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 32
    More: Followup, State of the Climate, National Climatic Data Center, CONUS Tavg, 48 contiguous states, data sets, temperatures, Global Tavg, National Weather Service  
•       •       •

5475 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-09 01:39:17 PM  
5 votes:
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 07:23:01 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:20:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:52:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:38:45 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:39:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:26:57 PM  
2 votes:
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 01:01:52 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:56:19 PM  
2 votes:
I haven't read anything that badly written since working as a TA in grad school.
2013-01-09 11:27:49 AM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-01-10 04:24:05 AM  
1 votes:
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 03:32:21 AM  
1 votes:
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 03:17:57 AM  
1 votes:
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
2013-01-09 10:23:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:28:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:50:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:13:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:32:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:27:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:18:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:36:00 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:24:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:11:11 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:49:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:53:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:50:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:20:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:00:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:57:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:40:45 PM  
1 votes:
In other news, some people suck Koch for a living.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
2013-01-09 01:38:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:15:41 PM  
1 votes:

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
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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