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.

(Daily Mail)   No, the world isn't getting warmer. The Daily Mail reveals the official data that's making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 346
    More: Unlikely, global cooling, global warming, Leeds University, Georgia Institute of Technology, carbon emissions, Global Warming Policy Foundation, David Bellamy, motor fuel  
•       •       •

5776 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Mar 2013 at 6:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-17 06:24:50 AM  
Wait a minute, my popcorn isn`t ready!
 
2013-03-17 06:25:47 AM  
i.dailymail.co.uk
This in TFA is amazing. Daily fail indeed.
 
2013-03-17 06:26:31 AM  
If only there was a nickname for this paper that encompassed its reputation.
 
2013-03-17 06:34:29 AM  
I vote to just move this right over to the politics tab.
 
2013-03-17 06:43:44 AM  
But how will this affect my house price? And are immigrants to blame?
 
2013-03-17 06:44:19 AM  
Whatever your viewpoint on the whole subject though, you would have to say that if the real world measured values falls outside of the limits of the models predictions then the models need to be adjusted.

This concept is not limited to climate science.
 
2013-03-17 06:44:58 AM  

Flint Ironstag: But how will this affect my house price? And are immigrants to blame?


The price of your house will rise but only after you have sold it and yes, immigrants are to blame.
 
2013-03-17 06:45:15 AM  
Figuring that 90% of the problem with the whole "global warming" scare was the fact the media picked it up, ran it past the goal line, and then continued to scale the wall into the stands, are we to believe the media this time?

The controversy on climate science was never a scientific controversy. It's been a media darling and political football from day 1. THAT is the problem. And for the media to wash its hands and point fingers at the people they cherry picked quotes from is ... typically slimy journalism.

Oh wait, this is the Daily Fail. Typical limey journalism.
 
2013-03-17 06:45:40 AM  
When trying to make a point, use a graphic that proves it, not one that disproves it.
 
2013-03-17 06:48:44 AM  
i1115.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-17 06:57:18 AM  
Here's an angle the article failed (probably intentionally) to consider.  What if the reason the numbers have fallen below the predictions is because the shiat we're doing is actually WORKING?  I'm aware it's a Daily Fail article, and so their "data" is probably 98% fabricated to produce enough outrage to get people to buy their rag, but just because a prediction was 100% accurate doesn't mean you should totally ignore it.

"Scientists said the toxic chemicals in this drum were absolutely lethal to all known forms of life, but they don't hurt me at all!  (dips cup in drum of water labelled "toxic waste" and takes a drink)  As you can clearly see it's totally harmless, so let's allow this factory to dump it straight into the river instead of making them use a tiny fraction of their profits to pay to have it disposed of properly."
 
2013-03-17 07:06:44 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Figuring that 90% of the problem with the whole "global warming" scare was the fact the media picked it up, ran it past the goal line, and then continued to scale the wall into the stands, are we to believe the media this time?

The controversy on climate science was never a scientific controversy. It's been a media darling and political football from day 1. THAT is the problem. And for the media to wash its hands and point fingers at the people they cherry picked quotes from is ... typically slimy journalism.

Oh wait, this is the Daily Fail. Typical limey journalism.


Journalism students do not have to take science or math. That is all.
 
2013-03-17 07:07:41 AM  

Gunny Walker: [i1115.photobucket.com image 500x334]


Not saying you are predictable but I have you highlighted as `(favorite: FARK climate whore. posts "What if we make a better world for nothing?") `

Don`t you have anything else?
 
2013-03-17 07:12:42 AM  

Arumat: What if the reason the numbers have fallen below the predictions is because the shiat we're doing is actually WORKING?


Then that still means the science as we are told it is bad because we are told that the effects will go up now whether we stop or not and continue for hundreds of years.

They have painted themselves into a corner where the temperatures are going to `run away` and we will pass `multiple tipping points` and `we are already past the point of no return` etc

Also they say the sun does not play a large part so they can`t just say `well the sun has a low sunspot count so it`s overpowering the climate change` because they say the forcing of the sun alone is not that powerful...

I`m just enjoying watching to see what they come up with.
 
2013-03-17 07:16:03 AM  
I broke the damn....
 
2013-03-17 07:27:54 AM  

dready zim: Arumat: What if the reason the numbers have fallen below the predictions is because the shiat we're doing is actually WORKING?

Then that still means the science as we are told it is bad because we are told that the effects will go up now whether we stop or not and continue for hundreds of years.

They have painted themselves into a corner where the temperatures are going to `run away` and we will pass `multiple tipping points` and `we are already past the point of no return` etc

Also they say the sun does not play a large part so they can`t just say `well the sun has a low sunspot count so it`s overpowering the climate change` because they say the forcing of the sun alone is not that powerful...

I`m just enjoying watching to see what they come up with.


So...say I tell you that I'm from the future and your mother (assuming she's alive) is going to die on this day for this reason.  You, at personal expense, actively seek to prevent it.  The day comes and goes, and she doesn't die.  Is this irrefutable evidence (ignoring the time travel angle) that I'm just a liar and did it to either profit personally or cost you?
 
2013-03-17 07:28:52 AM  
Paging Phil Plait...
 
2013-03-17 07:29:20 AM  
The debate over global warming is one of the most interesting events I've ever witnessed - a decade ago it was settled science and you'd never hear different in the mainstream media. Since then the science has actually become even more definite, but there's been a push from the anti-science brigade (mostly funded by industries under threat from tightening regulations for stuff like greenhouse gas emissions) and the spineless media has started reporting on it as though there's actual disagreement in the scientific community, so now half the country seems convinced that it isn't happening.

It's fascinating to witness firsthand how easy it is to trick millions of people into believing a lie. You can even get them to spread your propaganda for you - just tell them that someone else is tricking them (in this case, it's those dastardly climate scientists, who obviously can't be trusted as much as the oil industry) and they'll happily spread the "truth" on forums and social media websites.

dready zim: I`m just enjoying making shiat up and attributing to climate scientists.

Example A.
 
2013-03-17 07:47:41 AM  
Wait:

Where is Zero degrees on that chart? (its not the average of the line in the 1960s to the 1980s)

What are these "official predictions of global climate warming"   When we can't agree that it even exists?

And we've only been "predicting" Climate Change since 2005???
 
2013-03-17 08:00:16 AM  
I think it's cute that Americans see the Daily Mail as a legit news source, not one step above Bat Baby from Outer Space like the rest of the world. I bet they read the words with an English accent in their heads, which of course brings further credibility.
 
2013-03-17 08:02:25 AM  

Arumat: dready zim: Arumat: What if the reason the numbers have fallen below the predictions is because the shiat we're doing is actually WORKING?

Then that still means the science as we are told it is bad because we are told that the effects will go up now whether we stop or not and continue for hundreds of years.

They have painted themselves into a corner where the temperatures are going to `run away` and we will pass `multiple tipping points` and `we are already past the point of no return` etc

Also they say the sun does not play a large part so they can`t just say `well the sun has a low sunspot count so it`s overpowering the climate change` because they say the forcing of the sun alone is not that powerful...

I`m just enjoying watching to see what they come up with.

So...say I tell you that I'm from the future and your mother (assuming she's alive) is going to die on this day for this reason.  You, at personal expense, actively seek to prevent it.  The day comes and goes, and she doesn't die.  Is this irrefutable evidence (ignoring the time travel angle) that I'm just a liar and did it to either profit personally or cost you?


If the prediction was "your mother will die tomorrow in walmart" then that can be changed by not going to Walmart.
If the prediction is "your mother will die tomorrow of a cancer she already has and there is no cure" then if she does not die then you lied. Your time travel, and what you can do to affect the predicted outcome, should not he capable of making a difference. In the Walmart case you can change it.

What was said wad the climate change scientists predicted a huge rise in temperature and said that nothing we did now could change that. So the lack of predicted change must prove the prediction was wrong.

Y2K was an example of a predited outcome that was succesfully averted, but there are people who claim that means the predictions were wrong.
 
2013-03-17 08:07:55 AM  
We found a graph. We're not telling you where we found it or where the data comes from. It doesn't matter we have a graph that disproves everything. All that data that you collected, the stuff about ocean temperatures changing, entire ecosystems in the oceans racing towards the poles, well that never happened because we have a graph. A leaked report from the IPCC, who we discredit, has a version of this graph, not this one, maybe not even showing the same information, or even resembling this graph, has surfaced, but it is legit, I swear!

They seem desperate
 
2013-03-17 08:08:26 AM  
 
2013-03-17 08:12:10 AM  

lvjohn: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-w a rming-stopped-wrong  just might shed a cleared understanding.


and yet that lie was recently repeated in the Australian senate, because we only vote for smart people

/sigh
 
2013-03-17 08:20:27 AM  
The temperature trends almost look ... variable.
Fascinating.
 
2013-03-17 08:29:49 AM  
So, which "it" should the Libs suck this time?
 
2013-03-17 08:31:58 AM  
Couple Living On Global Warming Hoax Dole Has Refrigerator, Air Conditioning, Wants Bigger TV
 
2013-03-17 08:35:34 AM  
That's pretty funny.
 
2013-03-17 08:37:59 AM  
I thought April Fools Day wasn't for another 2 weeks?
 
2013-03-17 08:38:31 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: So, which "it" should the Libs suck this time?


SUCK

ALL OF THE ITS!
 
2013-03-17 08:48:28 AM  
Global Warming must be real.
 Otherwise real smart people like Al Gore and thousands of policy makers would not have us investing billions of taxpayers dollars into managing the problem.

//Anyone see  first daughter Clinton $10.M New York Apartment ?
people don't go into politics to make money ,ya know !  It all about service and sacrifice for the little people.
 
2013-03-17 08:52:20 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Anyone see  first daughter Clinton $10.M New York Apartment ?
people don't go into politics to make money ,ya know !  It all about service and sacrifice for the little people.


I'm sorry, what does Chelsea Clinton have to do with climate change? She's not even IN politics right now; she works for the Clinton Global Initiative.
 
2013-03-17 08:57:23 AM  

Arumat:

What if the reason the numbers have fallen below the predictions is because the shiat we're doing is actually WORKING?

No; we haven't done anything to lower carbon dioxide. As a matter of fact, it is rising more quickly than the estimated "worst case" scenario from the 1980s predictions.  The reason the numbers have fallen below the predictions is that the guess for the atmosphere's sensitivity to carbon dioxide was WAY high, since they did not know about the Sun's magnetic output contributing to warming the planet... and ASSUMED that all the warming they could not assign to other sources was due to carbon dioxide.  To "cover" the actual warming, they had to assume that there were feedbacks for carbon dioxide warming that were TWICE as big as the warming itself.  As it turns out, the feedbacks are negative, collectively.  The warming from doubling carbon dioxide is probably in the range of 0.17 K to 0.48 K, and is certainly less than 1.10 K.
 
2013-03-17 08:59:16 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Anyone see  first daughter Clinton $10.M New York Apartment ?
people don't go into politics to make money ,ya know !  It all about service and sacrifice for the little people.

I'm sorry, what does Chelsea Clinton have to do with climate change? She's not even IN politics right now; she works for the Clinton Global Initiative.


Really ! Don't see any connection ?  "Clinton Global Initiative."  Or the dynastic political families that plague our political system of representative government.

// back in the old days the plantation owners and later Industrialist made the big money. Now days politics are the easy pathway to riches. Hence Chelsea Clinton and family amassing $100 m while working for the working familes.
 
2013-03-17 09:07:37 AM  

brainlordmesomorph:

What are these "official predictions of global climate warming" When we can't agree that it even exists?

And we've only been "predicting" Climate Change since 2005???

The predictions are from the IPCC report of 2007.  No, we have been predicting climate longer, but in 2007, information about the 1990s, for example, was already known.  It was not a prediction.  AFTER THE FACT, the models are adjusted with kludges to shoehorn the past into line.  But, in 2007, 2008 and beyond were actual predictions -- and they suck.  Right about now, we are blowing out the bottom side of the 95% certainty error bar.  To be that far off in that short of a time means there are fundamental problems with the hypotheses (assumptions) built into the models.  There is another IPCC report due out this year.  It will be highly amusing to see what they do.
 
2013-03-17 09:07:57 AM  
Dr.Mxyzptlk.:
//Anyone see  first daughter Clinton $10.M New York Apartment ?
people don't go into politics to make money ,ya know !  It all about service and sacrifice for the little people.


Nice pathetic attempt at a threadjack. You FAIL, SIR!
 
2013-03-17 09:09:11 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Really ! Don't see any connection ?  "Clinton Global Initiative."  Or the dynastic political families that plague our political system of representative government.


No, I don't. Perhaps you'd like to explain the connection between the Clinton Global Initiative and what Chelsea Clinton has to do with global climate change.
 
2013-03-17 09:09:46 AM  

GeneralJim: Right about now, we are blowing out the bottom side of the 95% certainty error bar


citation needed, General Green Text.
 
2013-03-17 09:15:05 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: GeneralJim: Right about now, we are blowing out the bottom side of the 95% certainty error bar

citation needed, General Green Text.


Hey, he's got the Daily Mail to back him up!
 
2013-03-17 09:15:36 AM  
Let's see, unprofessional style, no attempt to hide bias, sarcasm, scare quotes, no cites for their statistics and graphs, quotes from botanists, yeah, that's pretty standard denier bull.

Wait a second, holy crap, they actually used that photoshopped Time magazine cover. Shame on me for putting the Daily Fail even one micron above forum troll.

www.urbansprout.co.za
 
2013-03-17 09:21:40 AM  

brainlordmesomorph:

And we've only been "predicting" Climate Change since 2005???
To continue from the last entry, here is what was predicted by James Hansen before Congress in 1988.  Everything past 1988 on this is actual prediction -- along with the measured temperatures:

theresilientearth.com
 
2013-03-17 09:23:38 AM  

GeneralJim: brainlordmesomorph: And we've only been "predicting" Climate Change since 2005???To continue from the last entry, here is what was predicted by James Hansen before Congress in 1988.  Everything past 1988 on this is actual prediction -- along with the measured temperatures:

[theresilientearth.com image 500x303]


Cited where?
 
2013-03-17 09:24:07 AM  

Do the needful: I vote to just move this right over to the politics tab.


+1, this is not 'geek' material at all, just farking politics, pure opinion driven bullshiat.
 
2013-03-17 09:25:24 AM  
 
2013-03-17 09:26:42 AM  

cameroncrazy1984:

GeneralJim: Right about now, we are blowing out the bottom side of the 95% certainty error bar

citation needed, General Green Text.

Oh, you can't read a chart?
 
2013-03-17 09:27:07 AM  
The green thread shiat isn't green?!?! It still stinks just as bad as usual but no green.

/is this an anti-St Patrick's day protest??
 
2013-03-17 09:28:05 AM  

GeneralJim: cameroncrazy1984: GeneralJim: Right about now, we are blowing out the bottom side of the 95% certainty error bar

citation needed, General Green Text.
Oh, you can't read a chart?


I can't read an uncited chart, no.
 
2013-03-17 09:28:57 AM  

GeneralJim: Right about now, we are blowing out the bottom side of the 95% certainty error bar. To be that far off in that short of a time means there are fundamental problems with the hypotheses (assumptions) built into the models.


Looking at the graph, we are still within the 95% CI interval, which means the current models that this graph used are correct. Until it actually moves outside of the estimated values, it isn't wrong.

But that also assumes something that is not the case - that the graph is presented accurately. In fact, for the time period where the line of "actual temperature" ends, the range of predicted temperature increase on that graph is wrong. Based on the IPCC, for around this time it was predicted to be a 0.30 to 0.60 increase in temperature. Looking at the graph, it appears to be at 0.45 to 0.90; 50% greater values than what was actually predicted. Above and beyond that is also the line used to represent the actual temperature increase. That line only represents the increase in global average land temperature, and not global average temperature. Considering that only about 30% of the planet is land, we are missing a rather sizable chunk of data, since we do have temperature data records from the oceans as well.

So on the one hand, one aspect of the graph is presented misleadingly - land data does not represent the data from even a majority of the planet - and one aspect of the data is presented erroneously - the actual predicted values of the global temperature increase. And even with those two critical aspects of the data being presented falsely, from that graph you cannot conclude anything other than the earth is warming up as predicted (even with how they portray the predictions, as opposed to the actual predictions) and that the models used to make predictions are in need of improvements; both of which have been known to climatologists forever... and in fact anyone who uses modeling software knows that no matter what topic you're modeling, the technology is always in need of improvement.
 
2013-03-17 09:30:37 AM  

Kome: So on the one hand, one aspect of the graph is presented misleadingly - land data does not represent the data from even a majority of the planet - and one aspect of the data is presented erroneously


You don't say...
 
2013-03-17 09:31:09 AM  

Baryogenesis:

Here's a good rule of thumb: green text guy is always wrong.

Baryogenesis has never had sex with a week-old roadkill opossum.

 
Displayed 50 of 346 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

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