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  
•       •       •

10618 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
 
2013-07-01 08:46:47 PM  
Those scientist types no NOTHING! You should listen to politicians.
 
2013-07-01 09:55:40 PM  
Nonsense, global warming is the cause of everything.
 
2013-07-01 09:56:18 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Those scientist types no NOTHING! You should listen to politicians.


Yeah, this guy sounds totally unreasonable:

Do scientists know what's behind the current heat wave?

Looking at the meteorological charts, it looks to be a blocking event. That happens when there's a particular configuration of the jet stream that's quite stable. So there's a big high-pressure ridge on the West Coast and a low-pressure trough in the East Coast. That's why it's quite rainy here [in Cambridge, Massachusetts] and very hot on the West Coast.

Have you or other scientists had a chance to analyze this current heat wave and determine how it compares to past years?

No ... because 2013 is not over yet. One very hot week will have some signature on the seasonal average, but how large that signature will be depends on what happens for the rest of the summer.
 
2013-07-01 09:56:35 PM  
t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-01 09:57:08 PM  
"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. "

Keep farking that chicken subby
 
2013-07-01 09:57:13 PM  
No, nonesense.  No one sells carbon credits by saying, "everything is fine, we're not going to die, it is all normal."
 
2013-07-01 09:57:37 PM  
I was hoping it would be the heat death of the universe but it seems that's not happening....yet.
 
2013-07-01 09:57:48 PM  
No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.
 
2013-07-01 09:59:42 PM  

mgshamster: No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.


Which is what the article says:

Can we attribute this particular heat wave to an anthropogenic impact on the climate? The only safe answer is, well, probably not. It's like if I flip one coin and it comes up heads, that doesn't mean the coin is loaded.

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.
 
2013-07-01 10:01:01 PM  
koch like typing detected...
 
2013-07-01 10:02:20 PM  
Yeah it got hot last summer too.
 
2013-07-01 10:04:32 PM  

whatshisname: mgshamster: No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.

Which is what the article says:

Can we attribute this particular heat wave to an anthropogenic impact on the climate? The only safe answer is, well, probably not. It's like if I flip one coin and it comes up heads, that doesn't mean the coin is loaded.

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.


It certainly adds to the data.
 
2013-07-01 10:06:04 PM  
5 comments, and one of them of course is complete and total derp.
 
2013-07-01 10:06:38 PM  
You see, a high pressure system decided to camp out around the Four Corners area....
 
2013-07-01 10:11:15 PM  
Because weather =\= climate. Unless there's a heatwave, then it's OMG GLOBAL WARMING111! 111!!
 
2013-07-01 10:11:24 PM  

karmaceutical: koch like typing detected...


No.

It's perfectly reasonable to anybody who understands probability to know that just because the odds of an outcome improved that doesn't mean they became a certainty. And anything that isn't a certainty can't be stated with certainty, only a level of confidence.

Which is a sort of problem when it comes to convincing imbeciles in regards to climate change. They use the non-reproducibility of chance as "evidence" that climate change isn't occurring because they ignore the confidence interval because they don't understand statistical parameters because they failed out of school in the 8th grade.

The article isn't wrong, but, yes, it will be used by idiots who are bad at math as evidence that climate change is bogus.
 
2013-07-01 10:12:00 PM  

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


For example, you're probably very bad at math. Or maybe just thinking in general.
 
2013-07-01 10:12:27 PM  
A headline that is total bullshiat in regards to the article it is linked to?!?!?!?  On my Fark.com?!?!??!

/did I lay the sarcasm on thick enough?
 
2013-07-01 10:14:23 PM  

skozlaw: karmaceutical: koch like typing detected...

No.

It's perfectly reasonable to anybody who understands probability to know that just because the odds of an outcome improved that doesn't mean they became a certainty. And anything that isn't a certainty can't be stated with certainty, only a level of confidence.

Which is a sort of problem when it comes to convincing imbeciles in regards to climate change. They use the non-reproducibility of chance as "evidence" that climate change isn't occurring because they ignore the confidence interval because they don't understand statistical parameters because they failed out of school in the 8th grade.

The article isn't wrong, but, yes, it will be used by idiots who are bad at math as evidence that climate change is bogus.


Got it.
 
2013-07-01 10:14:55 PM  
Oh, your funding just got FARKED
 
2013-07-01 10:15:20 PM  
So to sum up that article; it is hot because it's hot outside. That is logic I can get behind.
 
2013-07-01 10:15:23 PM  
squall.sfsu.edu
Just sayin.

    Pretty hot here in BC after our monsoon season this June. The last 4 June-uaries here have been frosty cold and snowy up high here and deluges in the valleys....so I am kinda OK with this present weather pattern.
 
2013-07-01 10:19:24 PM  
Did stubby bother to read the article?  Because I'm pretty sure this article says it's global warming.
 
2013-07-01 10:19:29 PM  
I've flipped heads twice in a row, so I'm due for a tails.
 
2013-07-01 10:20:13 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: Oh, your funding just got FARKED


Didn't read the article, did we?
 
2013-07-01 10:22:36 PM  

whatshisname: mgshamster: No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.

Which is what the article says:

Can we attribute this particular heat wave to an anthropogenic impact on the climate? The only safe answer is, well, probably not. It's like if I flip one coin and it comes up heads, that doesn't mean the coin is loaded.

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 what data do you have to support these patterns AUTHOR?
 
2013-07-01 10:27:19 PM  
photos-3.dropbox.com


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.
 
2013-07-01 10:29:42 PM  

HalfOffOffer: Did stubby bother to read the article?  Because I'm pretty sure this article says it's global warming.


Saying that any particular heat wave is definitely due to global warming is like saying that a weighted die came up a one this time because it was weighted.

Given the prevalence of gambling addiction (and the fact that anyone plays the lottery ever), this probably goes some way to explaining why so many people have a hard time grasping what global warming actually predicts.
 
2013-07-01 10:33:57 PM  

New Age Redneck: [squall.sfsu.edu image 783x630]
Just sayin.

    Pretty hot here in BC after our monsoon season this June. The last 4 June-uaries here have been frosty cold and snowy up high here and deluges in the valleys....so I am kinda OK with this present weather pattern.


I think this pattern must have contributed to the un-authorized French assault on Pike's Peak yesterday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2iw5hydsFI

http://www.redbull.com/us/en/motorsports/stories/1331598855838/sebas ti en-loeb-pikes-peak-record
 
2013-07-01 10:34:55 PM  

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

For example, you're probably very bad at math. Or maybe just thinking in general.


Or perhaps you're so defensive that you think it's about math. Every global warming thread has a mandatory weather doesn't equal climate posting. Or are you saying I'm bad at math because my cellphone doesn't have a "not equal to" key? Oooooh that backslash is so annoying!
 
2013-07-01 10:34:55 PM  
it's too hot in the hot tub
 
2013-07-01 10:38:48 PM  

mgshamster: No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.


I wish people would get this through their thick skulls.
 
2013-07-01 10:38:58 PM  

ski9600: And what data do you have to support these patterns AUTHOR?


The author is someone who writes for Nat Geo, but they're talking to a guy who is a Research Associate in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, where he conducts fundamental research in statistical climatology. So, I'm guessing he has some data.
 
2013-07-01 10:43:48 PM  

Gyrfalcon: mgshamster: No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.

I wish people would get this through their thick skulls.


BUT IT SNOWED IN WINTERTIME!
 
2013-07-01 10:43:50 PM  
Way to go subby. You stopped reading the article before it contradicted your headline, dumbass.
 
2013-07-01 10:45:13 PM  

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.
 
2013-07-01 10:48:34 PM  
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-01 10:50:10 PM  
Heat? No, how about what's the deal with all this rain for the entire month of June? It's starting to feel like Piers Anthony's Rings of Ice
 
2013-07-01 10:53:25 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.


Nice. Zabriskie Point?
I used to camp at Texas Spring. In January. Before the noon temp started cracking 100.
 
2013-07-01 10:54:10 PM  

mongbiohazard: Way to go subby. You stopped reading the article before it contradicted your headline, dumbass.


Welcome to Fark?

/Republican denialists crack me up. Their elected officials are investing their personal cash based on science, but they know they can't admit the science is correct to their base.
 
2013-07-01 11:11:57 PM  

meat0918: "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. "

Keep farking that chicken subby


coorelation =/= causation

He said it would fit that model.
"Seems to be a trend" - Not going to bother explaining the key word here...

"consistent with an anthropogenically-forced increase " - As opposed to "with the anthro'"

(keep reading)

mongbiohazard: Way to go subby. You stopped reading the article before it contradicted your headline, dumbass.


see above
It was not contradictory.
The whole thing, IN context:
Not every roll of a loaded die will come up six-but sixes will occur more often than if the die had not been tampered with. Is that still the thinking?
Can we attribute this particular heat wave to an anthropogenic impact on the climate? The only safe answer is, well, probably not. It's like if I flip one coin and it comes up heads, that doesn't mean the coin is loaded.
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.


The underlined part is subbies headline, more or less, and it is correct.  The whole "seems/an" is speculation, and he know's it, that's why he phrased it that way. This is how real scientists talk when discussing theoretical situations.
Summation:
Probably not, but there is a possibility, IF other things were more concrete, we could judge better.
 
2013-07-01 11:18:17 PM  

New Age Redneck: [squall.sfsu.edu image 783x630]
Just sayin.

    Pretty hot here in BC after our monsoon season this June. The last 4 June-uaries here have been frosty cold and snowy up high here and deluges in the valleys....so I am kinda OK with this present weather pattern.


No one cares what happens in Canada.
 
2013-07-01 11:20:08 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.


1. Global warming defenders ALWAYS SAY "weather isn't climate" when challengers point out record coldsnaps. Always!
2. Same defenders and scarestream media ALWAYS say 1997 is the hottest year on record. And never mention all the years that it was colder.
3. All the hottest year on record people who cite imperfect measurements that don't take into factors like solar changes, underwater volcanos, etc. Unless it's a mitigating factor like Mount Punatubo then that cooling factor MUST be mentioned.
 
2013-07-01 11:23:19 PM  
Al Gore believes in global cooling errrr warming errrr climate change.


Al Gore makes his money off climate change.


Al Gore has highest energy consumption for any residence in his state.


Al Gore always flies private, which is the most environmentally unfriendly form of travel ever.


I smells da bullshiat.


/weather experts can't tell me if it will rain this week but tell me I am making it hot with my SUV
 
2013-07-01 11:28:09 PM  

phamwaa: 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.

Nice. Zabriskie Point?
I used to camp at Texas Spring. In January. Before the noon temp started cracking 100.


Yep, Zabriskie. But UNLIKELY for January for the temp to even go 75. Did you mean April? Oh never mind. You meant January so no chance of 100. Actually, January's too cold for me. I last there Spring break, just preceding the FARK Convention 2012 in Las Vegas. High temps only 70-90, so pleasant at night.
 
2013-07-01 11:30:48 PM  

mbcuervo: Al Gore believes in global cooling errrr warming errrr climate change.


Al Gore makes his money off climate change.


Al Gore has highest energy consumption for any residence in his state.


Al Gore always flies private, which is the most environmentally unfriendly form of travel ever.


I smells da bullshiat.


/weather experts can't tell me if it will rain this week but tell me I am making it hot with my SUV


Al Gore chartered a plane and rescued dozens of people stranded by Katrina. Lootie survived without Al Gore's benevolent gesture.
 
2013-07-01 11:32:31 PM  
KeatingFive


/Republican denialists crack me up.

Yeah why would there be any reason to question?
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study showsWednesday 8 February 2012
So, NO ice melt (contrary to predictions)


Eco liar reaction?
Melting of ice in Arctic and Himalayas to affect India, China

So, the ice that isn't melting is going to kill everyone...

Got it o.O


/// not a republican
 
2013-07-01 11:34:30 PM  
Proof that global warming is a joke:

thinkprogress.org
 
2013-07-01 11:37:13 PM  
What heat wave? It's only in the 60's in Western NY.
 
2013-07-01 11:41:30 PM  

Deep Contact: What heat wave? It's only in the 60's in Western NY.


sounds legit

models.weatherbell.com
 
2013-07-01 11:47:17 PM  
Wait, isn't seven the most likely roll?  That's what craps has taught me.

And while yes, it was hot as fark last week, today was pleasant, and it had been tame until recently.   Plus we're like 15X the average rainfall so far this year.
 
2013-07-02 12:01:55 AM  
It's gotten to the 100's and even the 110's where I'm at, but I can handle it as long as it's dry and windy. The problem is so far the wind has been dead and the humidity is so high that you might as well be swimming when you go outside.

At least air conditioners work miracles when it's humid.
 
2013-07-02 12:09:58 AM  
I don't see the green chart&graph man. Must not be warm enough here for him yet.
 
2013-07-02 12:14:25 AM  

meat0918: "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. "

Keep farking that chicken subby


I don't see how they arrive at that conclusion.  Comparing current weather to weather 100-600 years ago is a little misleading as there was an actual increase in global temperatures that appeared to end in the 90s.  I think the question of interest, is why did this happen, even when population growth, industrialization, and emission of greenhouse gases increased at a breathtaking rate during that time?  It appears to contradict the whole anthropomorphic climate change theory but no one seems to even want to acknowledge it may be a possibility.   I know how things work and a lot of these guys are funded by grants. The possibility of anthropomorphic climate change killing us all keeps the people in fear and research money rolling in.

What I see as the biggest threat to humanity is the explosive growth in the human population.  Population cant keep doubling every 30 odd years or so before a tipping point is reached, but I don't see how you can stop it.
 
2013-07-02 12:17:17 AM  

whatshisname: mgshamster: No one weather event can be attributed to climate change. Climate change (aka global warming) is about change of the climate over time and across the globe. It is not about local weather events.

Which is what the article says:

Can we attribute this particular heat wave to an anthropogenic impact on the climate? The only safe answer is, well, probably not. It's like if I flip one coin and it comes up heads, that doesn't mean the coin is loaded.

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.


A hundred years of warming, and we've been using oil for half of that time?  How unusual is a hundred years of warming?

i.imgur.com
Would you believe 15 periods of about 100 years where the temperature increased or decreased by over five degrees?
 
2013-07-02 12:17:18 AM  
It is a known fact that the climate never changed in the last 4 billion years until the Watergate scandal.

/THANKS NIXON!
 
2013-07-02 12:24:00 AM  
You know how I know you didn't read the article?

"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."
 
2013-07-02 12:30:17 AM  
If we would look at this issue economically I am pretty sure that doing what we can to mitigate green house gas emissions, for example NO2, to CO, Methane, CO2 and H2O, everything gets easier to get moving.

If we spend 700 Billion to implement already existing technology, and while implementing it, get the benefits of the mass production process and further refinements that will take place during this process, we can reduce our water usage by 90%, decrease our electrical generation greenhouse gas production by 100% and mitigate/balance out 50-70% of our transportation greenhouse gas production, and save the US population 1.3to 1.5 Trillion dollars a year without touching profit margins for the MNC's/government who will be the ones with the capital to fully implement these solutions.

GE has produced a 61% efficient natural gas burning steam turbine. How hard would it be to translate that from Natural gas to Hydrogen gas burning.
I don't know exactly, but Hydrogen has a higher energy output per mole in it's oxidation reaction than natural gas, so it would seem they could get more efficiency out of the boiling water part of the steam turbine, and have better control over increasing output/decreasing output to react to changes in peak load and minimum load points. Plus burning Hydrogen produces water, which can be cooled and then put into the water supply as it is completely purified coming out the end of a exhaust pipe, where the temperature exceeds 100 degrees C.

Entertech has the 7.5 MW towers, which would be the most efficient and least impactful wind turbines in terms of temperature variance, bird strikes, plus they are the least likely to breakdown as they have the least moving parts and are built to withstand the most extreme weather conditions (EF4 tornadoes and Class 3 Hurricanes). Also they can, if conditions are persistently positive in terms of wind, they can be let loose to overproduce at up to 8.5-9.0 MW without damage, so even when the worst storms are storming, they can continue to generate and distribute power.

The companies producing coal, oil and natural gas would themselves save a combined 250 Billion dollars a year in extraction/transportation and other related costs, and the government would save 5-60 billion dollars a year in subsidization costs to the coal, oil and natural gas producers.

The removal of 15000 coal, oil and natural gas train cars from the US rail system daily would then allow the removal of 20,000 semi-trailers off of the roadways, saving Billions in long haul transportation, fuel and maintenance costs for trucks, roads and other infrastructure, plus decreasing the likelyhood of disasterous train derailment scenarios, or the long term environmental damage of coal dust spreading locally or regionally where the majority of the coal trains run through, as some of those areas are very vital to migrations of hundreds of thousands of interelated species etc.

So yes for 10 years there would be an increased 70 Billion dollar investment into Wind, Solar, Superconductive Loop, and Water Recycling technologies, focussed primarily on the sidelines of the existing transportation systems and the top 100 major cities and with in the Central High Plains States where Wind is consistently blowing faster than 10 Miles per hour at around 80-200 ft above ground level, but the end result would be a full on savings at the end of those 10 years for all parties combined (Government, Businesses and Individual Households) of over 13.5 Trillion dollars, or nearly the entirety of the National Debt as it stands today. Also with the proper implementation we would have the backup power equivalent of 14 years, so if the wind didn't blow and the sun didn't shine anymore, those 100 cities and all of the intricately wired rest of the power grid could still operate all of modern electrical devices for 14 years, and fuel modern transportation for nearly 10, before even touching the Strategic Oil Reserve.
 
2013-07-02 12:31:57 AM  

gpuica: You know how I know you didn't read the article?

"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."


*sigh*

One of those threads

/if you're not going to add to the conversation or bother reading the thread, why bother posting all?
//Inane in the membrane
 
2013-07-02 12:41:59 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Deep Contact: What heat wave? It's only in the 60's in Western NY.

sounds legit

[models.weatherbell.com image 850x637]


I'm amazed ya'll don't know the cause ...

thepeoplescube.com
 
2013-07-02 01:19:05 AM  

omeganuepsilon: gpuica: You know how I know you didn't read the article?

"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."

*sigh*

One of those threads

/if you're not going to add to the conversation or bother reading the thread, why bother posting all?
//Inane in the membrane


Meant to post that hours earlier, but my phone be stoopid. Sorry for taking up 10 seconds of your oh-so-precious time.
 
2013-07-02 01:28:50 AM  
One scientist, when asked if a heatwave in one portion of the world is caused by global warming said, "the only safe answer is probably not". It's a wrap, global warming is a hoax.
 
2013-07-02 01:32:19 AM  
gpuica:

Meant to post that hours earlier, but my phone be stoopid. Sorry for taking up 10 seconds of your oh-so-precious time.

Well, you at least care enough to have an explanation. So, you have that going for you.
 
2013-07-02 02:33:46 AM  

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

For example, you're probably very bad at math. Or maybe just thinking in general.


No, he's merely commenting on the vast amounts of posts that seem to follow this trend.

 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)
 
2013-07-02 02:49:25 AM  
Thanks, cuzsis. Maybe I should have added "In before" because basically what I was doing was pre-empting the obvious usual, especially because the article was based on the weather/climate distinction.
 
2013-07-02 03:23:13 AM  

cuzsis: //actually, scratch that. Everyone needs to know what they're talking about regardless of what they arguing.


Or at least a little bit and be willing to think and learn.  That's what I formerly loved about fark, a LOT of it was that way.  Less and less as we become just another mega-site.

cuzsis: If they are an utterly spectacular failure at understanding and properly explaining *why* they are right.... they won't be,


This as well.  Whichever side is right, in any given debate, typically both sides will have vehemently retarded jaggovs that happened to pick the right stance. They then pompously display their beliefs and out themselves, and get even more vitriolic and bitter when it's pointed out.

One can make great sport of them on occasion, but it does get old.
 
2013-07-02 05:33:36 AM  
img4.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-02 06:58:23 AM  
Yeah, right, you dumbass monkey-f**kers. If "global warming" can't be proven in every detail and fifty years into the future, and to your scientifically ignorant satisfaction, that means it's intelligent to keep making our energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen. Stupid, greedy, lazy apes deserve to go extinct.
 
2013-07-02 07:13:43 AM  

meat0918: "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. "

Keep farking that chicken subby


Anything is consistent with climate change because climate change predicts anything. But you keep clinging to empty tautologies if that's what makes you happy.
 
2013-07-02 07:21:01 AM  

Acravius: If we would look at this issue economically I am pretty sure that doing what we can to mitigate green house gas emissions, for example NO2, to CO, Methane, CO2 and H2O, everything gets easier to get moving.

If we spend 700 Billion to implement already existing technology, and while implementing it, get the benefits of the mass production process and further refinements that will take place during this process,


I'm going to go right ahead and stop you there and mention the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Please be very careful about people who say "but what we're doing is good because it stimulates the economy", since they are probably just statists who don't like the idea of leaving people's cash alone. There *may* be genuine benefits to the environment that come from movign to renewables, but from an economic POV every penny spent on that stuff is a sunk cost. You just have to decide how much you are willing to spend and try to spend it as efficiently as possible.
 
2013-07-02 07:42:55 AM  

jso2897: Yeah, right, you dumbass monkey-f**kers. If "global warming" can't be proven in every detail and fifty years into the future, and to your scientifically ignorant satisfaction, that means it's intelligent to keep making our energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like cavemen. Stupid, greedy, lazy apes deserve to go extinct.


What a ridiculous attemt to move the goalposts. It isn't just that "global warming" hasn't been proven "in every detail". It's that it hasn't been proven at all. Not even slightly. Every estimate has been way off. Here are just a few examples:
- in 2000, leading climatologiest predicted snow a thing of the past in UK:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/29/crus-forecast-winter-snowfall-wi ll-become-a-very-rare-and-exciting-event/">http://wattsupwiththat.com /2009/12/29/crus-forecast-winter-snowfall-wi ll-become-a-very-rare-and-exciting-event/
- Since then, the UK's MET office has overpredicted temps 11 out of 12 years http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/12/met_predictions/">http://www. theregister.co.uk/2013/01/12/met_predictions/
- IPCC did provide error bars on their predictions, to allow for uncertainty. We are already outside of them, see http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was-wrong-england-and-the-ab c-mislead-australians/">http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/the-ipcc-was -wrong-england-and-the-ab c-mislead-australians/

Remember that many of the predictions coming from supposed experts at the top of climatology were for exponential rises - in other words, not only were the temperatures supposed to keep going up, but actually get faster and faster. Instead we get 16 years of slightly falling temps. Do you really call that a little detail?

Sure, they could go up again in 50 years. Hostory shows (after you throw away Mann's thouroughly-falsified hockey stick graph) that climate fluctuates chaotically on virtually all time scales. So (unless a pattern is found) we have no way to say. But the AGW theory has made it's predictions and they have failed to come true, not in some little detail, but by a godam mile. They are  way outside their own error margins. The game is over, so stop running around with those goal-posts - everybody else has gone home.
 
2013-07-02 07:45:36 AM  

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.
 
2013-07-02 07:48:42 AM  
I need a proof reader lol.
 
2013-07-02 07:53:59 AM  
i26.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-02 08:17:38 AM  

Kevin72: phamwaa: 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.

Nice. Zabriskie Point?
I used to camp at Texas Spring. In January. Before the noon temp started cracking 100.

Yep, Zabriskie. But UNLIKELY for January for the temp to even go 75. Did you mean April? Oh never mind. You meant January so no chance of 100. Actually, January's too cold for me. I last there Spring break, just preceding the FARK Convention 2012 in Las Vegas. High temps only 70-90, so pleasant at night.


I stand corrected. The year I was thinking about, we were there in February. Highs approaching 98.
 
2013-07-02 08:41:33 AM  

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.
 
2013-07-02 08:52:49 AM  

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.


Do you see any graphs truncated at 1998 in this thread?

Actually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

Also you have not addressed my point, which is that TFA wants to tell us this year is "consistent" with AGW (mealy mouthed deniable wording for "supports") but warmist alarmists want very warm years deleted from the data when they are inconvenient. I take it you accept my point?
 
2013-07-02 08:59:10 AM  

skozlaw: karmaceutical: koch like typing detected...

No.

It's perfectly reasonable to anybody who understands probability to know that just because the odds of an outcome improved that doesn't mean they became a certainty. And anything that isn't a certainty can't be stated with certainty, only a level of confidence.

Which is a sort of problem when it comes to convincing imbeciles in regards to climate change. They use the non-reproducibility of chance as "evidence" that climate change isn't occurring because they ignore the confidence interval because they don't understand statistical parameters because they failed out of school in the 8th grade.

The article isn't wrong, but, yes, it will be used by idiots who are bad at math as evidence that climate change is bogus.


That was hot.
 
2013-07-02 09:03:37 AM  
www.demotivationalposters.org
 
2013-07-02 09:17:41 AM  

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

For example, you're probably very bad at math. Or maybe just thinking in general.

No, he's merely commenting on the vast amounts of posts that seem to follow this trend.

 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)


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.
 
2013-07-02 09:25:21 AM  
Those of us in the KC area have quite enjoyed a cool wet summer.  After last years immediate jump to 90's and 100's this long stretch of 70's and 80's has been fantastic.
 
2013-07-02 09:29:01 AM  
 
2013-07-02 09:30:35 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: 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.

Do you see any graphs truncated at 1998 in this thread?

Actually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

Also you have not addressed my point, which is that TFA wants to tell us this year is "consistent" with AGW (mealy mouthed deniable wording for "supports") but warmist alarmists want very warm years deleted from the data when they are inconvenient. I take it you accept my point?


Mealy mouthed? Lol.

"Consistent with" is a phrase used all the time in the sciences. To claim otherwise means you are either very ignorant of the language used in the scientific community, you're a troll, or both.

You probably don't even care, because you're likely just trolling, so this post is for others who are reading and might actually have intellectual curiosity.
 
2013-07-02 09:47:16 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: ctually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.


So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

www.skepticalscience.com

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??
 
2013-07-02 09:55:20 AM  

cuzsis: No, he's merely commenting on the vast amounts of posts that seem to follow this trend.


Kevin72: Thanks, cuzsis. Maybe I should have added "In before" because basically what I was doing was pre-empting the obvious usual, especially because the article was based on the weather/climate distinction.


Please point to these "vast amounts".  The greater portion of posts in threads regarding the extreme weather, whether warm or cold, are saying, essentially, weather is not the same as climate.  I don't know which fark you've been going to, but it's not the one in this reality.
 
2013-07-02 10:09:15 AM  

Farking Canuck: So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?


If there are any "deniers" about, user Farking Canuck wants to hear from you.

<graph>

Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.

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.

Actually James Hansen, high-ranking climatologist from NASA was saying there was catestrophic global colling in action. It was "your lot" who jumped on the small cooling trend and tried to make something big out of it. Sceptics were sceptical, and turned out to be correct.

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??

Thanks to your misleading graph, which I have discussed already.

By the way, if you look at the data from before your cherry-picked start date, you'll see a warming trend going back since before any significant human CO2 emissions. It's commonly referred to as the recovery from the little ice age, but that isn't important (it's really just a low-frequency component of underlying natural fluctuations in the climate). What is important is that in order to demonstrate catastrophic AGW, climatists have to show an unprecidentedly rapid exponential rise - not just point at a trend that was underway anyway. The current flat period, so carefully hidden in your misleading plot, strongly refutes this. AGW is dead.
 
2013-07-02 10:10:16 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: ctually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x375]

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??


No one is denying climate changes, but are contesting its man made or co2 caused. can you explain all the climate changes since the planet formed? Were dinos driving suvs that made teh planet hot? What made it cool to ice age? Then warm back up and do it all over again? Surely you have reached a "consensus" by now right? that = facts in todays world right?
 
2013-07-02 10:42:59 AM  

Joe Blowme: Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: ctually, what sceptics really do is to look at the longer trend, and see that there is a knee point (a change in trend) at around 1998. It is this really obvious change in slope that makes 1998 of interest to sceptics. Not cherry-picking. We are simply looking a the data and acknowledging what is there.

So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

[www.skepticalscience.com image 500x375]

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??

No one is denying climate changes, but are contesting its man made or co2 caused. can you explain all the climate changes since the planet formed? Were dinos driving suvs that made teh planet hot? What made it cool to ice age? Then warm back up and do it all over again? Surely you have reached a "consensus" by now right? that = facts in todays world right?



The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.
 
2013-07-02 10:45:58 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.


Love your use of the word "problematic". Climate scientists believe the current amount of warming is "problematic".

Of course ... the anti-science crowd believe they know better. They have their blogs and political think-tanks and let's not forget their gut feelings!!! Screw all the data, forget all that evil book-lernin', the scientists are all corrupt and we need to listen to the good, honest people in the oil industry who helpfully instruct us to "Do Nothing!!!". Just keep polluting so the profits keep rolling in.
 
2013-07-02 10:50:02 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.


He read it on a blog somewhere and it felt right in his gut ... so he's running with it.
 
2013-07-02 10:55:34 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.


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.
 
2013-07-02 10:59:25 AM  

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.
 
2013-07-02 11:01:51 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Farking Canuck: So what do you deniers have to say about the period from 1940 to 1950?

If there are any "deniers" about, user Farking Canuck wants to hear from you.

<graph>

Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.


Keep in mind that the global instrumental record, which is what that graph is portraying, starts in the mid 1850s or 1880s. It wasn't a choice on the part of whomever made that graph. That aside, note that it is accepted practice to use all the available space when making a plot. Also note that if you're trying to determine what "problematic warming" is by how far the line graphically extends in a plot (instead of the underlying numbers), you may be grossly oversimplifying things.


THE GREAT NAME: 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.

Actually James Hansen, high-ranking climatologist from NASA was saying there was catestrophic global colling in action. It was "your lot" who jumped on the small cooling trend and tried to make something big out of it. Sceptics were sceptical, and turned out to be correct.


You're going to have to back up the bit in bold in some way given the obvious fact that Hansen wasn't publishing back then, and to my knowledge has not many any claim as to "catestrophic global colling" [sic] at any time.


THE GREAT NAME: 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??

Thanks to your misleading graph, which I have discussed already.

By the way, if you look at the data from before your cherry-picked start date, you'll see a warming trend going back since before any significant human CO2 emissions. It's commonly referred to as the recovery from the little ice age, but that isn't important (it's really just a low-frequency component of underlying natural fluctuations in the climate). What is important is that in order to demonstrate catastrophic AGW, climatists have to show an unprecidentedly rapid exponential rise - not just point at a trend that was underway anyway. The current flat period, so carefully hidden in your misleading plot, strongly refutes this. AGW is dead.


Just to get it out of the way, anthropogenic climate change does not mean an "exponential rise".

That out of the way, the more important issue is to note that it is very difficult to attribute a specific cause to a change if different processes are working simultaneously and therefore their relative contributions are conflated. What may also help is to note that these different processes are not mutually exclusive - that we are coming out of an ice age does not mean that anthropogenic climate change does not exist, for example. Therefore, an  exploration of the underlying mechanisms and processes is what is required, and is the basis for attribution of anthropogenic climate change.
 
2013-07-02 11:04:51 AM  

Farking Canuck: THE GREAT NAME: Your graph cuts off half the recent trend, and has a highly exaggerated vertical scale in order to make the warming look bigger than it is. On that scale, any actual problematic warming would be way, way off the top of the graph. A bit misleading I would say.

Love your use of the word "problematic". Climate scientists believe the current amount of warming is "problematic".



Citation please.

Of course ... the anti-science crowd believe they know better. They have their blogs and political think-tanks and let's not forget their gut feelings!!! Screw all the data, ...
Well, I've just seen your data, and it's rubbish. I may not respond to further comments from you, since you seem to be "losing it". I will just stop to say I love science, and if you think you have somehow claimed science for yourself by supporting climatology, you are deluded.
 
2013-07-02 11:09:12 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:

1. Then why does the graph start at 1890? To hide the trend from 1850 to 1890 when there was negligable anthropomorphic CO2 but temps still rose.
2. Oh FFS look it up
3. An exponential rise was the prediction. Stop moving the goal posts.
 
2013-07-02 11:16:56 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: I will just stop to say I love science, and if you think you have somehow claimed science for yourself by supporting climatology, you are deluded.


You love science but you like to pretend that the active scientists in the climate field have not published overwhelmingly in support of AGW. That's just the equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "la la la - it's not true - la la la".
 
2013-07-02 11:20:34 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak: The simplest answer would be to note that the fact that the climate has changed for different reasons in the past does not somehow mean that the current anthropogenic trend does not exist.

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.


I don't think you're going to find any research that states that said trend is solely due to anthropogenic factors. However, what has been found is that warming trend cannot be explained without anthropogenic factors.


THE GREAT NAME: 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.


The first part is reasonable, and points out the limitations of correlation as opposed to more direct measure of causality. There's only so much you can say from looking at trends without trying to decompose the relative contribution of the underlying processes and mechanisms.

That aside, I respectfully suggest that the information you are waiting for already exists - any of the literature dealing with forcing factors and climate sensitivity is an attempt at causation. Maybe you've seen this old chestnut (from the IPCC AR4) posted here before:

gregladen.com

In short, don't make the mistake of assuming one's state of knowledge (and what is presented in the popular media) is commensurate with that of the extant literature.
 
2013-07-02 11:24:11 AM  

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.



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.
 
2013-07-02 11:41:04 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Damnhippyfreak:

1. Then why does the graph start at 1890? To hide the trend from 1850 to 1890 when there was negligable anthropomorphic CO2 but temps still rose.


I'm not sure what the reason is. It may be due to wanting all the records to be complete in the plot. However, I suggest making up a reason for it and assuming it to be true, as you have done, isn't the wisest course, especially since anthropogenic CO2 concentrations remained quite low well until the mid 20th century.


THE GREAT NAME: 2. Oh FFS look it up


I'm sorry, but it was your claim, besides the fact that it is very difficult for me to prove a negative. Again, James Hansen was born in 1941 and probably wasn't making claims about cooling during the 40's and 50's, and hasn't made any claims to that effect since.


THE GREAT NAME: 3. An exponential rise was the prediction. Stop moving the goal posts.


I'm sorry, but this isn't the claim. Never has been. Maybe what would help would be to note that "accelerating" isn't the same as "exponential". In addition, to be fair, there's lots of misguided people out there prone to hyperbole. I'm sure there are people out there claiming such, but you really ought to distinguish between scientific knowledge versus the diversity of opinions you find in the public discourse.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:22 AM  

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.
 
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 140 of 140 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report