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 27
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2886 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»



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


Archived thread
2013-02-02 06:29:12 PM
2 votes:
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 12:22:51 PM
2 votes:
i39.photobucket.com
2013-02-02 08:27:38 AM
2 votes:
Nice blog; but until I see an authoritative YouTube video on the subject, I'm remaining skeptical.
2013-02-02 07:49:36 AM
2 votes:
yourblogsucks.jpg
2013-02-04 03:59:22 PM
1 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: As far as I remember, brantgoose is in Canada, where the titular head of state or Sovereign remains the Queen of England. No pond-crossing required.

/the more you know


I didn't know your boyfriend lived in Canada, my bad.
2013-02-04 03:54:56 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Given that your reading comprehension is so nonexistent that you can't process basic sarcasm, no rational person should be listening to you regarding a document with words more than four letters long.
2013-02-04 03:47:28 PM
1 votes:

HighZoolander: 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.


With rationale like that, it is a wonder that no one believes you! That's the most sound research I've ever seen from a church of global warming member.
2013-02-04 03:44:41 PM
1 votes:

IlGreven: 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.


If you have politicians like Al Gore as sources instead of scientists, you probably have no idea what you're talking about.
2013-02-04 03:41:46 PM
1 votes:

HighZoolander: But, it's certainly heartwarming* to see that you staunchly oppose any effort to move towards sustainable energy


You know people don't know what they're talking about when they using nonsense terms like "sustainable energy".
2013-02-04 03:36:02 PM
1 votes:

TsukasaK: 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


The consensus has always been that it is changing. Climate is always changing.

It isn't a bad thing, in fact, it may end world hunger by opening up more farmland.

Can we and should we do something about it are two very different questions. We could fire off a ton of nukes or dump tons of different chemicals into the air to do something about it. Those things are "possible" scenarios. Should we try to break a system that has been running fine for millions of years and will continue to millions of years after we are gone? Probably not. Then again, if we don't, it may mean extinction for us like the dinosaurs.
2013-02-04 03:27:44 PM
1 votes:

brantgoose: As a Government employee I swore an oath of allegeance to the Queen and to her Government. I promised to keep Her Secrets and Her Government's Secrets. A report is only public domain when it is published, and the taxpayer, God bless her, does not have a right to read Government secrets until the government releases them. I have not got the right to divulge those secrets until they are declassified, and even though I know that most secret documents are only temporarily secret, I still have no right to publish them.


Sorry, can't hear you over the FREEDOM over on this side of the pond.

YOU BLOODY WANKER.
2013-02-04 03:25:17 PM
1 votes:

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?


They quote the IPCC report version 1, but call the IPCC report version 5 an invalid source. Silly liberals.
2013-02-04 03:23:11 PM
1 votes:

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.


The "majority of the scientific community" in this case is the IPCC, who now says the sun controls 40%-70%+ of temperature in their new report.
2013-02-04 03:20:26 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Sun may well be warming the planet

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


The new report says 40% to 70%.
2013-02-03 07:28:59 AM
1 votes:

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
2013-02-02 06:58:45 PM
1 votes:
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 06:09:19 PM
1 votes:
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 06:05:41 PM
1 votes:
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 05:49:55 PM
1 votes:
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 05:28:30 PM
1 votes:
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 05:23:26 PM
1 votes:
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 05:04:46 PM
1 votes:

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 04:31:38 PM
1 votes:
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 02:01:20 PM
1 votes:
While this "breaking climate news" is more than a month and a half old, I don't recall if we had a proper thread about it.
2013-02-02 01:36:38 PM
1 votes:
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?
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-02-02 09:36:30 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-02 08:35:42 AM
1 votes:

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


I'm personally waiting to hear about a billionaire's dire predictions, or at least learn the one weird trick that can stop climate change, before I pick any side of this debate.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report