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 229
    More: Interesting, temperatures, Plymouth Reliant, Rajendra Pachauri, Goddard Institute, climate, sulfur dioxide, IPCC reports, global warming  
•       •       •

3562 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Mar 2013 at 2:09 PM (1 year 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
 
2013-03-31 11:08:44 AM  
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.
 
2013-03-31 11:15:04 AM  
Subbyno read too good.
 
2013-03-31 11:17:09 AM  

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.


Wow -- and the Internet Tough Guy profile, too. Wow. We are all impressed.
 
2013-03-31 11:25:42 AM  
"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

*Le Google*

The foundation was established in November 2009, shortly after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and its headquarters occupy a room at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. Its director is the social anthropologist Benny Peiser,[5] and it is chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson.[6] GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to address climate change and that it aims to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant".[4][7] The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming.

Ah.  I see.
 
2013-03-31 11:28:56 AM  
Ah, I see we're pretending last year didn't happen.
 
2013-03-31 11:52:52 AM  
That's the thing about science. It isn't afraid to say 'I don't know. Yet.'
 
2013-03-31 12:12:06 PM  

Relatively Obscure: former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigella Lawson


www.picsdrive.com
 
2013-03-31 12:56:32 PM  

GAT_00: Ah, I see we're pretending last year didn't happen.


Isn't this the like... 5th time this article was submitted? Ffs. We're also pretending yesterday's redlit thread didn't happen.
 
2013-03-31 01:18:10 PM  
Threepeat!
 
2013-03-31 01:27:51 PM  

Bontesla: GAT_00: Ah, I see we're pretending last year didn't happen.

Isn't this the like... 5th time this article was submitted? Ffs. We're also pretending yesterday's redlit thread didn't happen.


People who submit drek like this repeatedly submit the exact same article.
 
2013-03-31 01:40:05 PM  

Speaker2Animals: 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.

Wow -- and the Internet Tough Guy profile, too. Wow. We are all impressed.


My aunt had a Boston Terrier like that. He thought he was a Mastiff, but he was just a noisy little carpet-soiling irritant. I always wanted to to drop-kick him across the living room, but, like here, we had to tolerate his yapping.
 
2013-03-31 01:48:36 PM  
You mean Earth's climate doesn't give a shiat about anyone's political agenda?

Whoodathunkit?
 
2013-03-31 02:10:16 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-31 02:19:12 PM  
farm5.static.flickr.com

/Citation not needed.
 
2013-03-31 02:22:02 PM  

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.

 
2013-03-31 02:22:58 PM  

Amos Quito: You mean Earth's climate doesn't give a shiat about anyone's political agenda?

Whoodathunkit?


Ahh, you failed both Critical Thinking and Reading The Article.

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

FOX and AM Radio are not actual scientists, and insane conspiracy theorists do not have valid opinions.
 
2013-03-31 02:24:23 PM  

LewDux: 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.


oi49.tinypic.com
 
2013-03-31 02:25:01 PM  
This chart basically illustrates what they're doing.  There's a reason they're picking the dates the way they are.
 
2013-03-31 02:45:37 PM  
I was really hoping that subby would add a "hypoacracy!!!"

/ah good times...
 
2013-03-31 02:45:42 PM  
GAT_00:
Ah, I see we're pretending last year didn't happen.

You mean the part where 2012 was about the same as the previous 12 years, and somewhat cooler than all but two or three of them? Where it was "warmer" than 2011 by 0.03 C, less than the noise in their observations? A lot of Americans think it was "hot" because we had locally high temps in 2012, while ignoring the record low temps in many other places.

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

Or were you talking about the part where - according to the official theory of how AGW is supposed to work - we're below the predictions they made twenty years ago, invalidating the theory?

They had three prediction lines. One was for accelerating CO2 (we're almost a degree C below that one), linearly increasing CO2 (a half-degree C below that, and CO2 levels are right in line with it), and a reduction in the increase in CO2 (we're about 0.2 C under that one, below the acceptable 95% confidence bars, and almost dropping off their 75% confidence spread).
 
2013-03-31 02:54:17 PM  

Fast Moon: This chart basically illustrates what they're doing.  There's a reason they're picking the dates the way they are.


Are there factions in the denialists camps? Before it seemed like there was the "equipment is wrong" faction: "No measurable warming is happening!! It's all due to cities!" Now they argue "Look! It's trending down!!" So now suddenly the readings were accurate?

/anyway, I have to get back to following the Holy Goird of Jerusalem.
 
2013-03-31 03:04:25 PM  

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
 
2013-03-31 03:15:43 PM  

ghare: Amos Quito: You mean Earth's climate doesn't give a shiat about anyone's political agenda?

Whoodathunkit?

Ahh, you failed both Critical Thinking and Reading The Article.

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

FOX and AM Radio are not actual scientists, and insane conspiracy theorists do not have valid opinions.



So that means that the Earth's climate really DOES worry about your political agenda?
 
2013-03-31 03:19:14 PM  
Hey guys, I have an idea.  Let's read the original article rather than talking about an article we didn't read that talks about some other article:  http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate - may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions
 
2013-03-31 03:30:37 PM  
Wait, so FOX's paid 'scientists" say that thousands of experts in a variety of fields, spread across the globe are full of crap?

Hell, that's good enough for me. I'm having a coal furnace put in for next winter!
 
F42
2013-03-31 03:35:34 PM  
article title: 20 years

article text: "The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.
"Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period."


twenty?
 
2013-03-31 03:39:38 PM  
It will only stall for a while.

Once they put in their "adjustmentsTM" things will be all doomy and gloomy again.
 
2013-03-31 03:40:03 PM  

Amos Quito: ghare: Amos Quito: You mean Earth's climate doesn't give a shiat about anyone's political agenda?

Whoodathunkit?

Ahh, you failed both Critical Thinking and Reading The Article.

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

FOX and AM Radio are not actual scientists, and insane conspiracy theorists do not have valid opinions.


So that means that the Earth's climate really DOES worry about your political agenda?


Of course it does. Only ghare's though. It couldn't care less about anyone elses agenda.
 
2013-03-31 03:42:32 PM  

Old enough to know better: Wait, so FOX's paid 'scientists" say that thousands of experts in a variety of fields, spread across the globe are full of crap?

Hell, that's good enough for me. I'm having a coal furnace put in for next winter!


You are confused. It seems the coal burning is causing the cooling effect lately. So sayeth the sciencists.
 
2013-03-31 03:42:40 PM  
FTA:  "The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations "

I love that line.  What great spin.
 
2013-03-31 03:42:42 PM  

Old enough to know better: Wait, so FOX's paid 'scientists" say that thousands of experts in a variety of fields, spread across the globe are full of crap?

Hell, that's good enough for me. I'm having a coal furnace put in for next winter!


I'm burning natural gas to increase the CO2 levels in my greenhouse.
 
2013-03-31 03:47:20 PM  
Since I detect a global warming derp thread, oblig:

0.tqn.com
 
2013-03-31 03:47:38 PM  

RedVentrue: Old enough to know better: Wait, so FOX's paid 'scientists" say that thousands of experts in a variety of fields, spread across the globe are full of crap?

Hell, that's good enough for me. I'm having a coal furnace put in for next winter!

You are confused. It seems the coal burning is causing the cooling effect lately. So sayeth the sciencists.


well, that is what caused the ice age that the models predicted back in the 1970s.
 
2013-03-31 03:48:04 PM  
s8.postimg.org
 
2013-03-31 03:50:32 PM  
I used to drive a Plymouth Reliant, so I'm getting a kick...

/ok,  almost a Reliant
/Dodge Aries K
 
2013-03-31 03:58:28 PM  
I don't remember my parents' 1981 Reliant ever stalling on the highway ramp, but it had lost a couple teeth on the flywheel and occasionally had to be rocked before it would start.
 
2013-03-31 04:00:39 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-31 04:10:58 PM  
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
 
2013-03-31 04:14:02 PM  

Speaker2Animals: 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.

Wow -- and the Internet Tough Guy profile, too. Wow. We are all impressed.



Maybe you too, should include your beliefs in your profile, so others can bash your stupid comments as well.

Oh, whats that? You don't have the balls to stick your neck out there, feared that someone will cut your head off?

Yeah, stick to anonymous bashing.. stupid troll.
 
2013-03-31 04:15:13 PM  

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

[0.tqn.com image 500x334]


That really is the stupidest straw man argument.

People who don't think that humans are primarily responsible for climate cooling  eh warming change are not against clean air and water, healthy children, etc.
 
2013-03-31 04:19:54 PM  
 
2013-03-31 04:20:02 PM  

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:

i.imgur.com
The link again.
 
2013-03-31 04:20:14 PM  

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 bears better evolve into better swimmers.
 
2013-03-31 04:21:21 PM  

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?
 
2013-03-31 04:28:09 PM  

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 bears better evolve ...


looks like they did evolve.
their population is way up from the models too.

By the way, I don't understand why we care so much about them since they eat so much fish that could be used to feed poor people.

they also kill seals, and I thought killing seals was bad.
 
2013-03-31 04:30:15 PM  
Well then, stop whining and start building nukes. Lots of them. Hydrocarbons are too valuable to burn.
 
2013-03-31 04:36:18 PM  

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.


/thread
 
2013-03-31 04:41:13 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: 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?


I'd even go along with that theory, regardless of how questionable it's become, if it meant seriously cracking down on corporate environmental destruction. The big problem with what the AGW thing has become is that it's mainly centered around a new tax on practically everything citizens do or buy, which is bullshiat. There are countless more effective and direct methods of saving or protecting the environment, but they all cut into corporate profits, and they'd like to avoid that.
 
2013-03-31 04:53:21 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: tenpoundsofcheese: 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?

I'd even go along with that theory, regardless of how questionable it's become, if it meant seriously cracking down on corporate environmental destruction. The big problem with what the AGW thing has become is that it's mainly centered around a new tax on practically everything citizens do or buy, which is bullshiat. There are countless more effective and direct methods of saving or protecting the environment, but they all cut into corporate profits, and they'd like to avoid that.


If the US really cared, they would go after China and India.
But they don't, so they won't.
It is just a tax ploy.
 
2013-03-31 04:56:19 PM  

hasty ambush: 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) .


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? I'm not saying it cannot or does not, but I do not follow you that the one necessarily leads to the other, especially since there are just as many examples of less government control and greater individualisation leading to the same outcome and many examples of greater government control and collectivisation leading to more individual freedom. Please walk me through, step by step, how you get from A to B while taking into consideration the historical and contemporary examples of the differing ratios of government size to individual freedom.
 
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 »
Advertisement
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