Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(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  
•       •       •

2646 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report