Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(TreeHugger)   Forget the ice cores, tree rings, sediment layers, carbon-dating, fossils, etc. ... let's try urine layers ... say 55,000 years worth   (treehugger.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, tree rings, fossils, carbon datings, ice cores, fissures, strata, climate change, pollen  
•       •       •

4093 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Mar 2013 at 8:46 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-01 05:24:11 AM  

skozlaw: THE GREAT NAME: ikanreed: wildcardjack: It's still funny that the solutions are the same as for global cooling in the 1970s. It's intervention bias: someone has to do something because that's the only way things change. Actually, that's the only way bureaucracies can show their raison d'etre.

Oh, I need to go back and zing someone from yesterday.

I love that you think "global cooling" was ever a thing.  Man-made global warming was already the dominant theory in the 1970s, and "global cooling" was only discussed in the context of large volcano eruptions.  Why don't you review the literature and stop being a deluded moron?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-al ar mism.html

Moron.

See, as a dumb person, THIS is what I like to see. I don't have to think about the possibility of problems today because a subset of the media reported things incorrectly 40 years ago.

Thank you for jumping in and helping those of us who don't want to think about anything more complex than a NASCAR racetrack. I was afraid for a second I might actually have to think critically about the issue. You're a real lifesaver!


Meh. Lazy, sarcastic arguing from somebody who obviously does not have a good point to make.
 
2013-04-01 05:26:11 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.

The scientific literature of the 1970's is public record. It shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW. This is a fact. You can post pictures of all the photo-shopped magazine covers that you want but you cannot change this fact.

Reading partisan blogs and regurgitation their long-debuked lies is not presenting "well-observed points". It is promoting an anti-science agenda.


Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!
 
2013-04-01 08:42:36 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!


Just the one that is posted most often.
 
Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.
 
2013-04-01 09:36:55 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Meh. Lazy, sarcastic arguing from somebody who obviously does not have a good point to make.


Well, yea, I already knew that.

You didn't think I was mistaking you for somebody with anything of value to say, did you?
 
2013-04-01 01:41:03 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.

The scientific literature of the 1970's is public record. It shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW. This is a fact. You can post pictures of all the photo-shopped magazine covers that you want but you cannot change this fact.

Reading partisan blogs and regurgitation their long-debuked lies is not presenting "well-observed points". It is promoting an anti-science agenda.

Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!


So what you're saying is that you're too stupid to understand the difference between a scientific article and a magazine article?
 
2013-04-01 02:35:59 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: The difference between wildcardjack and you, is that wildcardjack has well-observed points to make about the issues at hand; whereas you are just a loser who is trying to become popular among other losers.

The scientific literature of the 1970's is public record. It shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW. This is a fact. You can post pictures of all the photo-shopped magazine covers that you want but you cannot change this fact.

Reading partisan blogs and regurgitation their long-debuked lies is not presenting "well-observed points". It is promoting an anti-science agenda.

Are you actually saying those magazine covers are photoshopped? You really are insane!



It's more that the popular media isn't always (or arguably most of the time) an accurate mirror of the scientific literature and tends to reflect what is superficial, sensational and of the moment. I mean, if we're going by magazine covers, apparently this was also a concern in the 70's:

jespaa.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-01 04:50:05 PM  
"And if we piss here, every 55,000 years someone will dig us a new latrine for free!"
 
2013-04-01 10:07:57 PM  

Farking Canuck: Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.


You apparently don't know what has been appearing in science magazines.
 
2013-04-01 10:28:08 PM  

WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.

You apparently don't know what has been appearing in science magazines.


I do ... peer reviewed scientific papers. Do you read political blogs that preach about ridiculous conspiracies??
 
2013-04-02 10:28:30 AM  

Farking Canuck: the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW


Fair enough. Now find newspaper articles or ANYTHING READ BY THE PUBLIC which would disprove the statement "popular predictions of a coming ice age was `a thing` in the 70s"...

Policy is decided (by swaying public opinion which affects policy makers who like populist policies) in one place.

The Tabloid Media.

The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.
 
2013-04-02 01:44:21 PM  

dready zim: Fair enough. Now find newspaper articles or ANYTHING READ BY THE PUBLIC which would disprove the statement "popular predictions of a coming ice age was `a thing` in the 70s"...


And I repeat: Who cares what the unwashed masses think? These idiots currently think that all scientists are greedy liars who's only purpose in life is scamming for research grants. This is how stupid these people are.

I care not about what public thinks/wants. I care about the accuracy of the science.

The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.

... of scientists bringing forward an issue which in turn led to public policy changes and some positive outcomes. I assume that is what you were going to say.
 
2013-04-03 05:35:32 AM  

Farking Canuck: And I repeat: Who cares what the unwashed masses think?


dready zim: policy makers who like populist policies


Did you read my post?
 
2013-04-03 05:39:02 AM  

Farking Canuck: The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.

... of scientists bringing forward an issue which in turn led to public policy changes and some positive outcomes. I assume that is what you were going to say.


The ozone hole is a perfect example that it doesn`t matter what scientists think until it is in the daily mail...

Your assumptions are wrong and are only partially correct even if you cherry pick from my post...
 
2013-04-03 08:22:18 AM  

dready zim: Farking Canuck: the majority of scientific research in the 1970s was predicting AGW

Fair enough. Now find newspaper articles or ANYTHING READ BY THE PUBLIC which would disprove the statement "popular predictions of a coming ice age was `a thing` in the 70s"...

Policy is decided (by swaying public opinion which affects policy makers who like populist policies) in one place.

The Tabloid Media.

The Ozone Hole is a perfect example.


Timecube disproves egghead scientists anti-semitic 24 hour day. It's published on a popular medium therefore it's widely believed by everyone.
 
2013-04-03 09:37:40 AM  

dready zim: Did you read my post?


I care about the science.

You seem to care about public opinion and public policy.
 
2013-04-03 01:53:10 PM  

Farking Canuck: WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: Many were real but who cares? Only an idiot gets their science from news magazines.

You apparently don't know what has been appearing in science magazines.

I do ... peer reviewed scientific papers. Do you read political blogs that preach about ridiculous conspiracies??


Nope. Science blogs that preach about ridiculous science. Or, in this case, ridiculous Science magazine.
 
2013-04-03 02:19:29 PM  

WelldeadLink: Farking Canuck: I do ... peer reviewed scientific papers. Do you read political blogs that preach about ridiculous conspiracies??

Nope. Science blogs that preach about ridiculous science. Or, in this case, ridiculous Science magazine.


So you link to a "skeptic" blog created by a meteorologist who doesn't have a degree in anything. Your link specifically goes to an article written by a chemical engineer (same degree and background as me interestingly enough) who gives his opinions on real scientific papers. Is this supposed to be evidence of something?

This is not peer-reviewed science. These are opinions. There is a vast difference.
 
2013-04-03 03:19:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: dready zim: Did you read my post?

I care about the science.

You seem to care about public opinion and public policy.


Well that is what will make politicians sign the cheque to pay for the changes the people writing peer reviewed science say we need...

You can`t just stand in a heroic pose and say "The science is RIGHT!", and expect money to fall from the sky into all the projects and technology you say we need.

If you put everything you get from being right into a bucket you only have a bucket.

You have to sway public opinion and change policy to effect the changes you say are needed. THAT is why I look at the public media and see what things look like from there.

It`s not good. 11 months and counting.
 
Displayed 18 of 68 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | 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