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.

(National Review)   Science consensus on global warming is at its weakest state in years   (nationalreview.com) divider line 109
    More: Dumbass, Obama, support of a measure, alarmisms, Fred Flintstone, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, federalisms, average surface temperature, carbon taxes  
•       •       •

858 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2013 at 9:41 AM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-26 09:44:25 AM
Dumbass tag is for anyone who reads NRO.
 
2013-06-26 09:44:31 AM
Yeah, I'll be sure to trust NRO with the facts on that one, as soon as those f*ckstains' Science vocabulary goes beyond "Potatoe".
 
2013-06-26 09:44:44 AM
So... 95%?
 
2013-06-26 09:45:09 AM
*reads headline*

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-26 09:45:16 AM
The warmest year on record was 1998, and there has been significantly less warming in the last 15 years than there was in the 20 years before that.

You heard it here folks.  NRO admits to the existence of global warming.  Now they're just haggling over the amount.
 
2013-06-26 09:45:19 AM
Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.
 
2013-06-26 09:45:34 AM
Sure is a good thing that I don't get my science information from politicians or political think tanks.
 
2013-06-26 09:45:41 AM
What the article really is saying is: "Our best 'paid' scientific minds (none of which actually have a degree in any field that would be actually, you know, STUDYING climate change scientifically) state that nothing is happening, and that climate change has actually reversed itself.  Who are we to listen to actual climate scientists, who say that things are getting worse, not better?"

That's pretty much the entire article in a nutshell.
 
2013-06-26 09:46:16 AM
Oh, and 'Obama is a poopyhead'.
 
2013-06-26 09:47:29 AM
down to only 95% of scientists in agreement?
 
2013-06-26 09:48:09 AM

PoweredByIrony: So... 95%?


97%
Because clearly, if 100% of people don't all agree on someone, it must not be true.
 
2013-06-26 09:48:22 AM
img203.imageshack.us
 
2013-06-26 09:50:05 AM

Lord_Baull: down to only 95% of scientists in agreement?


Let me guess: marine biologists, geologists and phrenologists are all in the pool used to reach that figure..
 
2013-06-26 09:51:33 AM

kronicfeld: Lord_Baull: down to only 95% of scientists in agreement?

Let me guess: marine biologists, geologists and phrenologists are all in the pool used to reach that figure..


And the dude from unskewed polls.
 
2013-06-26 09:52:05 AM
Since everything isn't TOTALLY ruined, we shouldn't bother with trying to improve or avoid problems later on. Let us instead wait until everything goes to hell and THEN lament our situation and blame the people who wanted to avoid this disaster for not doing a better job at stopping us from putting that fork in the socket.
 
2013-06-26 09:52:08 AM

kronicfeld: Lord_Baull: down to only 95% of scientists in agreement?

Let me guess: marine biologists, geologists and phrenologists are all in the pool used to reach that figure..



I'm gona guess most of the scientists in the 5% are also creationists.
 
2013-06-26 09:52:10 AM

Kome: PoweredByIrony: So... 95%?

97%
Because clearly, if 100% of people don't all agree on someone, it must not be true.


97% is 2+ standard deviations from a normally-distributed mean, which means we're dealing with nonstandard deviants here.

// get the fluoride
 
2013-06-26 09:52:26 AM

kronicfeld: Lord_Baull: down to only 95% of scientists in agreement?

Let me guess: marine biologists, geologists and phrenologists are all in the pool used to reach that figure..



No, but Creationists were used to get the 5% number.
 
2013-06-26 09:53:31 AM

Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.


But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.
 
2013-06-26 09:54:48 AM

Kome: PoweredByIrony: So... 95%?

97%
Because clearly, if 100% of people don't all agree on someone, it must not be true.


So you're saying there's a chance?
 
2013-06-26 09:54:53 AM

kronicfeld: Lord_Baull: down to only 95% of scientists in agreement?

Let me guess: marine biologists, geologists and phrenologists are all in the pool used to reach that figure..


Could that make them bigots too?

cdn3.whatculture.com
 
2013-06-26 09:55:17 AM
 
2013-06-26 09:55:59 AM

PoweredByIrony: So... 95%?


Raharu: kronicfeld: Lord_Baull: down to only 95% of scientists in agreement?

Let me guess: marine biologists, geologists and phrenologists are all in the pool used to reach that figure..


I'm gona guess most of the scientists in the 5% are also creationists.



Dammit, stop reading my mind you FARKers!!!
 
2013-06-26 09:56:31 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.

But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.


Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

If the fin
 
2013-06-26 09:57:06 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.

But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.


And when I hit that lottery, you're not taking my hard earned money for your socialisms!

/i think we just effectively defined the current GOP. Bravo!
 
2013-06-26 09:57:51 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Tyrone Slothrop: Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.

But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.

Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

If the fin


...you brilliant bastard.
 
2013-06-26 09:58:26 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.


Over what time frame? Does that analysis include the external costs for the finite resource?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-26 09:58:32 AM
general public IQ is also at its weakest state.

It's a conspiracy!
 
2013-06-26 09:58:48 AM
Funny thing is that libslibslibs stopped saying "global warming" 10 years ago in favor of "climate change." Climate change is a better term to use since you can look at all facets of how polluting emissions (CO2, particulates, etc) affect the environment.

Since the derp brigade has lost the battle over climate change, they have to set up the argument against "global warming"--the effect of emissions--rather than the actual release of harmful chemicals themselves. Simple measurements of the atmosphere confirm that *something* is going on and that human action is the cause. That's really what the focus should have been on all along.
 
2013-06-26 09:59:18 AM
The warmest year on record was 1998, and there has been significantly less warming in the last 15 years than there was in the 20 years before that.

How weird. NASA says you're full of shiat...

NASA had already said last week that for the contiguous United States, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded. The hottest years on record for the planet, it said, were 2005 and 2010.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/01/2012-was-9th-warmest- ye ar-on-record-says-nasa/
 
2013-06-26 09:59:21 AM
I am certain that the headline is as accurate a representation of reality as is any creationist's website's claim that evolution is being rejected by more scientists than ever before.
 
2013-06-26 09:59:40 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.

But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.


Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

If the finite resource is indeed "finite", then the price will go up as supplies dwindle to the point where te renewable resource makes more economic sense.

There isn't some broad conspiracy against renewables, rather "finite" resources are just cheaper.
 
2013-06-26 10:00:01 AM
Actually there are SEVERAL scientists out there who say global warming isn't occurring.

Oh I'm sorry, that was supposed to be SEVEN, scientists. And I happen to know four of them (they're in my band) and they are all stand up guys. They got their scientist certifications on Groupon. Come see us perform this weekend at Benders Tavern.
 
2013-06-26 10:00:08 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Actually, it's just alot cheaper


I'll have you know that this alot was hand-crafted and is certainly not cheap.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-26 10:01:13 AM

Kuta: Funny thing is that libslibslibs stopped saying "global warming" 10 years ago in favor of "climate change." Climate change is a better term to use since you can look at all facets of how polluting emissions (CO2, particulates, etc) affect the environment.


Again.. it's because the public has dumbed down so much.  Every time we have a cold snap I hear something about "global warming."  Your man on the street is so poorly educated right now that they can't think through any argument that has depth, let alone understand how the process of science works.  If you can't explain it in one sentence then it's out the window.
 
2013-06-26 10:01:44 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Tyrone Slothrop: Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.

But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.

Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

If the finite resource is indeed "finite", then the price will go up as supplies dwindle to the point where te renewable resource makes more economic sense.

There isn't some broad conspiracy against renewables, rather "finite" resources are just cheaper.


And here I was thinking you were being clever, but I was let down again... *sigh*
 
2013-06-26 10:01:58 AM

Kuta: Funny thing is that

libslibslibs intelligent people who wanted to use a proper, more fitting description stopped saying "global warming" 10 years ago in favor of "climate change."

FTFY
 
2013-06-26 10:02:25 AM
"The science right now is inconclusive," which is a position about as scientifically defensible as claiming that the dinosaurs went extinct because Fred Flintstone ordered too many bronto-burgers.

Heresy.  The Earth is 6000 years old and humans most certainly crossed paths with the mighty brontosaurus in the past.  Who does the author think he is, infringing my freedom of religion by pushing this unverified pseudoscience on us? I am no longer going to donate money or read the NRO until they remove this RINO liberal hack from their staff and replace him with a reputable CONSERVITIVE voice..
 
2013-06-26 10:04:12 AM

Karac: The warmest year on record was 1998, and there has been significantly less warming in the last 15 years than there was in the 20 years before that.


Mikey1969: NASA had already said last week that for the contiguous United States, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded. The hottest years on record for the planet, it said, were 2005 and 2010.


i got your consensus right heah
 
2013-06-26 10:04:39 AM

Mikey1969: The warmest year on record was 1998, and there has been significantly less warming in the last 15 years than there was in the 20 years before that.

How weird. NASA says you're full of shiat...

NASA had already said last week that for the contiguous United States, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded. The hottest years on record for the planet, it said, were 2005 and 2010.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/01/2012-was-9th-warmest- ye ar-on-record-says-nasa/



NOAA says it was 2012.
 
2013-06-26 10:04:47 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Tyrone Slothrop: Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.

But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.

Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

If the finite resource is indeed "finite", then the price will go up as supplies dwindle to the point where te renewable resource makes more economic sense.

There isn't some broad conspiracy against renewables, rather "finite" resources are just cheaper.


If you only look at the commodity itself, it's cheaper.

You of course are not looking at the health impact of carbon emissions, the damage caused by severe weather or any number of other ancilliary factors.  Because you are a myopic shill working for Big Oil?  Hey baby, just asking questions!!!
 
2013-06-26 10:05:19 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Tyrone Slothrop: Wyalt Derp: Global warming or no, it seems inherently dumb to use up a finite resource instead of harnessing an infinite one.

But a lot more money can be made out of the finite resource.

Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

If the fin


Characters in Fark posts are apparently a finite resource.
 
2013-06-26 10:06:04 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

Over what time frame? Does that analysis include the external costs for the finite resource?


The previous poster said "global warming or not, it is inherently dumb to use a finite resource rather than an infinite one".

So any supposed economic externalities due to global warming are being ignored by him in arguing that it is dumb to use a finite resource relative to an infinite one, and by me in refuting that point.

If you want to later externalities on, then that's a different conversation.
 
2013-06-26 10:06:07 AM

d23: Your man on the street is so poorly educated right now that they can't think through any argument that has depth, let alone understand how the process of science works.  If you can't explain it in one sentence then it's out the window.


Sounds like "No Child Left Behind" is working. Thank you, Bush, for being so fiscally conservative on education!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-06-26 10:07:21 AM

Shaggy_C: "The science right now is inconclusive," which is a position about as scientifically defensible as claiming that the dinosaurs went extinct because Fred Flintstone ordered too many bronto-burgers.

Heresy.  The Earth is 6000 years old and humans most certainly crossed paths with the mighty brontosaurus in the past.  Who does the author think he is, infringing my freedom of religion by pushing this unverified pseudoscience on us? I am no longer going to donate money or read the NRO until they remove this RINO liberal hack from their staff and replace him with a reputable CONSERVITIVE voice..


No scientific fact is conclusive until we invent a time machine.  That's just the way things work.  There was no one to write down daily temperatures a million years ago so we have to figure it out another way and mistakes can be made.  Hell, Newtonian physics was even found to be wrong when Einstein came along.  Scientists are always trying to explain things better.

To a simple minded person this means that since no one is 100% sure its not worth listening to.  To the person trying to put forth a political argument so their corporate master can make a few more million every year it's an opening that can convince a lot of weak minded people.  I mean.. evolution is a "theory," right.  It's not 100%, right?  Never mind that we can WATCH it happening on a microscopic level.  Never mind that you're talking about a frame of time longer than a human can conceive of when it comes to human development.
 
2013-06-26 10:07:36 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.

Over what time frame? Does that analysis include the external costs for the finite resource?

The previous poster said "global warming or not, it is inherently dumb to use a finite resource rather than an infinite one".

So any supposed economic externalities due to global warming are being ignored by him in arguing that it is dumb to use a finite resource relative to an infinite one, and by me in refuting that point.

If you want to later externalities on, then that's a different conversation.


Global warming isn't the only externality.
 
2013-06-26 10:07:43 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: by me in refuting that point.


Except...you didn't. You stated that in one specific instance it was not inherently dumb, up until the point the finite resource gets used up. In which case it IS inherently dumb, because then you're out of that resource.
 
2013-06-26 10:12:02 AM

Raharu: [img203.imageshack.us image 500x333]


That cartoon always rears its head in these threads. It's making the incorrect assumption that it costs us nothing to implement such policies. It's important to be right for the right reasons. The cost/benefit analysis for taking action shifts dramatically if global warming is a serious threat and if action is likely to effectively curb it.
 
2013-06-26 10:12:25 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Debeo Summa Credo: by me in refuting that point.

Except...you didn't. You stated that in one specific instance it was not inherently dumb, up until the point the finite resource gets used up. In which case it IS inherently dumb, because then you're out of that resource.


At which point you'd use the infinite resource. And in fact, you'd be using the "infinite" more and more prior to that day. The finite resource isn't going to run dry all of a sudden. It's going to be depleted over time, during which the price will rise due to increasing scarcity. It will rise to the point where "infinite" resources will be cheaper, and we'll reduce use of the "finite" in favor of the "infinite".
 
2013-06-26 10:13:35 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Actually, it's just alot cheaper and better for the economy to use the finite resource, rather than the more expensive renewable resource.


And your response brings up the economics:

Debeo Summa Credo: The previous poster said "global warming or not, it is inherently dumb to use a finite resource rather than an infinite one".


It's cheaper because we subsidize the hell out of it. It's cheaper NOW because all the investment in getting black sludge into a usable product for internal combustion engines (which were themselves purpose-built to accommodate refined ground-sludge) was done 100-150 years ago. It's cheaper when measured in strict dollars-and-cents, but not when measured in dollars-and-sense.

It's horrendously inefficient because of the risks we put our environment in by drilling, refining and burning the fuel, not to mention the byproducts of the various processes (and the things we use them for, like building more cars and engines), especially when compared to something like geothermal or solar or wind or tidal, which we cannot run out of.

What if all of this investment clears our air and water, reduces the need for eyesores like coal-fired plants (smokestacks and the gray skies above them) and makes energy cheaper to boot? (Of course, that's very myopic of me - if The Man can charge you for the wind and sun, he will.)
 
Displayed 50 of 109 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report