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.

(Washington Post)   Global warming may 'appear' to have 'slowed' for only 15 years, but EVERYONE STILL NEEDS TO PANIC, and we really really mean it this time, for reals. Hello? Anyone?   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 311
    More: Followup, no reason, global warming, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt  
•       •       •

4507 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 10:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-15 08:15:12 AM
zfacts.com
 
2013-06-15 09:17:51 AM
I hope the people who submit troll headlines about climate change are getting nice checks from the Koch Brothers, because I would hate to think they're being that obtuse for free.
 
2013-06-15 09:18:03 AM
...aaaaaaand we're done.
 
2013-06-15 10:06:22 AM
There's nothing more lonely than being so alone that you imagine you're in a crowd.
 
2013-06-15 10:37:25 AM

jake_lex: I hope the people who submit troll headlines about climate change are getting nice checks from the Koch Brothers, because I would hate to think they're being that obtuse for free.


Pissing off liberals is all the compensation they need.
 
2013-06-15 10:37:39 AM
Of course it slowed, people bought carbon credits.
 
2013-06-15 10:37:53 AM
If the oceans are indeed the reason for the pause, that's not comforting news, since that extra heat should eventually rise to the Earth's surface in the years ahead, leading to much hotter temperatures.

Not to mention the untold number of extant species that will become extinct due to a rapidly increasingly hostile oceanic environment.
 
2013-06-15 10:41:02 AM
I really wish they'd stop using the term "Global Warming". It's too easy to dismiss by saying "We'll, it's colder this year than last year. Ergo, no global warming." And it's not the heat that is directly the problem anyway - it's how the heat affects the rest of the system. Hence why "Climate Change" is a better way to discuss it.
 
2013-06-15 10:41:18 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course it slowed, people bought carbon credits.


+1
 
2013-06-15 10:41:48 AM
redgreenandblue.org
 
2013-06-15 10:42:20 AM
My cancerous tumors have shrunk a little so I'm gonna stop going for chemo and start chain smoking Marlboro Reds.

This is how stupid you sound.
 
2013-06-15 10:45:28 AM
Short term cooling or heating is called weather. Weather is what is happening now. Climate changes occurs over eons. First it s gets warm, then it gets cold, then it gets warm, then it gets cold. Repeat for eons. It's doing this with or without us.  Time to find something else to focus the 98% on while the upper 2% continues their looting.
 
2013-06-15 10:47:05 AM
This headline
cdn.twentytwowords.com
 
2013-06-15 10:47:32 AM
i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-06-15 10:48:59 AM

Techhell: I really wish they'd stop using the term "Global Warming". It's too easy to dismiss by saying "We'll, it's colder this year than last year. Ergo, no global warming." And it's not the heat that is directly the problem anyway - it's how the heat affects the rest of the system. Hence why "Climate Change" is a better way to discuss it.


Sure. That's why we want to call it something else and not because the science has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots with a political agenda who have ruined the credibility of it by running to the nearest camera every time there's a weather event in the news to scream "global warming!"

Lack of snow in a portion of Canada was "climate change" but a few months later record amounts of snowfall a 1000 miles away in the NE United States was "weather" and we got smirking little pricks going 'Well just because its cold in the United States...', and speaking of snow in the late 90s the global warming alarmists assured us that snow would be a thing of the past by now.

When we had a major hurricane season, including Katrina... Omg! Global warming! Better get used to this... And...! And we had an active hurricane season, followed by several years of less active hurricane seasons, which has been the pattern forever.

We were suppose to have "hundreds of thousands" of climate change refuges by now. Where are they? I distinctly remember back in 2000 when I said that it would never happen that I was "denying science" and a "shill for the oil companies".

And now we have people running around going OMG! Climate change! Tornadoes! See!... Ignoring the fact that, like hurricanes, some tornado seasons are worse than others. That's just the way it works.
 
2013-06-15 10:49:06 AM
My god don't you see, we have a reprieve! They weren't really wrong, it's just that we've slowed it so now we really have a chance. Now excuse me while I get a six pack and take my V8 dually which gets about 4 mpg and drive around the back roads listening to country music, exhale as much co2 as I can and watch the cows fart. Global warming my ass...
 
2013-06-15 10:50:35 AM
Theoretical question:

Let's say that global warming ends for whatever reason.  15 years into it ending, would it be fair to presume that we would see an article like this?

That is, would someone write "there hasn't been global warming for 15 year, but that's no reason to celebrate! global warming is still with us".
 
2013-06-15 10:51:19 AM
The last fifteen years have been a relatively low period of solar irradiance. That's kept temperatures from rising. But when the solar output goes up again -- and it's on the rise -- expect lots of record highs.
www.giss.nasa.gov
 
2013-06-15 10:51:22 AM

Marcus Aurelius: [zfacts.com image 534x347]


because why bother with all that hard number stuff when you can just continue the line up on the graph and call it a "projection"

/your graph sucks
 
2013-06-15 10:52:26 AM
Can someone order a pizza. It's going to take awhile to get through this.

Map the world for a millenium . this is nothing
 
2013-06-15 10:55:15 AM
randomjsa: speaking of snow in the late 90s the global warming alarmists assured us that snow would be a thing of the past by now.

No, they didn't. No one who had any idea what they were talking about said anything that sounded anything like that. You could be lying, confused, or unable to tell between a reputable source and a jackass, but it works out roughly the same.


Ignoring the fact that, like hurricanes, some tornado seasons are worse than others. That's just the way it works.

So your theory is that things are better or worse, and there's no way to know if there's a trend, and it's not worth doing anything about it?

There's an old adage about respecting nature because nature doesn't respect you. There's another one about arguing online, which is why I'm done with this.
 
2013-06-15 11:01:51 AM

Techhell: I really wish they'd stop using the term "Global Warming". It's too easy to dismiss by saying "We'll, it's colder this year than last year. Ergo, no global warming." And it's not the heat that is directly the problem anyway - it's how the heat affects the rest of the system. Hence why "Climate Change" is a better way to discuss it.


Right.  Because the climate has never changed before.
 
2013-06-15 11:03:03 AM

randomjsa: science has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots with a political agenda who have ruined the credibility


lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-06-15 11:03:55 AM
I'm to lazy to google this, hell, it may even be in the article, but how much of a change over a decade is considered statistically significant or within the margin of error?
 
2013-06-15 11:07:46 AM

jaytkay: randomjsa: science has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots with a political agenda who have ruined the credibility

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 373x373]


nice ad populum argument there
 
2013-06-15 11:08:41 AM

jaytkay: randomjsa: science has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots with a political agenda who have ruined the credibility

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 373x373]


Aside from the political agenda's and the money to be made from climate change, have you ever heard of group think, confirmation bias, or considered the fact that anyone who goes against the popular belief will be ostracized and their career will essentially be over?
 
2013-06-15 11:09:39 AM

Slappajo: I'm to lazy to google this, hell, it may even be in the article, but how much of a change over a decade is considered statistically significant or within the margin of error?


It's a roller coaster. We ride until it stops.

One way or another.
 
2013-06-15 11:09:46 AM
1990: Oh shiat, the sky is going to fall in 10 years!

2000: Oh shiat, the sky is totally falling right now!

2010: Sky still falling

2013: the sky isn't falling as fast as we thought; but, we need to be vigilant lest it falls faster.

/ just sayin'
 
2013-06-15 11:14:12 AM

jaytkay: randomjsa: science has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots with a political agenda who have ruined the credibility

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 373x373]


meaningless chart is...meaningless...
that chart says people agree that the climate is changing.
so what?  when has the climate not changed?
what is the cause of the change?  (not stated in that chart).
 
2013-06-15 11:16:51 AM

iheartscotch: 1990: Oh shiat, the sky is going to fall in 10 years!

2000: Oh shiat, the sky is totally falling right now!

2010: Sky still falling

2013: the sky isn't falling as fast as we thought; but, we need to be vigilant lest it falls faster.

/ just sayin'


I'm curious as to what personal benefit you would gain by halting all efforts to reduce pollution? Do you really think that somehow you are going to all of a sudden have some extra money in your pocket?

You won't.
 
2013-06-15 11:18:17 AM

iheartscotch: 1990: Oh shiat, the sky is going to fall in 10 years!

2000: Oh shiat, the sky is totally falling right now!

2010: Sky still falling

2013: the sky isn't falling as fast as we thought; but, we need to be vigilant lest it falls faster.

/ just sayin'


This is going to sound similar to what I posted in another thread about mass shootings, but people using over-exaggerations to try to make a point and over hyping issues is counterproductive.  A portion of the population is sick of it and at some point just tune out ALL information about it even though it may be valid and relevant.

And this happens on both sides of a given issue both for and against.
 
2013-06-15 11:18:26 AM

Slappajo: have you ever heard of group think, confirmation bias


Yes, I have.

When the only people on Earth who deny climate change are US viewers of FOX news, for example.
 
2013-06-15 11:18:35 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course it slowed, people bought carbon credits.


You do know who invented cap-and-trade, don't you?
 
2013-06-15 11:20:47 AM

here to help: iheartscotch: 1990: Oh shiat, the sky is going to fall in 10 years!

2000: Oh shiat, the sky is totally falling right now!

2010: Sky still falling

2013: the sky isn't falling as fast as we thought; but, we need to be vigilant lest it falls faster.

/ just sayin'

I'm curious as to what personal benefit you would gain by halting all efforts to reduce pollution? Do you really think that somehow you are going to all of a sudden have some extra money in your pocket?

You won't.


I assume you are trolling, but I'll answer anyway.
If the sky-is-falling crowd would have their way, we would have huge taxes on oil and gas to discourage usage. So yes, you would have less money in your pocket.
 
2013-06-15 11:22:10 AM
img10.imageshack.us
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
2013-06-15 11:22:53 AM
Oh, it's maybe in the ocean now. Right, so despite these predictions of the temperature rises by 2100 being super accurate, someone didn't factor the effect of heat on 71% of the earth's surface? And if it's the oceans, why didn't it disappear before?

Not saying AGW ain't happening, I'm just pretty skeptical about how well the scientists have done their job.
 
2013-06-15 11:24:51 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: Techhell: I really wish they'd stop using the term "Global Warming". It's too easy to dismiss by saying "We'll, it's colder this year than last year. Ergo, no global warming." And it's not the heat that is directly the problem anyway - it's how the heat affects the rest of the system. Hence why "Climate Change" is a better way to discuss it.

Right.  Because the climate has never changed before.


Well, technically the climate did change in 1793 when Ben Franklin created Presto, but the evidence for that particular shift isn't as concrete as some of the more Pro-Presto scientists would have us believe.  That being said, I still disagree that the climate has never changed before based on the discovery of the canning facility in Poughkeepsie. the "Benny Franks Was Hear, Yo!" chiseled on the Tomb of the Unknown Canner is up for debate (I think it might have been added by John Adams a few decades later), but the canning facility is most certainly from the proper era, and beyond a few mentions of Mokèlé-mbèmbé in African Literature, there hasn't been a Dinosaur sighting since George Washington slew the last Albertasaurus in 1793.

I mean, it's not Climate coming out in a bikini instead of a one piece bathing suit, but it's still pretty solid.
 
2013-06-15 11:24:53 AM

Slappajo: jaytkay: randomjsa: science has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots with a political agenda who have ruined the credibility

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 373x373]

Aside from the political agenda's and the money to be made from climate change, have you ever heard of group think, confirmation bias, or considered the fact that anyone who goes against the popular belief will be ostracized and their career will essentially be over?


"Money to be made from climate change?"

I love this trope. Please tell me more.

/ gonna guess that you have never worked in an academic research environment.
 
2013-06-15 11:25:42 AM

trailerpimp: My god don't you see, we have a reprieve! They weren't really wrong, it's just that we've slowed it so now we really have a chance. Now excuse me while I get a six pack and take my V8 dually which gets about 4 mpg and drive around the back roads listening to country music, exhale as much co2 as I can and watch the cows fart. Global warming my ass...


Reality imitates art? Full-size pickup sales up 25% annually
 
2013-06-15 11:26:13 AM

jaytkay: Slappajo: have you ever heard of group think, confirmation bias

Yes, I have.

When the only people on Earth who deny climate change are US viewers of FOX news, for example.


Personally, I think the climate is changing and humans MAY contribute to it, so why not get to the root of the problem and control the population rather than let people breed like rabbits in 3rd world countries when they don't have the resources the support themselves?

There's as much of a problem with HOW many people are consuming as there is with HOW MUCH they are consuming.
 
2013-06-15 11:26:29 AM

jake_lex: I hope the people who submit troll headlines about climate change are getting nice checks from the Koch Brothers, because I would hate to think they're being that obtuse for free.


You just like reading back "koch brothers" to yourself out loud.
 
2013-06-15 11:26:59 AM
imageshack.us don't be scared of increased marijuana production.

well, maybe don't drive stoned.

thanks.
 
2013-06-15 11:27:22 AM

bizzwire: tenpoundsofcheese: Of course it slowed, people bought carbon credits.

You do know who invented cap-and-trade, don't you?


Ellison Burton and William Sanjour.
Why do you ask?
 
2013-06-15 11:29:59 AM

here to help: iheartscotch: 1990: Oh shiat, the sky is going to fall in 10 years!

2000: Oh shiat, the sky is totally falling right now!

2010: Sky still falling

2013: the sky isn't falling as fast as we thought; but, we need to be vigilant lest it falls faster.

/ just sayin'

I'm curious as to what personal benefit you would gain by halting all efforts to reduce pollution? Do you really think that somehow you are going to all of a sudden have some extra money in your pocket?

You won't.


I know there would be no immediate personal benifit to ending all efforts to reduce pollution.

I, personally, think we should switch completely off of coal; not because it's dirty as hell, but, because natural gas is much more efficient and less likely to leave dangerous residue. I also think that we should have more nuclear power plants, mainly because we have huge deposits of uranium in the United States.

/ I'm just pointing out that there are much better arguments to use more efficient power sources than the sky is falling
 
2013-06-15 11:30:03 AM
Ninja Otter: The last fifteen years have been a relatively low period of solar irradiance. That's kept temperatures from rising. But when the solar output goes up again -- and it's on the rise -- expect lots of record highs.
 [www.giss.nasa.gov image 670x336]

Uh, IPCC says the sun has NO effect on climate change.   Learn to use the right team's cheer.
 
2013-06-15 11:30:18 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: I assume you are trolling, but I'll answer anyway.
If the sky-is-falling crowd would have their way, we would have huge taxes on oil and gas to discourage usage. So yes, you would have less money in your pocket.


I assume know you are a shill but if the government repealed all gas taxes right now the oil companies would figure out a way to justify charging the same and pocketing the difference.

Also because of illness, lost productivity, snuffing out new environmentally friendly business enterprises, stifling scientific research, etc, etc... you will pay far more in the long run. Also when have you ever known the government to roll back taxes after cutting costs?

The only people who profit from poor environmental policies are the guys at the top. The average schlub only gets the negative consequences... including the financial ones.
 
2013-06-15 11:30:38 AM
Write a check to the gubmint ans Al Bore, that'll fix it!!
 
2013-06-15 11:32:14 AM

Techhell: I really wish they'd stop using the term "Global Warming". It's too easy to dismiss by saying "We'll, it's colder this year than last year. Ergo, no global warming." And it's not the heat that is directly the problem anyway - it's how the heat affects the rest of the system. Hence why "Climate Change" is a better way to discuss it.


I prefer to put a little thing called " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thermodynamics  " out there and ask the scientists to show me where it is in their equations.
None have.

If it doesn't obey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thermodynamics , it isn't real.
 
2013-06-15 11:34:05 AM
nice ad populum argument there

I'm just pretty skeptical about how well the scientists have done their job


This thread delivers
 
2013-06-15 11:34:42 AM

jaytkay: randomjsa: science has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots with a political agenda who have ruined the credibility

[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 373x373]


imageshack.us
 
Displayed 50 of 311 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 »






Report