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.

(Some Climatologist)   In breaking climate news, a leak shows that the IPCC's upcoming report allows that the Sun may well be warming the planet, their models suck, they were wrong about enhanced severe weather, and they double-dipped in the guacamole   (wattsupwiththat.com) divider line 126
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2880 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Feb 2013 at 11:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-02 02:47:36 PM
<b>TsukasaK</b>:

It may sound snarky and elitist, but there may be reasons why trained people weigh forth on topics that require training and aren't easly grasped.. Cancer therapy, electrical repair, climatology...
Stuff like that.
 
2013-02-02 02:58:36 PM

TsukasaK: What is a layman to do? The documents linked in that article are greek to me and would be to the great majority of the population.


Useful summary of what the trained eyes are seeing, courtesy of the journal Science.
 
2013-02-02 03:10:57 PM

IlGreven: ...that's why the untrained eye isn't and shouldn't be used to make decisions on climate change. And those who are in power who willfully remain untrained eyes should be removed from the decision-making process.


That's just it though; it's not humanly possible for every politician (or heck, every voter) who is voting one way or another to be a subject matter expert in whatever it is they're voting for. There are too many subjects and not enough people or hours in the day.

Dammnit Jim, I'm a coder, not a climatologist!

maxheck: It may sound snarky and elitist, but there may be reasons why trained people weigh forth on topics that require training and aren't easly grasped.


It does sound snarky and elitist, because this is a government of the people, last I checked. If you handwave trying to explain something this important to the masses as "you can't understand", you do a great disservice to all. Not to mention come off as very insulting.

chimp_ninja: Useful summary of what the trained eyes are seeing, courtesy of the journal Science.


Much better, thanks. That still leaves a few questions unanswered though.

TFA: Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

The consensus is that climate is changing. Okay; that much is clear.

The big questions remaining then:

* Is this a bad thing
* Can we or should we do anything about it
* If both of those answers are "yes", then the final one is a big fat whopping  how.

this new editor kicks ass.
 
2013-02-02 03:11:03 PM
bigfatskinny.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-02 03:17:36 PM
TsukasaK:

maxheck: It may sound snarky and elitist, but there may be reasons why trained people weigh forth on topics that require training and aren't easly grasped.

It does sound snarky and elitist, because this is a government of the people, last I checked. If you handwave trying to explain something this important to the masses as "you can't understand", you do a great disservice to all. Not to mention come off as very insulting


We have now outsourced your coding job to an opinionated letter-to-the-editor writing retiree from Nebraska. GOOD DAY, SIR!
 
2013-02-02 03:23:15 PM

maxheck: We have now outsourced your coding job to an opinionated letter-to-the-editor writing retiree from Nebraska. GOOD DAY, SIR!


For the most part, everday randoms won't be voting on matters of coding.

How energy policy affects jobs, the economy, and the environment, are a different matter altogether.
 
2013-02-02 03:23:57 PM

Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.


I think much of the backlash is not that the data is wrong, it's what the data is being used to justify.  I have no doubt the earth is warming unnaturally.  Absolutely none.  But I'm staunchly opposed to mandating a ton of wilderness-space-eating, grossly-inefficient "renewable" energy generators to supposedly fight it.  Because it's not going to do a damn thing.  Even the most pie-in-the-sky estimates have it as a 0.2 degree effect.

And I also think lumping in every effort to fight pollution or preserve wilderness space as somehow "fighting global warming" is stupid and short-sighted.  Marketing the banning of PCBs, for example, as some sort of effort to fight global warming, instead of focusing on birth defects, cancer rates, etc.... means that most people will (erroneously) discredit your campaign every time a blizzard rolls through.
 
2013-02-02 03:25:34 PM

IlGreven: TsukasaK: From an untrained eye, both "sides" here, those who say climate change is human caused and those who say it isn't, seem to both have convincing arguments.

...that's why the untrained eye isn't and shouldn't be used to make decisions on climate change. And those who are in power who willfully remain untrained eyes should be removed from the decision-making process.


And sent to gulags, amirite?
 
2013-02-02 03:32:40 PM

St_Francis_P: Nice blog; but until I see an authoritative YouTube video on the subject, I'm remaining skeptical.


(Seeing how we're dealing with a topic that should have been greened about six weeks ago, Here's a couple of old things that also should be mentioned)

Here's something from Dr. Murry Salby, professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia
who wrote a climate textbook published by Cambridge University Press (not his first atmospheric textbook)

http://youtu.be/ZVCps_SwD5w?t=24m38s

I'd ask you to watch the entire video, but people have short attention spans these days.

---

Second is from another climatologist Judith Curry, on James Hansen's quote from a couple of weeks ago

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.
 - James Hansen et alGlobal Temperature Update Through 2012.

 Excerpts:
An update through 2012 of our global analysis reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate for comparing nearby years. Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.

The current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the facr that the first half of the past 10 years had predominantly El Nino conditions, and the second half had predominantly La Nina conditions.

The approximate stand-still of global temperature during 1940-1975 is generally attributed to an approximate balance of aerosol cooling and greenhouse gas warming during a period of rapid growth of fossil fuel use with little control on particulate air pollution, but quantitative interpretation has been impossible because of the absence of adequate aerosol measurements.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012 .p df

There are about 955 comments on this thread located here
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#more-109 34

Oh, and Judith's forecast for the next 5 years?  Getting cooler than this last year.
I suspect she was bought off by the Big Oil groups.
 
2013-02-02 03:35:13 PM

FLMountainMan: I think much of the backlash is not that the data is wrong, it's what the data is being used to justify. I have no doubt the earth is warming unnaturally. Absolutely none. But I'm staunchly opposed to mandating a ton of wilderness-space-eating, grossly-inefficient "renewable" energy generators to supposedly fight it. Because it's not going to do a damn thing. Even the most pie-in-the-sky estimates have it as a 0.2 degree effect.

And I also think lumping in every effort to fight pollution or preserve wilderness space as somehow "fighting global warming" is stupid and short-sighted. Marketing the banning of PCBs, for example, as some sort of effort to fight global warming, instead of focusing on birth defects, cancer rates, etc.... means that most people will (erroneously) discredit your campaign every time a blizzard rolls through.


Hmm, the "pie-in-the-sky" estimates are probably closer to a 4 or 5 degree increase (if not more - I'm too lazy to look them up).

But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy, and I certainly won't make the mistake of mistaking your desire to preserve wilderness space as somehow fighting global warming, because that would be stupid and short-sighted of me. The smart, far-sighted answer is to recognize that the best solution to any problem is to do nothing, and assume it won't matter. I'm glad we're on the same page.


/oops, nope, that's just more global warming.
 
2013-02-02 03:45:40 PM
TsukasaK:


maxheck: We have now outsourced your coding job to an opinionated letter-to-the-editor writing retiree from Nebraska. GOOD DAY, SIR!

For the most part, everday randoms won't be voting on matters of coding.

How energy policy affects jobs, the economy, and the environment, are a different matter altogether.


Well, *You* have absolutely no vote in such things. I have a bit over 1000 votes in Exxon/Mobil. I only get to vote on the questions that they raise for voting, but at least I have that.

You have one vote in your government by birth.

Who exactly has a say in energy policy?
 
2013-02-02 03:58:26 PM

maxheck: Well, *You* have absolutely no vote in such things.


So you somehow intrinsically  know the makeup of my stock portfolio. Very impressive.

maxheck: You have one vote in your government by birth.


Actually, no, I have votes that count at different levels. State, local, even the freaking president, I get to cast a vote for. The ways this influences our enviornmental and energy policy should be plainly obvious.
 
2013-02-02 04:03:39 PM

TsukasaK: indarwinsshadow: It won't matter. After years of having farktards on this site cram every stat down our unbelieving throats, nothing under the stars is going to change their collective minds.

Yeah! It's almost like they all believe the same thing for some reason..

So I have an honest question here.

From an untrained eye, both "sides" here, those who say climate change is human caused and those who say it isn't, seem to both have convincing arguments.

What is a layman to do? The documents linked in that article are greek to me and would be to the great majority of the population.


Easy. If they start with a graph and follow with a sentence like "it's because of human blah, blah, blah" it's a pile of bullsh*t.
 
2013-02-02 04:28:49 PM

HighZoolander: FLMountainMan: I think much of the backlash is not that the data is wrong, it's what the data is being used to justify. I have no doubt the earth is warming unnaturally. Absolutely none. But I'm staunchly opposed to mandating a ton of wilderness-space-eating, grossly-inefficient "renewable" energy generators to supposedly fight it. Because it's not going to do a damn thing. Even the most pie-in-the-sky estimates have it as a 0.2 degree effect.

And I also think lumping in every effort to fight pollution or preserve wilderness space as somehow "fighting global warming" is stupid and short-sighted. Marketing the banning of PCBs, for example, as some sort of effort to fight global warming, instead of focusing on birth defects, cancer rates, etc.... means that most people will (erroneously) discredit your campaign every time a blizzard rolls through.

Hmm, the "pie-in-the-sky" estimates are probably closer to a 4 or 5 degree increase (if not more - I'm too lazy to look them up).

But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy, and I certainly won't make the mistake of mistaking your desire to preserve wilderness space as somehow fighting global warming, because that would be stupid and short-sighted of me. The smart, far-sighted answer is to recognize that the best solution to any problem is to do nothing, and assume it won't matter. I'm glad we're on the same page.


/oops, nope, that's just more global warming.


Since we're lazily snarking away with false dichotomies (slacktivism at its finest) - Yeah, you're completely right.  We should be building 22,000 acre wind farm power plants that at peak capacity offer as much power as a 200 acre nuclear plant.  Sure.  Sounds great.
 
2013-02-02 04:30:50 PM

TsukasaK: IlGreven: ...that's why the untrained eye isn't and shouldn't be used to make decisions on climate change. And those who are in power who willfully remain untrained eyes should be removed from the decision-making process.

That's just it though; it's not humanly possible for every politician (or heck, every voter) who is voting one way or another to be a subject matter expert in whatever it is they're voting for. There are too many subjects and not enough people or hours in the day.


But again, if I were to trust anyone, I'd trust the direct source, rather than those who only cite them.  IOW, You don't trust Al Gore or Christopher Monckton directly, you trust the scientist that Gore or Monckton cited.  And you'll find that again and again, it's more likely that a scientist will call out Monckton (and Watts) more often than they'll call out Gore (mainly because Gore has already said his piece.)

/Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled panels on climate change invited Monckton to give a dissertation on a certain paper...instead of the scientist who actually wrote the paper.
//Those guys need to be divested of their power post-haste.
 
2013-02-02 04:31:38 PM
And, by the way, I meant what we can actually change (specifically, if Western countries fully implemented Kyoto what the actual net effect on temperature would be), not the actual increase in global temperature.  (Never mind for a moment that carbon emissions have actually decreased more in the non-Kyoto West than the Kyoto West, that's an argument for another day).  Why you interpreted it that way, when combined with my label as "pie-in-the-sky" is puzzling, but it's the Net, misinterpretation is the norm.
 
2013-02-02 04:34:26 PM
FLMountainMan:

HighZoolander: FLMountainMan: I think much of the backlash is not that the data is wrong, it's what the data is being used to justify. I have no doubt the earth is warming unnaturally. Absolutely none. But I'm staunchly opposed to mandating a ton of wilderness-space-eating, grossly-inefficient "renewable" energy generators to supposedly fight it. Because it's not going to do a damn thing. Even the most pie-in-the-sky estimates have it as a 0.2 degree effect.

And I also think lumping in every effort to fight pollution or preserve wilderness space as somehow "fighting global warming" is stupid and short-sighted. Marketing the banning of PCBs, for example, as some sort of effort to fight global warming, instead of focusing on birth defects, cancer rates, etc.... means that most people will (erroneously) discredit your campaign every time a blizzard rolls through.

Hmm, the "pie-in-the-sky" estimates are probably closer to a 4 or 5 degree increase (if not more - I'm too lazy to look them up).

But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy, and I certainly won't make the mistake of mistaking your desire to preserve wilderness space as somehow fighting global warming, because that would be stupid and short-sighted of me. The smart, far-sighted answer is to recognize that the best solution to any problem is to do nothing, and assume it won't matter. I'm glad we're on the same page.


/oops, nope, that's just more global warming.

Since we're lazily snarking away with false dichotomies (slacktivism at its finest) - Yeah, you're completely right. We should be building 22,000 acre wind farm power plants that at peak capacity offer as much power as a 200 acre nuclear plant. Sure. Sounds great.


200 square miles enough for you?

I would be more willing to listen to the nuclear fans if only...
 
2013-02-02 04:37:31 PM

ginandbacon: GAT_00: they double-dipped in the guacamole

Nobody is that much of an asshole.

I am. Tortilla chips are too big and I have a dainty pie-hole.


That's like putting your whole mouth in the bowl!
 
2013-02-02 04:43:05 PM

stevetherobot: ginandbacon: GAT_00: they double-dipped in the guacamole

Nobody is that much of an asshole.

I am. Tortilla chips are too big and I have a dainty pie-hole.

That's like putting your whole mouth in the bowl!


What, you don't think I do that?
 
2013-02-02 04:44:00 PM
Oh, well, THAT changes everything. This means that it is now intelligent for creatures who have invented thinking machines and gone to the moon to make their energy by digging shiat up and BURNING it, like f**king cavemen.
Riiiiight.
 
2013-02-02 04:53:18 PM

FLMountainMan: Since we're lazily snarking away with false dichotomies (slacktivism at its finest) - Yeah, you're completely right. We should be building 22,000 acre wind farm power plants that at peak capacity offer as much power as a 200 acre nuclear plant. Sure. Sounds great.


maxheck: 200 square miles enough for you?

I would be more willing to listen to the nuclear fans if only...


Even if you just factored in the typical waste disposal problem with nuclear, I suspect 200 acres would not be nearly enough. Plus it seems like it would be much easier to decommission a wind farm than a nuclear site, if we later decide we want to use the land for something else.

FLMountainMan: And, by the way, I meant what we can actually change (specifically, if Western countries fully implemented Kyoto what the actual net effect on temperature would be), not the actual increase in global temperature. (Never mind for a moment that carbon emissions have actually decreased more in the non-Kyoto West than the Kyoto West, that's an argument for another day). Why you interpreted it that way, when combined with my label as "pie-in-the-sky" is puzzling, but it's the Net, misinterpretation is the norm.


Yep, I did misinterpret that, if this is what you meant. As for why? Um, the thought of pie in the sky getting warmer was pretty distracting... (I like pie)
 
2013-02-02 05:03:39 PM

TsukasaK: From an untrained eye, both "sides" here, those who say climate change is human caused and those who say it isn't, seem to both have convincing arguments.


Your eye must be extremely untrained.
 
2013-02-02 05:04:46 PM

NFA: While I'm not personally on the global warming boat, if that website told me the sun would rise in the east, I would look out the window to check, before I believed them.


A reasonable approach, and it makes you one of the (literally) more liberal people here; you will at least consider it.  The general consensus seems to be that if it appears in a publication with which one does not agree, it is false, irrespective of the evidence.   In Soviet America, If does not appear in Pravda, comrade, did not happen.  In this case, the report is also listed on a major network.  Best of all though, we'll see the new IPCC report when it is issued.
 
2013-02-02 05:23:26 PM
GAT_00:

Uh huh. Well, I don't have a leaked copy, but I do know what was in the last one and I have second and third hand knowledge of this one, so...

Sun may well be warming the planet

Yeah, it's about 1-2% of the overall forcing. Relatively insignificant.



Well, that WOULD be, if you weren't yanking it out the wrong orifice.  According to NASA, their estimate is that 25% of the 1.10 K warming of the last century is due to solar variability.  That is, solar activity accounts for 0.275 K.  When you consider that the 1600-year cycle has been adding approximately 0.76 K per century since before the industrial revolution, together they account for all but 0.065 K of the warming, which probably IS due to anthropogenic sources.
 
2013-02-02 05:28:30 PM
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!
 
2013-02-02 05:40:04 PM

knobmaker: TsukasaK: From an untrained eye, both "sides" here, those who say climate change is human caused and those who say it isn't, seem to both have convincing arguments.

Your eye must be extremely untrained.


And what would your eye tell you about this?

i1057.photobucket.com

Hint: if it tells you that CO2 and temperature are directly correlated, you'd have lyin' eyes
 
2013-02-02 05:47:48 PM
namatad:


GAT_00: All models suck, but some are useful.

LOL wut?

models which can be used to predict do not suck.
models which fit the data but do not predict suck.

some models suck
/I model all day.




Yes, we're all very impressed...

i1-news.softpedia-static.com
 
2013-02-02 05:49:55 PM
The site may be an "out there" site, but the report does in fact state the IPCC modeling sucks and that they aren't right.  Its a new prediction every time and they never account for solar activity like they should.
 
2013-02-02 05:56:40 PM
enforcerpsu:

The site may be an "out there" site, but the report does in fact state the IPCC modeling sucks and that they aren't right. Its a new prediction every time and they never account for solar activity like they should.

Okeydoke.

How should they account for solar activity in your opine?
 
2013-02-02 06:05:41 PM
Mugato:
People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.


Yes, like all those damned Heliocentrists, evolutionists, believers in invisible organisms causing sickness, and quantum mechanics.  Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.
 
2013-02-02 06:09:19 PM
TsukasaK:
So question.. how many of you who were so eager to snark at the source actually clicked through for the actual papers about halfway through?


It doesn't matter.  Being referenced in a blog that doesn't spew the party line renders the science invalid.   Don't believe me?  Just watch....
 
2013-02-02 06:24:41 PM
TsukasaK:
indarwinsshadow: It won't matter. After years of having farktards on this site cram every stat down our unbelieving throats, nothing under the stars is going to change their collective minds.

Yeah! It's almost like they all believe the same thing for some reason..

So I have an honest question here.

From an untrained eye, both "sides" here, those who say climate change is human caused and those who say it isn't, seem to both have convincing arguments.

What is a layman to do? The documents linked in that article are greek to me and would be to the great majority of the population.



I don't think there is anyone even slightly close to rational who does NOT believe that humans have some effect on the temperature.  The questions are "by what methods?" and "how much effect?".  Humans do MANY things which could be having an effect upon the temperature, from clear-cutting forests, to burning fields, to releasing aerosols into the air.  And, yes, carbon dioxide emissions are another method.  But, the actual SCIENCE shows that carbon dioxide has a very small upper limit on the change it can induce in temperature.  But, it is, however, close to the only area in which humans are doing something which COULD be warming the planet.  And the planet HAS been warming, for about 300-400 years, since the end of the little ice age.  This human touch gives lawmakers a chance for taxation and control, so they WANT it, irrespective of the science.  And, since lawmakers of various stripe are the ones who decide much of the funding for science, climate science has been reluctant to announce that the programs which provide 95% of the climate science money are based on, pardon the expression, hot air.  For panic, and therefore hasty action empowering governments to "save the planet," the warming from carbon dioxide is not enough --- only about 1.10 K for doubling the atmospheric content.  Hence, a large positive feedback is assumed.  But, there is no evidence whatsoever for this positive feedback.  Using both science and math, the conclusion is inescapable -- the feedback for carbon dioxide's warming is indeed rather large -- but it's negative.  Therefore, no panic is justified, and AGW is just an interesting factoid, suitable for Jeopardy questions -- but NOT for massive wealth-redistribution schemes.  So, the VERY few actually crooked scientists are pulled out, puffed up, and sent out to lie, alter data, and otherwise make it look scarier than it is.  Evidence of all of this is, of course, readily available.
 
2013-02-02 06:29:12 PM
Yeah, I've heard that, but it's not true. Let me be straight with you and tell you what the competitors won't:

The sun couldn't POSSIBLY affect climate in ways we can't predict. It's not like the sun is an insanely giant, volatile factory of nuclear fire that periodically blasts out multi-million-mile jets of radioactive plasma or anything. I mean, that's what stars are. Duh.

No, clearly it's your light bulbs specifically that are dooming us all.

I know money's tight - these light bulbs are like $12 each, plus they emit an eerie, sickening glow that (thanks to the work of soviet scientists) slowly drains your will to live - but we're running a special this week: buy 100 carbon credits, and earn points towards the purchase of new light bulbs, plus get 10% off these guilt-free, recycled cloth tote bags!
 
2013-02-02 06:44:28 PM

TsukasaK: What is a layman to do? The documents linked in that article are greek to me and would be to the great majority of the population.


Take more seriously positions supported from higher up the pyramid?
people.virginia.edu


However, telling paradigm-shifting visionary from pseudoscience crackpot is generally a hard problem.

TsukasaK: How energy policy affects jobs, the economy, and the environment, are a different matter altogether.


I'd also suggest keeping in mind the difference between science -- assessments of what IS going on -- and of politics and social engineering -- assessments of what OUGHT to be done. The more sensible seeming folks appear willing to let you draw your own conclusions as to whether the expected outcome is a "bad" thing.
 
2013-02-02 06:58:45 PM
IlGreven:
/P.T. Barnum also sounded convincing when he sold the egress to the untrained eye.


Well, at least that actually was an egress.  The IPCC practices neither science nor transparency, despite their vehement claims.
 
2013-02-02 07:19:06 PM

GeneralJim: Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.


You have the exact opposite position of what science is about.
 
2013-02-02 07:31:11 PM
jso2897:
Oh, well, THAT changes everything. This means that it is now intelligent for creatures who have invented thinking machines and gone to the moon to make their energy by digging shiat up and BURNING it, like f**king cavemen.
Riiiiight.



2.bp.blogspot.com
M'Kay...  I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you
for that caveman coal mining citation.Yeah.
If you could provide that, it would be great.


 
2013-02-02 07:35:54 PM
maxheck:
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!


Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it.  However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.
 
2013-02-02 07:53:28 PM
Mugato:
GeneralJim: Nothing is as important in science as not rocking the boat.

You have the exact opposite position of what science is about.





i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-02-02 07:58:36 PM
GeneralJim:

maxheck:

Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, GeneralJim? I am impressed!


Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it. However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.


Good to hear you have a hobby.
 
2013-02-02 08:34:38 PM
maxheck:
GeneralJim:

maxheck:

Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, GeneralJim? I am impressed!


Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it. However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.

Good to hear you have a hobby.





s3.vidimg02.popscreen.com
INDEED
 
2013-02-02 08:48:07 PM

GAT_00: ALL models suck.  Find me a model that does not make basic assumptions that are inherently flawed.


It was your assumption that the model had any interest in you that was flawed. She didn't even notice you.
 
2013-02-02 09:13:16 PM
wattsupwiththat =/= "Some Climatologist"

If you had anything worthwhile to say, you wouldn't be lying right out of the gate with this bullshiat.
 
2013-02-02 09:40:55 PM

GeneralJim: maxheck:
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!

Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it.  However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.



Not sure if this is a good idea, but you should be aware that you can still use color font tags in raw html mode.
 
2013-02-02 09:49:06 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: maxheck:
Holy cow...

Not to take away from your usual bullshiat, but you actually lost the green AW font, <b>GeneralJim</b>? I am impressed!

Don't be - the new editor doesn't support it.  However, *I* still support the Persian people against their theocratic and repressive government.


Not sure if this is a good idea, but you should be aware that you can still use color font tags in raw html mode.


how much worse could it get?

/I will surely regret that question
 
2013-02-02 10:59:55 PM
Sigh.
 
2013-02-02 11:56:17 PM
img62.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-03 07:28:59 AM

Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.


Or, they are scientists who realize that if even 1% disagree, that's HUGE. How many scientists would disagree that force equals mass times acceleration? Zero. Zip. Nada. None. THAT'S consensus.

/scientist
 
2013-02-03 08:39:58 AM

DrPainMD: Mugato: People who deny the majority of the scientific communities view on global warming do so either because they fear it will affect them financially or because they're toeing the party line. End of argument.

Or, they are scientists who realize that if even 1% disagree, that's HUGE. How many scientists would disagree that force equals mass times acceleration? Zero. Zip. Nada. None. THAT'S consensus.

/scientist


There are doctors (scientists of a sort) who refuse to give blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs. I wouldn't say it's at a full 1% but just because you're a scientist doesn't mean you can't be an idiot.
 
2013-02-03 08:52:45 AM
Is it relevant that my online scanner blacklisted a bunch of links on that site ?
seems legit
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report