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.

(The Australian)   Scientists unable to explain why global temperatures have stalled like a 1981 Plymouth Reliant on a highway on ramp   (theaustralian.com.au ) divider line
    More: Interesting, temperatures, Plymouth Reliant, Rajendra Pachauri, Goddard Institute, climate, sulfur dioxide, IPCC reports, global warming  
•       •       •

3566 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Mar 2013 at 2:09 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-01 12:04:48 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Bisu: Maybe you'll like this image better:

No, that image is the stupidest of straw man.   You should be embarrassed for posting it.

People who don't believe that man is the primary cause of global cooling eh warming eh climate change don't believe it is bad to have clean air, clean water and a healthy environment.


It seems you missed the joke. Do you realize how expensive it would be to "stop" global warming?
 
2013-04-01 12:21:36 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER:

LordZorh: By "sientists", you mean envirotards that deided to put forth a new religion disguised as siene, or lakeys so far up the butt of researh grants that getting ut off from them would mean utter personal disaster.

Nothing in the world makes a sientist happier than proving other sientists wrong. This is why you fail.

Shows how little you know...  We atually had someone working in limate siene post a few times.  Their omment mathed reality, in that the lead sientists would just publish their stuff, throw in a boilerplate paragraph on the dangers of global warming whih had NOTHING to do with their study, or its results, keep their mouths losed, and start the next researh projet.

When 95% of limate siene funding has ome sine the pani-mongering started, and the flow of money demands ertain... aommodations...  sientists just shut up and ash their heks.  Nobody wants to be unemployed.  Look at post number four -- oh, these guys aren't JUST funded by government.  Must be a sam.  Dipshiat.  How an ANYONE be so dumb as to think that if you get 99% of your money from government, pissing off the government ould hurt your ash flow?  Hell, James Hansen, limate Chiken Little Extraordinaire, has alled for the imprisonment of anyone not drinking his Kool-Aid.

The learer it beomes that limate siene has srewed the pooh by going off half-oked at the urging of boneheads like James Hansen, the more dangerous and imminent the "threat" is painted, and the harsher the proposed treatment suggested for those who point out the Emperor's wang.   It's the death rattle of bad siene being turned into worse publi poliy, and not. quite. making. it.

 
2013-04-01 12:27:01 AM  

GeneralJim: PC LOAD LETTER: LordZorh: By "sientists", you mean envirotards that deided to put forth a new religion disguised as siene, or lakeys so far up the butt of researh grants that getting ut off from them would mean utter personal disaster.

Nothing in the world makes a sientist happier than proving other sientists wrong. This is why you fail.
Shows how little you know...  We atually had someone working in limate siene post a few times.  Their omment mathed reality, in that the lead sientists would just publish their stuff, throw in a boilerplate paragraph on the dangers of global warming whih had NOTHING to do with their study, or its results, keep their mouths losed, and start the next researh projet.
When 95% of limate siene funding has ome sine the pani-mongering started, and the flow of money demands ertain... aommodations...  sientists just shut up and ash their heks.  Nobody wants to be unemployed.  Look at post number four -- oh, these guys aren't JUST funded by government.  Must be a sam.  Dipshiat.  How an ANYONE be so dumb as to think that if you get 99% of your money from government, pissing off the government ould hurt your ash flow?  Hell, James Hansen, limate Chiken Little Extraordinaire, has alled for the imprisonment of anyone not drinking his Kool-Aid.The learer it beomes that limate siene has srewed the pooh by going off half-oked at the urging of boneheads like James Hansen, the more dangerous and imminent the "threat" is painted, and the harsher the proposed treatment suggested for those who point out the Emperor's wang.   It's the death rattle of bad siene being turned into worse publi poliy, and not. quite. making. it.


Hah! Looks like April Fool's is alive and well...
 
(though for a minute I thought you might have actually gone through and deleted every c yourself, you crazy cat)
 
2013-04-01 12:29:44 AM  
GeneralJim
 
Oh man, you sure showed him by deliberately removing all the "c"s from your post because that other guy made a typo. I bet he feels properly ashamed he does. Kind of peculiar, though, that eliminating 1/26th of the written language you use had no effect on how sensible your posts are. Still completely irrelevant or nonsensical. But, man oh man, you sure showed you have a bigger e-peen with the whole "point out he made a typo because that's the only thing I have to feel superior" shtick. You clever minx, you.
 
2013-04-01 12:42:23 AM  
Mother... f*cking... April Fool's day.
 
God. F*cking. Dammit. I'm done. No more Fark for me until this is over.
 
2013-04-01 01:05:52 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Brick-House: I wonder if that big ball of fire in the sky had anything to do with it.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 275x183]

No.   That only is on during the day.
At night we just have the moon and that doesn't heat up the earth at all.

Or at least so say the climate change nuts.  Can't have anything to do with the sun.


THE ENERGY OUTPUT OF THE SUN IS CONSTANT. CONSTANT!
 
Except for solar cycles, but we're not talking about that.
 
The Earth is a black body.
 
2013-04-01 01:49:34 AM  

ghare:

Actual scientists say the earth is heating up and it's caused by people.

Not that many of them...  at least, only about a third of scientists support the IPCC's alarmism.  But, unless you're a total ignoramus, you know that what scientists THINK doesn't mean squat.  What counts is the science, most specifically, the science of observation.  And the SCIENCE says that the alarmism is bollocks -- the unimagined pause in warming (let alone the decades of cooling to come) while carbon dioxide is rising at the fastest rate in human history shows that.
 
2013-04-01 02:13:30 AM  

Bisu: hasty ambush: AliceBToklasLives: Since I detect a global warming derp thread, oblig:

[0.tqn.com image 500x334]

But is it really better? The means to achieve this "better world" Included increased government controls and collectivisation. To achieve it obviously means less individual rights with regard to things like your body and reproduction (population) Reducing what your can consume and what you can do with your property (rationing and less property rights) .

Some even favor turning back the clock or infrastructure and technology along with reducing the value of human life:

"Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons"; therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee" Peter Singer

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world "- John Shuttleworth

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem "-- Lamont Cole

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed." -- Pentti Linkola

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby" -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered "-- Gar Smith -- editor of the Earth Island Institute's online magazine The Edge

If this is your "better world" I much prefer the global warming and the polar bear ...


You rather spend that on making the world worse? Because it's going to get spent.
 
2013-04-01 02:15:19 AM  

RedVentrue: tenpoundsofcheese: Brick-House: I wonder if that big ball of fire in the sky had anything to do with it.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 275x183]

No.   That only is on during the day.
At night we just have the moon and that doesn't heat up the earth at all.

Or at least so say the climate change nuts.  Can't have anything to do with the sun.

THE ENERGY OUTPUT OF THE SUN IS CONSTANT. CONSTANT!
 
Except for solar cycles, but we're not talking about that.
 
The Earth is a black body.


people.virginia.edu
 
You're not going to find many people (if any at all) who make that claim.
 
2013-04-01 02:21:30 AM  

GeneralJim: ghare: Actual scientists say the earth is heating up and it's caused by people.
Not that many of them...  at least, only about a third of scientists support the IPCC's alarmism.

 
[citation needed]
 
 

GeneralJim: But, unless you're a total ignoramus, you know that what scientists THINK doesn't mean squat.  What counts is the science, most specifically, the science of observation.  And the SCIENCE says that the alarmism is bollocks -- the unimagined pause in warming (let alone the decades of cooling to come) while carbon dioxide is rising at the fastest rate in human history shows that.


Prognostication about the future aside, it's somewhat absurd to call such a 'pause'  "unimagined", since they occur fairly often:
 
www.skepticalscience.net
 
2013-04-01 02:28:43 AM  

GAT_00:

cirby: Or the part where - in statistically meaningful terms - global temps have been effectively unchanged since the middle of the Clinton Presidency?

Oh good, I get to use this now:

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

All the global warming alarmist Chicken Little types LOVE that picture.  It's an Alinsky Flip.  AGW alarmists always cherry-pick their date range from 1850 or 1880, because that is about the ONLY view one can use that makes it look like carbon dioxide level changes might be important to planetary temperature.  Since we are involved in a ~1,600-year cycle, let's look at a couple of those cycles:

cdn.zmescience.com


See?  We are in a period of global cooling, leading inexorably to another major glaciation, or "ice age."  The warming we have seen since about 1700 (long before the industrial revolution) is only a blip of noise on the overall global cooling.  And, what about those cherry-picked numbers?  They have been altered to support the AGW hypothesis in a way that the real numbers do not.  If you take out the cheats, we have been cooling since the mid-1930s.  So, what do the REAL numbers look like?  Here's a picture of what the data looked like when it was collected, and what it looks like after "adjustments" are made:


climate-skeptic.typepad.com

 
2013-04-01 02:29:23 AM  

GeneralJim: PC LOAD LETTER: LordZorh: By "sientists", you mean envirotards that deided to put forth a new religion disguised as siene, or lakeys so far up the butt of researh grants that getting ut off from them would mean utter personal disaster.

 
Nothing in the world makes a sientist happier than proving other sientists wrong. This is why you fail.
Shows how little you know...  We atually had someone working in limate siene post a few times.  Their omment mathed reality, in that the lead sientists would just publish their stuff, throw in a boilerplate paragraph on the dangers of global warming whih had NOTHING to do with their study, or its results, keep their mouths losed, and start the next researh projet.
When 95% of limate siene funding has ome sine the pani-mongering started, and the flow of money demands ertain... aommodations...  sientists just shut up and ash their heks.  Nobody wants to be unemployed.  Look at post number four -- oh, these guys aren't JUST funded by government.  Must be a sam.  Dipshiat.  How an ANYONE be so dumb as to think that if you get 99% of your money from government, pissing off the government ould hurt your ash flow?  Hell, James Hansen, limate Chiken Little Extraordinaire, has alled for the imprisonment of anyone not drinking his Kool-Aid.The learer it beomes that limate siene has srewed the pooh by going off half-oked at the urging of boneheads like James Hansen, the more dangerous and imminent the "threat" is painted, and the harsher the proposed treatment suggested for those who point out the Emperor's wang.   It's the death rattle of bad siene being turned into worse publi poliy, and not. quite. making. it.

 
 
For comparison:
CA310. Scientists find what they expect to find.
CA320. Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma.
 
Or, GeneralJim could listen to this advice of this guy who is, coincidentally, also posting in this thread:
 

GeneralJim: But, unless you're a total ignoramus, you know that what scientists THINK doesn't mean squat.  What counts is the science, most specifically, the science of observation.

 
2013-04-01 03:10:59 AM  

GeneralJim: GAT_00:

 
cirby: Or the part where - in statistically meaningful terms - global temps have been effectively unchanged since the middle of the Clinton Presidency?
 
Oh good, I get to use this now:
 
[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]
 
All the global warming alarmist Chicken Little types LOVE that picture.  It's an Alinsky Flip.  AGW alarmists always cherry-pick their date range from 1850 or 1880, because that is about the ONLY view one can use that makes it look like carbon dioxide level changes might be important to planetary temperature.  Since we are involved in a ~1,600-year cycle, let's look at a couple of those cycles:

See?  We are in a period of global cooling, leading inexorably to another major glaciation, or "ice age."  The warming we have seen since about 1700 (long before the industrial revolution) is only a blip of noise on the overall global cooling.

 
GeneralJim should be by now aware of the fact that a graph that due to its long scale cannot show current warming cannot be used to support his claim. Any temperature change, no matter how severe would be "only a blip of noise on the overall global cooling" due to the scale. He could also make the same argument about, say, a cataclysmic event that would raise the average global temperature by 10 degrees over the course of a day.
 
 

GeneralJim: And, what about those cherry-picked numbers?  They have been altered to support the AGW hypothesis in a way that the real numbers do not.  If you take out the cheats, we have been cooling since the mid-1930s.  So, what do the REAL numbers look like?  Here's a picture of what the data looked like when it was collected, and what it looks like after "adjustments" are made:

 
Intentional ignorance of the reasons for documented adjustments is not proof of fraud. instead of the god of the gaps familiar to creationists, GeneralJim has simply replaced 'cheats' instead of 'god'.
 
2013-04-01 03:54:44 AM  

MrBallou:

Is the point of trying to convince the brain-washed masses that global warming doesn't exist that you want to make them think that any and all suggestions that humans are messing up the earth are also wrong, leading to the conclusion that business/industry can do anything at all without restraint?

The whole point of the global warming scare was to panic the population into surrendering more money and control.  Sure, they started with a non-zero issue, but they had to inflate it themselves.

And, while all the greentards are dousing their drawers over carbon dioxide, at it's lowest level ever -- before we started "saving the planet" by releasing more, they are NOT paying attention to the zillion kinds of crap being put into the environment which actually ARE pollutants.  These toads are even embracing mercury, since it's used in CFLs, which are God's gifts to mankind for saving a few watts.  Plus, they generally come in green boxes with leaves on the box, so there's that.

 
2013-04-01 04:43:50 AM  

Kome:

I am sorry, but I'm not making the connections you're making. How does increased government control and/or collectivisation "obviously" translate into less individual rights?

Well, you have a point.  Just because it HAS happened EVERY SINGLE time in history does not prove that it will happen this time.  Just because the DEFINITION of collectivism dissolves the focus on the individual, and puts it on the group, and the group's leader, doesn't mean that the individual will suffer...  uh, well, actually, it DOES mean that.
 
2013-04-01 04:53:08 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: LordZorch: By "scientists", you mean envirotards that decided to put forth a new religion disguised as science, or lackeys so far up the butt of research grants that getting cut off from them would mean utter personal disaster.

Nothing in the world makes a scientist happier than proving other scientists wrong. This is why you fail.


There is one thong that makes them happier. Its the thing that makes the world go round, the world go round.
 
2013-04-01 04:56:06 AM  

Wrencher:

I am amused. One of the "deniers" favorite arguments is that we have not been collecting data long enough to determine anything with any certainty, then turn around and point at 10 years of data and say "look! Your wrong!"

Really?  Who said that?
 
2013-04-01 05:07:00 AM  

HighZoolander:

Maybe such evidence, if it really does contradict those old predictions (it's not relevant to my current point) does contradict the old theory. But unless the evidence contradicts current predictions, then current theory could be doing just fine (or not, but the old predictions are hardly the most relevant). Try to keep up.

So...  If you only look at current predictions, since they are about the future, you can never test them, so they're never falsified.

i48.tinypic.com

BRILLIANT!

 
2013-04-01 05:09:46 AM  

blasterz:

I strongly recommend Murdoch Block, a great extension for Chrome/Firefox/Safari. Gives you a warning when visiting this page and others of its ilk that it is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Saves you the hassle of wondering if it's legitimate or propaganda.

Cool.  It's a turnstile at the door to your echo chamber.
 
2013-04-01 05:14:15 AM  

AliceBToklasLives:

Seriously, it's not as simple as "government bad."

That's a position of people who don't like to think.  Also, some people are satisfied with only being right 98.8% of the time.
 
2013-04-01 05:18:39 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese:

mtbhucker:

In the end, Trenberth says, "global warming has not gone away," instead the heat-energy from rising greenhouse gases emissions is simply hiding where its difficult to observe

This is a new low for the climate "scientists".

Our models diverge from observation (e.g. they are wrong).
We can't find the global warming.

Conclusion:  it must be hiding somewhere!

GODDAMMITSOMUCH!   It's those farking Koch Brothers!   They bribed the planet!
 
2013-04-01 05:30:55 AM  

HighZoolander:

The theories have grown and developed over time as well, so to say that the models of 20 years ago are wrong - well, page Ric Romero... that's why they've grown and developed over time. If the evidence suggests that the current models are wrong, then that's something newsworthy; otherwise it's an interesting historical footnote at best.

This is some new variant on circular reasoning.  The model from 20 years ago is too old.  We have new ones now.  Are they wrong yet?   No, you have to wait 20 years to see if what they predict comes to pass.  Of course, it won't matter then if they're wrong, because you'll have new ones.

Hey, the new models are wrong because they're based upon the same assumptions as they were in 1987.  You want to fix them?  Include the Svensmark Effect.  Include the MEASUREMENTS for climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, which are ALL way lower than the assumptions built into the models.  Allow for the fact that the upper troposphere has been drying out ever since we started looking at it a few decades ago.  Currently, the models assume steady humidity in the upper troposphere, despite what readings show.  Fix what is wrong with the models, and they'll get better.  Keep tweaking them with kludges designed to predict the past better, and altering the historical data to something which looks better, and the models will never improve.

 
2013-04-01 05:48:55 AM  

HighZoolander:

Not that I agree with your interpretation of the facts, but if that's what you think, why didn't you specify the current predictions, instead of invoking the predictions of 20 years ago?

Okay.  Today's predictions about 2033 have been shown to be off by more than 3.2 K.

(THAT'S why you don't evaluate current predictions today.)

 
2013-04-01 05:52:16 AM  

HighZoolander:

(though for a minute I thought you might have actually gone through and deleted every c yourself, you crazy cat)

Ha!  That key on my keyboard doesn't work, you unt.
 
2013-04-01 05:54:17 AM  

Kome:

GeneralJim
 
Oh man, you sure showed him by deliberately removing all the "c"s from your post because that other guy made a typo. I bet he feels properly ashamed he does. Kind of peculiar, though, that eliminating 1/26th of the written language you use had no effect on how sensible your posts are. Still completely irrelevant or nonsensical. But, man oh man, you sure showed you have a bigger e-peen with the whole "point out he made a typo because that's the only thing I have to feel superior" shtick. You clever minx, you.

One little thing...  I didn't do that.  Is today your birthday?
 
2013-04-01 05:56:27 AM  

RedVentrue:

The Earth is a black body.
Yeah, but to be fair, it is a very BRIGHT black...
 
2013-04-01 05:59:12 AM  

Animatronik:

There is one thong that makes them happier. Its the thing that makes the world go round, the world go round.
Let me guess...  it involves thongs?
 
2013-04-01 07:26:09 AM  

LoneWolf343: Bisu: hasty ambush: AliceBToklasLives: Since I detect a global warming derp thread, oblig:

[0.tqn.com image 500x334]

But is it really better? The means to achieve this "better world" Included increased government controls and collectivisation. To achieve it obviously means less individual rights with regard to things like your body and reproduction (population) Reducing what your can consume and what you can do with your property (rationing and less property rights) .

Some even favor turning back the clock or infrastructure and technology along with reducing the value of human life:

"Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons"; therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee" Peter Singer

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world "- John Shuttleworth

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem "-- Lamont Cole

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed." -- Pentti Linkola

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby" -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered "-- Gar Smith -- editor of the Earth Island Institute's online magazine The Edge

If this is your "better world" I much prefer the global warming and the polar bear ...


Like I said I really don't see how you're making it "better".given the controls and corresponding loss of individual freedoms, stadard of living etc necessary to implement your idea of utopia.
 
2013-04-01 08:03:00 AM  
With so many variables that exist both within and outside of human history on this planet I can only say that there simply isn't enough data to support any claim/blame that is completely certain that we have a finite impact on the climate. I won't deny that we do... nor can I give it a proper figure. We should just prepare for any possible outcome and do our best to curb pollution and unnecessary toxic emissions without undue taxation at the individual level... and with efficient responsibility to limit what observed direct impacts to minor and major ecosystems we are capable of damaging.
 
 
/I would like to see theoretical climatology studies of global temperature anomalies associated with nuclear testing out of curiousity
//and increased solar radiation from sunspot cycles
///should also go to bed
 
2013-04-01 08:19:12 AM  

Invisible Pedestrian: mtbhucker: Much of the missing heat has been found 700 meters below the surface of the ocean

In the end, Trenberth says, "global warming has not gone away," instead the heat-energy from rising greenhouse gases emissions is simply hiding where its difficult to observe

Just so it's not missed:


The link again.


If heat is nowhere to be observed, is it really there? Will glaciers melt and tides rise for heat sequestered miles below the surface?
 
2013-04-01 10:23:48 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: MrBallou: tenpoundsofcheese: MrBallou: tenpoundsofcheese: FTA:  "The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations "

I love that line.  What great spin.

Ugh. So just what, exactly, do you geniuses think we should do? Is "nothing" the answer?

Is the point of trying to convince the brain-washed masses that global warming doesn't exist that you want to make them think that any and all suggestions that humans are messing up the earth are also wrong, leading to the conclusion that business/industry can do anything at all without restraint?

We thought there would be push-back 40 years ago when we started trying to get people to see that we had to stop polluting the world. How does it feel to be a cliche predicted decades ago?

Oh geez, another lame straw man argument.
Don't you understand that you can be anti-pollution and not believe that man is the primary cause of global cooling eh warming change?

Decades ago who was calling for more pollution?

Since you are such a strong advocate of not polluting, you don't have a phone or any computer devices, right?  Go look at the environmental of mining for silver and cadmium.  But that is okay, right?

You didn't answer my question.
 
Okay, I'll answer.   What we should do about the fact that the world isn't warming as much as people thought?
 
How about "adjust" the data or exclude other data points or time periods?  That has worked in the past.


No, I meant the other question:
 
How does it feel to be the advocate of every greedy, short-sighted, self-serving political propagandist that uses half-truths and misinformation to try to thwart any effort to do good?
 
2013-04-01 10:48:41 AM  

GeneralJim: MrBallou: Is the point of trying to convince the brain-washed masses that global warming doesn't exist that you want to make them think that any and all suggestions that humans are messing up the earth are also wrong, leading to the conclusion that business/industry can do anything at all without restraint?
The whole point of the global warming scare was to panic the population into surrendering more money and control.  Sure, they started with a non-zero issue, but they had to inflate it themselves.
And, while all the greentards are dousing their drawers over carbon dioxide, at it's lowest level ever -- before we started "saving the planet" by releasing more, they are NOT paying attention to the zillion kinds of crap being put into the environment which actually ARE pollutants.  These toads are even embracing mercury, since it's used in CFLs, which are God's gifts to mankind for saving a few watts.  Plus, they generally come in green boxes with leaves on the box, so there's that.


I get it: because there are literally THOUSANDS of dollars in grant money at stake, those guys obviously have a much bigger incentive to lie and besmirch their professional reputations than the people in oil, coal, etc. companies, who only have BILLIONS in profits at stake and can hide behind a cloud of anonymity.
 
Makes perfect sense. I believe the oil guys.
 
2013-04-01 11:04:20 AM  

GeneralJim: AliceBToklasLives: Seriously, it's not as simple as "government bad."
That's a position of people who don't like to think.  Also, some people are satisfied with only being right 98.8% of the time.


The Man Who Is Right 98.8% of the time. Clearly, you stay well infromed.
 
2013-04-01 11:24:42 AM  
www.physics.ie
 
2013-04-01 12:56:14 PM  

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: (though for a minute I thought you might have actually gone through and deleted every c yourself, you crazy cat)
Ha!  That key on my keyboard doesn't work, you unt.


Oooh, you're a lever one, aren't you. Stay lassy.

/also, go learn what 'prediction' means in the context of a scientific theory
 
2013-04-01 01:15:28 PM  
BTW:
image.hotrod.com
Unamused by the headline

I wonder what the carbon footprint on that baby is.
 
2013-04-01 08:55:36 PM  

Bisu: hasty ambush: AliceBToklasLives: Since I detect a global warming derp thread, oblig:

[0.tqn.com image 500x334]

But is it really better? The means to achieve this "better world" Included increased government controls and collectivisation. To achieve it obviously means less individual rights with regard to things like your body and reproduction (population) Reducing what your can consume and what you can do with your property (rationing and less property rights) .

Some even favor turning back the clock or infrastructure and technology along with reducing the value of human life:

"Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons"; therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee" Peter Singer

"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery

"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world "- John Shuttleworth

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem "-- Lamont Cole

"Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed." -- Pentti Linkola

"Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby" -- Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

"If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered "-- Gar Smith -- editor of the Earth Island Institute's online magazine The Edge

If this is your "better world" I much prefer the global warming and the polar bear ...


What if we had wars that turned out to be enormous hoaxes that had actually already cost us trillions of dollars? Would anyone care? Anyone? Anyone?
 
2013-04-02 12:06:11 AM  

MrBallou:

I get it: because there are literally THOUSANDS of dollars in grant money at stake, those guys obviously have a much bigger incentive to lie and besmirch their professional reputations than the people in oil, coal, etc. companies, who only have BILLIONS in profits at stake and can hide behind a cloud of anonymity.

Makes perfect sense. I believe the oil guys.

You're just left-myopic.  Clearly, the oil companies will do what they can to ensure profits remain high.  And they HAVE done so.  Their lobbyists wrote the proposed carbon tax bills, just like Monsanto's lobbyists wrote the "Monsanto protection act," and insurance industry lobbyists wrote Obamacare.  One of the effects of that is that they will make more money, more reliably, and for longer, if the carbon taxes pass.  They aren't fighting -- as always, they have WAY outplayed the environmental groups, and are letting THEM battle to get the taxes put in place.

And if you don't think the threat of losing your job, or losing your funding, just so you can try to let people know that your field of study has 95% of its money come from imaginary panic will keep scientists just going with the flow -- you're an idiot.  And none of your fellows has yet managed to explain how $1 from an oil company pollutes research, while $200 from government does not.

 
2013-04-02 12:31:56 AM  

GeneralJim: MrBallou: I get it: because there are literally THOUSANDS of dollars in grant money at stake, those guys obviously have a much bigger incentive to lie and besmirch their professional reputations than the people in oil, coal, etc. companies, who only have BILLIONS in profits at stake and can hide behind a cloud of anonymity.

Makes perfect sense. I believe the oil guys.
You're just left-myopic.  Clearly, the oil companies will do what they can to ensure profits remain high.  And they HAVE done so.  Their lobbyists wrote the proposed carbon tax bills, just like Monsanto's lobbyists wrote the "Monsanto protection act," and insurance industry lobbyists wrote Obamacare.  One of the effects of that is that they will make more money, more reliably, and for longer, if the carbon taxes pass.


[citation needed] and even more basically what "carbon taxes" are you talking about and in what jurisdiction? It's much easier to fall into conspiracy theory thinking if one is vague about the specifics.


GeneralJim: They aren't fighting -- as always, they have WAY outplayed the environmental groups, and are letting THEM battle to get the taxes put in place.
And if you don't think the threat of losing your job, or losing your funding, just so you can try to let people know that your field of study has 95% of its money come from imaginary panic will keep scientists just going with the flow -- you're an idiot.  And none of your fellows has yet managed to explain how $1 from an oil company pollutes research, while $200 from government does not.


Let me give it a stab. There's three potential weaknesses in this argument.

First, the assumption (that is also inherent in the post you're responding to) that self-interest in terms of research funding is the dominant motivation for research scientists - a most likely false assumption (for quite a few reasons that we can get into if you get this far).

Second, one cannot rely on the assumption that the interests of government in this context is somehow at odds with that of oil companies. You yourself presume a somewhat strong link in your talk about "lobbyists wrote the proposed carbon tax bills". In addition, one can comprehend part of the role of government as enabling and encouraging the activities of oil companies as mechanisms for promoting of economic growth and tax income. What this means is that the 'funding from government' as a foil for 'funding from oil companies' doesn't really hold water as many of their interests are in common.

Third, if ongoing research funding "from government"is indeed the primary motivation for scientists, then prolonging research as long as possible through more inconclusive or unclear results would be the desired result - this is not the case as in reality what is presented isclose-to-conclusive results (in regards to the basics).
 
2013-04-02 07:14:20 AM  

GeneralJim: You're just left-myopic.


Make up your mind. Are we doing this because scientists are greedy, corrupt, fakers, willing to say anything that will get them brazilians in Federal Grant Money or is it because we're Socialists who a bent on Taking Away The Freedoms of REal Americans?

Careful. Your agenda is showing.
 
2013-04-02 07:31:06 AM  

MrBallou:

GeneralJim: You're just left-myopic.

Make up your mind. Are we doing this because scientists are greedy, corrupt, fakers, willing to say anything that will get them brazilians in Federal Grant Money or is it because we're Socialists who a bent on Taking Away The Freedoms of REal Americans?

Careful. Your agenda is showing.

Thank you for one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen.  You faced very stiff competition, but you held out, and were victorious in the end.

You know, if you're unable to look around you and see that your basic ideas have incredibly little to do with reality, there isn't anything I can do to help you.  A question you might ask yourself, however, is: "If oil companies are 'cheating' on the global warming hoax, why is it that EVERY SINGLE BIT of non-peer-reviewed propaganda that has made its way into the IPCC reports comes from environmental activist groups?"  Do you believe that if the oil companies were trying to jimmy the process that they would be totally ineffective?  They never have been before.  Work this through, and you'll be less dumb by a double-digit percentage.  This is work only YOU can do.



 
2013-04-02 08:05:10 AM  

Wrencher: I am amused. One of the "deniers" favorite arguments is that we have not been collecting data long enough to determine anything with any certainty, then turn around and point at 10 years of data and say "look! Your wrong!"


Not me. I`m waiting for 11 months until it is a statistically significant trend. A time frame decided by warmers. Once the criteria set by warmers is satisfied I will be all up on this one...

MY argument was `what is a time frame suitable for deciding this sort of thing` because there was about 17 years of warming between temperatures going down and Hansen saying `the dataset supports proof of warming`...

Personally I try to ask questions to pin down what the warmers are actually saying then using that criteria to disprove their initial statement. Currently it is `there must be a period of 17 years to show a significant trend`

11 months and counting.....
 
2013-04-02 10:57:07 AM  

GeneralJim: MrBallou: GeneralJim: You're just left-myopic.

Make up your mind. Are we doing this because scientists are greedy, corrupt, fakers, willing to say anything that will get them brazilians in Federal Grant Money or is it because we're Socialists who a bent on Taking Away The Freedoms of REal Americans?

Careful. Your agenda is showing.
Thank you for one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen.  You faced very stiff competition, but you held out, and were victorious in the end.
You know, if you're unable to look around you and see that your basic ideas have incredibly little to do with reality, there isn't anything I can do to help you.  A question you might ask yourself, however, is: "If oil companies are 'cheating' on the global warming hoax, why is it that EVERY SINGLE BIT of non-peer-reviewed propaganda that has made its way into the IPCC reports comes from environmental activist groups?"  Do you believe that if the oil companies were trying to jimmy the process that they would be totally ineffective?  They never have been before.  Work this through, and you'll be less dumb by a double-digit percentage.  This is work only YOU can do.


If I could work that through, I'd be a freaking genius. You make no sense at all.

Go back and listen to Rush more carefully. You're getting his words all mixed up with your own stupidity.
 
2013-04-02 11:52:57 AM  

MrBallou: GeneralJim: MrBallou: GeneralJim: You're just left-myopic.

Make up your mind. Are we doing this because scientists are greedy, corrupt, fakers, willing to say anything that will get them brazilians in Federal Grant Money or is it because we're Socialists who a bent on Taking Away The Freedoms of REal Americans?

Careful. Your agenda is showing.
Thank you for one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen.  You faced very stiff competition, but you held out, and were victorious in the end.
You know, if you're unable to look around you and see that your basic ideas have incredibly little to do with reality, there isn't anything I can do to help you.  A question you might ask yourself, however, is: "If oil companies are 'cheating' on the global warming hoax, why is it that EVERY SINGLE BIT of non-peer-reviewed propaganda that has made its way into the IPCC reports comes from environmental activist groups?"  Do you believe that if the oil companies were trying to jimmy the process that they would be totally ineffective?  They never have been before.  Work this through, and you'll be less dumb by a double-digit percentage.  This is work only YOU can do.

If I could work that through, I'd be a freaking genius. You make no sense at all.

Go back and listen to Rush more carefully. You're getting his words all mixed up with your own stupidity.


Yah, jim only just manages to hide his agenda and then only partially...

GeneralJim: MrBallou: GeneralJim: You're just left-myopic.

Make up your mind. Are we doing this because scientists are greedy, corrupt, fakers, willing to say anything that will get them brazilians in Federal Grant Money or is it because we're Socialists who a bent on Taking Away The Freedoms of REal Americans?

Careful. Your agenda is showing.
Thank you for one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen.  You faced very stiff competition, but you held out, and were victorious in the end.
You know, if you're unable to look around you and see that your basic ideas have incredibly little to do with reality, there isn't anything I can do to help you.  A question you might ask yourself, however, is: "If oil companies are 'cheating' on the global warming hoax, why is it that EVERY SINGLE BIT of non-peer-reviewed propaganda that has made its way into the IPCC reports comes from environmental activist groups?"  Do you believe that if the oil companies were trying to jimmy the process that they would be totally ineffective?  They never have been before.  Work this through, and you'll be less dumb by a double-digit percentage.  This is work only YOU can do.


yeah. Jim? He was talking about YOUR agenda. Way to miss the point. Congratulations. Top of the class...

Try again but this time don`t mention companies when talking about your motives. It can be confusing for the intelligent and logical. You are NOT an oil company, right?
 
2013-04-02 01:16:39 PM  

HighZoolander: So evidence contrary to the predictions of 20 years ago somehow invalidates the current theory? Wow. You logic good.

Maybe such evidence, if it really does contradict those old predictions (it's not relevant to my current point) does contradict the old theory. But unless the evidence contradicts current predictions, then current theory could be doing just fine (or not, but the old predictions are hardly the most relevant). Try to keep up.


Are you trying to say that, as long as a new prediction is less than 17 years old, we just have to accept it on faith and predictions older than that are invalid as they are the old predictions?

So, any prediction which could be tested is invalid and only predictions that are untestable can be deemed valid?

So you are validating the denier position of `you keep moving the goalposts`?

terrible logic.
 
2013-04-02 01:47:20 PM  

dready zim: HighZoolander: So evidence contrary to the predictions of 20 years ago somehow invalidates the current theory? Wow. You logic good.

Maybe such evidence, if it really does contradict those old predictions (it's not relevant to my current point) does contradict the old theory. But unless the evidence contradicts current predictions, then current theory could be doing just fine (or not, but the old predictions are hardly the most relevant). Try to keep up.

Are you trying to say that, as long as a new prediction is less than 17 years old, we just have to accept it on faith and predictions older than that are invalid as they are the old predictions?

So, any prediction which could be tested is invalid and only predictions that are untestable can be deemed valid?

So you are validating the denier position of `you keep moving the goalposts`?

terrible logic.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let me make an analogy.

Let's say someone is diagnosed with cancer, and their doctor tells them that they likely have 6 months to live (that's a prediction). Four years later that guy is still alive. In the meantime, the doctor learns that eating lots of broccoli will help fight that particular type of cancer, and that the patient has eaten lots of broccoli. The doctor now makes a new prediction, based on new information, that someone with that cancer who eats broccoli can expect to live for 6 years post diagnosis (that is a revised prediction).

Sure, you could conclude that the doctor is an idiot and that the initial prediction was wrong, but it's not relevant because the new information supercedes what was known earlier. And, based on the new information, the guy still being alive does not contradict the prediction (which you can think of as a logical consequence based on available information, rather than necessarily a statement about the future) that incorporates the new information.

So talk about the predictions of the current theory (i.e., how well they match the same data as the prior theory) - because the current theory represents a better understanding of the phenomena. Predictions from past theories may be wrong (by a little or a lot), but if there is a more current theory then the predictions of the prior theories are mostly irrelevant.

To give another example - if you use Newtonian mechanics to predict your position on the globe (GPS), then it will give the wrong answer. Well no shiat, you should use relatively to predict your position accurately. This is not to say that Newtonian mechanics isn't useful, or that past climate models/predictions aren't useful either, but to draw the conclusion that the theory of global warming is invalidated (as cirby claimed above) is patently stupid. It would be like claiming that gravitational theory (purposely vague to make the analogy work better) is invalid because GPS doesn't work with Newtonian mechanics.
 
2013-04-02 02:41:29 PM  

GeneralJim: MrBallou: GeneralJim: You're just left-myopic.

Make up your mind. Are we doing this because scientists are greedy, corrupt, fakers, willing to say anything that will get them brazilians in Federal Grant Money or is it because we're Socialists who a bent on Taking Away The Freedoms of REal Americans?

Careful. Your agenda is showing.
Thank you for one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen.  You faced very stiff competition, but you held out, and were victorious in the end.
You know, if you're unable to look around you and see that your basic ideas have incredibly little to do with reality, there isn't anything I can do to help you.  A question you might ask yourself, however, is: "If oil companies are 'cheating' on the global warming hoax, why is it that EVERY SINGLE BIT of non-peer-reviewed propaganda that has made its way into the IPCC reports comes from environmental activist groups?"  Do you believe that if the oil companies were trying to jimmy the process that they would be totally ineffective?  They never have been before.  Work this through, and you'll be less dumb by a double-digit percentage.  This is work only YOU can do.


The simple answer is that you're considering only a small part of the decision-making process - the activities of oil companies aren't somehow limited to the IPCC, as you yourself acknowledge:

GeneralJim: Their lobbyists wrote the proposed carbon tax bills, just like Monsanto's lobbyists wrote the "Monsanto protection act," and insurance industry lobbyists wrote Obamacare.


To mirror what MrBallou claims, you need to make up your mind whether oil companies are successfully affecting the process (so far as to write unspecified "proposed carbon tax bills"), or they're "totally ineffective". These are strongly  contradictory characterizations you're trying to put forward simultaneously.
 
2013-04-02 03:09:28 PM  

dready zim: Wrencher: I am amused. One of the "deniers" favorite arguments is that we have not been collecting data long enough to determine anything with any certainty, then turn around and point at 10 years of data and say "look! Your wrong!"

Not me. I`m waiting for 11 months until it is a statistically significant trend. A time frame decided by warmers. Once the criteria set by warmers is satisfied I will be all up on this one...

MY argument was `what is a time frame suitable for deciding this sort of thing` because there was about 17 years of warming between temperatures going down and Hansen saying `the dataset supports proof of warming`...

Personally I try to ask questions to pin down what the warmers are actually saying then using that criteria to disprove their initial statement. Currently it is `there must be a period of 17 years to show a significant trend`

11 months and counting.....



One also has to keep in mind that correlation (in the form of a simple linear regression) isn't causation. Some acknowledgement is in order that the underlying mechanisms and processes are what is important, and drawing a simple line is a imperfect and indirect way of assessing such. What this means is that a lack of correlation also does not mean a lack of causation when different processes are conflated and work simultaneously, as is the case with global temperatures.

Let me give a hypothetical example to illustrate this  - if within the next 11 months and every year thereafter there happens to be a half-dozen Mt. Pinatubo - sizedvolcanic eruptions, we would expect global temperatures to trend lower. This volcanic process would be conflated with processes behind anthropogenic climate change, and would swamp it out in regards to global temperatures. Therefore you could not use such a temperature trend to state that anthropogenic climate change has somehow stopped. Again, what is important is understanding the underlying mechanisms and processes, and trends are a very imperfect way of indirectly assessing them.

As a side note, we can also apply this idea to what's going on now - we can attempt to account for ongoing processes that are currently affecting global temperature but aren't ones of interest. For example:

i.imgur.com
From Foster & Rahmstorf 2011. What they've done here is filter out the direct contribution of ENSO, volcanic, and solar activity - processes that are conflated with global warming. What this demonstrates is the importance of, again, understanding the underlying mechanisms and processes instead of relying on just the overall trend.

All that aside, if you're looking for a specific time frame, keep in mind that you need to be specific as who is proposing what - there is unsurprisingly a range of opinions given such an imprecise rule-of-thumb.
 
2013-04-02 03:13:27 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: tenpoundsofcheese: Brick-House: I wonder if that big ball of fire in the sky had anything to do with it.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 275x183]

No.   That only is on during the day.
At night we just have the moon and that doesn't heat up the earth at all.

Or at least so say the climate change nuts.  Can't have anything to do with the sun.

THE ENERGY OUTPUT OF THE SUN IS CONSTANT. CONSTANT!
 
Except for solar cycles, but we're not talking about that.
 
The Earth is a black body.

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]
 
You're not going to find many people (if any at all) who make that claim.


I've been hearin it for years, and now you deny people said the Sun's energy is constant? I remember a thread a couple years ago where you and John Snow claimed just that. Where you lying then, or now?
 
2013-04-02 03:35:37 PM  

RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: tenpoundsofcheese: Brick-House: I wonder if that big ball of fire in the sky had anything to do with it.

[encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 275x183]

No.   That only is on during the day.
At night we just have the moon and that doesn't heat up the earth at all.

Or at least so say the climate change nuts.  Can't have anything to do with the sun.

THE ENERGY OUTPUT OF THE SUN IS CONSTANT. CONSTANT!
 
Except for solar cycles, but we're not talking about that.
 
The Earth is a black body.

[people.virginia.edu image 500x75]
 
You're not going to find many people (if any at all) who make that claim.

I've been hearin it for years, and now you deny people said the Sun's energy is constant? I remember a thread a couple years ago where you and John Snow claimed just that. Where you lying then, or now?



You'll probably find if you were to actually track down said thread that what was claimed was that solar activity cannot account for the current warming trend, not that solar activity is constant. Your memory may be imperfect - you even got Jon Snow's name wrong. I highly suggest you check for yourself to confirm.
 
Displayed 50 of 229 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | 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