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.

(Mother Jones)   Is Obama going to do something about climate change in his second term or is he just blowing more hot air?   (motherjones.com) divider line 83
    More: Interesting, President Obama, climate change, Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, inauguration  
•       •       •

183 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jan 2013 at 10:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 10:04:24 AM
Since to two biggest contributors are the Sun and the Chinese I don't think he has much of a chance.
 
2013-01-23 10:09:49 AM

numbone: Since to two biggest contributors are the Sun and the Chinese I don't think he has much of a chance.


Not to mention that, from the Republican perspective, it's like asking if Obama is going to do something about the feral unicorn population outside of Kalamazoo, MI.
 
2013-01-23 10:09:49 AM

numbone: Since to two biggest contributors are the Sun and the Chinese I don't think he has much of a chance.


I just knew Rupert Murdoch was behind it.
 
2013-01-23 10:12:24 AM
The time to act was like 10 years ago
 
2013-01-23 10:19:12 AM
Nothing will get done about it as long as we have corporations funding elections. Preserving the environment is a cost that the vast majority of companies don't want to pay.
 
2013-01-23 10:21:02 AM
I like the denier's reasoning on this particular topic.

If you choose "The Earth's Climate is always in flux!" the answer is "Nothing we can do about it!"
If you choose "The PDO cycles are the reason, climate is cooling!" the answer is "Nothing we can do about it!"
If you choose "The Chinese are worse than us!" the answer is "Nothing we can do about it!"
 
2013-01-23 10:24:35 AM

Alebak: The time to act was like 10 years ago


Remember the "Debt Ceiling"?

Well, there's also a "Heat Ceiling". But you won't hear the politicians or the media talk about it. Just like the Debt Ceiling simply kicks the "fiscal responsibility" can down the road, the "heat ceiling" does the same for energy responsibility. We are truly farked as a species, all because of partisan politics and greed.
 
2013-01-23 10:25:35 AM

Alebak: The time to act was like 10 years ago


This. This country's priorities are farked up considering climate change was given little (if any) attention during the campaign until MTV brought it up in an interview. Good luck getting anything meaningful passed with a GOP-controlled house.
 
2013-01-23 10:25:39 AM
Anything to attack free enterprise and get the government picking winners and losers. So yeah he'll be all over that.
 
2013-01-23 10:34:13 AM

guilt by association: Alebak: The time to act was like 10 years ago
This. This country's priorities are farked up considering climate change was given little (if any) attention during the campaign until MTV brought it up in an interview. Good luck getting anything meaningful passed with a GOP-controlled house.


MTV? I don't think so. The issue has been brought up many times by lots of people who doesn't listen to Fox News for as long as he's been in office, and before. You might have to read something besides American sources to hear about it, though.

cchris_39: Anything to attack free enterprise and get the government picking winners and losers. So yeah he'll be all over that.


"Free enterprise" isn't free. So shut up and pay your carbon taxes.

toppun.com
 
2013-01-23 10:36:46 AM
Maybe he should make it illegal for the climate to change by more than 10 degrees.
 
2013-01-23 10:40:15 AM
bmongar [TotalFark]

numbone: Since to two biggest contributors are the Sun and the Chinese I don't think he has much of a chance.

I just knew Rupert Murdoch was behind it.


AND Richard Nixon.
 
2013-01-23 10:50:00 AM
If he "does anything", it will be like what was "done" back in 1994 on assault weapons: Mostly window-dressing, not at all effective, but great outrage fodder for the other side, who will scream and spit and hiss until it's gone, at which point things will go even further in the wrong direction.

When "the year" finally comes when virtually everyone has to admit, OK, that was by far the worst year for weather in recorded history, and clearly, something is wrong, then the right will say, "The conservatives are the real environmentalists. Libby libs destroyed your planet with their tax-and-spend ways. The only way to heal the planet is to cut taxes and reduce gubbmint."
 
2013-01-23 10:57:02 AM

cchris_39: Anything to attack free enterprise and get the government picking winners and losers. So yeah he'll be all over that.


Um, Science has determined that the Earth is a loser if we keep on our current track.

But your deflection tears are delicious, keep em coming.
 
2013-01-23 10:59:29 AM

Kibbler: When "the year" finally comes when virtually everyone has to admit, OK, that was by far the worst year for weather in recorded history, and clearly, something is wrong, then the right will say, "The conservatives are the real environmentalists. Libby libs destroyed your planet with their tax-and-spend ways. The only way to heal the planet is to cut taxes and reduce gubbmint."


And it will be up to us to call them on it. They will be correct in the context that "growing" everything is wrong (including the government.) But they will also be wrong in the context that so much of the profit of their backers depends upon the irresponsible, destructive exploitation of all available resources, both natural and human. And the democrats have to be taken to task as well. Their attitude that Anything Which Increases Tax Revenue = Good needs to be plowed asunder. Everything needs to shrink, except for the amount of vegetation, which is responsible for scrubbing so much of the CO2 from the atmosphere. This includes the population of humans on the planet. And radically, in fact. Good luck on this. The democrats will be your most fierce enemy in this fight, as "Reproduction is a Right" is one of the lies they have sold to attain power.
 
2013-01-23 11:04:40 AM
What a Hoax
 
2013-01-23 11:21:39 AM

Alebak: The time to act was like 10 years ago


IMO the time to act was over 30 years ago. Imagine the U.S. being the leader in green technologies and production of those products today. Much less or no dependence on foreign oil by the turn of the century. The increased technological and diversification of energy production and their components, etc...

Sure it is pie in the sky wishing. Maybe a bit over the top and what is done is done.

Our "Morning in America" moment resulted in looking forward to that immediate day, not the decades into the future.
 
2013-01-23 02:17:30 PM

HAMMERTOE: Everything needs to shrink, except for the amount of vegetation, which is responsible for scrubbing so much of the CO2 from the atmosphere. This includes the population of humans on the planet. And radically, in fact. Good luck on this. The democrats will be your most fierce enemy in this fight, as "Reproduction is a Right" is one of the lies they have sold to attain power.


You have a curious recollection about which political party in the United States has historically tried to restrict sex education, contraceptive availability, and access to abortions. You are similarly confused about which political party has supported this sort of aid to foreign countries.

Hrm. Let's review the political history of allowing foreign aid to include all aspects of family planning, including abortions. There has been a ban on that periodically for the last few decades. See if you can spot the pattern in the Global Gag Rule: "The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as Republican President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office."

When Sandra Fluke came to Congress to advocate for contraception being made freely available as part of student health care, which party invited her? Which party first tried to block her (claiming that because she was not a member of the clergy, her opinion was irrelevant to Georgetown's "moral" policies), then demonized her as a "slut" for wanting contraception in her early twenties?

How do you have this so damn backwards?
 
2013-01-23 04:16:33 PM

chimp_ninja: How do you have this so damn backwards?


You think I'm against you, but I'm not, really. It's in the definition. The Democrats' position was exactly "Women have the Right to unfettered control over their own bodies." Please note: I am not disagreeing or saying this is wrong in the slightest, okay? But, just like the ACLU had to argue *for* Rush Limbaugh to satisfy their own policies, the Democrats will be compelled to argue *for* those who expect "the Right to unfettered control over their own bodies" (exactly the same right those seeking abortion and Birth Control coverage were arguing for.)

Does this make sense now?
 
2013-01-23 04:20:00 PM
I'm not arguing anything about Sex Education, or contraception. I'm saying that the same argument will have to apply in reverse. If those who wish to have sex *without* reproducing are entitled to do so, then those who wish it specifically *for* reproduction are entitled to the very same autonomy over their bodies, and the democrats are required to argue for them, or risk losing the same right, in reverse.

It's kind of like Intellectual Property Rights. If you don't defend them, you lose the right to.
 
2013-01-23 04:27:30 PM
numbone
Since to two biggest contributors are the Sun and the Chinese I don't think he has much of a chance.

GFY
 
2013-01-23 06:00:30 PM
Kibbler:
When "the year" finally comes when virtually everyone has to admit, OK, that was by far the worst year for weather in recorded history, and clearly, something is wrong, then the right will say, "The conservatives are the real environmentalists. Libby libs destroyed your planet with their tax-and-spend ways. The only way to heal the planet is to cut taxes and reduce gubbmint."

"Worst year for weather in recorded history"? WTF? We are in a geological ice age. There are freaking ice caps on the planet it is so cold. The last time it was this cold, about 250 MYA, the whole planet damn near froze over. We are SO cold that orbital geometry makes us have major glaciations (colloquially, ice ages) which have miles thick ice sheets cover all land from the north pole down to about Kentucky. We are about 10K below what has been normal since life became diverse.

Given all that, any warming is good. If we don't manage to warm the planet, and I don't think we will, the ice sheets will be marching any time now, geologically speaking. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide was our best hope, but that has been shown to be ineffective in raising global temperature.

But don't worry about the "hottest we've ever measured." That's only measured DIRECTLY. We know the history of the temperature on Earth, and we are in the freezer right now. It has NEVER been significantly colder than it is now, although it has been more frozen over. Mankind is an incredibly new, and incredibly short-lived phenomenon, geologically speaking. In effect, we started taking temperature readings in Chicago in January. By mid-February, we should be screaming about dangerous warming? Uh, no.
 
2013-01-23 06:05:54 PM

coeyagi: numbone: Since to two biggest contributors are the Sun and the Chinese I don't think he has much of a chance.

Not to mention that, from the Republican perspective, it's like asking if Obama is going to do something about the feral unicorn population outside of Kalamazoo, MI.


If those unicorns in any way endanger Bell's Brewery, then Obama has my full support to use our entire nuclear arsenal to stop the Rainbow Menace.
 
2013-01-23 06:13:35 PM

HAMMERTOE: I'm not arguing anything about Sex Education, or contraception. I'm saying that the same argument will have to apply in reverse. If those who wish to have sex *without* reproducing are entitled to do so, then those who wish it specifically *for* reproduction are entitled to the very same autonomy over their bodies, and the democrats are required to argue for them, or risk losing the same right, in reverse.

It's kind of like Intellectual Property Rights. If you don't defend them, you lose the right to.



Your point makes sense, but I don't think chimp_ninja's point (or any proposed policy here) relies on anyone trying to somehow prevent reproduction in some sort of heavy-handed way that would remove rights. Instead, I believe he was pointing out that the Democrats tend to favor advocating for education and access to voluntary ways to prevent reproduction (as opposed to the GOP which tends to argue against such approaches), which would suggest your contention that "the democrats will be your most fierce enemy in this fight" might not be true. According to his argument, it is Republicans, not Democrats that tend to argue against actual policies that would allow voluntary limitation of reproduction.

As a side note, you may be conflating the idea of 'reproductive rights' with the idea of "Reproduction is a Right" that you put forward. The former tends to argue for access to abortion, family planning, and contraception - again, something that the Republicans tend to oppose. The latter really isn't in question, and sounds more like a 'pro-life' slogan than anything.
 
2013-01-23 06:16:34 PM

GeneralJim: Kibbler: When "the year" finally comes when virtually everyone has to admit, OK, that was by far the worst year for weather in recorded history, and clearly, something is wrong, then the right will say, "The conservatives are the real environmentalists. Libby libs destroyed your planet with their tax-and-spend ways. The only way to heal the planet is to cut taxes and reduce gubbmint."
"Worst year for weather in recorded history"? WTF? We are in a geological ice age. There are freaking ice caps on the planet it is so cold. The last time it was this cold, about 250 MYA, the whole planet damn near froze over. We are SO cold that orbital geometry makes us have major glaciations (colloquially, ice ages) which have miles thick ice sheets cover all land from the north pole down to about Kentucky. We are about 10K below what has been normal since life became diverse.

Given all that, any warming is good. If we don't manage to warm the planet, and I don't think we will, the ice sheets will be marching any time now, geologically speaking. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide was our best hope, but that has been shown to be ineffective in raising global temperature.

But don't worry about the "hottest we've ever measured." That's only measured DIRECTLY. We know the history of the temperature on Earth, and we are in the freezer right now. It has NEVER been significantly colder than it is now, although it has been more frozen over. Mankind is an incredibly new, and incredibly short-lived phenomenon, geologically speaking. In effect, we started taking temperature readings in Chicago in January. By mid-February, we should be screaming about dangerous warming? Uh, no.



'Let's burn down the house, since winter is coming.'
 
2013-01-23 06:41:34 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: Kibbler: When "the year" finally comes when virtually everyone has to admit, OK, that was by far the worst year for weather in recorded history, and clearly, something is wrong, then the right will say, "The conservatives are the real environmentalists. Libby libs destroyed your planet with their tax-and-spend ways. The only way to heal the planet is to cut taxes and reduce gubbmint."

"Worst year for weather in recorded history"? WTF? We are in a geological ice age. There are freaking ice caps on the planet it is so cold. The last time it was this cold, about 250 MYA, the whole planet damn near froze over. We are SO cold that orbital geometry makes us have major glaciations (colloquially, ice ages) which have miles thick ice sheets cover all land from the north pole down to about Kentucky. We are about 10K below what has been normal since life became diverse.

Given all that, any warming is good. If we don't manage to warm the planet, and I don't think we will, the ice sheets will be marching any time now, geologically speaking. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide was our best hope, but that has been shown to be ineffective in raising global temperature.

But don't worry about the "hottest we've ever measured." That's only measured DIRECTLY. We know the history of the temperature on Earth, and we are in the freezer right now. It has NEVER been significantly colder than it is now, although it has been more frozen over. Mankind is an incredibly new, and incredibly short-lived phenomenon, geologically speaking. In effect, we started taking temperature readings in Chicago in January. By mid-February, we should be screaming about dangerous warming? Uh, no.


'Let's burn down the house, since winter is coming.'

This is probably your stupidest comment ever. On the bright side, it's very close to certain that your next one won't be quite this dumb. What you said has nothing to do with anything. Try: "It's 40 degrees below zero -- it's okay that you left the oven on low in the house." That's a little closer. Jeez, whoever is paying you is certainly not getting their money's worth.
 
2013-01-23 06:52:07 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Kibbler: When "the year" finally comes when virtually everyone has to admit, OK, that was by far the worst year for weather in recorded history, and clearly, something is wrong, then the right will say, "The conservatives are the real environmentalists. Libby libs destroyed your planet with their tax-and-spend ways. The only way to heal the planet is to cut taxes and reduce gubbmint."

"Worst year for weather in recorded history"? WTF? We are in a geological ice age. There are freaking ice caps on the planet it is so cold. The last time it was this cold, about 250 MYA, the whole planet damn near froze over. We are SO cold that orbital geometry makes us have major glaciations (colloquially, ice ages) which have miles thick ice sheets cover all land from the north pole down to about Kentucky. We are about 10K below what has been normal since life became diverse.

Given all that, any warming is good. If we don't manage to warm the planet, and I don't think we will, the ice sheets will be marching any time now, geologically speaking. Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide was our best hope, but that has been shown to be ineffective in raising global temperature.

But don't worry about the "hottest we've ever measured." That's only measured DIRECTLY. We know the history of the temperature on Earth, and we are in the freezer right now. It has NEVER been significantly colder than it is now, although it has been more frozen over. Mankind is an incredibly new, and incredibly short-lived phenomenon, geologically speaking. In effect, we started taking temperature readings in Chicago in January. By mid-February, we should be screaming about dangerous warming? Uh, no.

'Let's burn down the house, since winter is coming.'
This is probably your stupidest comment ever. On the bright side, it's very close to certain that your next one won't be quite this dumb. What you said has nothing to do with anything. Try: "It's 40 degrees below zer ...


How about 'it will be 40 degrees below zero a few months from now -- it's okay that you left the oven on low in the house'. The point is that negative impacts from one change are not mutually exclusive with negative impacts in a more distant future.
 
2013-01-23 07:21:59 PM

cchris_39: Anything to attack free enterprise and get the government picking winners and losers. So yeah he'll be all over that.


This and all that.
 
2013-01-23 08:09:24 PM
Damnhippyfreak:
How about 'it will be 40 degrees below zero a few months from now -- it's okay that you left the oven on low in the house'. The point is that negative impacts from one change are not mutually exclusive with negative impacts in a more distant future.

Well, okay, as long as the current temperature is -39 degrees. We are in an ice age NOW. We are 10 K below normal. At this point, any heat is good.
 
2013-01-23 08:46:37 PM
Maybe he can double track that Keystone pipeline to Alberta. Oil would flow one way and CO2 the other.

Of course, the CO2 would kill everybody in Alberta but .... I can't really thing of an end to that sentence.
 
2013-01-23 10:58:26 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: How about 'it will be 40 degrees below zero a few months from now -- it's okay that you left the oven on low in the house'. The point is that negative impacts from one change are not mutually exclusive with negative impacts in a more distant future.

Well, okay, as long as the current temperature is -39 degrees. We are in an ice age NOW. We are 10 K below normal. At this point, any heat is good.


Holy batfark, this is incredibly idiotic even for the green text thread shiatter.

upload.wikimedia.org
0 on this is present day.

Last time we were 10K warmer than now?

45 million years ago.
 
2013-01-23 11:13:28 PM
Green Initiatives, not the largest govt. waste, but still a waste. Anyone that thinks the government throwing our money at somehow solving weather patterns would solve anything is completely mental. I think we have bigger problems than saving the manatees out there, ones that can actually be solved.
 
2013-01-23 11:25:20 PM

phedex: Green Initiatives, not the largest govt. waste, but still a waste. Anyone that thinks the government throwing our money at somehow solving weather patterns would solve anything is completely mental. I think we have bigger problems than saving the manatees out there, ones that can actually be solved.


I'd like to introduce you to a few things. The Acid Rain Program and the Montreal Protocol

Both of these helped to stop the side effects of technological advances by "throwing money" at the problem and having the government fund the effort as well as mandating changes in the way certain business was conducted. Both have been incredibly successful. Furthermore, most of the advances in Nuclear and Solar energy were the direct result of government research until the last 2 decades or so. Even now, many advances are made in government funded labs in the field of solar energy.
 
2013-01-24 12:06:46 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: How about 'it will be 40 degrees below zero a few months from now -- it's okay that you left the oven on low in the house'. The point is that negative impacts from one change are not mutually exclusive with negative impacts in a more distant future.
Well, okay, as long as the current temperature is -39 degrees. We are in an ice age NOW. We are 10 K below normal. At this point, any heat is good.


Keep in mind that according to you, even the non-existence of the human race is also "normal". This somewhat extreme view of "normal" isn't really useful in this context, I'm afraid.
 
2013-01-24 01:00:17 AM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak:
Similarly, said links do prove you did lie. Multiple times as you continue, as you do here, to lie to try to cover it up.

Let's see... First off, since you are the least honest person on Fark (of which I am aware, I don't read all the categories) I don't think your howling about ANYONE'S honesty, or lack thereof, carries any weight.

And, what I did say, that was not true, is to list the source of a questionnaire as the Oreskes study, when, in fact, the questionnaire was in Scientific American. A horrible, horrible lie, I admit.


Whoops. Looks like the other thread closed down before I hit the button. I'll leave this here.

The issue itself it small. Your dishonest handling of it, however, shows how irrationally you argue. If you can't deal with an easily-verified fact about your very own posts in a rational and adult manner, how can you possibly deal with anything more complex?

Even right here, the bit in bold isn't correct. Yet again, the 98% number (which is in actuality is 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) comes from Doran & Zimmerman 2009, not Scientific American. This is what I mean by your intentional ignorance - how many times should it be necessary to correct you on simple things like this before it becomes dishonesty on your part?


GeneralJim: And now you claim I did not get a retraction in in the same thread. I won't do any research at your behest, so let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true. Then, thus assuming, that is a MISTAKE, as opposed to a lie. But I won't hold your lack of ability to discern the difference against you. That would be like being upset that a person color-blind from birth cannot tell the difference between red and magenta.


Again, how many times do you have to ignore the evidence pointing a "mistake" such as this before it becomes dishonest on your part. Off the top of my head, there 1,2,3 times I've tried to correct you, with the evidence clearly linked in front of you, and yet you still haven't clued into the untruth you've been repeating over and over. Even now, you refuse to even glance at the evidence in front of you - this is profoundly dishonest of you. It's not like color blindness - it's your unwillingness to even look in the first place.


GeneralJim: And, seriously, do you think that if I were "trying to cover it up" I'd be talking about it so much? That ONE mis-attribution is, indeed, the only time I have said anything I knew to be false on Fark, other than obvious sarcasm such as "Oh, look, more sterling honesty from Hippy..." That kind of stuff is not a lie, either.

And again, for all the good it will do, you would TRULY improve your accuracy if you simply quit pretending that you know what I am thinking. When you state what I am "trying to do" you have been, I believe, wrong EVERY time. You suck at it; find another parlor trick.


This itself is the central lie. You've been making this "mis-attribution" for over two years, with me correcting you repeatedly. You've been lying to cover it up:

-you say you corrected the "deliberate misstatement" of yours in the same thread - false
-you say only told this falsehood once - false
-you state the correct source - false
-you say you have never lied here - false

Again, with all of these proven repeatedly.
 
2013-01-24 02:01:39 AM
And he still hasn't apologized to me for forcing me to insult his dumb, lying ass.
 
2013-01-24 09:39:02 AM

Damnhippyfreak: As a side note, you may be conflating the idea of 'reproductive rights' with the idea of "Reproduction is a Right" that you put forward. The former tends to argue for access to abortion, family planning, and contraception - again, something that the Republicans tend to oppose. The latter really isn't in question, and sounds more like a 'pro-life' slogan than anything.


You're right, of course. I simply should have framed my argument within the context of "Personal Anatomic Autonomy," which includes both the right to contraceptive/ abortive services, and the right to not be forced to.
 
2013-01-24 02:29:34 PM

HAMMERTOE: You're right, of course. I simply should have framed my argument within the context of "Personal Anatomic Autonomy," which includes both the right to contraceptive/ abortive services, and the right to not be forced to.


Has anyone in the United States proposed forcing contraception or abortion on people that don't want it? I still have no idea why you're convinced that the modern Democratic Party is contributing to population growth.

Most of the states with the highest birth rates (better metric than population growth, which includes migrations) are red states with highly religious populations. Map is here.

States with the highest birth rates per 1,000 residents:
1. Utah 18.9
2. Alaska 16.2
3. Texas 15.4
4. District of Columbia 15.2
5. Idaho 14.8
6. South Dakota 14.5
7. Oklahoma 14.2
7. Nebraska 14.2
7. Kansas 14.2
10. Hawaii 14.0

Hard to blame that list on Democratic policies. Much easier to correlate it with lack of access to abortion, social demonization of contraception, and abstinence-only sex education in the public schools. These are all Republican mainstream positions.
 
2013-01-24 11:11:44 PM
So, apparently the green text one realized how idiotic his "10K below normal" statement was and has retreated from this thread. That's ok, it's so insanely idiotic I had to favorite this thread for that alone. First one I've favorited for idiocy rather than the knowledge/discussion contained therein.
 
2013-01-25 12:28:32 AM
Zafler:
Last time we were 10K warmer than now?

45 million years ago.

More like 20-25 MYA... The last time it was this cold? Over 250 MYA. Geologic time frames are LONG. That's why, for analyzing climate, looking at the last 12 years is only mildly stupider than looking at the last 150 years. The biggest driver, in degrees, of climate affecting us now is a 1600-year cycle. That makes 150 years of readings close to irrelevant.


www.aps.org
 
2013-01-25 12:42:12 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Keep in mind that according to you, even the non-existence of the human race is also "normal". This somewhat extreme view of "normal" isn't really useful in this context, I'm afraid.

Oh, BS. Humans don't mean squat to the climate. The planet's about four billion years old. Our species is two million years old. Do the math. Are you seriously suggesting there wasn't any changing climate without people?
 
2013-01-25 12:45:32 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
Even right here, the bit in bold isn't correct. Yet again, the 98% number (which is in actuality is 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) comes from Doran & Zimmerman 2009, not Scientific American. This is what I mean by your intentional ignorance - how many times should it be necessary to correct you on simple things like this before it becomes dishonesty on your part?

I took the Scientific American quiz. It categorized me as a AGW supporter. Don't sprain your back "flipping" your lies to me.
 
2013-01-25 12:58:05 AM

GeneralJim: Zafler: Last time we were 10K warmer than now?

45 million years ago.
More like 20-25 MYA... The last time it was this cold? Over 250 MYA. Geologic time frames are LONG. That's why, for analyzing climate, looking at the last 12 years is only mildly stupider than looking at the last 150 years. The biggest driver, in degrees, of climate affecting us now is a 1600-year cycle. That makes 150 years of readings close to irrelevant.


Ooh, but I don't understand. Please do explain more, in terms of geologic time frames, why 1600 years (so LONG) is more relevant than 150 years.

Because I'm pretty sure you're retarded, but I enjoy laughing at you.
 
2013-01-25 03:00:11 AM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: Zafler: Last time we were 10K warmer than now?

45 million years ago.

More like 20-25 MYA... The last time it was this cold? Over 250 MYA. Geologic time frames are LONG. That's why, for analyzing climate, looking at the last 12 years is only mildly stupider than looking at the last 150 years. The biggest driver, in degrees, of climate affecting us now is a 1600-year cycle. That makes 150 years of readings close to irrelevant.


Ooh, but I don't understand. Please do explain more, in terms of geologic time frames, why 1600 years (so LONG) is more relevant than 150 years.

Because I'm pretty sure you're retarded, but I enjoy laughing at you.

That's okay Timmay, strap on your leather helmet, and we'll talk SCIENCE!

Here's what global temperatures have done over the last two thousand years:


i46.tinypic.com



See how that looks like a big sine wave? It appears to be one. And we are in the "going up" part, right around where it crosses the axis, which is where it is going up the fastest. So, NATURALLY we should be warming, and at about the rate we are. Oh, and that box on the right side? That's the last 150 years. If one looks ONLY at that, one cannot see the larger pattern.
 
2013-01-25 03:26:11 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Zafler: Last time we were 10K warmer than now?

45 million years ago.

More like 20-25 MYA... The last time it was this cold? Over 250 MYA. Geologic time frames are LONG. That's why, for analyzing climate, looking at the last 12 years is only mildly stupider than looking at the last 150 years. The biggest driver, in degrees, of climate affecting us now is a 1600-year cycle. That makes 150 years of readings close to irrelevant.


Ooh, but I don't understand. Please do explain more, in terms of geologic time frames, why 1600 years (so LONG) is more relevant than 150 years.

Because I'm pretty sure you're retarded, but I enjoy laughing at you.
That's okay Timmay, strap on your leather helmet, and we'll talk SCIENCE!

Here's what global temperatures have done over the last two thousand years:

[i46.tinypic.com image 850x584]


See how that looks like a big sine wave? It appears to be one. And we are in the "going up" part, right around where it crosses the axis, which is where it is going up the fastest. So, NATURALLY we should be warming, and at about the rate we are. Oh, and that box on the right side? That's the last 150 years. If one looks ONLY at that, one cannot see the larger pattern.


I was more referring to your implication that 1600 years was a geologic time frame.

But since you brought up Loehle 2007, surely you are aware that the author of that paper has issued a correction - I know you are, since we discussed it last week. Here, maybe you'll understand it this time: Link

(for the sake of not wasting my breath, I won't point out other issues with that Loehle 2007 paper, which were not addressed in the 2008 correction, and which you would surely ignore anyway)

Why would you continue to post a graph from a paper when the author of that paper has already corrected its inaccuracies? Could it be that you don't care at all about the accuracy of what you're saying here? Let's talk SCEINCE indeed (because, really, how could details possibly matter to SICENCE).
 
2013-01-25 04:03:53 PM

chimp_ninja: So? Why would we need to look at climate for 250M years to measure an effect caused by geographically sudden shifts in atmospheric composition that have occurred over the last ~100 years?Maybe you should stick to the IT department. Go get your shinebox, install some printers, and let scientists handle the science.


Also, he's still using the fake "travel back in time" graph that doesn't match any other reconstructions.
 
2013-01-25 05:41:17 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Keep in mind that according to you, even the non-existence of the human race is also "normal". This somewhat extreme view of "normal" isn't really useful in this context, I'm afraid.
Oh, BS. Humans don't mean squat to the climate. The planet's about four billion years old. Our species is two million years old. Do the math. Are you seriously suggesting there wasn't any changing climate without people?


There's that mind reading again. You really need to get the idea that pointing out a problem with your argument does not mean I'm advocating for the exact opposite. What I'm getting at is that your idea of "normal" has very little relevance to us as human beings, never mind today's industrial society - the things with which we are concerned with.
 
2013-01-25 05:52:01 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Even right here, the bit in bold isn't correct. Yet again, the 98% number (which is in actuality is 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) comes from Doran & Zimmerman 2009, not Scientific American. This is what I mean by your intentional ignorance - how many times should it be necessary to correct you on simple things like this before it becomes dishonesty on your part?
I took the Scientific American quiz. It categorized me as a AGW supporter. Don't sprain your back "flipping" your lies to me.


LOL. Even after all this, you still don't get it. Yet again, the 98% number that you've quoted so many times (which is in actuality is 97.4% of climatologists who are active publishers on climate change) comes from Doran & Zimmerman 2009, not Scientific American. Whatever quiz you took is something else. You haven't gotten the source right, even after more than two years of me showing you're wrong. Again, I'll ask you, how many times should it be necessary to correct you on simple things like this before it becomes dishonesty on your part?

Come on now - look how dishonest and irrationally you react when being corrected on a very simple and easily-verifiable fact - how can you possibly handle anything more complex?

Of course, the fact that you've ignored the bits of my post where I prove you've been repeatedly lying aren't helping in this assessment.
 
2013-01-25 05:58:35 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: Zafler: Last time we were 10K warmer than now?

45 million years ago.

More like 20-25 MYA... The last time it was this cold? Over 250 MYA. Geologic time frames are LONG. That's why, for analyzing climate, looking at the last 12 years is only mildly stupider than looking at the last 150 years. The biggest driver, in degrees, of climate affecting us now is a 1600-year cycle. That makes 150 years of readings close to irrelevant.


Ooh, but I don't understand. Please do explain more, in terms of geologic time frames, why 1600 years (so LONG) is more relevant than 150 years.

Because I'm pretty sure you're retarded, but I enjoy laughing at you.
That's okay Timmay, strap on your leather helmet, and we'll talk SCIENCE!

Here's what global temperatures have done over the last two thousand years:

[i46.tinypic.com image 850x584]


See how that looks like a big sine wave? It appears to be one. And we are in the "going up" part, right around where it crosses the axis, which is where it is going up the fastest. So, NATURALLY we should be warming, and at about the rate we are. Oh, and that box on the right side? That's the last 150 years. If one looks ONLY at that, one cannot see the larger pattern.



I had a pretty good rebuttal to this line of argument in the last thread, that you (yet again) irrationally ignored. So I'll repost it here:


Damnhippyfreak: While you have made the above argument many times before, I have also solidly refuted it many times before, with you tending to ignore the arguments I put forth or trying to change the subject. Let's see if you continue this pattern.
[...]

First, and most importantly, the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on some sort of simplistic (not-even) regression like what you're trying to do here. It's somewhat more complicated then just eyeballing a line on a graph and assuming it will continue (like what you're trying to do) without any idea about the multiple mechanisms or processes simultaneously at work. Eyeballing a graph and guessing the future is a very poor way of model-building, hm?

Second, your so-called "cycle" isn't really all that different from what has already been found:

www.skepticalscience.com

Your choosing to plot Loehle's reconstruction in isolation gives you the impression that it says something radically different from other reconstructions. This is false. Your choosing to not include the instrumental record gives you the impression that current warming is in line with historical changes portrayed by Loehle's reconstruction. This is also false.



We'll have to set up some semi-permanent links and a counter if you keep on repeating easily-debunked arguments over and over like the worst kind of creationist.
 
2013-01-25 07:58:34 PM
HighZoolander:
See how that looks like a big sine wave? It appears to be one. And we are in the "going up" part, right around where it crosses the axis, which is where it is going up the fastest. So, NATURALLY we should be warming, and at about the rate we are. Oh, and that box on the right side? That's the last 150 years. If one looks ONLY at that, one cannot see the larger pattern.

I was more referring to your implication that 1600 years was a geologic time frame.

I didn't imply that. Christ. What I said was that there is a KNOWN, very large amplitude 1600-year cycle, which makes looking at only 150 years borderline retarded. And you cross that border, and set up a base camp, if you criticize people for NOT cherry-picking 150 years.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report