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.

(Hide the Decline)   So it was the HOTTEST YEAR EVAR in 2012? Yeah, about that. Don't forget to carry the one this time   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 118
    More: Followup, State of the Climate, National Climatic Data Center, CONUS Tavg, 48 contiguous states, data sets, temperatures, Global Tavg, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

5474 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jan 2013 at 12:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-09 10:49:59 AM
Another one of these?
 
2013-01-09 11:27:49 AM
The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.
 
2013-01-09 12:41:13 PM
I was told there would be no math.
 
2013-01-09 12:49:26 PM

James!: Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.


Don't mind if I do!
 
2013-01-09 12:51:15 PM

HMS_Blinkin: James!: Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Don't mind if I do!


Eeeewwwwww.
 
2013-01-09 12:53:22 PM
Anyone else think of this immediately after reading the name of the blog:

www.usmagazine.com
 
2013-01-09 12:53:42 PM
We got a regular Sherlock Holmes here. Great work detective, you have proven that Global Warming is a conspiracy.
 
2013-01-09 12:56:19 PM
I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.
 
2013-01-09 12:58:39 PM

wxboy: Another one of these?

 
2013-01-09 12:59:07 PM
Self righteousness >>>> math
 
2013-01-09 01:01:52 PM

James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.


Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:04 PM
i blame the Liberals. Their candidate has been in office for years, and the global warming situation is getting worse.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:06 PM
Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?
 
2013-01-09 01:11:05 PM
I'd stick it in their CONUS.
 
2013-01-09 01:13:52 PM
It's too cold outside anyway, bring on global warming.
 
2013-01-09 01:15:41 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?


No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind
 
2013-01-09 01:19:41 PM

Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


can't we record temp from space by now?
 
2013-01-09 01:24:12 PM
OOOOOohhhhhh EEEEEEEEEEEE......

Seriously, tho. Nice blog, bro!
 
2013-01-09 01:24:30 PM

SuperT: Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.

can't we record temp from space by now?


Sure. But then it is hard to segment off the 2% of the globe that is the continental USA, and then misuse that data for alarmist media headlines.
 
2013-01-09 01:26:57 PM
Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.
 
2013-01-09 01:27:22 PM
so.. all the cutbacks and such we are implementing are working faster then expected?

good
 
2013-01-09 01:27:54 PM

IlGreven: Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.


Or Anthony Watts, either way.
 
2013-01-09 01:28:09 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?


i.imgur.com

See what happens when you convert to the metric system?
 
2013-01-09 01:29:04 PM
So I guess Australia is just adding new colors to their weather maps for shiats and giggles?

http://m.gizmodo.com/5974463/australia-is-so-hot-they-had-to-add-new- c olors-to-their-weather-maps
 
2013-01-09 01:29:38 PM
This means that Global Warmening is a lie and everybody in Seattle has to trade in their Priuses for Hummers.
 
2013-01-09 01:30:48 PM
FTFA: Highlighted in yellow is the CONUS average temperature, which is the data I was after.

Well, that's great, Sherlock. You've proven that CONUS Warming is a myth. GLOBAL warming, on the other hand....
 
2013-01-09 01:36:14 PM

whatshisname: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?

No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind


Definitions: TROLL - anyone who says something you don't agree with. PROPER USAGE - When you got nuthin' else and you know it.
t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-09 01:36:23 PM
Is this like Republican Math?
 
2013-01-09 01:38:40 PM

Teufelaffe: Is this like Republican Math?


Watts Up With That is basically UnskewedClimate.com. It makes the Daily Fail look like Al Gore.
 
2013-01-09 01:38:44 PM

SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?


Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:17 PM
Um...I don't think that change is as cunning as the writer thinks it is.

See, there's this thing called linear regression, that can be effectively and accurately used to study and model the relationships between numbers. And when you apply it to this data range, you get something like this:

s8.postimage.org

See? Changing the last number in that range by a few points doesn't make much of a difference. The march is still inexorably upwards. 

So until and unless you can produce verifiable data indicating that regression is slowing or going down (hint: you can't), allow me to speak for the billions on this Earth who like their arguments to be based on data, reason, and logic when I say:

Shut. The. fark. Up. You. Ignorant. Self-Centered. Assholes.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:34 PM

Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Link #1
Link #2
 
2013-01-09 01:40:13 PM
Who cares, all that means is I have a longer growing season and wear a bigger hat.
 
2013-01-09 01:40:45 PM
In other news, some people suck Koch for a living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
 
2013-01-09 01:43:07 PM

Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.


At least as a TA in grad school you have the slim chance of having a girl offer sex for a good grade.
 
2013-01-09 01:46:19 PM

YoungLochinvar: Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.

Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Link #1
Link #2


And, like I said, he cites old Lord Bugeye, who is a known climate science liar.
 
2013-01-09 01:53:16 PM

IlGreven: YoungLochinvar: Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.

Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Link #1
Link #2

And, like I said, he cites old Lord Bugeye, who is a known climate science liar.


Heh, well, if you're a denier, it's really hard to cite anyone that isn't also a fellow denier... sanctity of the echo chamber and all...
 
2013-01-09 01:55:35 PM

Theaetetus: James!: The argument is that the official number is off by .7 degrees and therefore one year during the farking dust bowl was hotter.  That's it.  Everyone go back to spraying aerosols into the sky.

Preliminary number, actually. The guy's argument is that the state of the climate "ZOMG hottest year evar!" reports come out within a week after the end of the month, and some backwater weather observers are still sending in hand-written reports by mail, so the actual official number isn't correct for a few additional months.

And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


It's not the media. The government agency is the one which is rushing reports out the door before they have data. You missed the later post, which ends by pointing out that the latest report has admitted that:

"PLEASE NOTE: All of the temperature and precipitation ranks and values are based on preliminary data. The ranks will change when the final data are processed, but will not be replaced on these pages. ..."
Link
 
2013-01-09 01:57:08 PM

whistleridge: Um...I don't think that change is as cunning as the writer thinks it is.

See, there's this thing called linear regression, that can be effectively and accurately used to study and model the relationships between numbers. And when you apply it to this data range, you get something like this:

[s8.postimage.org image 382x347]

See? Changing the last number in that range by a few points doesn't make much of a difference. The march is still inexorably upwards.
So until and unless you can produce verifiable data indicating that regression is slowing or going down (hint: you can't), allow me to speak for the billions on this Earth who like their arguments to be based on data, reason, and logic when I say:

Shut. The. fark. Up. You. Ignorant. Self-Centered. Assholes.


_______________________________________________________________

Throwing a blue line on a chart? I can do that too!

i50.tinypic.com

Here we can see that the temperatures have fluctuated, but have not really changed that much since 1900.
*
*
*

i50.tinypic.com

Here we can see a pattern in rise and drops in the temperatures over the past 100 years, Based on these blue lines; we're due for a decline in temperatures.

/Of course these changes in the chart I made are complete bullshiat, but I wanted to use my blue line png.
 
2013-01-09 02:00:20 PM

Theaetetus: And if true, it's a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy and maybe the media should learn a bit of caution (HA!), but it doesn't justify any "hurrdederp no such thing as climate change" like in the comments.


Nothing sells papers like bad news.

Of course it also gives the zealots on both sides something to fight over; it has rather become a religion now. Sit back, watch this thread and see the "if you aren't with us you're against us" mentality.
 
2013-01-09 02:00:54 PM

whistleridge: Um...I don't think that change is as cunning as the writer thinks it is.

See, there's this thing called linear regression, that can be effectively and accurately used to study and model the relationships between numbers. And when you apply it to this data range, you get something like this:

s8.postimage.org

See? Changing the last number in that range by a few points doesn't make much of a difference. The march is still inexorably upwards.
So until and unless you can produce verifiable data indicating that regression is slowing or going down (hint: you can't), allow me to speak for the billions on this Earth who like their arguments to be based on data, reason, and logic when I say:

Shut. The. fark. Up. You. Ignorant. Self-Centered. Assholes.


Congratulations, you found a graph which shows that the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age.

The "data indicating that regression is slowing or going down" is the same data which you refer to in the previous sentence. If the last number in the range does go down, then your regression is going down. Your image doesn't show that. All you need is two linear regressions, and the comparison of whether the two increased or decreased. You showed one line, not two.

/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age
 
2013-01-09 02:00:56 PM

WelldeadLink: It's not the media. The government agency is the one which is rushing reports out the door before they have data. You missed the later post, which ends by pointing out that the latest report has admitted that:


NASA/NOAA and the MetOffice are pretty much shooting themselves in the foot at this point.
Great headlines, a little warming, not so much catastrophe in their CAGW.
 
2013-01-09 02:01:35 PM

Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.


You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?
 
2013-01-09 02:05:48 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: /Of course these changes in the chart I made are complete bullshiat, but I wanted to use my blue line png.


I have a mauve line which cannot be used here because it will damage too many brains.
 
2013-01-09 02:10:26 PM

ck1938: Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.

You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?


Why would that follow from being a TA in grad school?
 
2013-01-09 02:20:28 PM

WelldeadLink:
/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age


Do we really have a choice? The Earth's been cooler, the Earth has been warmer, Arizona was an ocean once, it's more a question of when not if.

The Earth is getting warmer, the question is: Is this natural or man made? If man made how do we correct to natural? What IS natural? Could over correction cause any serious issues? What time frame are we looking at?

All I tend to see is either "Shut up it's fine" or "GOM only green energy by 2014"!!!!!! One is sticking the head in the sand and the other is way beyond fear mongering. We could sit down and have rational discussions that lead to rational solutions instead of trying to enforce something like Kyoto which only favors "emerging" countries and is completely untennable by everyone else.

But that won't happen anytime soon.
 
2013-01-09 02:22:17 PM

hawcian: ck1938: Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.

You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?

Why would that follow from being a TA in grad school?


He got his GED, picked up a sweet adult bookstore janitor job, and wanted to lord that over him. Y'know, stick it to one of them college boys.
 
2013-01-09 02:31:17 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: WelldeadLink:
/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age

Do we really have a choice? The Earth's been cooler, the Earth has been warmer, Arizona was an ocean once, it's more a question of when not if.

The Earth is getting warmer, the question is: Is this natural or man made? If man made how do we correct to natural? What IS natural? Could over correction cause any serious issues? What time frame are we looking at?

All I tend to see is either "Shut up it's fine" or "GOM only green energy by 2014"!!!!!! One is sticking the head in the sand and the other is way beyond fear mongering. We could sit down and have rational discussions that lead to rational solutions instead of trying to enforce something like Kyoto which only favors "emerging" countries and is completely untennable by everyone else.

But that won't happen anytime soon.


Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?
 
2013-01-09 02:37:39 PM

Mad_Radhu: Anyone else think of this immediately after reading the name of the blog:


That was EXACTLY what I thought of when I saw that.

/Hey hey hey hey heeeeeeeey!
 
2013-01-09 02:38:45 PM

Malcolm_Sex: "GOM only green energy by 2014"!


When have you ever seen this proposed by non-whack jobs? Most everyone that has even a basic understanding of the underlying science has been proposing investing in alternative energy sources that are not fossil-fuel derived, but not expecting it immediately.

One that I know has been posted here multiple times is Princeton's Stabilization Wedges.


Malcolm_Sex: Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?


Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."
 
2013-01-09 02:39:29 PM
Oh bah, first part there is to DoBeDoBeDo
 
2013-01-09 02:43:09 PM

They've been fudging the data for a couple decades now.



stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com

What man-made global warming really looks like
 
2013-01-09 02:49:29 PM
dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs
 
2013-01-09 02:50:49 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs


Oh look you're serious, let me laugh harder.

/jpg
 
2013-01-09 02:53:41 PM

Zafler: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

Oh look you're serious, let me laugh harder.

/jpg


Oh look, Zafler has his finger on the refresh button. Let's all read his witty replies to literally every post now!
 
2013-01-09 02:59:44 PM

Pinner: I'd stick it in their CONUS.


The CONUS is unremarkable.
 
2013-01-09 03:01:16 PM

CheetahOlivetti: Pinner: I'd stick it in their CONUS.

The CONUS is unremarkable.


It is until the oil hits the CONUS.
 
2013-01-09 03:28:23 PM

thurstonxhowell: hawcian: ck1938: Copperbelly watersnake: I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.

You were a TA in grad school? So do you work at Starbucks or Barnes and Noble now?

Why would that follow from being a TA in grad school?

He got his GED, picked up a sweet adult bookstore janitor job, and wanted to lord that over him. Y'know, stick it to one of them college boys.



don't be silly, the floors there wax themselves!
 
2013-01-09 03:28:32 PM
Keep the heat coming! It's going to +6 celcuis on Sunday. In Canada.

Sure, my igloo is going to need a bit of work when it drops below freezing again, but... +6! In the middle of January!
 
2013-01-09 03:49:54 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: whatshisname: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?

No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind

Definitions: TROLL - anyone who says something you don't agree with. PROPER USAGE - When you got nuthin' else and you know it.
[t0.gstatic.com image 805x600]


Kinda like your Boobies.
 
2013-01-09 03:50:33 PM

Ambitwistor: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.


Metric System?
 
2013-01-09 03:53:39 PM

Farty McPooPants: Ambitwistor: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.

Metric System?


Nah. The satellites they used in the 30s saved all their data in morse code.
 
2013-01-09 04:43:50 PM

Malcolm_Sex: Zafler: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

Oh look you're serious, let me laugh harder.

/jpg

Oh look, Zafler has his finger on the refresh button. Let's all read his witty replies to literally every post now!


He's right Zafler, you're kinda being a dick and nobody likes an arsehole.
 
2013-01-09 04:48:29 PM

Zafler: Malcolm_Sex: "GOM only green energy by 2014"!

When have you ever seen this proposed by non-whack jobs? Most everyone that has even a basic understanding of the underlying science has been proposing investing in alternative energy sources that are not fossil-fuel derived, but not expecting it immediately.

One that I know has been posted here multiple times is Princeton's Stabilization Wedges.


Malcolm_Sex: Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?

Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."


Nooooo, Malcolm was correct. Dobedobedo's post was very well said, you are just being a dick again.
 
2013-01-09 05:11:11 PM
What we got here is an argument from verbosity.

keep spraying derp that in the long run doesn't help the case he is trying to prove in hopes that people get confused and bored with his rambling and incessant yammering and just take a couple plotting points on the graph as proof simply to avoid the headache of reading such a long-winded and needlessly complex argument that really does nothing to support the position he supports and etc. etc. etc.
 
2013-01-09 05:23:22 PM
also, just for poops and giggles, I wonder if the person weighed each month equally when doing his maths, not correcting for the small, but not insignificant, difference in number of days that populate the months. I'm too lazy to do that all myself, but I wonder how large a difference there is if you actually weight each months avg. temp based on percentage of days out of the year (which would be a range from 7.92% up to 8.46% instead of equal 12ths (8.33% of the year).

I sincerely wonder if that's where his .7 degree difference comes from
 
2013-01-09 05:24:24 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: Zafler: Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Nooooo, Malcolm was correct. Dobedobedo's post was very well said, you are just being a dick again.


Whether or not Zafler is a dick is irrelevant. Dobedobedo's post was the equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."
 
2013-01-09 06:36:00 PM
ahhh yes, another one of these threads where people with exactly zero background in any scientific field or research try to dispute the findings of nearly every climate oriented scientist in the world and thousands of peer reviewed studies based solely upon their gut instincts, their echo chamber politics and whatever their preacher felt like telling them today.

/Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.
 
2013-01-09 06:55:20 PM

fritton: Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.


Speak for yourself, derpity derper.
 
2013-01-09 07:05:17 PM

Krieghund: Ohlookabutterfly: Zafler: Not sure if serious, his post is the climate equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Nooooo, Malcolm was correct. Dobedobedo's post was very well said, you are just being a dick again.

Whether or not Zafler is a dick is irrelevant. Dobedobedo's post was the equivalent of "Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."



I'm Canadian so the vote republican part makes no sense to me thus I have no opinion on that part. The part I do find relevant is where he states that those here who believe in and thus feel guilty for man made global warming aren't actually doing anything about it other than try and make the rest of us feel the same guilt.

As has been said, I barely have enough cognitive power to breath and walk at the same time so I have no idea if we are the cause. I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect. Also, the very second I hear and believe some of these gw cuItists when they say they have done something to actually stop gw, like not drive a farking car you hypocrites, or find out how many products in your home come from the oilsands bitumen and stop using them, then I might take their opinions seriously.

Also, Zafler is a total dick.
 
2013-01-09 07:11:56 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: fritton: Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.

Speak for yourself, derpity derper.


So you're saying *don't* listen to the scientists on science? Or that you're one of the few scientists hanging out on Fark?
 
2013-01-09 07:18:31 PM

fritton: ahhh yes, another one of these threads where people with exactly zero background in any scientific field or research try to dispute the findings of nearly every climate oriented scientist in the world and thousands of peer reviewed studies based solely upon their gut instincts, their echo chamber politics and whatever their preacher felt like telling them today.

/Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.


considering the person who wrote the article in the link is not a scientist, I find this remark funny. It's even funnier when you consider the following: Link
 
2013-01-09 07:20:51 PM

Ambitwistor: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, but you can't use satellites to compare current temperatures in the U.S. to records set in the 1930s, for obvious reasons.


Like the physical value of 38 degrees isn't the same as it was then?
WTF?

You're telling me the sample set is too small to be able to measure the change?

Damn. Sixty-nine comments here in a warmer thread.
Have the AGW people all been cut from payroll post election?
 
2013-01-09 07:23:01 PM

I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.


Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.
 
2013-01-09 07:27:44 PM

msupf: fritton: ahhh yes, another one of these threads where people with exactly zero background in any scientific field or research try to dispute the findings of nearly every climate oriented scientist in the world and thousands of peer reviewed studies based solely upon their gut instincts, their echo chamber politics and whatever their preacher felt like telling them today.

/Your opinion doesn't matter (and neither does mine). Listen to the scientists on matters of science because you (and most of the rest of us) are barely competent enough to type and breathe at the same time much less correctly interpret complex data models and supporting research.

considering the person who wrote the article in the link is not a scientist, I find this remark funny. It's even funnier when you consider the following: Link


Exactly. If I want sound discussion on theology I'll go to a preacher, priest, reverend, shaman or grand poobah. If I want insights in screaming insanity I'll consult with a clinical psychologist (or read Free Republic). If I want to get a credible opinion on a complex scientific phenomenon then I'll go find a scientist in that field of study.

What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?
 
2013-01-09 07:32:18 PM

Malcolm_Sex: DoBeDoBeDo: WelldeadLink:
/not that we want to return to another Little Ice Age

Do we really have a choice? The Earth's been cooler, the Earth has been warmer, Arizona was an ocean once, it's more a question of when not if.

The Earth is getting warmer, the question is: Is this natural or man made? If man made how do we correct to natural? What IS natural? Could over correction cause any serious issues? What time frame are we looking at?

All I tend to see is either "Shut up it's fine" or "GOM only green energy by 2014"!!!!!! One is sticking the head in the sand and the other is way beyond fear mongering. We could sit down and have rational discussions that lead to rational solutions instead of trying to enforce something like Kyoto which only favors "emerging" countries and is completely untennable by everyone else.

But that won't happen anytime soon.

Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?


You're both stupid.

If that's what you hear on the subject then get your hearing checked.
 
2013-01-09 07:34:55 PM

fritton: I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.

Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.


So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed? People are liars just as much as they are internet know-it-alls and having a group of people who are skeptical and don't believe everything they see on t.v. question what some people call fact is a good thing. This helps to keep corruption from becoming rampant, and snake oil salesman from becoming successful.
 
2013-01-09 07:52:36 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: fritton: I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.

Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.

So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed? People are liars just as much as they are internet know-it-alls and having a group of people who are skeptical and don't believe everything they see on t.v. question what some people call fact is a good thing. This helps to keep corruption from becoming rampant, and snake oil salesman from becoming successful.


The *scientists* doing staged studies for industry groups might, but no.. the vast vast majority of scientists working on university and publicly funded grants would not "suddenly be unemployed". Their studies on blooming patterns of particular plants, ocean migration routes of certain species and so on would continue exactly like normal. Their results would continue to get published and peer reviewed exactly like normal. There isn't some vast conspiracy out there where fake results of parallel studies are getting published and NOT torn apart by the peer review process.

It's this line of nonsensical, completely ignorant "reasoning" that gives cover to deniers who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They can simply claim "Money and Politics is corrupting the process and coincidentally my uninformed opinion is the TRUTH despite what the scientists are saying" when it's not true at all and in fact would require *enormous* conspiracy and a complete, fundamental breakdown in academia to be credible at all.
There is nothing wrong with being "skeptical" but we have a system in place that is automatically, intrinsically skeptical to start with, and the vast, vast majority of "skeptics" have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They quite literally have absolutely no reference frame to judge their "skepticism". They have no training, background or education in the fundamental basics of the field.

It would be like a blind man being "skeptical" that the sky is really blue. Does the average person have the ability to be credibly "skeptical" of a study discussing the variance of beta-amyloid plaque formation in C elegans through different gene expression affecting metabolic pathways? No? How about if Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh all of a sudden publicly supported the findings? I'll bet we'd still end up with a ton of self-certified geniuses on the internet pretending they knew what the hell they were talking about.
 
2013-01-09 08:13:27 PM

fritton: I DO know that people lie in order to maintain their employment thus if finding in favour of gw will sustain a scientists funding, his findings may be suspect.

Grant proposals don't work that way in the first place and in the second place most climatological research projects deal more with things like Algae Bloom, Ocean Salinity and PH more than "Is GW happening?".

At this point, in the scientific community, climate change and warming is an accepted phenomenon disputed only by a few random outliers.

In the general public however there are hordes of mouth breathing idiots trying to pretend they understand science better than the scientists because they happened to read something in a tabloid somewhere.


Yep. For every one scientist that "lies" about climate change, there are a thousand Lord Bugeyes that routinely say that the climate scientists say exactly the opposite of what they actually say, and are doing so for far more money than even the biggest climatology grants.
 
2013-01-09 08:20:31 PM

fritton: What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?


It ain't just climate science anymore. Many of the same people who believe the Watts and Moncktons of the world also believe that the Bible is literally true, despite all evidence to the contrary. A few believe that mercury causes autism and there's loads of it in vaccines, despite the fact that there has not been anything resembling mercury in vaccines for at least two decades and the "scientific link" between them and autism was fraudulent. And plenty also believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that the current president is a Kenyan atheist Muslim with a racist pastor. And maybe the most damaging lie they believe is that trickle-down supply-side economics works.

The only time these people ever care about "facts" is when they conform to their anti-science, anti-freedom, racist, homophobic, corporatist, paranoid delusions, which is why so many believe the lies being spoon-fed them. And they're proud they believe these lies, even when it's pointed out that they're lies. (And at that point, they make the transition from merely being mistaken to full-blown liars themselves.)
 
2013-01-09 08:50:18 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs


You're an idiot. I can't even begin to address the reasons for this. I have a job, I am not trying to scare anyone. Climate change is real. It can be dangerous if left unchecked. But it is a solvable problem. Only a few greedy types and the nut jobs who go in for every sob story scam actually support things like carbon credits.

The only realistic solution is shockingly simple. Grow trees and bury them whole, deep under ground. Maintain an optimal carbon dioxide level by changing the number of new trees planted and old ones buried.


Yours truly; someone who doesn't think everybody gets by on Librul Unemployment Magic.
 
2013-01-09 09:15:18 PM

IlGreven: fritton: What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?

It ain't just climate science anymore. Many of the same people who believe the Watts and Moncktons of the world also believe that the Bible is literally true, despite all evidence to the contrary. A few believe that mercury causes autism and there's loads of it in vaccines, despite the fact that there has not been anything resembling mercury in vaccines for at least two decades and the "scientific link" between them and autism was fraudulent. And plenty also believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that the current president is a Kenyan atheist Muslim with a racist pastor. And maybe the most damaging lie they believe is that trickle-down supply-side economics works.

The only time these people ever care about "facts" is when they conform to their anti-science, anti-freedom, racist, homophobic, corporatist, paranoid delusions, which is why so many believe the lies being spoon-fed them. And they're proud they believe these lies, even when it's pointed out that they're lies. (And at that point, they make the transition from merely being mistaken to full-blown liars themselves.)



Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?
 
2013-01-09 09:28:28 PM

DesertDemonWY:

Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?


I know! It's almost as stupid as thinking humans can affect the ozone layer with CFCs or that pollution from pesticide run-off can affect our ground water or life in our vast vast oceans? How stupid is it to think that pouring billions of tons of any particular chemical into our ecosystem can have ANY consequences? I mean.. only GOD can do that right? It totally just disagrees with your "gut" right? Damn those scientists from disagreeing with the "gut" of such an obvious intellectual giant!!!
 
2013-01-09 09:45:19 PM

Malcolm_Sex: Holy shiat. A reasonable, well thought post in a climate thread. Where the fark am I?


You're in the Twenty-First Century.
Where we'd have flying cars, if we hadn't run out of oil, food, water, and sow ears, before we died out.
 
2013-01-09 09:45:49 PM
It will be too late when we finally take climate change seriously...Greed and arrogance will assure that it is,
 
2013-01-09 09:48:25 PM

LavenderWolf: You're both stupid.

If that's what you hear on the subject then get your hearing checked.


Hey, who tried to teach the Democrat how to type?
 
2013-01-09 09:51:32 PM
Yes, I am absolutely sure this is an impartial and fair look at the data by a third party. Pay no attention to the fact that their store is stocked full of anti-science crap and they openly mock NOAA.
 
2013-01-09 10:16:06 PM

fritton: DesertDemonWY:

Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?

I know! It's almost as stupid as thinking humans can affect the ozone layer with CFCs or that pollution from pesticide run-off can affect our ground water or life in our vast vast oceans? How stupid is it to think that pouring billions of tons of any particular chemical into our ecosystem can have ANY consequences? I mean.. only GOD can do that right? It totally just disagrees with your "gut" right? Damn those scientists from disagreeing with the "gut" of such an obvious intellectual giant!!!


imageshack.us
 
2013-01-09 10:23:34 PM

DesertDemonWY: fritton: DesertDemonWY:

Hey, that reminds me...does anyone know of a religious sect that thinks they can control the earth's climate by increasing or decreasing CO2?

I know! It's almost as stupid as thinking humans can affect the ozone layer with CFCs or that pollution from pesticide run-off can affect our ground water or life in our vast vast oceans? How stupid is it to think that pouring billions of tons of any particular chemical into our ecosystem can have ANY consequences? I mean.. only GOD can do that right? It totally just disagrees with your "gut" right? Damn those scientists from disagreeing with the "gut" of such an obvious intellectual giant!!!

[imageshack.us image 448x336]


So do the mod trolls always use totalfark badges?
 
2013-01-09 11:07:23 PM

All2morrowsparTs: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: whatshisname: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Is this the thread where the religious GW flock posts their required hand waves and nothing-to-see- here-citizen-move-along rosaries?

No, it's the thread where ignorant trolls.....nevermind

Definitions: TROLL - anyone who says something you don't agree with. PROPER USAGE - When you got nuthin' else and you know it.
[t0.gstatic.com image 805x600]

Kinda like your Boobies.


It's so sad when you start off with name-calling.

Are you 12?
 
2013-01-09 11:30:12 PM

xanadian: FTFA: Highlighted in yellow is the CONUS average temperature, which is the data I was after.

Well, that's great, Sherlock. You've proven that CONUS Warming is a myth. GLOBAL warming, on the other hand....



He hasn't even done that.

www.earthgauge.net

/oblig graphiness
 
2013-01-10 03:10:59 AM
SuperT:
can't we record temp from space by now?

Yes, yes, we can. However, the data from the satellites are public, and so are the methodologies to adjust and calculate them. This puts an unreasonable restraint on the collectors of data, who need to be able to "adjust" the data to better fit the hypothesis which is bringing in the money. Difficulty: The satellite record only starts in 1979. But, here it is:

www.drroyspencer.com
 
2013-01-10 03:17:57 AM
IlGreven:
Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.

I guess when you're peddling lies, it helps muddy the water to call anyone with a different story a liar. Now, HERE'S lying:

i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-10 03:32:21 AM
YoungLochinvar:
Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Yes, I do, and you should, as well. Here's why: It was not "BEST" that made the conclusions -- it was Mueller. And he made his conclusions when the data of the project said something else. When he made his presentation, he left off all the data from 2000 on, and then claimed that temperatures were still rising as they were in the 1990s. The data he left out prove that to be a lie. The co-leader of the BEST team also called him out for scientific fraud. You have to cut him some slack, though -- he just got turned, and didn't think to change the DATA as well as the graph. He left the entire data set there, including the part that showed him to be lying.

HERE is the graph, AND the missing data plotted the same way as the submitted slide:


blog.independent.org
 
2013-01-10 03:38:48 AM

GeneralJim: SuperT: can't we record temp from space by now?
Yes, yes, we can. However, the data from the satellites are public, and so are the methodologies to adjust and calculate them. This puts an unreasonable restraint on the collectors of data, who need to be able to "adjust" the data to better fit the hypothesis which is bringing in the money. Difficulty: The satellite record only starts in 1979. But, here it is:

[www.drroyspencer.com image 850x490]



Which, as you know, is a pretty good overall match with those other temperature records you're so wary of:

www.woodfortrees.org
Plus, of course the fact that for GISTEMP, for example, the source data and source code are publicly available, has been been replicated, and, as in the graph above, corroborated.

Again, your conspiracy theories only work if you keep yourself intentionally and actively ignorant.
 
2013-01-10 03:41:00 AM

GeneralJim: IlGreven: Anthony Watt cites Christopher Monckton, a known climate change liar who repeatedly says that the IPCC says that there is no climate change when they say the exact opposite.

Anthony Watt is a known climate change liar himself.
I guess when you're peddling lies, it helps muddy the water to call anyone with a different story a liar. Now, HERE'S lying:

[i44.tinypic.com image 643x421]


Actually, I have an even better example of someone being proven lying, right here.
 
2013-01-10 03:57:38 AM

GeneralJim: YoungLochinvar:
Does anyone care what Anthony Watts thinks about *anything* at this point? The man fully supported the Koch-funded Berkeley study that was headed up by Richard Mueller, right up until BEST concluded that global warming is real and caused by manmade CO2 emissions...

Yes, I do, and you should, as well. Here's why: It was not "BEST" that made the conclusions -- it was Mueller. And he made his conclusions when the data of the project said something else. When he made his presentation, he left off all the data from 2000 on


A flat out falsehood on your part. Not only is said range included in the paper you're probably referencing, it's right there in the graph you yourself posted.


GeneralJim: and then claimed that temperatures were still rising as they were in the 1990s. The data he left out prove that to be a lie. The co-leader of the BEST team also called him out for scientific fraud. You have to cut him some slack, though -- he just got turned, and didn't think to change the DATA as well as the graph. He left the entire data set there, including the part that showed him to be lying.

HERE is the graph, AND the missing data plotted the same way as the submitted slide:


That graph you posted was exactly the one that inspired the following animation. Remember this:
i575.photobucket.com
It's even been posted already this thread. The second panel in the graph you're posting is the spurious trend represented by the far right blue line in the animation. As you're well aware, such a small period of time can be misleading given the amount of short-term variability at a scale other than the one at which the phenomenon of interest operates.


If you don't wish to accept this reasoning or evidence, you could always just listen to this guy:

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


One would think just 10 years would be even worse.
 
2013-01-10 04:24:05 AM
fritton:
What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?

Mostly, it's the reasonably large number of scientists who have been caught in scientific fraud. And, by "large number" I mean about four, which is a VERY large number of corrupt scientists. The Hadley CRU and NASA GISS data sets, when audited by the same software that caught Bernie Madoff (sp?) cooking the books, shows a very high likelihood that the data have been manufactured. Phil Jones has admitted fraud on his part, and that of Michael Mann. And, Michael Mann has published studies which even a "lay person" can see are fraudulent. Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.

Part of it is also the practice of cherry-picking dates so that the data make the AGW hypothesis look good. Look at what temperatures REALLY were like for the last 2000 years. Can't you see that it HAS to be warming now? Note that the data in the block on the right are the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see. That's misleading. Observe:


i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-01-10 04:38:59 AM

GeneralJim: fritton:
What is it about climate science that makes every moron in the room think they know better than the highly trained people who study it for a living?

Mostly, it's the reasonably large number of scientists who have been caught in scientific fraud. And, by "large number" I mean about four, which is a VERY large number of corrupt scientists. The Hadley CRU and NASA GISS data sets, when audited by the same software that caught Bernie Madoff (sp?) cooking the books, shows a very high likelihood that the data have been manufactured.



As me (and others) have demonstrated to you before, this is a falsehood. At least that means I can copy-and-paste the reasons why this is so with little effort.

What you're referring to is a chi-square test of goodness-of-fit to an equal distribution of trailing digits. The source he uses to back this up is from a guy named David Stockwell. A deviation from said equal distribution does exist. However, GeneralJim mistakenly believes this is somehow incontrovertible evidence of fraud. This is not the case. As Stockwell himself writes in that very same link:

Steven: "Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating." That is right and I have said that. there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected

And from his comments elsewhere (new window):

Please note I haven't claimed of manipulation at this stage. I want to take a closer look at where in the file the deviations are the greatest. Its possible it has something to do with low
numbers too, as the format used of 0.01C results in single digits around 1940, but two significant digits elsewhere. I don't know at this stage.


More from the same site (new window):
I am not saying at this stage that the result for GISS is intentional or cheating. It could be an artifact of the way the data are prepared, how the gaps are filled in, a hundred things. Its a pretty
obvious form of analysis and you have to start somewhere.


in short, GeneralJim is directly contradicting the what the author of the very link he presents as 'proof' is claiming.

In fact, if we apply the exact same analysis that the author in that link used (I have some severe reservations about certain aspects of it, but that's a separate argument), and apply, it, say, to the monthly HadCET data set that GeneralJim seem to be fond of, you come up with the following:

i54.tinypic.com

According to him, this would be enough evidence to suggest that the HadCET record is "human-generated". This is not the case and the actual explanation has do with the structure of the underlying data (in this case, rounding).
 
2013-01-10 05:09:40 AM

GeneralJim: Phil Jones has admitted fraud on his part, and that of Michael Mann.


This is yet another falsehood. No such admission exists.


GeneralJim: And, Michael Mann has published studies which even a "lay person" can see are fraudulent.


Given your track record, especially in regards to falsely representing research, you'll have to provide more than your word.


GeneralJim: Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.


Not quite true. Don't forget that Sandusky was subject to an internal investigation by Penn State administrators - nothing was made public. This is not true of the investigation into Michael Mann - the investigators were not administrators, but tenured professors from other departments, and the results were made public. In addition, there was yet another investigation performed by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, which corroborated the results. Not to mention the various investigations into the wider CRU e-mail controversy, which all exonerated the participants in terms of scientific misconduct.


GeneralJim: Part of it is also the practice of cherry-picking dates so that the data make the AGW hypothesis look good. Look at what temperatures REALLY were like for the last 2000 years.


Indeed - if you wish to see if this reconstruction is REALLY different from others, you should actually plot them on a common baseline with the others. This is what it REALLY looks like:

www.skepticalscience.com
It turns out that "what temperatures REALLY were like for the last 2000 years" is pretty much the same as what others have been showing.


GeneralJim: Can't you see that it HAS to be warming now? Note that the data in the block on the right are the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see.


Of course, note that you've just mentioned Michael Mann, who publishes, among other things, reconstructions that extend further than the instrumental record (as in the graph above). If the instrumental record is "the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see", then why would such reconstructions be such an important part of his work? Do you honestly believe that "warmer alarmists" don't want people to actually see pre-instrumental record reconstructions like "the hockey stick"?


GeneralJim: That's misleading. Observe:


Yes, we've observed what you've been saying, and yes, it is misleading.
 
2013-01-10 07:36:42 AM
Ohlookabutterfly:
So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?

The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.
 
2013-01-10 08:40:35 AM

GeneralJim: Ohlookabutterfly: So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?
The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.


lh4.ggpht.com

Or are you one of those very special people who is convinced that global warming is part of a UN conspiracy to bring forth the New World Order?
 
2013-01-10 03:41:29 PM

LavenderWolf: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

You're an idiot. I can't even begin to address the reasons for this. I have a job, I am not trying to scare anyone. Climate change is real. It can be dangerous if left unchecked. But it is a solvable problem. Only a few greedy types and the nut jobs who go in for every sob story scam actually support things like carbon credits.

The only realistic solution is shockingly simple. Grow trees and bury them whole, deep under ground. Maintain an optimal carbon dioxide level by changing the number of new trees planted and old ones buried.


Yours truly; someone who doesn't think everybody gets by on Librul Unemployment Magic.


Wether I am an idiot or not is irrelevant, I can usually find a way to express my feelings and opinions without resorting to name calling.

See how I don't usually call people dumbass internet "authority on everything", or loud mouth douchebags within overblown sense of how important their opinions are. I also didn't call you a brainless sycophant who is afraid to have his own opinion in case it is unpopular and he might face ridicule from people like himself.
 
2013-01-10 04:07:09 PM
Funny story.

Remember those urban weather stations that are supposedly all screwed up because they are near heat sources or on baking parking lots or roofs?

Well, I went looking for another source on the Skeptics latest fap about the new record hottest year (seeing as Watts is a Climate Change Denialist) and found a Fox News article on the same adjustments that Watts is criticizing. Guess what? They are adjustments to eliminate the errors from those urban weather stations in heat islands!

Quote from Fox News:

NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen agreed.
"These kinds of improvements get us even closer to the true climate signal, and help our nation even more accurately understand its climate history," he said.
One problem in weather monitoring occurs when there is a "break point" -- an instance where a thermometer is moved, or something producing heat is built near the thermometer, making temperature readings before and after the move no longer comparable.
"Version 2.5 improved the efficiency of the algorithm.... more of the previously undetected break points are now accounted for," Smullen explained.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HblkqH3l">http://www.foxnews. com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HblkqH3l
Ha! Ha!

Denialists: Your data is faulty!
Climate scientists: We know that! Here are our corrections! They show that recent years are even warmer than previously indicated.
Denialists: You're making too many changes to the data!

Furthermore, the magnitude of the new high temperature (1F warmer is large enough to make the corrections to weather station data relatively insignificant. The signal is greater than the noise:

Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the debate over the adjustments misses the bigger picture.
"Since we broke the [temperature] record by a full degree Fahrenheit this year, the adjustments are relatively minor in comparison,"
"I think climate contrarians are doing what Johnny Cochran did for O.J. Simpson -- finding anything to object to, even if it obscures the big picture. It's like they keep finding new ways to say the 'glove doesn't fit' while ignoring the DNA evidence."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2Hbm24g59">http://www.foxnews. com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-q uestion-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2Hbm24g59

Although Fox News gives the last word to a denialist, the article is relatively fair and balanced (as web news articles from Fox tend to be, at least compared to to the Op-Ed circle jerks and hate-ins that pass for news on the cable news and editorial content.

Against the notorious denialist blogger Antony Watts, Godard, and the Hunts University academic denialist, Spencer, they cite a spokesman for NOAA and one for the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Government climate scientist. 3 for 3. Only the denialists have first say and last say, a common device for created a bias for one side of an argument.

Still, it gives the impression of fairness and balance, which is more than you usually get either from the right wing media or bloggers.
 
2013-01-10 04:07:25 PM

Ohlookabutterfly: LavenderWolf: Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs

You're an idiot. I can't even begin to address the reasons for this. I have a job, I am not trying to scare anyone. Climate change is real. It can be dangerous if left unchecked. But it is a solvable problem. Only a few greedy types and the nut jobs who go in for every sob story scam actually support things like carbon credits.

The only realistic solution is shockingly simple. Grow trees and bury them whole, deep under ground. Maintain an optimal carbon dioxide level by changing the number of new trees planted and old ones buried.


Yours truly; someone who doesn't think everybody gets by on Librul Unemployment Magic.

Wether I am an idiot or not is irrelevant, I can usually find a way to express my feelings and opinions without resorting to name calling.

See how I don't usually call people dumbass internet "authority on everything", or loud mouth douchebags within overblown sense of how important their opinions are. I also didn't call you a brainless sycophant who is afraid to have his own opinion in case it is unpopular and he might face ridicule from people like himself.



Maybe you can usually find a way to express your feelings and opinions without resorting to name calling, but you certainly didn't in this thread. Don't forget the very first thing you said in this thread was:

Ohlookabutterfly: dear climate change fear mongers, we are tired of your whining and self-righteous bullshiat, if you want to waste your money on carbon taxes and other stupid scams go ahead and leave us out of it, but since you aren't actually doing anything proactive about global warming stfu or gtfo. Yes, we mean kill yourselves as you are not productive members of society and are actually a drain on it.

Yours truly,
Productive members of society with real jobs



If you wish to see less name-calling or a better level of discussion, then start doing so yourself.
 
2013-01-11 07:30:25 AM
fritton:
It would be like a blind man being "skeptical" that the sky is really blue. Does the average person have the ability to be credibly "skeptical" of a study discussing the variance of beta-amyloid plaque formation in C elegans through different gene expression affecting metabolic pathways? No? How about if Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh all of a sudden publicly supported the findings? I'll bet we'd still end up with a ton of self-certified geniuses on the internet pretending they knew what the hell they were talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see cheating, lying, and fudging. When someone fails to show the last 12 years of data, and then claims that those 12 years had warming, most people can see that (although not everybody on Fark, as we've seen.) When Michael Mann does a survey of the literature, surveying twenty-some papers, which he lists, of course, and claims that they do NOT show a medieval warm period, it is possible for a person who is not trained in sciences to look up those papers, and check. And, when EACH AND EVERY ONE of those papers shows, quite clearly, that there was a MWP, and the papers are from data from all over the world, it is quite clear that this is not honest science.

I have to cut them some slack, however. Deception is not normally the game of scientists, and they should be forgiven their ineptitude.
 
2013-01-11 07:52:00 AM
Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:
GeneralJim: Ohlookabutterfly: So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?
The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.

[lh4.ggpht.com image 384x512]

It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again. HERE...
 
2013-01-11 08:07:07 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Of course, note that you've just mentioned Michael Mann, who publishes, among other things, reconstructions that extend further than the instrumental record (as in the graph above). If the instrumental record is "the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see", then why would such reconstructions be such an important part of his work? Do you honestly believe that "warmer alarmists" don't want people to actually see pre-instrumental record reconstructions like "the hockey stick"?

Well, ACCURATE ones. And, I don't care how unobservant YOU are, most people see a clear difference between the first and second graphs below, BOTH from the IPCC. Coming up with a graph which splashes a whole bunch of curves in one, as a lame attempt to justify it, as YOU have done as well, is dishonest.

www.realclimate.org

The IPCC, pre-corruption, 1990


1.bp.blogspot.com

The IPCC, with full corruption in place, 2007


And, which one do the REAL data support?


www.climate-skeptic.com

Loehle 2007
 
2013-01-11 08:25:41 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
More from the same site (new window):
I am not saying at this stage that the result for GISS is intentional or cheating. It could be an artifact of the way the data are prepared, how the gaps are filled in, a hundred things. Its a pretty
obvious form of analysis and you have to start somewhere.

in short, GeneralJim is directly contradicting the what the author of the very link he presents as 'proof' is claiming.

Bullshiat. The author is covering his butt, as auditors are wont to do. "This shows the signs of human tampering, but it could be caused by something of which I am not aware" results in many fewer lawsuits than "These books are cooked." This is the same process as determining the genetic fathers in humans. Technicians CAN say, "This is not the father's DNA" when there is a mis-match, but if there is a match, all they can say is that the odds that someone ELSE is the father are are greater than about seven billion to one against. In other words, roughly a one in five chance that a person who could also match even exists. Finding that person, and boinking them, is a whole different Springer show. So, you have the same problem if Jerry Springer announces "You ARE the father?"

You're grasping at straws here. You are implying that there could be, theoretically, some process done to the data, which could produce the "human signature" in the data. Okay, theoretical possibility granted. So, just what method or program does this? Its output could be tested, quite easily. there can't be more than one or two programs which massage the whole database... so, let's test them.
 
2013-01-11 08:31:56 AM

GeneralJim: It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again


That's true. That's why people get annoyed when you and your green text show up because you are wrong. Every. Single. Time. You probably think that you've "won" a number of global warming arguments on Fark because people stop responding, when in reality you make it so distasteful to address your deluge of crap that people just don't bother. You're the guy that intrudes upon a conversation at a party, shouts that everyone else is wrong as you smear your feces on the walls, and then you declare yourself the winner when everyone looks uncomfortable and leaves the room.

Oh, by the way, making specious counter-claims with absolutely zero data or citation does not refute someone else's claim. When your entire rebuttal is "Uh uh, the oil companies will make MORE money due to environmental regulations!" with no citations or data, it just makes people wonder how you manage to operate a computer when you're obviously deranged.
 
2013-01-11 09:04:18 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.

Not quite true. Don't forget that Sandusky was subject to an internal investigation by Penn State administrators - nothing was made public. This is not true of the investigation into Michael Mann - the investigators were not administrators, but tenured professors from other departments, and the results were made public. In addition, there was yet another investigation performed by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, which corroborated the results. Not to mention the various investigations into the wider CRU e-mail controversy, which all exonerated the participants in terms of scientific misconduct.

Yeah, yeah... Read about the process used for the whitewash HERE.

Also, Mann has most likely stepped in it pretty seriously... He is suing people who have called his "hockey stick" fraudulent. Unlike at Penn State, there will be more than just Mann presenting the evidence against him on the honor system. The first court date is later this month, I believe... Let's see how THAT goes.
 
2013-01-11 09:36:51 AM
Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:
GeneralJim: It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again

That's true. That's why people get annoyed when you and your green text show up because you are wrong

Blah, blah, blah. You forgot that bit about rubber and glue. Hey, are you REALLY so stupid that you can't look and SEE when data has been changed? Look at the historical data. Why should the temperatures for, say, 1935, be any different when looked at from 1980 or 2007? All the rest of the "irregularities" are similarly easy to spot. And, "the dog ate my data?" Really? Do you know what science becomes when you lose the data, and people cannot check your work? NOT science.

jonova.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-01-11 05:48:39 PM

GeneralJim: fritton:
It would be like a blind man being "skeptical" that the sky is really blue. Does the average person have the ability to be credibly "skeptical" of a study discussing the variance of beta-amyloid plaque formation in C elegans through different gene expression affecting metabolic pathways? No? How about if Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh all of a sudden publicly supported the findings? I'll bet we'd still end up with a ton of self-certified geniuses on the internet pretending they knew what the hell they were talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see cheating, lying, and fudging. When someone fails to show the last 12 years of data, and then claims that those 12 years had warming,


If you're still talking about the BEST study data, be aware that you're pretty much outright lying here given that I've already pointed out to you why this is false. Even worse, you're making additional false claims about it in that it's impossible to "show the last 12 years of data" since you're talking about 2000 onwards on a data set released in in 2010.

And, as I stated before, these last years of data were not somehow hidden. They were right there in the paper, as well as being right there in the graph you yourself posted. Note how the top panel doesn't end at 2000.

As for "claims that those 12 years had warming" (again, besides the fact that it's only 10 years you're talking about) you'll have to post some evidence such a literally-minded claim was made. If you're allude to some longer-term trend, keep in mind what this guy said:

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


So I'll agree with you hat "it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see cheating, lying, and fudging" - however it is you doing this.


GeneralJim: When Michael Mann does a survey of the literature, surveying twenty-some papers, which he lists, of course, and claims that they do NOT show a medieval warm period, it is possible for a person who is not trained in sciences to look up those papers, and check. And, when EACH AND EVERY ONE of those papers shows, quite clearly, that there was a MWP, and the papers are from data from all over the world, it is quite clear that this is not honest science.


Citation needed, especially as you're outright lying in the first part of your post.
 
2013-01-11 05:52:59 PM

GeneralJim: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: GeneralJim: Ohlookabutterfly: So hypothetically if climate change was irrefutably proven false are you suggesting that nobody would find themselves immediately unemployed?
The funding for climate (and climate-related) research is now twenty times what it was before the warming panic. So, if it were to go back to what it was before the panic, that field of research would get a 95% cut. Ouch.

[lh4.ggpht.com image 384x512]
It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again. HERE...


Your unsubstantiated opinion about some sort of nebulous "legislation" from some unknown place isn't exactly "refuting", BTW. Positing an even more vague conspiracy isn't an effective way of disproving the existence of one.
 
2013-01-11 06:00:23 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Of course, note that you've just mentioned Michael Mann, who publishes, among other things, reconstructions that extend further than the instrumental record (as in the graph above). If the instrumental record is "the only data that warmer alarmists want people to see", then why would such reconstructions be such an important part of his work? Do you honestly believe that "warmer alarmists" don't want people to actually see pre-instrumental record reconstructions like "the hockey stick"?

Well, ACCURATE ones.


people.virginia.edu


GeneralJim: And, I don't care how unobservant YOU are, most people see a clear difference between the first and second graphs below, BOTH from the IPCC.


The problem is that the difference isn't largely due to what you think it is. The first source of difference is due to geographic extent. As you well know the first one is a qualitative graph about only central England, the second one is only about the northern hemisphere, and the third attempts to be global. The second source of difference is the temperature scale. It's completely nonexistent in the first graph, and widely different between the second and third ones.

The only way to compare these is to graph them onto some sort of common baseline, but...

GeneralJim: Coming up with a graph which splashes a whole bunch of curves in one, as a lame attempt to justify it, as YOU have done as well, is dishonest.


...you're apparently not a fan of doing so. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is more of the pro-active ignorance that allows you to maintain your conspiracy theory thinking.
 
2013-01-11 06:15:10 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
More from the same site (new window):
I am not saying at this stage that the result for GISS is intentional or cheating. It could be an artifact of the way the data are prepared, how the gaps are filled in, a hundred things. Its a pretty
obvious form of analysis and you have to start somewhere.

in short, GeneralJim is directly contradicting the what the author of the very link he presents as 'proof' is claiming.

Bullshiat. The author is covering his butt, as auditors are wont to do. "This shows the signs of human tampering, but it could be caused by something of which I am not aware" results in many fewer lawsuits than "These books are cooked."


GeneralJim: Oh, boy! Yet another arsehole claiming to be able to read minds -- and failing. Nice work.

I'm sorry, but there's something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning when you're trying to state that the author really means the opposite of what he says.


GeneralJim: This is the same process as determining the genetic fathers in humans. Technicians CAN say, "This is not the father's DNA" when there is a mis-match, but if there is a match, all they can say is that the odds that someone ELSE is the father are are greater than about seven billion to one against. In other words, roughly a one in five chance that a person who could also match even exists. Finding that person, and boinking them, is a whole different Springer show. So, you have the same problem if Jerry Springer announces "You ARE the father?"


people.virginia.edu

It's closer to you trying to make the case that the results of the paternity test conclusively prove that the father loved the mother. There's more than one explanation there, as the author of the "proof" you're trying to use himself points out.


GeneralJim: You're grasping at straws here. You are implying that there could be, theoretically, some process done to the data, which could produce the "human signature" in the data.


Not quite - I (together with the author of the proof himself) maintain that there's more than one explanation than a "human signature".


GeneralJim: Okay, theoretical possibility granted. So, just what method or program does this? Its output could be tested, quite easily. there can't be more than one or two programs which massage the whole database... so, let's test them


Luckily, we can do so, as I pointed out to you in another thread. The source data and code are publicly available, has been recreated in Python, has been independently reconstructed, and has been corroborated through different records (such as the UAH satellite record that you seem to be fond of). Nope, no evidence of the supposed malfeasance you're talking about.
 
2013-01-11 06:29:38 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Of course, Mann WAS cleared of wrongdoing by the same University which cleared Jerry Sandusky of wrongdoing, so he has THAT going for him -- which is nice.

Not quite true. Don't forget that Sandusky was subject to an internal investigation by Penn State administrators - nothing was made public. This is not true of the investigation into Michael Mann - the investigators were not administrators, but tenured professors from other departments, and the results were made public. In addition, there was yet another investigation performed by the Office of the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation, which corroborated the results. Not to mention the various investigations into the wider CRU e-mail controversy, which all exonerated the participants in terms of scientific misconduct.
Yeah, yeah... Read about the process used for the whitewash HERE.

Also, Mann has most likely stepped in it pretty seriously... He is suing people who have called his "hockey stick" fraudulent. Unlike at Penn State, there will be more than just Mann presenting the evidence against him on the honor system. The first court date is later this month, I believe... Let's see how THAT goes.



That article has nothing to do with some sort of whitewash, as you yourself seem to recognize in your description of it. Every investigation has cleared him of wrongdoing so far, so if you're pinning your hopes on what may arise from an upcoming lawsuit, I suggest you prepare for the eventuality you're going to be disappointed yet again.

I'm sure the lack of a transitional fossil finding of wrongdoing will prove you right this time...

mimg.ugo.com
 
2013-01-11 06:33:19 PM

GeneralJim: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: GeneralJim: It's annoying refuting the same dumb-ass arguments time and again

That's true. That's why people get annoyed when you and your green text show up because you are wrong
Blah, blah, blah. You forgot that bit about rubber and glue. Hey, are you REALLY so stupid that you can't look and SEE when data has been changed? Look at the historical data. Why should the temperatures for, say, 1935, be any different when looked at from 1980 or 2007? All the rest of the "irregularities" are similarly easy to spot. And, "the dog ate my data?" Really? Do you know what science becomes when you lose the data, and people cannot check your work? NOT science.

[jonova.s3.amazonaws.com image 850x284]


people.virginia.edu

'I refuse to even consider the explicitly stated reasons in the published literature explaining why these changes took place, therefore it must be intelligent design fraud.'
 
Displayed 118 of 118 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report