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 Geographic)   What is the cause behind the recent heat wave? Sorry global warming, you can put your hand back down   (news.nationalgeographic.com) divider line 140
    More: Interesting, American Southwest, highs, effects of global warming, Death Valley, global warming, ice cores, climate change, tree rings  
•       •       •

10615 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2013 at 9:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-02 11:48:42 AM

Joe Blowme: Obama hates poor africans and due to AGW, they cant have cars or AC

""Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over

- unless we find new ways of producing energy."

Just inserting the bit in bold you left out, which seems especially important since I believe he unveiled some sort of sustainable energy fund for Africa during the trip.
 
2013-07-02 11:54:03 AM

Farking Canuck: Damnhippyfreak: Whoh now. Let's be fair. The reality is that the vast majority of people do not have easy access to scientific literature, never mind sufficient background in order to understand it. While people do have a certain responsibility to educate themselves, extending this as far as directly reviewing the scientific literature is a very large if not prohibitive burden for most.

He is claiming that this evidence doesn't exist. My point was that AGW has dominated the climate science field for decades.This is not some obscure topic that you can claim "I've not heard of this ... can you point me to a paper on it?".

I am not going to dig up a list of thousands of papers that I know he will never read.



That's part of it right there. Almost nobody will read "thousands of papers", regardless of opinion on the topic. Never mind that they are most likely behind a paywall for him, and it is unlikely he would be able to understand them anyway.

Again, there is indeed a responsibility to educate oneself, but it's a bit much to set the bar quite that high. I suggest alternatives with a emphasis on accessibility and synthesis might be more suited for this purpose.
 
2013-07-02 11:54:15 AM

Damnhippyfreak: Joe Blowme: Obama hates poor africans and due to AGW, they cant have cars or AC

""Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over- unless we find new ways of producing energy."

Just inserting the bit in bold you left out, which seems especially important since I believe he unveiled some sort of sustainable energy fund for Africa during the trip.


You don't have to believe. Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/30/fact-sheet-powe r -africa
 
2013-07-02 11:56:35 AM

Damnhippyfreak: Farking Canuck: Damnhippyfreak: Whoh now. Let's be fair. The reality is that the vast majority of people do not have easy access to scientific literature, never mind sufficient background in order to understand it. While people do have a certain responsibility to educate themselves, extending this as far as directly reviewing the scientific literature is a very large if not prohibitive burden for most.

He is claiming that this evidence doesn't exist. My point was that AGW has dominated the climate science field for decades.This is not some obscure topic that you can claim "I've not heard of this ... can you point me to a paper on it?".

I am not going to dig up a list of thousands of papers that I know he will never read.


That's part of it right there. Almost nobody will read "thousands of papers", regardless of opinion on the topic. Never mind that they are most likely behind a paywall for him, and it is unlikely he would be able to understand them anyway.

Again, there is indeed a responsibility to educate oneself, but it's a bit much to set the bar quite that high. I suggest alternatives with a emphasis on accessibility and synthesis might be more suited for this purpose.


Like this one? http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
 
2013-07-02 11:57:39 AM

SevenizGud: [img4.imageshack.us image 729x625]


What you have failed to mention (and that whomever created that pic did not include) is that the grey area represents short-term variability. Such needs to be taken into account for the exact same reason why looking at just a few years can be misleading, a problem which you are well aware of.
 
2013-07-02 12:02:53 PM

mgshamster: Damnhippyfreak: Joe Blowme: Obama hates poor africans and due to AGW, they cant have cars or AC

""Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over- unless we find new ways of producing energy."

Just inserting the bit in bold you left out, which seems especially important since I believe he unveiled some sort of sustainable energy fund for Africa during the trip.

You don't have to believe. Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/30/fact-sheet-powe r -africa


Thanks!


mgshamster: Damnhippyfreak: Farking Canuck: Damnhippyfreak: Whoh now. Let's be fair. The reality is that the vast majority of people do not have easy access to scientific literature, never mind sufficient background in order to understand it. While people do have a certain responsibility to educate themselves, extending this as far as directly reviewing the scientific literature is a very large if not prohibitive burden for most.

He is claiming that this evidence doesn't exist. My point was that AGW has dominated the climate science field for decades.This is not some obscure topic that you can claim "I've not heard of this ... can you point me to a paper on it?".

I am not going to dig up a list of thousands of papers that I know he will never read.


That's part of it right there. Almost nobody will read "thousands of papers", regardless of opinion on the topic. Never mind that they are most likely behind a paywall for him, and it is unlikely he would be able to understand them anyway.

Again, there is indeed a responsibility to educate oneself, but it's a bit much to set the bar quite that high. I suggest alternatives with a emphasis on accessibility and synthesis might be more suited for this purpose.

Like this one? http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php


I really like skepticalscience, but come to think about it there should be one that isn't quite as reactionary or explicitly framed from the get-go as being in opposition to something. I still think the IPCC summaries for policymakers is a good jumping off point.
 
2013-07-02 12:18:24 PM
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

From New Scientist, it's pretty good at clarifying things as well. A bit dated now, but covers most of the common misconceptions, deliberate or not, regarding the subject.
 
2013-07-02 01:24:17 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Again, there is indeed a responsibility to educate oneself, but it's a bit much to set the bar quite that high. I suggest alternatives with a emphasis on accessibility and synthesis might be more suited for this purpose.


I am not disagreeing with what you are saying ... but do you realistically believe that he will read any source you present?
 
2013-07-02 02:54:14 PM
FTA "As a climate scientist, are you doing anything personally to prepare for the hotter summers that will result from global warming?
Well, I like to ski a lot in the winter, and I'm concerned that ski conditions are becoming more variable"


This is the extent of the concern of a real climate scientist. If you are more concerned than this man you are scaremongering.
 
2013-07-02 03:37:01 PM
I`m of the opinion that much more could be done by convincing a few politicians than convincing many many people. Convincing many many people though is one way to convince a few politicians although it`s not the most effective way.

I hear giving them money works.
 
2013-07-02 03:40:27 PM

dready zim: FTA "As a climate scientist, are you doing anything personally to prepare for the hotter summers that will result from global warming?
Well, I like to ski a lot in the winter, and I'm concerned that ski conditions are becoming more variable"

This is the extent of the concern of a real climate scientist. If you are more concerned than this man you are scaremongering.


LOL ... what exactly do you expect? The only people who are predicting imminent disaster are news casters (for ratings) and deniers with their strawmen. Everyone else realizes that this is an issue that is going to have more and more impact as the years and decades go on.

Most people who do accept that the scientists are most likely correct on the matter support actions such as personal energy use reduction, reduction of dependance on middle-east oil, reduction of pollution, increase in the green energy industry. Not the economy-destroying strawmen that the deniers always trot out.

I personally hope the worst of it holds off for at least 40 years. They I will be done and I will have had the pleasure of watching the red states dry up and cook (sorry for the non-deniers that get caught up in the derp ... they should head north asap).

/the denier mantra: Do nothing!!
 
2013-07-02 03:49:57 PM
Farking Canuck
You seem to be particularly irate over the various idiocies posted in this thread today.  Take a deep breath, that guys past posting trend indicates no amount of evidence will get him to drop his line of B.S., and addressing it doesn't really inform anyone ignorant of the subject.
 
2013-07-02 03:57:03 PM

jehovahs witness protection:

Those scientist types no NOTHING! You should listen to politicians.
Well played...
 
2013-07-02 04:02:37 PM
And it begins...
 
2013-07-02 04:08:13 PM

Zafler: Farking Canuck
You seem to be particularly irate over the various idiocies posted in this thread today.  Take a deep breath, that guys past posting trend indicates no amount of evidence will get him to drop his line of B.S., and addressing it doesn't really inform anyone ignorant of the subject.


I'm killing time while moving VM's and updating the ROM on my phone.

Zim is new to this thread and posted something in a different direction. Something I was interested in addressing.
 
2013-07-02 04:10:29 PM

Farking Canuck: I'm killing time while moving VM's and updating the ROM on my phone.

Zim is new to this thread and posted something in a different direction. Something I was interested in addressing.


But not new to the subject.  You just seemed more vehement than is your norm, wanted to make sure you were aware of the depth of his aggressive and deliberate ignorance on the subject.
 
2013-07-02 04:15:09 PM

whatshisname:

But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures.
And this is the "good bullshiat" line.  Yes, it is consistent with anthropogenic warming.  It's also consistent with ANY warming, irrespective of source.  The planet was warming on its own for more than a century BEFORE the industrial revolution started.
 
2013-07-02 04:21:37 PM

Kevin72:

[photos-3.dropbox.com image 765x1024]

What Kevin72 at Death Valley might look like. Except 15 pounds heavier than where I'm at today. And temps 50 degrees less than today's.

To... to... to shove a pencil...
 
2013-07-02 04:26:26 PM

Farking Canuck:

Kevin72: Because weather =\= climate. Unless there's a heatwave, then it's OMG GLOBAL WARMING111! 111!!

Scientists never say this ... denier's always insist that this is said but that is just their dishonesty.

You can see that kind of post frequently, probably even in this thread.  On the other hand, I have never seen anyone say the climate doesn't change, or that there is no climate.  So your "denier's" [sic] do not exist -- they're just YOUR dishonesty.
 
2013-07-02 04:26:28 PM

Zafler: Farking Canuck: I'm killing time while moving VM's and updating the ROM on my phone.

Zim is new to this thread and posted something in a different direction. Something I was interested in addressing.

But not new to the subject.  You just seemed more vehement than is your norm, wanted to make sure you were aware of the depth of his aggressive and deliberate ignorance on the subject.


I don't ever expect to change deniers' minds. They tend to have an agenda or are too heavily invested in their politics to consider the science on its own merits.

I do like to post dissenting opinions for my own peace of mind and for any possible 3rd parties that might be swayed by the scientific-ish ramblings of the deniers.

/sometimes I am more aggressive than others. It is what it is.
 
2013-07-02 04:27:17 PM
Or, instead of all this whining and arguing and screaming and rampant idiocy, we COULD just clean up and scrub as much pollution and CO2 and shiat as we can for the sake of keeping our only home in the universe as clean and livable as possible.

I think we can all agree on not wanting to live in our own shiat and face the repercussions of dealing with breathing toxins and wallowing in filth because we're an extremely short-sighted species who only cares about the money gained in the here and now.
 
2013-07-02 04:56:53 PM

cuzsis:

If it's warmer than usual out, people start blaming global warming. Other people shrug and just say it happens, that's weather. Global warming people insist that hotter temps = global warming.

When it's colder than usual out, other people say it's because there's no global warming as a way of poking fun at the folks in the above example. The first group then get indignant and says that just because it's colder than usual doesn't mean global warming isn't happening and launch into long winded explanations about why individual weather patterns aren't counted when talking about global climate changes.

Either individual weather patterns on a given day are indicative of "global warming" or they aren't. People need to be consistent and stop spouting off an argument of convenience just because it happens to agree with their viewpoint at a given juncture in time. Everyone else tends to notice the inconsistency and it weakens the position.

This applies even if someone picks a side that is "right". If they are an utterly spectacular failure at understanding and properly explaining *why* they are right.... they won't be, because they won't actually be explaining what is truly happening. Only their "messed-up-half-heard-and-badly-told-version" that includes purple monkey dishwashers.

/people need to stop shouting "Because Science told me so!" the way people shout "Because God told me so!"
//actually, scratch that. Everyone needs to know what they're talking about regardless of what they arguing.
///seen too many functionally illiterate christians too (sigh)

Nicely done.  This is the only case I have ever seen where the people who put forth a scientific hypothesis which is falsified DEFEND it, rather than coming up with a new one.   It could be I just don't get out enough, though...
 
2013-07-02 05:11:32 PM

THE GREAT NAME:

SevenizGud: [img4.imageshack.us image 729x625]

That's a really interesting graph. I notice comething else in it. You see that peak in 1998? Other graphs have it too. Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years. But not we have a year that is hot again, and this time they say we should not ignore it, and instead claim it is consistent with AGW (this is in the article).

Funny how they pick and choose what should be ignored.

Yeah, and that's not even the BEST example.   My personal favorite is the one where I am accused of "cherry-picking" the data by looking at different time scales to get an idea what climate actually does over time.  The ONLY way to look at it is to start somewhere between 1850 and 1880 until the present.  The ONLY "correct" way to look at it -- look at it in other ways, and you're cherry-picking.   Pretty amusing.  And, since there aren't enough graphs....

i43.tinypic.com

Warmer alarmists insist that we start looking at temperatures

starting with the industrial revolution, at the green line.

www.globalwarmingart.com

The science is settled!   We have a consensus!

The planet is cooling off.


i39.tinypic.com

 
2013-07-02 05:47:16 PM

GeneralJim: THE GREAT NAME: SevenizGud: [img4.imageshack.us image 729x625]

That's a really interesting graph. I notice comething else in it. You see that peak in 1998? Other graphs have it too. Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years. But not we have a year that is hot again, and this time they say we should not ignore it, and instead claim it is consistent with AGW (this is in the article).

Funny how they pick and choose what should be ignored.
Yeah, and that's not even the BEST example.   My personal favorite is the one where I am accused of "cherry-picking" the data by looking at different time scales to get an idea what climate actually does over time.


The allegations of cherry-picking arise from you using only selected data sets at only certain time scales (while excluding others) and pretending that what they say is somehow mutually exclusive with processes occurring at different ones, while grossly misrepresenting or misusing them. For example, the last graph you posted, in which one is trying to knock down a straw-man by pretending that the instrumental record is somehow commensurate with the Pleistocene (a few million years).


GeneralJim: The ONLY way to look at it is to start somewhere between 1850 and 1880 until the present.  The ONLY "correct" way to look at it -- look at it in other ways, and you're cherry-picking.   Pretty amusing.  And, since there aren't enough graphs....


Another straw-man - unless you're going to claim that paleoclimatoloy or proxy records such as this one produced by Mann et al. (2008) don't exist:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
 
2013-07-02 05:51:14 PM

GeneralJim: cuzsis: If it's warmer than usual out, people start blaming global warming. Other people shrug and just say it happens, that's weather. Global warming people insist that hotter temps = global warming.

When it's colder than usual out, other people say it's because there's no global warming as a way of poking fun at the folks in the above example. The first group then get indignant and says that just because it's colder than usual doesn't mean global warming isn't happening and launch into long winded explanations about why individual weather patterns aren't counted when talking about global climate changes.

Either individual weather patterns on a given day are indicative of "global warming" or they aren't. People need to be consistent and stop spouting off an argument of convenience just because it happens to agree with their viewpoint at a given juncture in time. Everyone else tends to notice the inconsistency and it weakens the position.

This applies even if someone picks a side that is "right". If they are an utterly spectacular failure at understanding and properly explaining *why* they are right.... they won't be, because they won't actually be explaining what is truly happening. Only their "messed-up-half-heard-and-badly-told-version" that includes purple monkey dishwashers.

/people need to stop shouting "Because Science told me so!" the way people shout "Because God told me so!"
//actually, scratch that. Everyone needs to know what they're talking about regardless of what they arguing.
///seen too many functionally illiterate christians too (sigh)

Nicely done.  This is the only case I have ever seen where the people who put forth a scientific hypothesis which is falsified DEFEND it, rather than coming up with a new one.   It could be I just don't get out enough, though...



Heh. QED for cuzsis' idea.
 
2013-07-02 05:53:06 PM

GeneralJim: whatshisname: But what we're seeing now, there seems to be a trend toward more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes. That's a pattern that's consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase in temperatures.And this is the "good bullshiat" line.  Yes, it is consistent with anthropogenic warming.  It's also consistent with ANY warming, irrespective of source.  The planet was warming on its own for more than a century BEFORE the industrial revolution started.


Which is, of course, in no way mutually exclusive with anthropogenic climate change.
 
2013-07-02 07:21:26 PM

Farking Canuck:

THE GREAT NAME: Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years.

More lies.

Scientists say that it is dishonest to choose an outlier point as a starting point to artificially manufacture a downward trend. Actually, this is what statisticians will tell you (no matter what the data set). When trying to plot a trend you use all the data available, including 1998.

But extremely dishonest people will plot all their trend starting at 1998.

But saying that everyone does that is another way to be extremely dishonest.  Especially since it implies that we have only been cooling if you start at 1998.  Again, that is extremely dishonest.

c3headlines.typepad.com
 
2013-07-02 07:25:51 PM

Bontesla:

Climate Change encompasses all types of unusual weather patterns - not simply the warm ones. Unusual blizzards and ice storms are totally consistent with climate change. Anyone that tries to explain these types of events differently than the warmer events has a poor understanding of climate change.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying that a particular event is caused by climate change. I'm saying that climate change creates a myriad of extreme weather events.

So, any event "supports" climate change, and nothing that could possibly happen could ever falsify the "climate change" hypothesis."

Okay...  as long as you understand that you are then discussing religion, as opposed to science.  Unfalsifiable hypotheses are not science.
 
2013-07-02 07:35:59 PM

Farking Canuck:

If your anti-science machine had been running back then you would have been screaming "Were cooling now ... the warming is over!". And yet the overall trend was still warming.

In fact, our current little flat spot is completely dwarfed by the cooling period in the 40s and by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your denier rhetoric at all do they??

I would point out that this cooling period is just starting, and will most likely continue for decades.  Seeing how anemic this sunspot cycle is, and how even more anemic the projection for the next one is, we might well have another "little ice age."

As a matter of fact, one could even say:

If your anti-science machine had been running for the last eight thousand years, you would have been screaming "Were [sic] cooling now ... the interglacial warming is over!".

In fact, our current warming bump is completely dwarfed by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your alarmist rhetoric at all do they??

 
2013-07-02 07:43:14 PM

Farking Canuck:

THE GREAT NAME: This is a big cheat. Nobody is saying that the existence of previous fluctuations invalidates AGW directly. What we are saying is that it invalidates the argument that the 1978-1998 warming period can only be explained anthropogenically. The existance of natural fluctuations make the recent rise unsurprising, and insufficient to support the theory. We're saying you need some other empirical support, and we're still waiting for it.

There are thousands of papers that present evidence supporting the theory that the current warming is due to AGW. The vast majority of peer reviewed papers in the relevant journals supports this. The fact that you refuse to or are unable to read them is nobody's fault but your own.

No, there are not.  There may well be thousands of papers that ASSUME that AGW exists, and is dangerous -- because the money flows through those channels.   This is what anti-science hacks have continued to miss:  There is lots of evidence of warming, and lots of evidence of carbon dioxide increasing -- but essentially NONE tying the two together.   Ironically, the evidence which BEST shows the correlation between the two shows carbon dioxide FOLLOWING temperature -- and therefore, not controlling it.   Whoops.  So, take your anti-science religious crap OUT of this topic.   Away with you.
 
2013-07-02 07:49:35 PM

Farking Canuck:

I personally hope the worst of it holds off for at least 40 years. They I will be done and I will have had the pleasure of watching the red states dry up and cook (sorry for the non-deniers that get caught up in the derp ... they should head north asap).

Ah, yes, the long and distinguished tradition of science:  Burn the non-believers...  Oh, wait, burning the heretics is ANOTHER thing the alarmists steal from religion, not science.
 
2013-07-02 07:59:19 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Climatists say we should ignore that peopk because it is inconvenient to them (it contributes to the downward trend seen in the ensuing years.

More lies.

Scientists say that it is dishonest to choose an outlier point as a starting point to artificially manufacture a downward trend. Actually, this is what statisticians will tell you (no matter what the data set). When trying to plot a trend you use all the data available, including 1998.

But extremely dishonest people will plot all their trend starting at 1998.

But saying that everyone does that is another way to be extremely dishonest.  Especially since it implies that we have only been cooling if you start at 1998.  Again, that is extremely dishonest.

[c3headlines.typepad.com image 800x555]



Ironically, misrepresenting what others say, as in bold above, is extremely dishonest in of itself. As is using an misleadingly short time scale when you are well aware of the problems with doing so:

GeneralJim: 15 years is close to meaningless when it comes to climate

 
2013-07-02 08:12:44 PM

GeneralJim: Bontesla: Climate Change encompasses all types of unusual weather patterns - not simply the warm ones. Unusual blizzards and ice storms are totally consistent with climate change. Anyone that tries to explain these types of events differently than the warmer events has a poor understanding of climate change.

Just to clarify: I'm not saying that a particular event is caused by climate change. I'm saying that climate change creates a myriad of extreme weather events.

So, any event "supports" climate change, and nothing that could possibly happen could ever falsify the "climate change" hypothesis."

Okay...  as long as you understand that you are then discussing religion, as opposed to science.  Unfalsifiable hypotheses are not science.



You really need to stop dishonestly misrepresenting what others say (as in bold), especially when such misrepresentation is explicitly contradicted (as underlined).

Note that Bontesla in no way stated anything to the effect of "any event", but instead about weather events and did not state that such was caused by climate change. Unless you're going to make the case that weather events can somehow disprove something about climate,you're way off base.
 
2013-07-02 08:17:56 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: If your anti-science machine had been running back then you would have been screaming "Were cooling now ... the warming is over!". And yet the overall trend was still warming.

In fact, our current little flat spot is completely dwarfed by the cooling period in the 40s and by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your denier rhetoric at all do they??
I would point out that this cooling period is just starting, and will most likely continue for decades.  Seeing how anemic this sunspot cycle is, and how even more anemic the projection for the next one is, we might well have another "little ice age."As a matter of fact, one could even say:If your anti-science machine had been running for the last eight thousand years, you would have been screaming "Were [sic] cooling now ... the interglacial warming is over!".In fact, our current warming bump is completely dwarfed by the overall trend. But these facts don't even slow down your alarmist rhetoric at all do they??



Easily falsifiable by the graphs you yourself presented (see inset or arrow pointing to 2004 temperature):

GeneralJim: www.globalwarmingart.com
 
2013-07-02 08:41:40 PM

GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: I personally hope the worst of it holds off for at least 40 years. They I will be done and I will have had the pleasure of watching the red states dry up and cook (sorry for the non-deniers that get caught up in the derp ... they should head north asap).
Ah, yes, the long and distinguished tradition of science:  Burn the non-believers...  Oh, wait, burning the heretics is ANOTHER thing the alarmists steal from religion, not science.



For someone who is himself a religious person (and to a rather unusual religion to boot), you sure talk disparagingly about religious beliefs.

In addition, note that your name-calling and source derogation is a generalized form of the same behavior you yourself are attempting to decry.
 
2013-07-02 08:58:22 PM

Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: Farking Canuck: I personally hope the worst of it holds off for at least 40 years. They I will be done and I will have had the pleasure of watching the red states dry up and cook (sorry for the non-deniers that get caught up in the derp ... they should head north asap).
Ah, yes, the long and distinguished tradition of science:  Burn the non-believers...  Oh, wait, burning the heretics is ANOTHER thing the alarmists steal from religion, not science.


For someone who is himself a religious person (and to a rather unusual religion to boot), you sure talk disparagingly about religious beliefs.

In addition, note that your name-calling and source derogation is a generalized form of the same behavior you yourself are attempting to decry.


That's because he's a troll.
 
2013-07-03 12:38:59 AM

GeneralJim: Ah, yes, the long and distinguished tradition of science: Burn the non-believers... Oh, wait, burning the heretics is ANOTHER thing the alarmists steal from religion, not science.


I am not suggesting that anyone burn anyone ... more dishonesty from you (surprise, surprise).

I just feel that we've reached a point where some significant impact from AGW is inevitable (due to near complete inaction) and I lay a lot of that on the feet of the anti-science puppets who have been pushing their "do nothing" propaganda for decades.

So my comment was just reflecting the likelihood that, if we see significant impact from AGW, it will likely be the anti-science red states that will take the brunt of it before other areas. This gives me schadenfreude as they are the heart of the "do nothing" movement so it is fitting that they get the droughts and heat waves first.

Again, I am not wishing anything bad on anyone. In fact, I hope that the worst of the projected AGW impact never hits anywhere. But I don't think it is likely.
 
2013-07-03 12:41:11 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: That's because he's a troll.


More likely he's a paid shill, IMO.

His m.o. of arriving in threads late, spamming large posts of same green lies over and over and coloring his posts to make them distinctive (and easy to count) all say that he is shilling to me.
 
2013-07-03 03:52:55 AM

Farking Canuck: Keizer_Ghidorah: That's because he's a troll.

More likely he's a paid shill, IMO.

His m.o. of arriving in threads late, spamming large posts of same green lies over and over and coloring his posts to make them distinctive (and easy to count) all say that he is shilling to me.


FWIW I do not and would not call you a paid shill. I do not believe you are. I think your're young, geeky without bring intelligent, and unable to seperate reality from fashionable BS.
 
2013-07-03 08:47:25 AM

THE GREAT NAME: FWIW I do not and would not call you a paid shill. I do not believe you are. I think your're young, geeky without bring intelligent, and unable to seperate reality from fashionable BS.


Oh no. I'm heart broken.

Impressing some idiot on the internet (who thinks he understands science better than the scientists in the field) was my life's goal. Whatever will I do now??

P.S. If you are going to attack someone's intelligence on the internet you might want to proof read. In two sentences you've got:
- "your're" - I like this one ... instead of using the wrong your/you're you just merged them into one word to ensure you're always wrong
- "seperate" - 'nuff said
- "bring intelligent" - umm yeah ... you should have
 
Displayed 40 of 140 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report