speculative mechanism of cause and effect, but the mitigation was seen as so harmless that, well, "it couldn't hurt." Global warming is not like either of those.
 
2013-01-09 12:43:39 PM
If you want to laugh at people who use one example as proof global warming does not exist, do not use 1 example as proof it does. No, not even the hottest year on record is enough evidence in itself to prove it. There IS ample evidence that proves it...point to that.
 
2013-01-09 12:45:11 PM

occamswrist: Way to be a deuch.


Sorry, but when your username stinks so bad you have to roll a new one you might want to slow down on stinking that up, too... bad troll whiff in a matter of days.
 
2013-01-09 12:46:36 PM

jigger: If you've got two air masses both with 100% humidity, but they are very similar in temperature, you'll have mild weather. Maybe it'll rain, but I wouldn't call that violent weather.


Ah, but that's the crux of the biscuit. As an air mass experiences condensation, evaporation, or precipitation, it also experiences a change in heat energy. Suddenly, you have two air masses with different humidity levels and heat energy levels. Therein lies the potential for violent weather again. This is what drives climate in the first place. Add more energy into the system and you've actually added the potential for the difference in energy and humidity levels to be greater, resulting in even more violence in the weather.

I don't particularly buy into the veracity of their "cure" but I understand the physics of the problem fairly well.
 
2013-01-09 12:48:16 PM
So now the 48 states are the globe?
 
2013-01-09 12:56:12 PM
NOAA should reveal the studies in july, that would shut up most Fark Indenpendants ClimatologistsTM.
 
2013-01-09 01:01:54 PM
wait until they get a look at the thread on the geek tab.
 
2013-01-09 01:13:14 PM

occamswrist:
Met office just reported temperature rise due to global warming through 2017 will be ~20% below earlier estimates.


What the Met Office reported was an update to their decadal prediction modelling. This is a highly experimental area, working at the temporal intersection of long-range weather prediction and climate. While global warming (i.e. the climatic effects of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations) is included in the model, at the timescales in question it is not a dominant factor. Internal variability of the climate system can be equally as important.

Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

The First Assessment Report (FAR) in 1990 projected ~1-4ºC change from 1990 to 2100, based on a range of scenarios and adopting a "best estimate" for climate sensitivity, and ~2.7-5ºC for their Business-as-usual scenario with varying sensitivities.

The SAR (1995) projected 1.25-2.5ºC change from 1990 to 2100, based on a range of scenarios and adopting a "best estimate" for climate sensitivity, and ~1.4-3.5ºC for their medium scenario with varying sensitivities.

The TAR (2001) projected 1.4 to 5.8°C change from 1990 to 2100 based on a range of scenarios using an ensemble of models with varying sensitivities.

AR4 (2007) projected 1.1 to 6.4ºC change from 1990 to 2100 based on a range of scenarios using an ensemble of models with varying sensitivities.
 
2013-01-09 01:29:46 PM

occamswrist: Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

But I'm sure *now* they're accurate...


This is the stupidity that is at the core of the anti-science movement: If the models are not 100% perfect then completely ignore them! They have nothing to offer!!!

People who understand science understand that models will never be correct but they are extremely useful.

Idiots buy into the anti-science propaganda of "they admit that they can't be 100% sure so your gut feeling is as good as their evidence"!!!
 
2013-01-09 01:30:59 PM

Clemkadidlefark: It's not what's measured that counts
It's not how it's measured that counts
It's not even who says what's measured that counts

It's that you listen to "experts" with a vested monied interest in the results that counts. They would never fudge numbers. No. That will never happend. Except for the hockey stick. And everything else ....

/more Grants, please


Except that grant money is paid BEFORE you do the study. No one is ever hired to do the same study again, so fudging the numbers after you've already gotten your grant money on a study that you'll never get paid again to do, nets you what exactly?

I keep seeing idiots with the "grant money" argument and not a single one of them has ever been able to explain to me how the scam works. You could be the first. Care to give it a try?
 
2013-01-09 01:31:50 PM
Last winter here in Vegas was so mild that I was fearful of what the summer was going to bring. I don't think it broke 110 (go ahead and check the records for me, idgaf). That's pretty mild for a Vegas summer. I mean, i grew up in Austin and hotter than hell humid summers were normal but dry heat? that'll cook you.
/jus sayin' and this is no yardstick to measure GW
 
2013-01-09 01:37:03 PM

HAMMERTOE: Add more energy into the system and you've actually added the potential for the difference in energy and humidity levels to be greater, resulting in even more violence in the weather.


No. On Earth it tends to lessen the differences in temperature between day and night, high latitude and low latitude.
 
2013-01-09 01:37:17 PM

arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

[i.imwx.com image 600x405]

The rest of the country looks far too cold.


It's cold in the winter time?
 
2013-01-09 01:37:36 PM

occamswrist: Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

But I'm sure *now* they're accurate...


...first, Isaac Asimov would like to have a word.

Second, actually they're getting higher estimates. But because you get your "climate science" news from the Daily Fail or Newsbusters instead of, y'know, actually reading the IPCC data (because you can't trust them or something), it's easy to see why you came to the exact opposite conclusion.
 
2013-01-09 01:37:58 PM

squirrelflavoredyogurt: I keep seeing idiots with the "grant money" argument and not a single one of them has ever been able to explain to me how the scam works. You could be the first. Care to give it a try?


I don't buy the grant money argument, but I think the least stupid form of it goes somewhat like this: They have to keep putting out studies that support GW because, if they stop, they won't get any more grant money.

No, they won't have the grant for the offending study taken away, but the next grant just won't come because they will have broken with the GW true believers.

Of course, given how much money is in denying global warming, it doesn't make any damned sense. If a climate scientist is going to get rich, he'll do it on Exxon money.
 
2013-01-09 01:38:52 PM
The fact that the climate has always changed does not preclude the following:

1) humans can change Earth's climate
2) humans can change Earth's climate in deleterious ways to the human species
3) humans can change Earth's climate more quickly than natural cycles
 
2013-01-09 01:38:55 PM
The way I look at this is:
Either you believe ~98% of world climate scientists and world governments, who study after study agree with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is largely driven by human activities; or,
You believe the tiny amount of skeptics, which may seem like a lot of people here in the States, but that's only because noisy right-wing American media like Fox News has a hate-boner for Al Gore and his old climate change awareness project.

I would rather trust scientists and world consensus over our extremely noisy right-wing population.
 
2013-01-09 01:41:35 PM
nzetc.victoria.ac.nz

/But developing unlimited clean energy is so hard...
 
2013-01-09 02:15:03 PM

arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

[i.imwx.com image 600x405]

The rest of the country looks far too cold.


As a former Fargonite from the land of Northdakistan, I can say without a doubt 25 degrees on January 9th is balmy.
 
2013-01-09 02:43:02 PM
Check out Australia's mega-heatwave and firestorm. That's global warming.
 
2013-01-09 02:44:26 PM

sid244: /Your cartoon needs to have a 1%er with the big banks' logos around him, off to the side of the stage, saying 'We'll still be here'


Along the same general lines:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-09 02:51:46 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo:
Why did you choose 16 years exactly?
Is it because it's a perfect square?
I also like perfect squares. I think I'm going to look at the last 25 years of data.
My god...


Yes, the perfect square of four, which makes it four simultaneous perfect cubic years squared-squared, like the sides of a cube, which is how you know it to be truth-- while passing simultaneously through the four-cornered cube that all educated persons know is the basis of all time. It is STUPID to consider a length of time other than a perfect multiple of the four-cornered year, and science does not explain this 'global warming' trend over a period of sixty-four (which would be the perfect cube, cubed) years, so therefore even an idiot who has been mis-educated by the EVIL LIARS calling themselves teachers would know that it is FALSE.

/timecube
//makes about as much sense as the rest of this
///don't try to look up Timecube, apparently it now has an autoredirect to AdultFriendfinder. Somebody seems to think it's not a MINDfark you're looking for
 
2013-01-09 02:58:13 PM

friday13: Wow, I didn't think he'd actually get a bite...

Y'see, this is kinda his schtick. He pretends to be a derphead, and almost always makes an intentional mistake like that to show that he's being funny. Unfortunately, he often falls victim to Poe's Law and someone thinks he's being serious and either rips him as you did, or completely agrees with him. He does break character on occasion, but that's rare, and not usually in the politics tab.


I suppose I could squirm but might as well take my medicine. He trolled and I bit hard. :) I hope I got a decent rip in.
 
2013-01-09 03:10:51 PM

Quantumbunny: MyRandomName: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

Why did you choose 73 to start? That was a local minimum cool period.

I have a very hard time accepting 199X as a start date... I have a hard time with 73, 1880... No one has ever really explained to me (or provided a link) to why they chose the exact dates and why they are the most valid. Because they do seem so finely chosen, I assume every single one of those dates on both sides is cherry picking dates for the exaggerated effect.

The only date that isn't totally sketchy to me... is using the 2 billion year. However that one is very hard to judge since it's mostly extrapolation, and seeing non climate scale is impossible. They were quite specific in elementary school climate wasn't a year... or a decade... it was a very long time.

Anything prior to when we started keeping accurate temperature records, and any data using points where data haven't been kept in the exact same spot since the chosen dates seem highly suspect to me. Of course due to cities retaining heat, all the sensors within cities that got bigger and bigger are also suspect... so... maybe we're warming slightly, maybe we're not... but raising a degree or two on average over the world... doesn't really seems very problematic.


If you're tying to figure out the impact of human activity then you need to choose a time scale where that effect can be seen. We also don't need billions of years of prior data because the drivers of Earth's climate operate on those very long time scales (ex. plate tectonics) don't have an effect on short (decade long) time scales. If we want to know the average temperature in 10, 25, 50 or 100 years we don't need to consider those long term drivers because they work too slowly. We only need to concern ourselves with climate forcings that operate on those shorter timescales.

Warmth from cities has negligible impact and is already taken into account: Link

The impact from " a degree or two" increase in global average temperature isn't too bad. In fact, it's long been the goal to keep warming under +2C. However, we're nearing the point of no return (many scientists think we've already past it) for limiting the temperature increase to +2C. The impacts of warming beyond that level will be largely negative and quite costly. Link
 
2013-01-09 03:11:09 PM

dougfm: Pocket Ninja: There's enough misunderstanding and stupidity on here as it is, and it would behoof you to not be a part of it.

And it would behoove you to not share your ignorance in such detail.


2.bp.blogspot.com

I've got less than a handful of favorites, but you're one of them.
 
2013-01-09 03:48:26 PM

jigger: Farking Canuck: AGW is no different than previous issues raised by scientists like acid rain or the ozone holes.

Acid rain involves a very straightforward cause and effect with directly measurable effects that are relatively harmlessly mitigated. The ozone hole had a tenuous and speculative mechanism of cause and effect, but the mitigation was seen as so harmless that, well, "it couldn't hurt." Global warming is not like either of those.


You must remember a different debate on CFCs than I do. I remember scientists clearly identifying the cause, and a whole bunch of people arguing that this was going to be a ridiculous waste of money that was going to drive companies out of business due to the cost of modifying equipment to use ozone safer substances, and all sorts of other FUD.
 
2013-01-09 03:54:15 PM
This is the first year ever that I've had to mow the grass as late as November.

I had to mow it in December this year as well, and will probably do it again this weekend.

Also, I have never seen motorcycles out on the road in January in Michigan. I saw 3 today.

I've only lived in Michigan for 37 years though, so I can totally understand if I'm not looking at enough history for my opinion to matter.
 
2013-01-09 04:05:29 PM

Evil Mackerel: arghyematey: It's 6 am right now in central Florida. 67 degrees and humid as hell. In January. Can't say that I mind, really.

[i.imwx.com image 600x405]

The rest of the country looks far too cold.

It's cold in the winter time?


Really? It's hot in Africa?
 
2013-01-09 04:06:45 PM

Bullseyed: Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.


[Citation needed]
\o/
|
/ \
 
2013-01-09 04:44:13 PM

Zasteva: You must remember a different debate on CFCs than I do. I remember scientists clearly identifying the cause, and a whole bunch of people arguing that this was going to be a ridiculous waste of money that was going to drive companies out of business due to the cost of modifying equipment to use ozone safer substances, and all sorts of other FUD.


There was certainly resistance but there wasn't the major anti-science movement there is now. Back then there were no bloggers who could be put on equal footing as chemists on the subject of chemistry.

Now the words of every right wing blogger are apparently of equivalent value as peer-reviewed scientific literature.
 
2013-01-09 05:14:14 PM

Farking Canuck: Zasteva: You must remember a different debate on CFCs than I do. I remember scientists clearly identifying the cause, and a whole bunch of people arguing that this was going to be a ridiculous waste of money that was going to drive companies out of business due to the cost of modifying equipment to use ozone safer substances, and all sorts of other FUD.

There was certainly resistance but there wasn't the major anti-science movement there is now. Back then there were no bloggers who could be put on equal footing as chemists on the subject of chemistry.

Now the words of every right wing blogger are apparently of equivalent value as peer-reviewed scientific literature.


That's true. The arguments were essentially the same, even if the volume and pitch of the howling was not quite as bad. And of course some conservatives still believed in conserving the environment at that point too.
 
2013-01-09 05:29:27 PM

Bullseyed: Amusing that the data is now filtered down to just the United States (which is weather not climate) because the rest of the world is having record cold years and the global temperature is down, again.


i17.photobucket.com

The difference between weather and climate is the period of time over which it is measured, not the area.
 
2013-01-09 06:17:37 PM
Smidge204:
DesertDemonWY:
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
No Warming For 16 years

Hello SevenizGud. Could you please explain what the significance of 16 years is, and why that particular time span has been chosen instead of, say, 10 years or 20 years? In other words, can you explain to us the criteria for choosing the time window to evaluate the data with?

Thanks in advance;
=Smidge=

Well, he can speak for himself, but if you are so insistent upon getting that answer, how about a question of your own? Why is it that all the warmer alarmists show temperature charts which start in the 1850 to 1880 range?

I mean, climate has known cycles of (approximately) 60, 200, 400, and 800 years - but the 1600 year cycle (800 up, 800 down) is VERY large, compared to the amounts of "warming" we've seen. Shouldn't an OBJECTIVE look at climate show something other than the tiny snippet we see posted all the time?

After all, what the climate trend is depends upon the time scale you are looking at:

Very recently, we've stopped warming, and will probably cool for a couple decades.
For the past 30 years (the warming half of the decadal oscillation cycle) we've had warming.
On the big 1600-year cycle, we've been warming for about 400 years, since the end of the little ice age - a bit more than halfway done with warming.
On a larger scale, we came out of the last major glaciation (ice age) about 12,000 years ago, and have been cooling off for 8000 years. Another "ice age" is coming.
Even larger scale: We are in the tail end of an inter-glacial period, probably 1000-1500 years from another 110,000 year "ice age."
And, on the galactic scale, we are in about the middle of an approximately 40 million year "ice age," after which we will get back to normal, and lose the ice caps for a couple hundred million years.

And, as to the geologically very recent times.... Here's a chart:


i46.tinypic.com


See that little box on the right side? That is the ONLY area about which warmers want to talk. The "bigger picture" graph shows some interesting points, among them:

- There is an approximately 1600 year cycle with a peak to peak difference of about 1.2 K. That's much more "warming" than we've seen in the charts.
- Looking at the chart, the sine wave jumps out at the viewer. It swamps all the other, smaller changes.
- According to the sine wave, we SHOULD be warming, and quite rapidly (for a planet) right now. There's about 0.5 K of warming left to go.
- This means that the warming we are seeing is almost certainly natural. And, even if not entirely natural, it's no big deal, comparatively.
- Another specious claim being made: "It has never warmed this fast before." Observe about 1700 -- significantly faster warming.

I have been called "dishonest" for using anything but the "official" time scale to examine planetary temperature. Additionally, when I show multiple time ranges for the temperature, instead of the one fixed range that looks most like support for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, that has been called "cherry-picking." The warmer doth protest too much, methinks.

Also, pointing out, as I do here, that the warming we have been seeing is natural, and expected, and also not as fast as before -- therefore destroying the foundation of the warmer claims that we must "DO SOMETHING NOW!" to avoid disaster -- has been labeled as a "red herring." Pretty amusing, in an annoying way.

So, let me answer my own question: The apparent reason that urgent demand for immediate action all show climate as starting in 1850-1880 is because that if one were to look at a more reasonable range, it is obvious that there is NO DANGER from warming that is caused by mankind. What we are seeing is nature -- but on a longer time scale than humans can think about, at least comfortably.
 
2013-01-09 07:05:16 PM
anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com

This is a kangaroo standing in snow. Therefore, Australia is a cold place.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:22 PM
Well the thread has died down ... time for the green thread-shiat.
 
2013-01-09 07:23:59 PM
texanjeff:
GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

You done got charted

Nah, that's mostly blather. With a network of weather stations which heavily favor the U.S., and most of those weather stations NOT meeting NOAA's own siting requirements, the data are bollocks. Saying "we correct for the fact that some of our stations are next to air conditioners, and in jet wash at an active airport, and that one in a pizza oven..." doesn't cut it. When you are looking for 0.001 K changes in a location with environmental factors exceeding 20 K, calculations are nowhere near sufficient to deal with the variation. No, we have only ONE way to take a direct global temperature, and that's from space. That record starts from 1979. Before that time, one might as well use proxy data, as not only are the stations compromised, but the data in the repository keeps changing over time. So, here's what we KNOW about global temperature since 1979:

www.drroyspencer.com
 
2013-01-09 07:29:07 PM
dbirchall:
arghyematey: I work outside (overnight, to boot) and I've only seen frost twice so far this winter. Have fun shoveling your snow :)

I'm at work right now, and it's 24F and snowing outside.  In Hawaii.  I don't work outside, but I can go outside and run around in it if I feel like it...

Hey, Dan, howzit up dea Mauna Kea? Here's a scary thought... If you're in IT, I was almost your boss, starting this month -- at least if I understand the job description correctly.
 
2013-01-09 08:29:31 PM
CPennypacker:
steamingpile: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

I know of very few who deny warming is occurring, what I am seeing are people who are not sure what is causing it, there is not proof that man is 100% responsible.

Except for 97% of climate scientists, fo shiz.

Try "no." I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find a SINGLE scientist ("real" scientist, that is) who believes 100% of warming is man-made.
 
2013-01-09 09:01:56 PM

Farking Canuck: Well the thread has died down ... time for the green thread-shiat.


Damn, good, accurate call.

Now some people are going to think he is your Alt.
 
2013-01-09 09:08:59 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Farking Canuck: Well the thread has died down ... time for the green thread-shiat.

Damn, good, accurate call.

Now some people are going to think he is your Alt.


LOL ... I'd have to have multiple personality disorder.
 
2013-01-09 09:14:10 PM

GeneralJim: dbirchall: arghyematey: I work outside (overnight, to boot) and I've only seen frost twice so far this winter. Have fun shoveling your snow :)

I'm at work right now, and it's 24F and snowing outside.  In Hawaii.  I don't work outside, but I can go outside and run around in it if I feel like it...
Hey, Dan, howzit up dea Mauna Kea? Here's a scary thought... If you're in IT, I was almost your boss, starting this month -- at least if I understand the job description correctly.


So given your track record understanding things, I'm going to go ahead and assume that there is no chance that you were almost his boss.

/also, you're a farking liar
 
2013-01-09 09:30:40 PM
Quantumbunny:
I have a very hard time accepting 199X as a start date... I have a hard time with 73, 1880... No one has ever really explained to me (or provided a link) to why they chose the exact dates and why they are the most valid. Because they do seem so finely chosen, I assume every single one of those dates on both sides is cherry picking dates for the exaggerated effect.

It looks to me like you don't NEED anyone to explain it...
 
2013-01-09 09:33:35 PM
symbolset:
Apparently it's OK to assume the US is the whole world again.

No, no, no... That's ONLY when the U.S. is warmer than other places. When it's cooler, only the GLOBAL temperature counts. Sheesh, get it right.
 
2013-01-09 10:31:01 PM

GeneralJim: No, no, no... That's ONLY when the U.S. is warmer than other places. When it's cooler, only the GLOBAL temperature counts. Sheesh, get it right.


You would think that after chanting for so long "weather is not climate" these fellows would wait for the global figures, and audited figures, before resuming their rant.

Let's wait for the audited global figures before we call this one.
 
2013-01-09 10:54:57 PM

GeneralJim: Smidge204:
DesertDemonWY:
[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]
No Warming For 16 years

Hello SevenizGud. Could you please explain what the significance of 16 years is, and why that particular time span has been chosen instead of, say, 10 years or 20 years? In other words, can you explain to us the criteria for choosing the time window to evaluate the data with?

Thanks in advance;
=Smidge=

Well, he can speak for himself, but if you are so insistent upon getting that answer, how about a question of your own? Why is it that all the warmer alarmists show temperature charts which start in the 1850 to 1880 range?

I mean, climate has known cycles of (approximately) 60, 200, 400, and 800 years - but the 1600 year cycle (800 up, 800 down) is VERY large, compared to the amounts of "warming" we've seen. Shouldn't an OBJECTIVE look at climate show something other than the tiny snippet we see posted all the time?

After all, what the climate trend is depends upon the time scale you are looking at:

Very recently, we've stopped warming, and will probably cool for a couple decades.
For the past 30 years (the warming half of the decadal oscillation cycle) we've had warming.
On the big 1600-year cycle, we've been warming for about 400 years, since the end of the little ice age - a bit more than halfway done with warming.
On a larger scale, we came out of the last major glaciation (ice age) about 12,000 years ago, and have been cooling off for 8000 years. Another "ice age" is coming.
Even larger scale: We are in the tail end of an inter-glacial period, probably 1000-1500 years from another 110,000 year "ice age."
And, on the galactic scale, we are in about the middle of an approximately 40 million year "ice age," after which we will get back to normal, and lose the ice caps for a couple hundred million years.


This is actually fine so far. What you should be getting out of this is that these different processes are not mutually exclusive. That, say, Milankovitch cycles exist does not somehow mean that anthropogenic climate change doesn't.


GeneralJim: And, as to the geologically very recent times.... Here's a chart:

See that little box on the right side? That is the ONLY area about which warmers want to talk.


This is where you go off the rails a bit. Note that reconstructions dealing with longer periods of time do exist and are talked about:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
For example these, from Mann et al 2008. It's going to be a stretch if you're going to call Michael Mann not a "warmer".


GeneralJim: The "bigger picture" graph shows some interesting points, among them:

- There is an approximately 1600 year cycle with a peak to peak difference of about 1.2 K. That's much more "warming" than we've seen in the charts.
- Looking at the chart, the sine wave jumps out at the viewer. It swamps all the other, smaller changes.
- According to the sine wave, we SHOULD be warming, and quite rapidly (for a planet) right now. There's about 0.5 K of warming left to go.
- This means that the warming we are seeing is almost certainly natural. And, even if not entirely natural, it's no big deal, comparatively.
- Another specious claim being made: "It has never warmed this fast before." Observe about 1700 -- significantly faster warming.


Unfortunately, these inferences are somewhat misguided, for one big reason. The attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation or simplistic analysis of trends in which multiple processes are confounded - like what you're talking about. It's somewhat simplistic to just look at a graph and guess that a pattern you guess is happening will continue - some consideration needs to be given to processes and mechanisms. Just eyeballing what you're guessing is a sine wave isn't all that defensible of a modelling method.


GeneralJim: I have been called "dishonest" for using anything but the "official" time scale to examine planetary temperature. Additionally, when I show multiple time ranges for the temperature, instead of the one fixed range that looks most like support for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, that has been called "cherry-picking." The warmer doth protest too much, methinks.


Unfortunately, this isn't what you're doing here. You're using one time range, and making very broad inferences from it.


GeneralJim: Also, pointing out, as I do here, that the warming we have been seeing is natural, and expected, and also not as fast as before -- therefore destroying the foundation of the warmer claims that we must "DO SOMETHING NOW!" to avoid disaster -- has been labeled as a "red herring." Pretty amusing, in an annoying way.

So, let me answer my own question: The apparent reason that urgent demand for immediate action all show climate as starting in 1850-1880 is because that if one were to look at a more reasonable range, it is obvious that there is NO DANGER from warming that is caused by mankind. What we are seeing is nature -- but on a longer time scale than humans can think about, at least comfortably.


The problem with using just one time scale and making inferences from just that, as you're doing here, is that you're assuming that what you're seeing at this scale is somehow mutually exclusive with processes at other scales. Put it this way - the flawed reasoning you're using here would also argue against the existence of ENSO.
 
2013-01-09 11:23:41 PM

GeneralJim: texanjeff: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

You done got charted
Nah, that's mostly blather. With a network of weather stations which heavily favor the U.S., and most of those weather stations NOT meeting NOAA's own siting requirements, the data are bollocks. Saying "we correct for the fact that some of our stations are next to air conditioners, and in jet wash at an active airport, and that one in a pizza oven..." doesn't cut it. When you are looking for 0.001 K changes in a location with environmental factors exceeding 20 K, calculations are nowhere near sufficient to deal with the variation. No, we have only ONE way to take a direct global temperature, and that's from space. That record starts from 1979. Before that time, one might as well use proxy data, as not only are the stations compromised,


Luckily we can see if these supposedly "compromised" stations have an effect:

tamino.files.wordpress.com
From here. Nope, no huge differences there.

GeneralJim: but the data in the repository keeps changing over time. So, here's what we KNOW about global temperature since 1979:

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x490]

You see where it says "Version 5.5" there in that chart? Believe it or not, data sets do change over time. For example, the data set your chart is referring to now uses these satellites:

v5.5
START TERMINATE
NOAA-15 1998/215 Present
NOAA-16 2001/032 2003/031 (sensor drift problems)
AQUA 2002/221 2009/365 (significant noise)
NOAA-18 2005/152 Present

When it used to be this:

v5.4
START TERMINATE
NOAA-15 1998/215 2007/365
NOAA-16 2001/032 2004/233
AQUA 2002/221 Present
NOAA-18 2005/152 2010/182


The data in this repository also keeps changing over time. You gotta get away from this creationist-like thinking where you fill in the gaps in your knowledge with some sort of conspiracy (instead of God like some creationists do).
 
2013-01-09 11:27:24 PM

Damnhippyfreak: It's somewhat simplistic to just look at a graph and guess that a pattern you guess is happening will continue


But this is what his gut tells him to do.

This is the key message of the anti-science movement: Your gut feeling is just as valid as a scientist's training, experience and evidence!!
 
2013-01-09 11:47:45 PM
Actually, not much snow since it was 50 degrees today. In Michigan. In early January.
 
2013-01-09 11:49:29 PM

thurstonxhowell: squirrelflavoredyogurt: I keep seeing idiots with the "grant money" argument and not a single one of them has ever been able to explain to me how the scam works. You could be the first. Care to give it a try?

I don't buy the grant money argument, but I think the least stupid form of it goes somewhat like this: They have to keep putting out studies that support GW because, if they stop, they won't get any more grant money.

No, they won't have the grant for the offending study taken away, but the next grant just won't come because they will have broken with the GW true believers.

Of course, given how much money is in denying global warming, it doesn't make any damned sense. If a climate scientist is going to get rich, he'll do it on Exxon money.


That makes it sound even more crazy. Ninety seven percent of all climatologists are in agreement that global warming is happening. What would you say if I told you there's no such thing as taxes, but that 97% of all accountants made it up so that people will pay some accountant somewhere to do their taxes?
 
2013-01-10 12:30:52 AM

Zasteva: DrPainMD:

DrPainMD: Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Zasteva: Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.

DrPainMD: When they start mixing science with speculation, stop listening to them. That is, if you can tell the difference. When the speculation is completely one-sided, you should be able to tell that it's BS.

So according to your criteria I should stop listening to you?


As the planet warms, sea levels rise. That's not speculation.
 
2013-01-10 01:54:58 AM
CeroX:
one: The problem with the warmer planet are sea levels... the models are saying that by 2050 coastal cities like NYC will be a couple of feet underwater... I'm sure some of the yokels out in BFE, AK would be ok with scenario, it would be as bad for the economy to have to deal with it as much as it would be bad for the people who live and work there.

Well, first off, the models are full of crap. Even if warming continued, they are, like the temperature predictions themselves, skewed insanely to the alarmist side. The seas have been rising since the last major glaciation, (ice age) and MEASUREMENT, rather than model predictions, shows that the rate of sea level rise has not changed a whole lot since the start of the industrial revolution. But, with or without people, the ice caps could disappear before the start of the next ice age, although that is apparently unlikely. If that does happen, expect another 6 meters of sea level rise. Bear in mind that sea levels have ALREADY risen 120 meters since the depths of the last major glaciation. This article links to a PEER-REVIEWED PAPER which finds that humans have not altered the rate of sea level rise.

Secondly, we are on top of the food chain because we are really good at adapting to new conditions. The planet throws us new conditions from time to time, and moving over the WHOLE planet makes sure that we see many. The sea levels are going to rise another six meters, max? Move away from the shore. There are literally hundreds of years to do this. Quit freaking building near the shore, and by the time the "old" shoreline is encroaching, the buildings will be old and in need of replacement in most cases. This is so slow the solution is along the lines of "If you live on the shore, make sure your kids move to 20 foot higher elevations for their new house, when they grow up."

And, finally, HOWEVER this turns out, we are going to have another ice age... If you think a couple feet of extra sea level is bad, try two miles of ice covering North America down to Kentucky. Now, THAT will be inconvenient.
 
2013-01-10 02:57:11 AM

GeneralJim: CeroX:
one: The problem with the warmer planet are sea levels... the models are saying that by 2050 coastal cities like NYC will be a couple of feet underwater... I'm sure some of the yokels out in BFE, AK would be ok with scenario, it would be as bad for the economy to have to deal with it as much as it would be bad for the people who live and work there.

Well, first off, the models are full of crap. Even if warming continued, they are, like the temperature predictions themselves, skewed insanely to the alarmist side. The seas have been rising since the last major glaciation, (ice age) and MEASUREMENT, rather than model predictions, shows that the rate of sea level rise has not changed a whole lot since the start of the industrial revolution. But, with or without people, the ice caps could disappear before the start of the next ice age, although that is apparently unlikely. If that does happen, expect another 6 meters of sea level rise. Bear in mind that sea levels have ALREADY risen 120 meters since the depths of the last major glaciation. This article links to a PEER-REVIEWED PAPER which finds that humans have not altered the rate of sea level rise.


You should actually skim that paper. The bit in bold, while close to correct, isn't the whole picture. From the first paragraph of the discussion:

"Consolidating recent advances in various areas, we show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR, within the uncertainties of the observational estimates, in terms of contributions from thermal expansion, glaciers, the Greenland ice-sheet, groundwater extraction, reservoir impoundment, and a constant residual rate."

The way that they calculate said "contributions from thermal expansion", etc. already includes the anthropogenic contribution. It would be more accurate to say that this paper finds that humans contribute to the current rate of sea level rise, but have not changed the overall rate of sea level rise over the course of the 20th century.


GeneralJim: Secondly, we are on top of the food chain because we are really good at adapting to new conditions. The planet throws us new conditions from time to time, and moving over the WHOLE planet makes sure that we see many. The sea levels are going to rise another six meters, max? Move away from the shore. There are literally hundreds of years to do this. Quit freaking building near the shore, and by the time the "old" shoreline is encroaching, the buildings will be old and in need of replacement in most cases. This is so slow the solution is along the lines of "If you live on the shore, make sure your kids move to 20 foot higher elevations for their new house, when they grow up."



I think you're right here, especially about adaptation, but you have to be careful that you distinguish between outcomes for us as a species and individual or group outcomes, which are something quite different. We may be fine as a species, but that doesn't mean that certain people or groups will not be negatively impacted - sometimes severely so. Barriers, such as geopolitcal boundaries, property rights, differential economic situations, and good old fashioned geographical barriers can severely hinder the movement you're talking about, not to mention interactions with processes such as soil-building.

Put it this way - you can tell your kids to move to 20 foot higher elevations for their new house, but there's the possibility that they don't have the money to move,
there's a good chance that land is already owned by someone, and it would require them to abandon the farmland they're currently relying on.

Adaptability, sure, but such adaptability is borne out of hardship.
 
2013-01-10 03:19:26 AM

Damnhippyfreak: It would be more accurate to say that this paper finds that humans contribute to the current rate of sea level rise, but have not changed the overall rate of sea level rise over the course of the 20th century.


Actually this isn't quite right either, is it. How about 'this paper finds that humans contribute to the current rate of sea level rise, but said contribution, as a part of global climate change, is not reflected in a change in the overall rate of sea level rise over the course of the 20th century'.


Also, I forgot to respond to this last bit:

GeneralJim: And, finally, HOWEVER this turns out, we are going to have another ice age... If you think a couple feet of extra sea level is bad, try two miles of ice covering North America down to Kentucky. Now, THAT will be inconvenient.


If you think two miles of ice covering North America down to Kentucky is bad, wait until the Earth is consumed when the sun goes red giant.

Remember that different problems at different times don't cancel each other out. A drought one year does not balance out a flood the next.
 
2013-01-10 07:31:32 AM

GeneralJim: If you're in IT, I was almost your boss, starting this month


Being my boss is probably no fun, but I'm not in IT anyway, so you lucked out twice.
 
2013-01-10 08:42:49 AM

GeneralJim: This article links to a PEER-REVIEWED PAPER which finds that humans have not altered the rate of sea level rise.


Aside from the fact that you have somewhat misinterpreted this paper (as pointed out by Damnhippyfreak), I find it extremely entertaining when you latch on you a "PEER-REVIEWED PAPER" (emphasis yours).

You spend most of your posts denigrating scientists and the scientific process but, when you find one that you think supports your case, you proudly trot it out emphasizing its scientific credentials.

I'm sure you've gone out of your way to vet these scientists to be sure they are not part of the "great global AGW conspiracy". You wouldn't just assume that they are legit just because you like what they said (or at least what you think they said), would you??
 
2013-01-10 10:12:24 AM

DrPainMD: Zasteva: DrPainMD:

DrPainMD: Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Zasteva: Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.

DrPainMD: When they start mixing science with speculation, stop listening to them. That is, if you can tell the difference. When the speculation is completely one-sided, you should be able to tell that it's BS.

So according to your criteria I should stop listening to you?

As the planet warms, sea levels rise. That's not speculation.


I agree that is not speculation. Your statement that it will only require people to move inland a few feet to a hundred feet is.
 
2013-01-11 07:47:08 AM
Farking Canuck:
You spend most of your posts denigrating scientists and the scientific process but, when you find one that you think supports your case, you proudly trot it out emphasizing its scientific credentials.

That's a lie. I do not denigrate "scientists." And I ESPECIALLY don't denigrate the scientific process. However, I DO denigrate scientists who lie, hide data, and void the scientific process. There are only a handful of those. I can name the ones I denigrate: Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hanson (and his henchman, Gavin Schmidt (sp?). Are you really dumb enough to think that ALL scientists cannot tell a lie? And, if you catch a scientist lying or fabricating data, would YOU denigrate them?
 
2013-01-11 08:10:48 AM

GeneralJim: That's a lie. I do not denigrate "scientists." And I ESPECIALLY don't denigrate the scientific process. However, I DO denigrate scientists who lie, hide data, and void the scientific process. There are only a handful of those. I can name the ones I denigrate: Michael Mann, Phil Jones, James Hanson (and his henchman, Gavin Schmidt (sp?). Are you really dumb enough to think that ALL scientists cannot tell a lie? And, if you catch a scientist lying or fabricating data, would YOU denigrate them?


You do ignore all other scientists that disagree with your info. Are you a paid shill, by any chance? You're just so dedicated to your ignorance. How does it feel to propagate your lies and mistruths?
 
2013-01-12 07:10:39 AM

Zasteva: DrPainMD: Zasteva: DrPainMD:

DrPainMD: Everybody will have to move inland a bit (a few feet to a hundred feet) over the next 200 years. Yeah, the implications are enormous.

Zasteva: Yes, I'm sure that will be the only side effect of raising see level. It can't possibly affect the severity and location of floods, the availability of water for irrigation, or the damage from events such as Katrina.

DrPainMD: When they start mixing science with speculation, stop listening to them. That is, if you can tell the difference. When the speculation is completely one-sided, you should be able to tell that it's BS.

So according to your criteria I should stop listening to you?

As the planet warms, sea levels rise. That's not speculation.

I agree that is not speculation. Your statement that it will only require people to move inland a few feet to a hundred feet is.


Land elevation also is known, for just about every square inch of the planet's surface. No speculation there, either.
 
Displayed 297 of 297 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report