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.

(The Daily Caller)   Climate change denialist still in denial   (dailycaller.com) divider line 231
    More: Obvious, MIT, UN climate, climate change, surface layer, alarmisms, global warming skeptics, Secretary of State John Kerry, effects of global warming  
•       •       •

1620 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 9:12 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-30 08:40:30 AM
Look, if you can't be 100% sure about something, then you shouldn't do anything.  That's always the best policy.
 
2013-09-30 08:44:02 AM
Lindzen isn't just some amateur contrarian, he's a professional.
 
2013-09-30 09:01:51 AM
A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN's climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

So it's OK for me to burn my tire pile?

Do I have to separate them from my styrofoam pile?
 
2013-09-30 09:09:32 AM
He's s smart guy from MIT, but he doesn't exactly know where all the heat is going, does he?  All he is doing is finding self-amusement in a UN climate paper.

And that's amusing.
 
2013-09-30 09:13:48 AM

Lionel Mandrake: So it's OK for me to burn my tire pile?


Do you believe in Freedom or not?
 
2013-09-30 09:14:40 AM
 
2013-09-30 09:17:54 AM
i560.photobucket.com

Hm ...

Should I believe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate, or should I believe the people who are making huge fortunes on fossil fuel ...? Decisions, decisions ...
 
2013-09-30 09:25:07 AM
His feet must look like one big pale prune by now.
 
2013-09-30 09:29:14 AM

Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 802x576]

Hm ...

Should I believe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate, or should I believe the people who are making huge fortunes on fossil fuel ...? Decisions, decisions ...


But there are millions of dollars in handouts from the eeeeeebil gubmint going to everyone in the black.  You should trust the ones in the red, who get merely billions of dollars in handouts from good, honest, hard-working, mom-and-pop, multinational corporations.
 
2013-09-30 09:31:06 AM
According to other scientists, he wraps bullsh** in pretty packaging and throws his credentials around as if they legitimize his politically-driven statements.  Gee, I wonder where his research grants come from?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-take-on-Richard-L in dzen.html
 
2013-09-30 09:32:11 AM
Here are the actual numbers from the study.
img.fark.net
 
2013-09-30 09:35:55 AM

IlGreven: millions

IlGreven: billions


Yes, we see what you did there.

Marcus Aurelius: where all the heat is going


Well, the rabbit is firmly in the hat.  What comes next, Mr. Copperfield?
 
2013-09-30 09:36:12 AM
A slightly better presentation:
img.fark.net
 
2013-09-30 09:36:50 AM
Hmmmm...

All these people who have dedicated their lives to studying climate, and yet none of them, not one, predicted the fifteen year (and counting) "hiatus" from global warming that we are currently experiencing.  How did all those models miss that so completely?  What else are they missing?

The true believers have staked their professional reputations on this being real and as they say it is.  For them, there is no turning back -no matter what
 
2013-09-30 09:37:06 AM
Summary of the 2013 IPCC report. Very Bad Charts start on page 27. Link, PDF
 
2013-09-30 09:45:40 AM

Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 802x576]

Hm ...

Should I believe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate, or should I believe the people who are making huge fortunes on fossil fuel ...? Decisions, decisions ...



But millionaire scientists who get all their grant money through an international conspiracy of falsified data!
 
2013-09-30 09:45:48 AM

Il Douchey: All these people who have dedicated their lives to studying climate, and yet none of them, not one, predicted the fifteen year (and counting) "hiatus" from global warming that we are currently experiencing. How did all those models miss that so completely? What else are they missing?


Statistical variance. Look into it!
 
2013-09-30 09:51:38 AM
Scientists have been struggling to explain the 15-year hiatus in global warming, and governments have been urging them to whitewash the fact that temperatures have not been rising because such data would impact the upcoming climate negotiations in 2015.

Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it? I know that I sure as shiat would LOVE to live in a hiatus zone.
 
2013-09-30 09:56:26 AM

djseanmac: I wonder where his research grants come from?


This line of attack is laugh-out-loud funny.  We have an entire industry that is 100% dependent on climate change, whose spending, just in the US, has run into the multiple HUNDREDS of billions of dollars over the last decade or so.  If climate change stops being a hot issue, many, many of these folks will be out on their butts, preparing skinny lattes for their also-out-of-work art history colleagues.

But sure, anyone who dissents from what the most dependent of them claim to be the "consensus"?  It must be because getting 5% of their annual operating income from a "multinational" has corrupted them beyond credibility.
 
2013-09-30 09:57:00 AM
Republicans embrace climate science denial because the party has been firmly in the back pocket of various big energy concerns for decades.

Those concerns spend a lot of time and money in order to give ink to people like Richard Lindzen in order to muddy the waters of the debate.

Therefore, this latest Daily Caller hit piece should come as no surprise to anyone.

Gotta admit the unflattering  pic of Obama with a hand written note saying "Climate Shame" taped to this forehead did make me stop and go ...Really?

Then I remembered where I was.
 
2013-09-30 09:58:20 AM

Mikey1969: I know that I sure as shiat would LOVE to live in a hiatus zone.


Pretty sure you already do.  Do you even know what the "G" stands for in AGW?
 
2013-09-30 10:03:09 AM

quatchi: Republicans embrace climate science denial because the party has been firmly in the back pocket of various big energy concerns for decades.


You're trolling, but what the hell.  I'll say this for the petro companies:  at least they deliver a product I can use and rely on.  I'll take them every day and twice on Sunday rather than the snake-oil salesmen propped up with billions in subsidies by the biggest energy concern on the planet:  the present administration.
 
2013-09-30 10:04:49 AM
We've got no chance as a species
 
2013-09-30 10:05:51 AM
whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.


www.skepticalscience.com

Someone's whitewashing something, but it's not the UN...
 
2013-09-30 10:07:04 AM

Garet Garrett: Mikey1969: I know that I sure as shiat would LOVE to live in a hiatus zone.

Pretty sure you already do.  Do you even know what the "G" stands for in AGW?


Giggity?
 
2013-09-30 10:08:50 AM

Garet Garrett: We have an entire industry that is 100% dependent on responsible for climate change


True that.

www.geologinternational.com
 
2013-09-30 10:09:24 AM
Yeah, I'm sure all of those methane clathrate deposits are just releasing themselves. No oceans getting warmer here.
 
2013-09-30 10:09:40 AM

ModernPrimitive01: We've got no chance as a species


Oh, don't worry, we're dragging lots of other species into extinction with us.
 
2013-09-30 10:11:26 AM

JRoo: Uncle Tractor: [i560.photobucket.com image 802x576]

Hm ...

Should I believe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate, or should I believe the people who are making huge fortunes on fossil fuel ...? Decisions, decisions ...


But millionaire scientists who get all their grant money through an international conspiracy of falsified data!


The fat cats at Big Science think they can fool us with all their data analysis mumbo jumbo.  Global warming is just a theory, like evolution or gravitational pull.
 
2013-09-30 10:12:00 AM
Climate change is real and humans seem to be the obvious big bad boogie man.  I'm fine with that, just say it, even if you cannot scientifically prove it.

Science should just shut up until it has a reproducible model that has been verified for a handful of years.
 
2013-09-30 10:14:30 AM

Il Douchey: Hmmmm...

All these people who have dedicated their lives to studying climate, and yet none of them, not one, predicted the fifteen year (and counting) "hiatus" from global warming that we are currently experiencing.  How did all those models miss that so completely?  What else are they missing?

The true believers have staked their professional reputations on this being real and as they say it is.  For them, there is no turning back -no matter what


www1.ncdc.noaa.gov
Not a 15 year hiatus, 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, the overall trend is still up. But yes they didn't accurately predict that the ocean would absorb much of the C02, because it had never happened before. The ocean absorbing the CO2 ISN'T a good thing. It ultimately leads to more problems down the line.
Oh look, we put a bucket under our leaking roof. Problem has been totally fixed, nothing to worry about. BTW, the bucket is triggered to explode when it fills up.
 
2013-09-30 10:15:16 AM

dwrash: Science should just shut up until it has a reproducible model that has been verified for a handful of years


I'm pretty sure you don't know how scientific research works.
 
2013-09-30 10:17:52 AM
It must be true that GW is caused by humans. The German and American governments told the UN scientists to say so.
 
2013-09-30 10:19:25 AM
"I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence," Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. "They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

It's easy to throw out these hatchet-pieces to friendly, agenda-driven media outlets.  Let me know when you plan to submit your analysis to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, Dick.
 
2013-09-30 10:22:16 AM

oryx: It must be true that GW is caused by humans. The German and American governments told the UN scientists to say so.


The Illuminati told the German and American governments to tell the UN scientists to say so.
 
2013-09-30 10:23:52 AM
Did Al Gore really predict in 2007 that the Arctic ice would be melted by 2013?

That sort of alarmist rhetoric isn't helping, as they say.
 
2013-09-30 10:33:44 AM

MindStalker: Not a 15 year hiatus, 1998 was an exceptionally hot year, the overall trend is still up. But yes they didn't accurately predict that the ocean would absorb much of the C02, because it had never happened before. The ocean absorbing the CO2 ISN'T a good thing. It ultimately leads to more problems down the line.


Well that sounds scientific.  Beware the "more problems."  I think it would be more accurate to say "they didn't accurately predict" this because they don't actually know enough about how climate works to be able to understand it.  But hey, let's go with their hypotheses and to Hell with everything else.

Curious about your chart, though:  The average global temperature is 0.5C?

Hint:  I know it's not.
 
2013-09-30 10:35:58 AM

Garet Garrett: Curious about your chart, though: The average global temperature is 0.5C?


Temperature increase.
 
2013-09-30 10:36:00 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence," Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. "They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

It's easy to throw out these hatchet-pieces to friendly, agenda-driven media outlets.  Let me know when you plan to submit your analysis to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, Dick.


You might want to look up Richard Lindzen on Google Scholar.  He has something like 2900 articles, with a very large percentage being from respected peer reviewed literature, dating from the mid 1960's to the present.

While the right wing might be holding him up as a poster boy against the theory of AGW, he does seem to really have the bona fides, despite what his detractors might want to say about him.

From the Source Watch article, he strikes me more as a "here's where there are big problems with your evidence" type of position, rather than a "nay nay nay" type of position.
 
2013-09-30 10:37:23 AM
img.fark.net
 
2013-09-30 10:41:32 AM

Garet Garrett: djseanmac: I wonder where his research grants come from?

This line of attack is laugh-out-loud funny.  We have an entire industry that is 100% dependent on climate change, whose spending, just in the US, has run into the multiple HUNDREDS of billions of dollars over the last decade or so.  If climate change stops being a hot issue, many, many of these folks will be out on their butts, preparing skinny lattes for their also-out-of-work art history colleagues.

But sure, anyone who dissents from what the most dependent of them claim to be the "consensus"?  It must be because getting 5% of their annual operating income from a "multinational" has corrupted them beyond credibility.


yeah, because there certainly aren't ANY industries that are dependent on climate change not being a thing. They CERTAINLY don't have hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. Nosirree.
 
2013-09-30 10:41:56 AM
From Linzen's wiki page, take with salt grain:

"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

So, he's a climate denier, but only if he gets 50-1 odds lol.
 
2013-09-30 10:50:48 AM

joeshill: You might want to look up Richard Lindzen on Google Scholar.


I know Richard Lindzen; I'm an atmospheric scientist.  My point is that it's easy to run to an online pro-denier "news site" and talk smack about the IPCC report, but talk is cheap.  If he has the numbers to prove his assertion, I want to see a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal.  Let his criticisms stand up to peer-review, if he's so confident about them.

As long as he sings to the (layman's) choir on this, his words are meaningless.
 
2013-09-30 10:53:08 AM

joeshill: Here are the actual numbers from the study.
[img.fark.net image 564x329]


What study? Best I can tell is that's just a collection of assumptions based on abstracts they found by searching for keywords in scientific literature.

In fact, it appears that "study" is rejected both by deniers who don't like the sound bite and realists who understand that it's meaningless .

What, exactly, do you think you're saying?
 
2013-09-30 10:53:18 AM

MithrandirBooga: Someone's whitewashing something, but it's not the UN...


God damn you, stop that. I know what that graph means and I want to farking sleep at night. You can post it when I'm dead.
 
2013-09-30 10:58:18 AM

Sybarite: Lindzen isn't just some amateur contrarian, he's a professional.


It's like when the anti-vax crowd quotes Andrew Wakefield.
 
2013-09-30 11:00:14 AM

deadsanta: From Linzen's wiki page, take with salt grain:

"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

So, he's a climate denier, but only if he gets 50-1 odds lol.


As an economist, this tells me more about someone than anything they say. This tells me Lindzen is about 98% sure the temperature will rise above his prediction. Of course, that's his personal feeling. I miss intrade for this reason. It'd be great to have a market for global warming that only allowed climate scientists to play. We could get a true feel for what they really think about all this.
 
2013-09-30 11:00:56 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: Look, if you can't be 100% sure about something, then you shouldn't do anything.  That's always the best policy.


I can't be 100% sure I'm not a brain in a jar being held in some matrix-esque simulation, but I am pretty sure bad things will happen to me if I live my life as if I were, yelling "Woo, there is no spoon!" as I dive off a building.
 
2013-09-30 11:04:30 AM

deadsanta: From Linzen's wiki page, take with salt grain:

"In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout."

So, he's a climate denier, but only if he gets 50-1 odds lol.


Doesn't that work out to him effectively saying global warming is 98% likely? Plus you could prbably make an argument that just from natural variability probably has about a 2% chance of just having a particularly freak La Nina and knocking it below the 2003 figure in 2023 (or whichever years they were going to compare), so the odds in that bet are virtually saying that it is virtually certain the earth is warming.
 
2013-09-30 11:04:38 AM
There's someone I know who is very right-wing and really into "science."  Any stance he has, he can back it up with "science."  For example, gays shouldn't be able to adopt because the "science" hasn't proven that they're okay parents yet.  Even though there's a study out there saying exactly that.

But when it comes to climate change, suddenly you have to worry about who is funding "science."  It's ridiculous.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report