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.

(Denver Post)   The first decade of the new millennium showed the most global warming EVAR. Nothing extreme here, move along citizens   (denverpost.com) divider line 352
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6098 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 12:54 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-03 07:27:08 PM

flondrix: and I guess since it has happened once before, the right wing is OK with it happening again.


They are traditionalists, bless their hearts.
 
2013-07-03 07:37:44 PM

Corvus: Farking Canuck: I'm sure you'll drag out this same strawman next thread ... deniers always do.

They still bring out the same talking points that have been refuted every thread. They believe repeating something enough makes it true.

I always ask a couple questions:

Show me when climate change has happened so quickly with out some major event being the cause.

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

Guess what answers I get? None, or the same debunked talking points they have been repeating for years.

I used to have a link to a site that had all the talking points debunked do I could just cut and paste. I guess I need to find that again.


This is nice. The tack I have found effective is to ask point blank, What evidence, exactly, would be enough to sway your opinion. (crickets)
 
2013-07-03 07:40:30 PM

CruJones: HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.


Yes, I can deny exactly that, and there is a mountain of evidence in support of me denying that.
 
2013-07-03 07:43:38 PM

Corvus: Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.


I like how they jump from this one to, "Well, it's too late to do anything about it now anyway."
 
2013-07-03 08:28:29 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Corvus: Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

This is sheer lunacy on a par with religious delusion.
Hey, you know that big hot thing in the sky? The Sun.
It adds energy, 24 hours a day, to the big open thermodynamic system that is the Earth!
Wow!

The more you know!


You're right, there are no other sources of heat or greenhouse gases that can  possibly contribute. None at all. We don't burn coal, or oil, or methane at all.
 
2013-07-03 08:33:05 PM

This is simply pathetic.  Most global warming EVER?    Here's what the last decade looked like:


notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com

That's a slight downward trend, on global satellite readings, the only ones not subject to myriad failures due to siting, failure to comply with specifications, and alteration of data.   It's handy to talk about temperature since we started satellite measurements in 1979, because we can compare with uncorrupted data -- unlike before the advent of satellite data.   So, in the last decade, we have cooled -- and this is the MOST WARMING EVAR?  Really?  So are the warmer alarmists now saying it has been brutally cooling since 1850?   They're not even trying any more...  Just a simple denial of reality in a very loud voice, and then the hope that there are enough clueless tools to spread their BS as gospel.  Looking around Fark, it seems they might well be correct.

 
2013-07-03 08:41:21 PM

GeneralJim: This is simply pathetic.  Most global warming EVER?    Here's what the last decade looked like:
[notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com image 549x337]
That's a slight downward trend, on global satellite readings, the only ones not subject to myriad failures due to siting, failure to comply with specifications, and alteration of data.   It's handy to talk about temperature since we started satellite measurements in 1979, because we can compare with uncorrupted data -- unlike before the advent of satellite data.   So, in the last decade, we have cooled -- and this is the MOST WARMING EVAR?  Really?  So are the warmer alarmists now saying it has been brutally cooling since 1850?   They're not even trying any more...  Just a simple denial of reality in a very loud voice, and then the hope that there are enough clueless tools to spread their BS as gospel.  Looking around Fark, it seems they might well be correct.


Wait, why do you have so much confidence that the satellite data is uncorruptible, and so little in all the other (you know, instrumental) data (setting aside your bullshiat characterizations of that data)?

Do you think satellites are magical angels sent by space Jesus to accurately measure our temperature?
 
2013-07-03 08:48:27 PM

Farking Canuck: Confabulat: I swear, global warming deniers think the universe is run by magic or something.

There are a significant percentage of them that truly believe that we cannot damage god's creation. So we should continue endlessly shiatting on this planet.

The debate on this would be a lot better if the warmer alarmists debated something OTHER than what they imagine their opponents think.  Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example.  And again, even within the realm of remote viewing of others' thoughts, I have not heard ANYONE say that we "cannot damage God's creation."  So, what does "significant percentage" mean to you?    0.002%?   Actually, I think I'll wait until I hear that argument for the first time before I even estimate percentages.   How about you wait until someone makes an argument before you attack it?

Let's see if you like it the other way...
"Honestly, science-denying warmer alarmists believe science works by taking votes of scientists."   "Yes, a very significant percentage of them think that carbon dioxide is a serious poison, and will kill all life on Earth.  Also, they believe that the planet will be in flames by 2100 if we don't immediately fund China and India, whose pollution -- not to mention farts -- are composed of sweet, sweet flower fragrance.  And the alarmist idea that running one SUV for a year will raise the temperature of the planet by 5.0 K is just the dumbest thing ever."

And, from a previous thread, your gloating about your misplaced certainty of the red states burning is the same as a wish for that. Man up and admit it.

 
2013-07-03 09:00:49 PM

GeneralJim: Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example


Says the guy who cites anything but science.
 
2013-07-03 09:01:32 PM
Also, right on time, 300 comments in and about 45 minutes after the thread is effectively dead, we get the walls of green text.
 
2013-07-03 09:46:32 PM
I amazes me that in only a little over 100 years of burning petroleum, we've done this incredible irreversible damage.

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/main-sources-energy-usa-betw ee n-1776-2012.html
 
2013-07-03 10:27:15 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: I amazes me that in only a little over 100 years of burning petroleum, we've done this incredible irreversible damage.

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/main-sources-energy-usa-betw ee n-1776-2012.html


Did you know that petroleum isn't the only fossil fuel?
 
2013-07-03 10:32:42 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: I amazes me that in only a little over 100 years of burning petroleum, we've done this incredible irreversible damage.

http://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/main-sources-energy-usa-betw ee n-1776-2012.html


It amazes me that we landed a man on the moon and brought him home safely, within 10 years of promising to do so.
 
2013-07-03 10:49:29 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: The dust blows happened when the water that is now in the oceans was tied up in glaciers and the sea levels were much lower, like 250 to 450 feet lower. The US continental shelves were the beaches. And yes, it will happen again. And we'll be the dust that blows and gets emplaced in the caves.


I see. So the thousands of scientists around the world with mountains of evidence supporting AGW are all wrong or corrupt.

But these guys come up with a tenuous theory about blowing sand and you're all over it like it is a fact literally carved in stone.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. So much dishonesty ... so many lies.
 
2013-07-03 11:23:56 PM

Corvus:

According to your chart it looks like temperatures have stayed which everyone admits is bullshiat.

I'm curious -- is this active ignorance or denial?  Unlike so many warmers claim, I cannot read your thoughts.  (I only read GOOD books.)

How can you simply deny that the warming has stopped?   Where are you getting your talking points?

Even the major perps in this admit that warming stopped -- the MET Office, associated with the Hadley CRU, says:


Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now?


And here's data from warmer alarmist sources:


i0.wp.com
pbs.twimg.com
i1.wp.com

Here's the problem -- you're trying to get science from the U.N.   Their whole "global warming" scam is unraveling before their eyes.   And their traditional response, as what they have said in the past proves to be false, is to say "It's way worse than we thought" and "we don't have as much time to act as we thought."   They are simply trying to panic people into taking stupid actions without thinking.  The "unprecedented warming" they talk about has actually been a cooling.  Yes, the planet has actually cooled during the time in question.  Clearly, you are entitled to your own opinion, irrespective of its ignorance.  However, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.   And the facts about temperature in the last decade are as follows:


stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-03 11:26:46 PM
Thread's dead so here come the green lies ...
 
2013-07-03 11:29:01 PM

ikanreed:

I like that there's very specific origins for all those predictive models but then for the so-called "hard data" he just goes "Oh some sattelites and balloons. Which ones? Don't ask questions! Buy my book!"

Cause here's that same chart from a site with citations.

Oh, come on now, you're just embarrassing yourself, whether you know it or not.  Your reference is NOT a comparison of models with measured temperatures -- it is a comparison of several different temperature measurement methodologies.   There is not a prediction in the lot.   Try harder.
 
2013-07-03 11:34:57 PM

Farking Canuck: Thread's dead so here come the green lies ...


He was busy doing his research on the Shroud of Turin, and he only just now noticed this thread. He's saner than the rest of us you know; he's been tested.
 
2013-07-04 01:07:10 AM

ikanreed:

Oh, so he's comparing tropospheric observation with surface predictions. Look at what those datasets measure, versus what they are being compared to. One of these things is not like the other one, one of these things is not the same.

So farking what?   It looks the same when compared to the same lower troposphere readings:



wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
James Hansen's Prediction in 1988


media.resourceinvestor.com
IPCC Predictions in 1990

curryja.files.wordpress.com
IPCC 2007 Predictions
A 100-year prediction, breaking out of 95% certainty within six years?



4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-04 01:48:01 AM
img571.imageshack.us
 
2013-07-04 01:54:23 AM

Confabulat: If you add a bunch of CO2 to the atmosphere, what do you THINK will happen?


You can't take something as complex as the earth's climate and reduce it to one variable.
 
2013-07-04 02:02:47 AM

machodonkeywrestler:

It's not the data, It's the crappy model that Watts uses that makes your plots a joke.

Watts uses the MEASURED DATA.   The crappy models on that "plot" are from the IPCC.
 
2013-07-04 02:15:23 AM

Corvus:

I gave your 4 specific examples showing the IPCC predictions where more conservative then actually occurred (I have many many more) and your response is "Well I am just going to ignore that because I don't want to believe it".

Four specific examples? A bad prediction of ice extent loss, a bad prediction of ice extent loss, a bad prediction of ice extent loss, and a bad prediction of ice extent loss. It looks like four copies of the same thing. Do you understand what you are "proving" with your "evidence?"   While the IPCC was grossly OVER-estimating the warming of the planet as a whole, at the same time, even with the help of cooler-than-they-expected temperatures, they grossly under-estimated the ice extent loss.  So, they suck at predicting temperature, and always have, and now have been shown to suck even worse at predicting ice extent losses -- so we should believe them about temperature?   Why?
 
2013-07-04 02:26:20 AM

Corvus:

Let me paraphrase most of the "skeptics" in the thread:

Well I have no scientific background, have not read any scientific papers on this topic, have spent about 5 minute looking into it from non-scientific sources, and I think I know better than about this topic then the 99% of scientists who say I am wrong and who have studied this their entire lives because it's what I want to believe.

Let me paraphrase most of the warmer alarmists in the thread:

"Well, I have no scientific background, but if I stand with this group of political hacks in lab coats, maybe a girl will think I'm smart, and go out with me.   I'll just ignore the fact that their predictions have failed miserably, that carbon dioxide levels have been shown to FOLLOW temperature, and that a couple people have changed the major data sets to support their hypothesis."

 
2013-07-04 02:35:25 AM

Corvus:

Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.

Is it even possible for you to say something that isn't wrong?   How about fluctuations of that giant honking continuous fusion explosion some 94 million miles away?  Let's see if there is any correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature....

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

No, no chance these two are related -- it's just a coincidence.


Well, certainly carbon dioxide correlates BETTER with temperature, since we just KNOW carbon dioxide levels are a thermostat. Here, see what I mean:

tucsoncitizen.com
Oh, crap.
 
2013-07-04 02:44:28 AM

Corvus:

Show me when climate change has happened so quickly with out some major event being the cause.

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

It would help if you weren't standing there babbling with your fingers in your ears....

The temperature warmed more quickly in the early 18th century than at any time in the 20th.


The fact that this warming is part of a 1600-year cycle, the warming part of which started over a century BEFORE the industrial revolution.


i43.tinypic.com

Warmer alarmists ONLY look at temperature starting with the green line
At that point, warming had been going on for over a century.
 
2013-07-04 02:49:27 AM

Corvus:

Give some other explanation that has more data that supports it then anthropomorphic climate change.

antoniriera.files.wordpress.com

What anthropomorphic climate change might look like

/ ... and it's "than," FFS.
 
2013-07-04 02:52:29 AM

flondrix:

Corvus: Right like fighting Polio was all about trying to rule right?

I have read some unflattering things about Salk's behavior once he had a working vaccine--not desire to rule per se, but a lot of self-advancing butt-kissing and failure to credit his co-workers.

I can certainly see someone trying to cure a disease solely to promote themselves, but I suspect that in most cases a cure is much more likely to come from thankless slogging.

True enough, but even then, this is a poor example.  The "disease" is not real.  So, a snake-oil salesman would be lots closer than Salk...
 
2013-07-04 02:58:26 AM

Corvus:

My favorite Deniers talking points:

Climate Scientists are unaware that the sun heats up the earth.
Climate Scientists don't know that you supposed to normalize data.
Climate Scientists "fudge" the numbers because they normalize the data. (I have had the same person argue both of those. That they are wrong because they normalize data and because they don't)
Since Climate change can happen naturally it's impossible for climate change to be caused by man. (Just like fires can be cause by nature therefore can be caused by man)
Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.
We don't understand fully how climate change works with weather 100% therefor it can't exist. (We understand how climate change works more than thing like gravity. Should we say gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand it?)

These arguments are not logical. They are not making logical arguments.

Well, then, thank God I've never made any of them. This is a huge thing in this debate.  Why don't you warmer alarmists stick to making YOUR arguments, and let others make theirs?  This is devlolving into who can make the stupidest argument for their opponents' side - but, other than ironically, it seems only the warmer alarmists are playing that game.

 
2013-07-04 03:10:15 AM

GeneralJim: Is it even possible for you to say something that isn't wrong?   How about fluctuations of that giant honking continuous fusion explosion some 94 million miles away?  Let's see if there is any correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature....
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com

No, no chance these two are related -- it's just a coincidence.



Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

from here:  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html

also, they note that the graph GeneralJim presents is from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, whose data have subsequently been corrected (see same link for explanation). This is not the first time that GeneralJim has just lazily parroted a talking point without apparently caring about the quality of the data, or acknowledging any subsequent work in the area. He just repeats whatever his puppet masters tell him to say, you know, because he cares deeply about science.

GeneralJim: The debate on this would be a lot better if the warmer alarmists debated something OTHER than what they imagine their opponents think.  Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example.


Yeah, good job there, puppet boy.
 
2013-07-04 03:15:11 AM
I repeat, if the sun's output were increasing AND we simultaneously increase the greenhouse effect, it will have more of an effect that the sun alone would have.  And since agriculture is based on a dependable climate, that would be bad.
 
2013-07-04 04:06:03 AM

Corvus:

They don't do this. Why? Because they don't have anything. All they have is FUD not a better hypothesis you are just trying to cloud the issue.

This is what a large percentage of scientifically illiterate people believe.  In reality, it is not necessary to have a "better hypothesis" to falsify another one.  For example, the hypothesis that carbon dioxide level changes are the major controller of planetary temperature is falsified several different ways.  One of those ways is that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and therefore cannot be controlling it.  That falsifies AGW, even without a replacement hypothesis.

This is a little bit complex for the scientifically illiterate, so allow me to present another example.  Let's say that you have a hypothesis that shooting a runner in the head with a .45 slug will help their performance.   A test with a hundred runners results in 100 corpses being unable to complete the race, let alone improve their times.  You do NOT need to have a "better" hypothetical method to improve running performance to DISPROVE the .45 slug to the head hypothesis.  The experiment has falsified it.

 
2013-07-04 04:12:54 AM

Evil High Priest:

Unfortunately, they are the most likely to survive. So we are breeding for short sighted, evil behavior. Swell.
At least you can take solace in the fact that your team is winning...
 
2013-07-04 04:15:01 AM

Evil High Priest:

This is nice. The tack I have found effective is to ask point blank, What evidence, exactly, would be enough to sway your opinion. (crickets)
Okay then, what evidence, exactly, would be enough to convince you that "anthropogenic global warming" is an issue not worthy of any worry?
 
2013-07-04 04:17:15 AM

HighZoolander:

CruJones: HighZoolander: Kirzania: Who's to say it's not just time for the Earth to warm up for a bit?

Ooh. That's quite intellectually rigorous. Earth is warming "just 'cuz" - you should submit that for publication immediately and teach all those egghead moron scientists to start thinking about more obvious solutions to our problems.

While I believe in climate change, you can't deny that it's possibly a natural cycle.  There is no definitive proof.  I mean the earth has warmed and cooled many times.

Yes, I can deny exactly that, and there is a mountain of evidence in support of me denying that.

Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, just what "mountain" of evidence do you believe makes it impossible that what we are seeing is a natural cycle?
 
2013-07-04 04:30:36 AM

HighZoolander:

Wait, why do you have so much confidence that the satellite data is uncorruptible, and so little in all the other (you know, instrumental) data (setting aside your bullshiat characterizations of that data)?
Well, for one simple thing, the satellite data was not processed by a secret program, and then had the original data turn up missing. That's a start. When the original data is not available, it's not science. Second, if you look at the instrument sites, only 11% of the sites meet the USHCN standards for reliable reporting. In case your math skills equal your science skills, that means that 89% of the stations are not reliable. When you build a data set on 89% unreliable data, the data set is not reliable. Third, data sets have been manipulated to support the AGW hypothesis. That leaves the satellites as the best reporting method. They also have the benefit of reading the entire planet equally, without the unequal distribution of weather stations playing into the equation.

Do you think satellites are magical angels sent by space Jesus to accurately measure our temperature?
No, but I think you need some serious assistance from a licensed mental health care professional.
 
2013-07-04 04:34:13 AM

cameroncrazy1984:

GeneralJim: Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example

Says the guy who cites anything but science.

It's really cool that you guys think I'm enough of a threat to your shilling that you need to organize a campaign of lies against me.
So, how about you offer some examples of me citing anything BUT science and logic?  I'll wait.
 
2013-07-04 04:40:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984:

Also, right on time, 300 comments in and about 45 minutes after the thread is effectively dead, we get the walls of green text.

Oh, look, another anti-science post on post timing.   "Look, he has a life off of Fark!   He must be a shill."

And, seriously? You are saying the thread was dead about seven hours in? So, do you sit at your keyboard 24/7 without sleep, waiting to pounce on the next chance to earn some money by taking a dump on a thread? Hmmm... Actually, that WOULD go a long way towards explaining your behavior, and the quality (or lack thereof) of your posts.

 
2013-07-04 04:52:38 AM
HighZoolander:
Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):
Nice.  The graph I put up showed sunspot count.  What does yours show?   Certainly NOT sunspot count.  That's not honest.

And, are you really ignorant enough to think that the physics of the situation would have solar activity be the major controller of planetary temperature, and suddenly switch to something else? Really?
 
2013-07-04 04:54:41 AM

HighZoolander:

also, they note that the graph GeneralJim presents is from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, whose data have subsequently been corrected (see same link for explanation). This is not the first time that GeneralJim has just lazily parroted a talking point without apparently caring about the quality of the data, or acknowledging any subsequent work in the area. He just repeats whatever his puppet masters tell him to say, you know, because he cares deeply about science.
So, a REAL scientist would take the time to create totally fraudulent data, eh?   I'll keep that in mind.
 
2013-07-04 08:54:45 AM
Wow ... 17 out of the last 19 posts are from the green whack-job.

Must be short on cash this month. Gotta get the bullshiat count up to pad the next paycheck.
 
2013-07-04 09:39:19 AM

Farking Canuck:

Wow ... 17 out of the last 19 posts are from the green whack-job.

Must be short on cash this month. Gotta get the bullshiat count up to pad the next paycheck.

Pfft.  The only way I could make money with Fark would be if I could sue jackasses for libel/slander for crap like this.

/ currently entertaining offers, though...
 
2013-07-04 12:02:51 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Wait, why do you have so much confidence that the satellite data is uncorruptible, and so little in all the other (you know, instrumental) data (setting aside your bullshiat characterizations of that data)?Well, for one simple thing, the satellite data was not processed by a secret program, and then had the original data turn up missing. That's a start. When the original data is not available, it's not science. Second, if you look at the instrument sites, only 11% of the sites meet the USHCN standards for reliable reporting. In case your math skills equal your science skills, that means that 89% of the stations are not reliable. When you build a data set on 89% unreliable data, the data set is not reliable. Third, data sets have been manipulated to support the AGW hypothesis. That leaves the satellites as the best reporting method. They also have the benefit of reading the entire planet equally, without the unequal distribution of weather stations playing into the equation.

Do you think satellites are magical angels sent by space Jesus to accurately measure our temperature?No, but I think you need some serious assistance from a licensed mental health care professional.


Wow, so it must really blow your mind (and your story out of the water) that the satellite measurements and ground measurements match so closely:

www.skepticalscience.com

source (with explanation):  http://www.skepticalscience.com/2012-us-temp-record-fox-denial.html
(it's a fun read in its own right - as it exposes Watts and Spencer as lying, hypocritical tools. GeneralJim seems far too eager to follow their example.)
 
2013-07-04 12:22:29 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):Nice.  The graph I put up showed sunspot count.  What does yours show?   Certainly NOT sunspot count.  That's not honest.

And, are you really ignorant enough to think that the physics of the situation would have solar activity be the major controller of planetary temperature, and suddenly switch to something else? Really?


So you think physics rules out sudden changes in what drives climate? So an asteroid strike, major volcanic explosion, or (geologically) sudden influx of a greenhouse gas couldn't possibly change the climate, because physics? WTF are you smoking?


GeneralJim: Out of a morbid sense of curiosity, just what "mountain" of evidence do you believe makes it impossible that what we are seeing is a natural cycle?


Seriously? You're not aware of any evidence that people refer to to claim that the warming is anthropogenic? Whether or not you agree with the interpretation of said data, you don't even know that it exists? That's some real fine SCIENCE* there Lou.

www.skepticalscience.com
source:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint- o n-Climate-Change.html

also:
skepticalscience.com

*In this context, SCIENCE strictly means that GeneralJim has his head so far up his own ass that he thinks it's where it should be.
 
2013-07-04 10:13:38 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: also, they note that the graph GeneralJim presents is from Friis-Christensen and Lassen, whose data have subsequently been corrected (see same link for explanation). This is not the first time that GeneralJim has just lazily parroted a talking point without apparently caring about the quality of the data, or acknowledging any subsequent work in the area. He just repeats whatever his puppet masters tell him to say, you know, because he cares deeply about science.So, a REAL scientist would take the time to create totally fraudulent data, eh?   I'll keep that in mind.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

Heh. This misguided attempt at a comeback is a peek into what sort of logic someone working backwards from a conclusion looks like. Someone points out the argument GeneralJim is making is based on bad data, therefore a seemingly meaningful retort for him is to say that that the person is instead advocating for fraudulently creating data. What he's probably not appreciating is that this leap of logic only works if GeneralJim is working from the premise that the conclusion is a done deal and one is trying to find 'evidence' that supports it - since HighZoolander has pointed out that the data he is using isn't all that good, according to GeneralJim this means HighZoolander must be instead advocating for creating data to fit said foregone conclusion.

It's an attempt at a retort that says a lot more about the speaker than the intended recipient.
 
2013-07-04 10:34:05 PM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: Gee, look what happens when you continue that graph, and correct it for bad data (temp in red, solar activity in green):Nice.  The graph I put up showed sunspot count.  What does yours show?   Certainly NOT sunspot count.  That's not honest.



LOL. I thought the previous bit I commented on showed a somewhat irrational style of argumentation. This really tops it. Note that contrary to what GeneralJim is saying here, the graphs he put up do not show sunspot count, but instead sunspot cycle length:

GeneralJim: Corvus: Also the Earth does not magically heat up by itself, like people like him seem to believe. There has to be a cause. They ONLY cause that has shown to be remotely possible is the additional CO2.
Is it even possible for you to say something that isn't wrong?   How about fluctuations of that giant honking continuous fusion explosion some 94 million miles away?  Let's see if there is any correlation between solar activity and Earth's temperature....
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com
No, no chance these two are related -- it's just a coincidence.
Well, certainly carbon dioxide correlates BETTER with temperature, since we just KNOW carbon dioxide levels are a thermostat. Here, see what I mean:

tucsoncitizen.com

Oh, crap.



It takes a rare unawareness to misrepresent your very own posts while calling the other person dishonest.

Of course, there's the other issue that the data he's presenting is erroneous and out of date. The corrected and more up-to-date data looks like this:

i43.tinypic.com

With a notable divergence later on. This has been pointed out to GeneralJim on several occasions. We'll leave it to the reader as to what this says about how he's approaching this topic.
 
2013-07-04 10:36:50 PM

GeneralJim: cameroncrazy1984: Also, right on time, 300 comments in and about 45 minutes after the thread is effectively dead, we get the walls of green text.
Oh, look, another anti-science post on post timing.   "Look, he has a life off of Fark!   He must be a shill."

And, seriously? You are saying the thread was dead about seven hours in? So, do you sit at your keyboard 24/7 without sleep, waiting to pounce on the next chance to earn some money by taking a dump on a thread? Hmmm... Actually, that WOULD go a long way towards explaining your behavior, and the quality (or lack thereof) of your posts.



The contention that the cameroncrazy1984's post is somehow "anti-science" is truly baffling - such a misrepresentation is far more damning of GeneralJim than any allegations of posting habits.
 
2013-07-04 10:49:38 PM

GeneralJim: cameroncrazy1984: GeneralJim: Like, for instance...  oh, SCIENCE, for example

Says the guy who cites anything but science.
It's really cool that you guys think I'm enough of a threat to your shilling that you need to organize a campaign of lies against me.
So, how about you offer some examples of me citing anything BUT science and logic?  I'll wait.



Well, if he is asking for examples, here's one where I caught GeneralJim is outright lying, which would probably fall outside of "science and logic". Or perhaps when he cites misattributed quotes in support of conspiracy theories.

However, if one reads what GeneralJim is saying literally, one can be charitable and note that most of the time he simplydoesn't bother to cite anything at all.
 
2013-07-04 11:17:18 PM

GeneralJim: Corvus: They don't do this. Why? Because they don't have anything. All they have is FUD not a better hypothesis you are just trying to cloud the issue.
This is what a large percentage of scientifically illiterate people believe.  In reality, it is not necessary to have a "better hypothesis" to falsify another one.  For example, the hypothesis that carbon dioxide level changes are the major controller of planetary temperature is falsified several different ways.  One of those ways is that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and therefore cannot be controlling it. That falsifies AGW, even without a replacement hypothesis.


Of course, the bit in bold isn't true, and has been shown to him many times. Besides the fact that one can only say that for the Vostok ice core record that only the initial rise in CO2 concentration followed temperature, such patterns are not universal:

img.fark.net
From Shakun et al. 2012:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

In the addition, the logic that's he's using is as nonsensical as claiming that chickens cannot lay eggs, as they have been observed hatching from them. That temperature can affect CO2 concentration does not somehow exclude the opposite - that CO2 concentration can affect temperature.


GeneralJim: This is a little bit complex for the scientifically illiterate, so allow me to present another example.  Let's say that you have a hypothesis that shooting a runner in the head with a .45 slug will help their performance.   A test with a hundred runners results in 100 corpses being unable to complete the race, let alone improve their times.  You do NOT need to have a "better" hypothetical method to improve running performance to DISPROVE the .45 slug to the head hypothesis.  The experiment has falsified it.


While this is mostly a good principle (besides the notable omission of how a zero hypothesis works), and GeneralJim deserves credit for pointing it out, note that this only works for very simple situations and single experiments like the example provided. The real world and the actual process of science is a bit more messy. It is exceedingly rare that one experiment will provide solid refutation of a given explanation, especially when a complex system, such as climate, is involved. What you instead find in the actual process of scientific inquiry is competing, alternative hypotheses, with bodies of evidence built up over time eventually leading to one being accepted. It's a subtle point, but it's good to know for people who don't have much experience in actual science (such as GeneralJim).
 
2013-07-04 11:21:58 PM

GeneralJim: Corvus: My favorite Deniers talking points:

Climate Scientists are unaware that the sun heats up the earth.
Climate Scientists don't know that you supposed to normalize data.
Climate Scientists "fudge" the numbers because they normalize the data. (I have had the same person argue both of those. That they are wrong because they normalize data and because they don't)
Since Climate change can happen naturally it's impossible for climate change to be caused by man. (Just like fires can be cause by nature therefore can be caused by man)
Until Climate Science is 100% proven (which nothing is ever really 100% proven) we should do nothing.
We don't understand fully how climate change works with weather 100% therefor it can't exist. (We understand how climate change works more than thing like gravity. Should we say gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand it?)

These arguments are not logical. They are not making logical arguments.Well, then, thank God I've never made any of them. This is a huge thing in this debate.  Why don't you warmer alarmists stick to making YOUR arguments, and let others make theirs?

This is devlolving into who can make the stupidest argument for their opponents' side - but, other than ironically, it seems only the warmer alarmists are playing that game.


Uh-huh. From a thread a couple of days ago:

GeneralJim: The ONLY way to look at it is to start somewhere between 1850 and 1880 until the present.
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report