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 (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2013-09-30 11:04:50 AM

Ambivalence: 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.


Shiat, he's onto us.

Er, pay no attention to the deja vu, please.
 
2013-09-30 11:05:14 AM

skozlaw: 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?


I was responding to the Pie Chart stating 13,950 articles, only 24 deny global warming.  The actual study people are quoting for that (whether they know the source or not) is Cook et al 2013.  And I posted the actual numbers from that study.

Whether you agree with it, or not, (and yes, I have serious questions about its methodology), if you are going to quote it to make a point, at least give accurate information from it.  Which I did.  The numbers I posted in my pie chart were directly from the SI of the study.
 
2013-09-30 11:06:53 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?



img.fark.net
 
2013-09-30 11:07:54 AM

Ambivalence: 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.


No, an experiment is required.  Science demands it.  I'll be the control and take the elevator.
 
2013-09-30 11:10:20 AM
I don't deny climate change, and I'm open to the idea that we're causing it, but the track record of interventionist governance (war on drugs, war on poverty, the fed's Keynesian policies) leave me sure the result of a "war on climate" will either result in Mad Max or polar bears being a threat in Delaware as glaciers grind New York smooth.
 
2013-09-30 11:10:54 AM
This is why tenure exists and this is how science works.  This is the scientific process.  There was a very long time when no one questioned the absolute truth that the earth is flat.  He is absolutely welcome to continue to question the science and the data.  Unlike most, he actually also has the training and knowledge to do the questioning.  But let's be clear on his stance, he agrees with everything global warming proponents say except feels "it's not that bad."  He also agrees he might be wrong -

"If I'm right, we'll have saved money" by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. "If I'm wrong, we'll know it in 50 years and can do something."

He's not exactly your stereotypical global warming denier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-cli ma te-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0
 
2013-09-30 11:13:10 AM
This planet is over populated. Lets start gassing some conservatives. That's how you help the climate...

Your dumb and I don't give a crap anymore, there is no fixing you. Time for the trash.
 
2013-09-30 11:13:38 AM

imontheinternet: Ambivalence: 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.

No, an experiment is required.  Science demands it.  I'll be the control and take the elevator.


I'll be the control that doesn't jump.
 
2013-09-30 11:14:15 AM
FTA: The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.


When oceans absorb heat, doesn't that make them warmer?
And aren't these oceans on Earth?

Just how stupid is the person who wrote this article?
 
2013-09-30 11:14:47 AM

lennavan: This is why tenure exists and this is how science works.  This is the scientific process.  There was a very long time when no one questioned the absolute truth that the earth is flat.  He is absolutely welcome to continue to question the science and the data.  Unlike most, he actually also has the training and knowledge to do the questioning.  But let's be clear on his stance, he agrees with everything global warming proponents say except feels "it's not that bad."  He also agrees he might be wrong -

"If I'm right, we'll have saved money" by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. "If I'm wrong, we'll know it in 50 years and can do something."

He's not exactly your stereotypical global warming denier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-cli ma te-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0


Um the Greeks knew the world was spherical since Pythagoras.
 
2013-09-30 11:16:41 AM

give me doughnuts: FTA: The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.


When oceans absorb heat, doesn't that make them warmer?
And aren't these oceans on Earth?

Just how stupid is the person who wrote this article?


Well, he claims that the link between smoking and lung cancer is "weak"

So you can judge his credibility on drawing conclusions from data yourself.
 
2013-09-30 11:16:51 AM

Zeno-25: Yeah, I'm sure all of those methane clathrate deposits are just releasing themselves. No oceans getting warmer here.


But why would Jesus put all that methane in fragile, crystal lattice formations if he didn't mean for them to be released?
 
2013-09-30 11:18:21 AM

wildcardjack: I don't deny climate change, and I'm open to the idea that we're causing it, but the track record of interventionist governance (war on drugs, war on poverty, the fed's Keynesian policies) leave me sure the result of a "war on climate" will either result in Mad Max or polar bears being a threat in Delaware as glaciers grind New York smooth.


Did you live through the smog and excessive pollution of the 70s/80s. The EPA efforts there have made substantial improvements to the environment. Sure we're now dealing with a global instead of local pollutant.
 
2013-09-30 11:19:43 AM

Fart_Machine: lennavan: This is why tenure exists and this is how science works.  This is the scientific process.  There was a very long time when no one questioned the absolute truth that the earth is flat.  He is absolutely welcome to continue to question the science and the data.  Unlike most, he actually also has the training and knowledge to do the questioning.  But let's be clear on his stance, he agrees with everything global warming proponents say except feels "it's not that bad."  He also agrees he might be wrong -

"If I'm right, we'll have saved money" by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. "If I'm wrong, we'll know it in 50 years and can do something."

He's not exactly your stereotypical global warming denier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-cli ma te-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0

Um the Greeks knew the world was spherical since Pythagoras.


Also, Lindzen's "adaptive infrared iris" hypothesis has already been discredited.
 
2013-09-30 11:20:17 AM

Ricardo Klement: imontheinternet: Ambivalence: 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.

No, an experiment is required.  Science demands it.  I'll be the control and take the elevator.

I'll be the control that doesn't jump.


Excellent.  Now, all we need is a stairs control and an intern to measure the splatter radius.
 
2013-09-30 11:21:05 AM

imontheinternet: Ambivalence: 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.

No, an experiment is required.  Science demands it.  I'll be the control and take the elevator.


There are some experiments that are just too dangerous to perform.  In this case the risk of creating more Matrix sequels is too high compared to the potential benefits.
 
2013-09-30 11:22:00 AM

MindStalker: wildcardjack: I don't deny climate change, and I'm open to the idea that we're causing it, but the track record of interventionist governance (war on drugs, war on poverty, the fed's Keynesian policies) leave me sure the result of a "war on climate" will either result in Mad Max or polar bears being a threat in Delaware as glaciers grind New York smooth.

Did you live through the smog and excessive pollution of the 70s/80s. The EPA efforts there have made substantial improvements to the environment. Sure we're now dealing with a global instead of local pollutant.


Yup. For those that think LA is bad now, in the 70s it was like Mexico City.
 
2013-09-30 11:22:11 AM

give me doughnuts: When oceans absorb heat, doesn't that make them warmer?
And aren't these oceans on Earth?

Just how stupid is the person who wrote this article?


Isn't the earth's core part of the earth?  Aren't they failing to measure temperature changes there?  Wouldn't that affect the outcome of whether the earth is warmer or cooler?

Just how stupid is the person who wrote that question?
 
2013-09-30 11:22:23 AM

Zeno-25: Yeah, I'm sure all of those methane clathrate deposits are just releasing themselves. No oceans getting warmer here.


Oh, and I learned that new models indicate the continental marine clathrate deposits won't just be destabilized by temperatures, but changes in water pressure from sea level rise will really do a number on them. One meter rise and they basically all go Storegga.

/positive feedbacks and tsunamis!
 
2013-09-30 11:25:20 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Also, Lindzen's "adaptive infrared iris" hypothesis has already been discredited.


So that's how it works now?  A single disagreeing report invalidates the hypothesis?  That's handy.  Guess the debate's over.

Also, your link is farked.
 
2013-09-30 11:27:48 AM
I don't deny it is happening, but I do not thing mankind's activities have anything to do with it. I think it is caused by the sun. This last sunspot cycle is proof positive of that. But the environazis will deny it. They want to blame people for it. Because that's what they do.
 
2013-09-30 11:29:40 AM

lennavan: This is why tenure exists and this is how science works.  This is the scientific process.  There was a very long time when no one questioned the absolute truth that the earth is flat.  He is absolutely welcome to continue to question the science and the data.  Unlike most, he actually also has the training and knowledge to do the questioning.  But let's be clear on his stance, he agrees with everything global warming proponents say except feels "it's not that bad."  He also agrees he might be wrong -

"If I'm right, we'll have saved money" by avoiding measures to limit emissions, Dr. Lindzen said in the interview. "If I'm wrong, we'll know it in 50 years and can do something."

He's not exactly your stereotypical global warming denier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-cli ma te-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0


If by "a very long time" you mean before the early classical philosophy of the Greeks (at the latest):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
 
2013-09-30 11:30:54 AM

Pick: I think it is caused by the sun.


Ancient ignorant cultures thought the same thing about the cause of plagues.  Had about the same level of scientific support, too.
 
2013-09-30 11:31:46 AM

Garet Garrett: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Also, Lindzen's "adaptive infrared iris" hypothesis has already been discredited.

So that's how it works now?  A single disagreeing report invalidates the hypothesis?  That's handy.  Guess the debate's over.

Also, your link is farked.


My link works.  You should have clicked it --

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in an interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque."
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 11:32:08 AM

Pick: I don't deny it is happening, but I do not thing mankind's activities have anything to do with it. I think it is caused by the sun. This last sunspot cycle is proof positive of that. But the environazis will deny it. They want to blame people for it. Because that's what they do.


Very persuasive argument, and the use of the word "environazi" seals the deal.
 
2013-09-30 11:32:57 AM

Pick: I don't deny it is happening, but I do not thing mankind's activities have anything to do with it. I think it is caused by the sun. This last sunspot cycle is proof positive of that. But the environazis will deny it. They want to blame people for it. Because that's what they do.


Thank you for that peer-reviewed study of your feelings. Very insightful.
 
2013-09-30 11:34:20 AM

Lionel Mandrake: 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?


Only if you're one of those tree hugging hippy types.
 
2013-09-30 11:34:44 AM

Garet Garrett: A single disagreeing report invalidates the hypothesis?


There have actually been several papers.
 
2013-09-30 11:35:17 AM

xria: If by "a very long time" you mean before the early classical philosophy of the Greeks (at the latest):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


Fart_Machine: Um the Greeks knew the world was spherical since Pythagoras.


I love that using an example to illustrate how the scientific process works turned into a pedantic argument over what exact historical time period I was referring to.  What goes through your head when you post?  Was it something like "Haha!  If he was talking about people believing in a flat earth during the middle ages, then I proved global warming correct!"
 
2013-09-30 11:35:45 AM

bigevildan: In this case the risk of creating more Matrix sequels is too high


That's true.  Can you imagine how bad sequels to the Matrix might have been?
 
2013-09-30 11:37:35 AM

lennavan: My link works. You should have clicked it --


To be fair I couldn't get it work either (it says the article is not available) however a simple Google search turns up much of the same information.
 
2013-09-30 11:38:01 AM

wildcardjack: I don't deny climate change, and I'm open to the idea that we're causing it, but the track record of interventionist governance (war on drugs, war on poverty, the fed's Keynesian policies) leave me sure the result of a "war on climate" will either result in Mad Max or polar bears being a threat in Delaware as glaciers grind New York smooth.


However we were very successful at removing "ambient" lead with environmental policy change. The concern about HFC's also was a rousing success in policy actually leading to improvements.  Let's not forget the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act too.

Granted, these are national initiatives. A global initiative is much stickier.
 
2013-09-30 11:38:43 AM
Pick: Look, guys, I don't have a science degree and I'm not a scientist.  But either you agree with my unsubstantiated scientific opinion or you are an Environazi.

Tough choice, can I get back to you?
 
2013-09-30 11:39:15 AM
I KNOW it is caused by the sun. The sun generates all the heat for this planet. I see all these so called college students don't know this. Do they not teach astrophysics and astronomy in college these days?

Another group of misinformed, low information liberals, drinking the kool aide. Sad, very sad.
 
2013-09-30 11:41:21 AM

Pick: [herp derp]


Ugh.  Another one.

/plonk
 
2013-09-30 11:41:44 AM

MindStalker: wildcardjack: I don't deny climate change, and I'm open to the idea that we're causing it, but the track record of interventionist governance (war on drugs, war on poverty, the fed's Keynesian policies) leave me sure the result of a "war on climate" will either result in Mad Max or polar bears being a threat in Delaware as glaciers grind New York smooth.

Did you live through the smog and excessive pollution of the 70s/80s. The EPA efforts there have made substantial improvements to the environment. Sure we're now dealing with a global instead of local pollutant.


You missed the part where a modern computer controlled, fuel injected engine has to run richer than absolutely necessary to keep the cat hot enough to operate and dump 5-10% of the horsepower to run the smog pump. Some European countries have figured this out and tossed out the mandated installation of catalytic convertors and went with tail pipe allowables.

But telling people they couldn't just dump crap on the ground is a via negativa approach, not the interventionist approach of telling them the one and only way to handle the crap.
 
2013-09-30 11:42:14 AM

Pick: I KNOW it is caused by the sun. The sun generates all the heat for this planet. I see all these so called college students don't know this. Do they not teach astrophysics and astronomy in college these days?

Another group of misinformed, low information liberals, drinking the kool aide. Sad, very sad.


Where did you get your kool aide from, my liberal friend?
 
2013-09-30 11:45:16 AM

Uncle Tractor: Should I believe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying making huge fortunes onthe climate, or should I believe the people who are making huge fortunes on fossil fuel not fabricating or omitting data that doesn't fit their narrative...? Decisions, decisions ...



FTFY
 
2013-09-30 11:48:41 AM

joeshill: A slightly better presentation:
[img.fark.net image 830x519]



Hey, what's this showing all the data thing you're doing?! Don't you know it's not good science to include all of the data?! At least that's the consensus.
 
2013-09-30 11:48:51 AM

lennavan: xria: If by "a very long time" you mean before the early classical philosophy of the Greeks (at the latest):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Fart_Machine: Um the Greeks knew the world was spherical since Pythagoras.

I love that using an example to illustrate how the scientific process works turned into a pedantic argument over what exact historical time period I was referring to.  What goes through your head when you post?  Was it something like "Haha!  If he was talking about people believing in a flat earth during the middle ages, then I proved global warming correct!"


What are you on about?  The point was that it wasn't widely accepted scientific theory that the world was flat.  It was accepted church theory but that's not the same thing.
 
2013-09-30 11:49:19 AM

wildcardjack: MindStalker: wildcardjack: I don't deny climate change, and I'm open to the idea that we're causing it, but the track record of interventionist governance (war on drugs, war on poverty, the fed's Keynesian policies) leave me sure the result of a "war on climate" will either result in Mad Max or polar bears being a threat in Delaware as glaciers grind New York smooth.

Did you live through the smog and excessive pollution of the 70s/80s. The EPA efforts there have made substantial improvements to the environment. Sure we're now dealing with a global instead of local pollutant.

You missed the part where a modern computer controlled, fuel injected engine has to run richer than absolutely necessary to keep the cat hot enough to operate and dump 5-10% of the horsepower to run the smog pump. Some European countries have figured this out and tossed out the mandated installation of catalytic convertors and went with tail pipe allowables.

But telling people they couldn't just dump crap on the ground is a via negativa approach, not the interventionist approach of telling them the one and only way to handle the crap.


How can you think this reply addresses the point?
 
2013-09-30 11:53:48 AM

Mikey1969: 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.



No it wasn't the hottest summer.and neither was this summer. Hard as this may be to believe the media lies and misleads because they are pushing an agenda.

I astounds me that people people still believe what they hear from the media.
 
2013-09-30 11:55:17 AM

AndEhBus: I astounds me that people people still believe what they hear from the media.


Yeah, why aren't they listening to your completely citation-free, anonymous internet comments instead?
 
2013-09-30 11:55:45 AM
If i had a TARDIS, I would go back to just before Wally Broecker coined the term Global Warming and kick him in the johnson for not using the term climate change.
 
2013-09-30 11:57:16 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.


What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?
 
2013-09-30 11:59:09 AM

hoo_hoo_fred: If i had a TARDIS, I would go back to just before Wally Broecker coined the term Global Warming and kick him in the johnson for not using the term climate change.


Doesn't matter.  It was going to meet this level of resistance/propaganda no matter what it was called.  It's the same driving force that motivates the Young Earthers to constantly try to erode public confidence in evolution.  There's no stopping it.
 
2013-09-30 11:59:23 AM

AndEhBus: Mikey1969: 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.


No it wasn't the hottest summer.and neither was this summer. Hard as this may be to believe the media lies and misleads because they are pushing an agenda.

I astounds me that people people still believe what they hear from the media.


http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130806_stateoftheclimate. ht ml

NOAA is not "the media."

What "astounds" me (really it doesn't, you and I both know you're using your incredulity to delude yourself into sounding authoritative) is how many people simply dismiss the media as their whole argument without any other concern.  Just about the laziest thinking out there.
 
2013-09-30 11:59:26 AM

Garet Garrett: give me doughnuts: When oceans absorb heat, doesn't that make them warmer?
And aren't these oceans on Earth?

Just how stupid is the person who wrote this article?

Isn't the earth's core part of the earth?  Aren't they failing to measure temperature changes there?  Wouldn't that affect the outcome of whether the earth is warmer or cooler?

Just how stupid is the person who wrote that question?



And now we know what Michael Bastach's Fark handle is.
 
2013-09-30 12:01:46 PM

AndEhBus: What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling.


It was "global dimming", which was the very real effect of sulfate aerosols pumped into the stratosphere by industrial pollution.  The effect was to reduce the amount of sulfate pollution being pumped into the stratosphere by industry.  Any other scientific successes you want to use to undermine your point?
 
2013-09-30 12:03:26 PM

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

What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?


No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.
 
2013-09-30 12:04:04 PM

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

What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?


Not this stupid shait again.
 
2013-09-30 12:04:36 PM

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


That's why I steal eat lead paint chips in the morning as a breakfast cereal.
 
2013-09-30 12:05:55 PM

AndEhBus: Uncle Tractor: Should I believe the people who have dedicated their lives to studying making huge fortunes onthe climate, or should I believe the people who are making huge fortunes on fossil fuel not fabricating or omitting data that doesn't fit their narrative...? Decisions, decisions ...


FTFY


itsaconspiracy.jpg
 
2013-09-30 12:06:26 PM

AndEhBus: joeshill: A slightly better presentation:
[img.fark.net image 830x519]


Hey, what's this showing all the data thing you're doing?! Don't you know it's not good science to include all of the data?! At least that's the consensus.


Yeah, well, I think that's part of the problem.

In a lot of the sciences, there are huge knock down drag out fights about every theory and hypothesis.  "You're an idiot!  Look at this data!" "You're a moron, nobody can replicate your work!" (yeah, I know, huge exaggeration) and there's tremendous back and forth.  And eventually models emerge that try to explain what is happening.  Even then, people argue whether the model is valid at all.  (Look at string theory vs well, any other competing theory).  Or look at mathematical proofs.  People submit a proof, and then other people pick it apart looking for errors.  Hell, it's a mark of distinction that people bother to look at your stuff for errors.

And then we get to climate sciences.  In climate science, either you are part of the party line, or you are pariah.  Look at Judith Curry.  She was enormously respected and was generally in the "AGW is happening" camp.  After climategate, she began to change her opinion slightly. (Into a "maybe I should be looking at evidence" viewpoint) And since then, she's been cast as an outcast by the likes of realclimate and skepticalscience (they have dubbed her a "Climate Misinformer").

The field of climate science is highly politicized.  Either you are with the "in" group, or you are out.  That's not how I was taught that science is supposed to work.  Science is supposed to always be open to a challenge.  A model that works survives the challenge.  If not, then it gets replace by a new, or refined model.

Me, I still don't know where I fall in the whole climate change argument.  There's a lot of wackos on both sides.  And the more I look at data, the more questions I have.  Putting up straw man arguments only pisses me off (at both sides of the debate).
 
2013-09-30 12:06:34 PM

Uncle Tractor: 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 ...


As I understand it, the scientists working for the oil company are paid next to nothing whereas the climate scientists advocating the hoax are making $billions of dollars.
 
2013-09-30 12:08:14 PM

joeshill: In climate science, either you are part of the party line, or you are pariah. Look at Judith Curry. She was enormously respected and was generally in the "AGW is happening" camp. After climategate, she began to change her opinion slightly. (Into a "maybe I should be looking at evidence" viewpoint) And since then, she's been cast as an outcast by the likes of realclimate and skepticalscience (they have dubbed her a "Climate Misinformer").


I'll give you a chance to recognize the switch-up before giving you a hard time for it.
 
2013-09-30 12:09:17 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link


Best line from your link.

"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."
 
2013-09-30 12:09:43 PM

AndEhBus: What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling.


No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."

This was being pushed just as hard as global warming

No, it wasn't.

www.skepticalscience.com

 and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?
 
2013-09-30 12:10:24 PM

joeshill: In climate science, either you are part of the party line, or you are pariah.


Yup, just like the anti-vaxers.  Why don't we teach the controversy?
 
2013-09-30 12:12:04 PM

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

What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?

No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.


And the idea was often confused with Sagan's discussion of nuclear winter, which was part of a larger and much different critique of the Cold War, and some anomalous cold spells in the 1970s (I remember those as a kid).

But somehow people still think the greenhouse effect is "just a theory".
 
2013-09-30 12:18:53 PM

T-Servo: give me doughnuts: AndEhBus: Rev. Skarekroe: Look, if you can't be 100% sure about something, then you shouldn't do anything.  That's always the best policy.

What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?

No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.

And the idea was often confused with Sagan's discussion of nuclear winter, which was part of a larger and much different critique of the Cold War, and some anomalous cold spells in the 1970s (I remember those as a kid).

But somehow people still think the greenhouse effect is "just a theory".


But when you tell them gravity is just a theory, they get all confused and defensive
 
2013-09-30 12:19:13 PM
The truth.  Is that if it's real we won't do anything until... Wait... I got it.

Kiff - Sir..... It's an emergency!
upload.wikimedia.org
Zapp - Come back when it's a catastrophe.
*rumble*
Zapp - Oh, very well.
 
2013-09-30 12:21:08 PM

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?


Hmmmm

All these scientists seemed to have not bothered to explain the high school level science and math that went into their research.  Almost as though anyone with a brain would understand high school science and math, and know what things like stastical variance (math) and that real data doesn;'t line up on a graph like it does in seventh grade math class (science).

Damn, its almost like you didn't get past the 8th grade or you are deliberately ignoring reality to prove your political point!
 
2013-09-30 12:29:40 PM

give me doughnuts: T-Servo: give me doughnuts: AndEhBus: Rev. Skarekroe: Look, if you can't be 100% sure about something, then you shouldn't do anything.  That's always the best policy.

What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?

No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.

And the idea was often confused with Sagan's discussion of nuclear winter, which was part of a larger and much different critique of the Cold War, and some anomalous cold spells in the 1970s (I remember those as a kid).

But somehow people still think the greenhouse effect is "just a theory".

But when you tell them gravity is just a theory, they get all confused and defensive


Jesus invented gravity after he had Lazarus shot down with a Patriot missile.
 
2013-09-30 12:35:20 PM
The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

"Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean," Lindzen added. "However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans."


Hiding?! Are you farking kidding me? Does this moron (or should I say moran?) actually think heat has sentience?! (or more accurately, is trying to grasp at every straw possible so that the grant money from climate denial funding groups keeps coming in) Is it supposed to pop up one day and go, "Peek-a-boo!?"
 
2013-09-30 12:39:10 PM

T-Servo: give me doughnuts: T-Servo: give me doughnuts: AndEhBus: Rev. Skarekroe: Look, if you can't be 100% sure about something, then you shouldn't do anything.  That's always the best policy.

What if the actions you take make it worse? You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some. What if they are right and we going full-tilt to cool the planet and make a man-made ice age?

No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.

And the idea was often confused with Sagan's discussion of nuclear winter, which was part of a larger and much different critique of the Cold War, and some anomalous cold spells in the 1970s (I remember those as a kid).

But somehow people still think the greenhouse effect is "just a theory".

But when you tell them gravity is just a theory, they get all confused and defensive

Jesus invented gravity after he had Lazarus shot down with a Patriot missile.


Ad they're still looking for a way to make a profit from it like God intended, but the freeloader entitlement-sucking LIEberals want it to be FREE not to float off into space.
 
2013-09-30 12:43:40 PM

Ricardo Klement: 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.


There was another recent FARK thread about someone trying to "pump up" Romney's stock on Intrade just before the election.  If a market of this sort is taken seriously, then someone will find it worthwhile to buy a bunch of stock just to make the market temporarily trend a certain way.
 
2013-09-30 12:47:24 PM

joeshill: Whether you agree with it, or not, (and yes, I have serious questions about its methodology), if you are going to quote it to make a point, at least give accurate information from it. Which I did. The numbers I posted in my pie chart were directly from the SI of the study.


I still don't get your point. The original chart doesn't misrepresent the data its intended to convey. Only 3% of the studies found denied AGW.

The complaint about the way the Cook study is presented is that it typically is presented as "97% agree" when it's actually "97% that take a position agree". The majority of papers from the study are simply informational and do not attempt to assign a cause, as one would likely expect of most scientific papers on the subject.

The raw number presented at the start of the thread is not wrong and your pie chart only confirms it. The only real problem is that it didn't cite the study it pulled the soundbite from. Seems to me you're just trying to muddy the water by introducing additional partial information.
 
2013-09-30 12:48:53 PM

T-Servo: But somehow people still think the greenhouse effect is "just a theory".


Ayup.  I had classed people who deny that the planet is warming as "first order climate change deniers" and those who deny that humans are responsible as "second order climate change deniers", and then I had to go back and create the category "zero order climate change deniers" for those who do not believe in the greenhouse effect.
 
2013-09-30 12:53:44 PM

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 ...


Well, let's see.

FACT: There hasn't been any global warming the past 15 years.  Even the UN IPCC concedes so.

So should I go with the 13,950 that incorrectly predicted that or the 24 that correctly predicted that?  I'll go with the ones that ended up being right.

It isn't which one is the largest majority.  It is the one that is correct.
 
2013-09-30 12:55:15 PM
Lindzen is one of the star denialists because he is one of a very, very few who are actually qualified to speak of climate science. But he is a contrarian and has been roundly criticized, as have his theories on climate mitigating factors and climate sensitivity. He is invested in a couple theories of his own which run contrary to the strong consensus of his colleagues and which if correct would represent mitigating negative feedback against climate change, but if wrong would represent dangerous denial and delay to needed action.

So let me tell you a little story.

Sleeping Beauty, the Story that Disney and the MSM Doesn't Dare Tell


Once upon a time there was a rich and powerful young King and Queen. After many years without a child, the Queen finally produced a fine girl child. All of the great fairy Godmothers were invited to the Christening of the child except for one dark fairy godmother whom everybody agreed was much too haughty and touchy.

On the appointed day, the Fairy Godmothers leaned over the cradle of the beautiful baby girl and granted her the best blessings that they could think of, but one of them wisely held back to see what would happen. She was right, for the uninvited Fairy Godmother swarmed into the nursery like shadows at nightfall and cursed the Infanta in her cradle, saying that she would prick her finger on a defective climate model and would sleep forever in the arms of Death.

Everybody was horribly terrified and shocked at the Evil Fairy Godmother except for the one little Fairy Godmother who had held back and not given her blessing yet. As the Evil Fairy Godmother stomped out of the nursery, muttering about super-cirrus clouds, the little Fairy Godmother approached the Princess and gave her blessing: "You will prick your finger on a faulty climate model," she said, "but you will not die, nor you will sleep for ever, for a handsome prince will come and awaken you with a kiss, as those rape-artists are wont to do."

And so it came to pass.

When the Princess was a young woman, she found her way into an old Ivory Tower and there she found a faulty climate model being spun by an old witch, and the witch, as it happened, was the Evil Fairy Godmother in disguise. So the Princess pricked her finger despite the Universal Spinning Ban Treaty and fell into a temporary plateau that could not be explained by existing theory despite the ongoing record high temperatures that year and every year of the Princess' short life.

The kingdom was in mourning, so they gathered the poor Princess up and put her in a glass museum case, and were all bored to sleep by lectures from engineers and medical doctors and petroleum geologists who all thought of themselves as scientists although they were mere weather men and girls with bells on their pyed dancing outfits like jesters. In other words, people who played scientist on the TV news and Fox rants.

And so the Princess slept until a handsome prince came along and hacked his way through the lies and briars of fossil fuel industry propaganda and science-hackery that had surrounded the science until it could no longer be seen from the road, and kissed the Princess like the Jaws of Life.

And the Princess woke and saw the handsome princess and together they woke up everybody but it was too late and a category six hurricane took out Washington, DC and the coast as far North as New York and as far South as Savannah, Georgia, and they all lived unhappily ever after, because even the Conservatives never realized what they had in liberal and democratic Washington until it was gone.
 
2013-09-30 12:56:30 PM

SlothB77: 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 ...

Well, let's see.

FACT: There hasn't been any global warming the past 15 years.  Even the UN IPCC concedes so.

So should I go with the 13,950 that incorrectly predicted that or the 24 that correctly predicted that?  I'll go with the ones that ended up being right.

It isn't which one is the largest majority.  It is the one that is correct.


Everyone point and laugh.

meanjoefunstory.com
 
2013-09-30 12:58:47 PM

brantgoose: Once upon a time there was a rich and powerful young King and Queen


WTF am i reading?
 
2013-09-30 12:59:02 PM

SlothB77: FACT: There hasn't been any global warming the past 15 years. Even the UN IPCC concedes so.


Where do they concede this?
 
2013-09-30 01:02:48 PM
Climate change + GMO = Alien invasion by terraforming.

Okay, SyFy get to it.
 
2013-09-30 01:02:50 PM

skozlaw: joeshill: Whether you agree with it, or not, (and yes, I have serious questions about its methodology), if you are going to quote it to make a point, at least give accurate information from it. Which I did. The numbers I posted in my pie chart were directly from the SI of the study.

I still don't get your point. The original chart doesn't misrepresent the data its intended to convey. Only 3% of the studies found denied AGW.

The complaint about the way the Cook study is presented is that it typically is presented as "97% agree" when it's actually "97% that take a position agree". The majority of papers from the study are simply informational and do not attempt to assign a cause, as one would likely expect of most scientific papers on the subject.

The raw number presented at the start of the thread is not wrong and your pie chart only confirms it. The only real problem is that it didn't cite the study it pulled the soundbite from. Seems to me you're just trying to muddy the water by introducing additional partial information.


If you make the argument that the original quoted presentation was fair and accurate, then it opens the other side up to make the equally fair statement:

11944 Peer-Reviewed Climate Change Articles - only 64 Agree with IPCC's Assessment that man is mostly to blame.

img.fark.net 


Both statements are accurate (well, the total number is 11944, not 13 thousand, but other than that).  But both are misleading.  Both are intended to present a very large number next to a very small number to push a point.
 
2013-09-30 01:04:59 PM
You keep saying that, with warmer climate, the waters of the oceans will be getting higher, but for the past several hours I've been watching the water recede from the beach. Obviously, you need to rethink your whole "global warming" schtick, Mister So-Called Scientist.
 
2013-09-30 01:06:45 PM
SlothB77:  There hasn't been any global warming the past 15 years. Even the UN IPCC concedes so.

img.fark.net
 
2013-09-30 01:12:09 PM

neversubmit: Climate change + GMO = Alien invasion by terraforming.

Okay, SyFy get to it.


Story's already been written.

/but no need for aliens, it's scarier when we do it
 
2013-09-30 01:13:40 PM

SlothB77: 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 ...

Well, let's see.

FACT: There hasn't been any global warming the past 15 years.  Even the UN IPCC concedes so.

So should I go with the 13,950 that incorrectly predicted that or the 24 that correctly predicted that?  I'll go with the ones that ended up being right.

It isn't which one is the largest majority.  It is the one that is correct.


Here is a helpful link for you:

http://climatekids.nasa.gov/climate-change-evidence/
 
2013-09-30 01:19:04 PM

flondrix: T-Servo: But somehow people still think the greenhouse effect is "just a theory".

Ayup.  I had classed people who deny that the planet is warming as "first order climate change deniers" and those who deny that humans are responsible as "second order climate change deniers", and then I had to go back and create the category "zero order climate change deniers" for those who do not believe in the greenhouse effect.


There is a whole spectrum of skepticism.

1) People who do not believe in the Greenhouse effect.  (I've never seen any of these, but we can include them for the sake of argument.)
2) People who do not believe the earth is warming.  (This can range for any number of reasons, from data error, poor proxy selection, data adjustment, whatever)
3) People who do not believe the earth is warming outside of natural variability. (This relies on historical proxy data, which goes back to proxy selection)
4) People who do not believe the earth is warming due to the influence of man. (This relates to mans contribution of CO2 (29 GTons) to the atmosphere vs natural contribution (750GTons) to the atmosphere)
5) People who do not believe the earth is warming mainly due to the influence of man. (See above, but arguing that natural variability plays a large part in the warming, and that man is contributing only a small portion of the warming)
6) People who do not believe that the rate of warming is as high as some have predicted (what is the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in atmospheric CO2?  Estimates range from 0.5-6 Deg C.  IPCC calls 1.5-4.5 likely.  But they called 1.5-6 likely last time.  At 1.5 Deg/doubling, and a doubling from 400ppm taking anywhere between 300-500 years, we're looking at a range of warming between .3C to 1.5C / century.)
6) People who do not believe that the impact of warming is altogether detrimental (Increased temperate zone vs possible sea level rise)
7) People who do not believe that the costs of warming outweigh the cost to prevent warming.
8) People who do not believe that the cost of mitigating effects outweigh the cost to prevent warming.  (Can we spend less money in the future to cope with the problem, if the earth is warmer than we would spend now in preventing warming altogether).

I'm sure I've missed several stops along the range.  All of these steps are some mix of science and politics.  And there are a lot of people who have investment along the way.
 
2013-09-30 01:23:28 PM

Mikey1969: Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it?


Where the fark do you live? There were like 1600 record cold temperatures in the U.S. this summer. In the mid-Atlantic it got above 90 maybe 20 times.
 
2013-09-30 01:25:09 PM

T-Servo: neversubmit: Climate change + GMO = Alien invasion by terraforming.

Okay, SyFy get to it.

Story's already been written.

/but no need for aliens, it's scarier when we do it


More like "The Arrival" with Charlie Sheen.
 
2013-09-30 01:28:09 PM
Wow, there sure are a lot of scientists on fark.com!
 
2013-09-30 01:30:57 PM

Triumph: Mikey1969: Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it?

Where the fark do you live? There were like 1600 record cold temperatures in the U.S. this summer. In the mid-Atlantic it got above 90 maybe 20 times.



Last summer was 8th or 9th globally, but 1st for North America.
This year has had (in my locality) a very mild winter followed by a cooler than normal summer. It will be interesting to see how it averages out, and compares to other years.
 
2013-09-30 01:37:09 PM

Triumph: Mikey1969: Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it?

Where the fark do you live? There were like 1600 record cold temperatures in the U.S. this summer. In the mid-Atlantic it got above 90 maybe 20 times.


This was as of July 24. It didn't cool down until last week.


SALT LAKE CITY -- Salt Lake City is in the midst of a scorching summer already among the hottest in history.
The city has registered 16 days of triple digit temperatures this year, the latest coming Tuesday when the temperature gauge nudged up to 100 degrees.

That's already the fifth-most on record for the northern Utah region that has historically averaged a mere five 100-degree days a year. With a month more of searing heat left, the summer of 2013 could climb up the list.


http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/07/24/utah-summer-heat-pace-set -r ecord

Here's another article on our summer...

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56649691-78/summer-average-degree- de grees.html.csp
 
2013-09-30 01:40:31 PM

give me doughnuts: T-Servo: neversubmit: Climate change + GMO = Alien invasion by terraforming.

Okay, SyFy get to it.

Story's already been written.

/but no need for aliens, it's scarier when we do it

More like "The Arrival" with Charlie Sheen.


Or They Live, or the last season of Fringe, or....

But yeah we get the point.
 
2013-09-30 01:40:45 PM
Never contradict the high priests of academia.
They're never wrong and they're IRREFUTABLE.
There is no rhetorical technique they won't use to make you look like a monkey.

Interglacial warming, how werk it.
 
2013-09-30 01:41:12 PM

give me doughnuts: Triumph: Mikey1969: Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it?

Where the fark do you live? There were like 1600 record cold temperatures in the U.S. this summer. In the mid-Atlantic it got above 90 maybe 20 times.


Last summer was 8th or 9th globally, but 1st for North America.
This year has had (in my locality) a very mild winter followed by a cooler than normal summer. It will be interesting to see how it averages out, and compares to other years.


I'm in Ottawa Canada and I've been seeing every increasing heat records for the past decade.  I remember when you use to beat a heat record, is was from the 1800's or 1950's or 1970's or something.  Now, when you beat a heat record it is most commonly from the last 4 or 5 years, frequently the previous year which seems pretty interesting to me.

This summer, Canada had the largest flood in its history in Alberta and Vancouver went the whole month of July without rain.  If you don't know Vancouver, basically, a whole month without rain never happened before in recorded history.
 
2013-09-30 01:41:56 PM
DENIER!

If she sinks, she's innocent!
If she floats, SHE'S A WITCH!
 
2013-09-30 01:45:01 PM

texanb4: Garet Garrett: We have an entire industry that is 100% dependent on responsible for climate change

True that.

[www.geologinternational.com image 697x401]


See Conoco Philips on your list there? They completely bankrolled CNN's global warming scaremonger series "Planet in Peril" in 2007. Al Gore just got a $100 million from Qatar - oil money straight in his pocket. Usually it's not as direct as that, but the money behind AGW research often comes from big oil. It's called profit protection. Strip away the controls by the cartels and the various propaganda efforts and a gallon of gas would never have cost more than a buck.
 
2013-09-30 01:50:42 PM

Triumph: texanb4: Garet Garrett: We have an entire industry that is 100% dependent on responsible for climate change

True that.

[www.geologinternational.com image 697x401]

See Conoco Philips on your list there? They completely bankrolled CNN's global warming scaremonger series "Planet in Peril" in 2007. Al Gore just got a $100 million from Qatar - oil money straight in his pocket. Usually it's not as direct as that, but the money behind AGW research often comes from big oil. It's called profit protection. Strip away the controls by the cartels and the various propaganda efforts and a gallon of gas would never have cost more than a buck.


This is exactly right.

If you had a product that everyone used and that product was subject to wild market fluctuations and economic vagaries, but the entire world was addicted to it, wouldn't you prefer your product be regulated and dosages controlled on an indefinite basis by governments? Hint: Carbon controls.
It's about time people caught on.
 
2013-09-30 01:54:35 PM

give me doughnuts: FTA: The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

When oceans absorb heat, doesn't that make them warmer?


Yes, but it warms the surface less, because the heat is going into the depths, not hanging around near the surface.
 
2013-09-30 01:57:34 PM

mrshowrules: give me doughnuts: Triumph: Mikey1969: Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it?

Where the fark do you live? There were like 1600 record cold temperatures in the U.S. this summer. In the mid-Atlantic it got above 90 maybe 20 times.


Last summer was 8th or 9th globally, but 1st for North America.
This year has had (in my locality) a very mild winter followed by a cooler than normal summer. It will be interesting to see how it averages out, and compares to other years.

I'm in Ottawa Canada and I've been seeing every increasing heat records for the past decade.  I remember when you use to beat a heat record, is was from the 1800's or 1950's or 1970's or something.  Now, when you beat a heat record it is most commonly from the last 4 or 5 years, frequently the previous year which seems pretty interesting to me.

This summer, Canada had the largest flood in its history in Alberta and Vancouver went the whole month of July without rain.  If you don't know Vancouver, basically, a whole month without rain never happened before in recorded history.


We still get a lot of high temperature records from the summer of 1936, and a lot of records for cold temperatures in November and December from the same year. Follow that with the wettest January on record, and massive flooding in January and February of 1937, and it makes for a very farked up year for weather.
 
2013-09-30 02:03:33 PM

joeshill: In climate science, either you are part of the party line, or you are pariah.  Look at Judith Curry.  She was enormously respected and was generally in the "AGW is happening" camp.  After climategate, she began to change her opinion slightly. (Into a "maybe I should be looking at evidence" viewpoint) And since then, she's been cast as an outcast by the likes of realclimate and skepticalscience (they have dubbed her a "Climate Misinformer").


Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.
 
2013-09-30 02:06:34 PM

Ambitwistor: joeshill: In climate science, either you are part of the party line, or you are pariah.  Look at Judith Curry.  She was enormously respected and was generally in the "AGW is happening" camp.  After climategate, she began to change her opinion slightly. (Into a "maybe I should be looking at evidence" viewpoint) And since then, she's been cast as an outcast by the likes of realclimate and skepticalscience (they have dubbed her a "Climate Misinformer").

Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.


Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".
 
2013-09-30 02:07:25 PM
Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.
 
2013-09-30 02:08:25 PM

Ambitwistor: Yes, but it warms the surface less, because the heat is going into the depths, not hanging around near the surface.


Because as everyone knows, heat sinks.
 
2013-09-30 02:08:39 PM
joeshill:

6) People who do not believe that the rate of warming is as high as some have predicted (what is the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in atmospheric CO2?  Estimates range from 0.5-6 Deg C.  IPCC calls 1.5-4.5 likely.  But they called 1.5-6 likely last time.

They had 1.4-4.5 in the first three assessment reports, 2-4.5 in the last assessment report, and back to 1.5-4.5 in the latest report.  (However, they have only used language like "likely" with a specific meaning since the last report.)
 
2013-09-30 02:11:21 PM

Ambitwistor: joeshill:

6) People who do not believe that the rate of warming is as high as some have predicted (what is the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in atmospheric CO2?  Estimates range from 0.5-6 Deg C.  IPCC calls 1.5-4.5 likely.  But they called 1.5-6 likely last time.

They had 1.4-4.5 in the first three assessment reports, 2-4.5 in the last assessment report, and back to 1.5-4.5 in the latest report.  (However, they have only used language like "likely" with a specific meaning since the last report.)


You're right.  It was 2-4.5 in the last report.

While they do use the word "likely", they also make the footnote:
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on
values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. "
 
2013-09-30 02:15:13 PM
joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".


I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?
 
2013-09-30 02:19:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.



That the climate changes for different reasons and at different times does not mean that some changes aren't caused by us, nor does it mean that said changes can't have serious, negative consequences.

One can use fire as an analogy - that fires have always existed does not mean that someone can't burn your house down, with negative consequences.
 
2013-09-30 02:23:00 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.


Under normal conditions, the climate changes very gradually. These aren't normal conditions. We've 5500 years of cooling undone in less than a century.There have been other times when the global climate changed that rapidly, but only after something like an asteroid/comet strike or massive amounts of vulcanism.
 
2013-09-30 02:30:19 PM

Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?


Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?


If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 02:32:01 PM

joeshill: There is a whole spectrum of skepticism.

1) People who do not believe in the Greenhouse effect. (I've never seen any of these, but we can include them for the sake of argument.)
2) People who do not believe the earth is warming. (This can range for any number of reasons, from data error, poor proxy selection, data adjustment, whatever)
3) People who do not believe the earth is warming outside of natural variability. (This relies on historical proxy data, which goes back to proxy selection)
4) People who do not believe the earth is warming due to the influence of man. (This relates to mans contribution of CO2 (29 GTons) to the atmosphere vs natural contribution (750GTons) to the atmosphere)
5) People who do not believe the earth is warming mainly due to the influence of man. (See above, but arguing that natural variability plays a large part in the warming, and that man is contributing only a small portion of the warming)
6) People who do not believe that the rate of warming is as high as some have predicted (what is the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in atmospheric CO2? Estimates range from 0.5-6 Deg C. IPCC calls 1.5-4.5 likely. But they called 1.5-6 likely last time. At 1.5 Deg/doubling, and a doubling from 400ppm taking anywhere between 300-500 years, we're looking at a range of warming between .3C to 1.5C / century.)
6) People who do not believe that the impact of warming is altogether detrimental (Increased temperate zone vs possible sea level rise)
7) People who do not believe that the costs of warming outweigh the cost to prevent warming.
8) People who do not believe that the cost of mitigating effects outweigh the cost to prevent warming. (Can we spend less money in the future to cope with the problem, if the earth is warmer than we would spend now in preventing warming altogether).


Don't forget 9) People who want to make money NOW and could not give a rat's ass what happens to generations.  There are A LOT of those.
 
2013-09-30 02:35:47 PM

SlothB77: brantgoose: Once upon a time there was a rich and powerful young King and Queen

WTF am i reading?

Sleeping Booty

from  Mother Brantgoose's Fairy Tales for Climate Change Deniers

Other titles in this series:

Snow White, Soot Black: The Role of particulate matter in Arctic ice decline

The Three Little Denialists and the Big Bad Wolf at the Door, talking denial from strawmen to stonewalling

Little Red Commie Hoaxer

Chicken Little and the Falling Stratospheric Measurements

The Three Wise Men of Gotham and Sea Level Rise

The Calico Cat and the Gingham Dog: the Role of China and America in climate change action prevention

The Three Polar Bears Go Extinct Due to Sea Ice Decline


I've got a thousand of 'em.
 
2013-09-30 02:37:53 PM

joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

6) People who do not believe that the rate of warming is as high as some have predicted (what is the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling in atmospheric CO2?  Estimates range from 0.5-6 Deg C.  IPCC calls 1.5-4.5 likely.  But they called 1.5-6 likely last time.

They had 1.4-4.5 in the first three assessment reports, 2-4.5 in the last assessment report, and back to 1.5-4.5 in the latest report.  (However, they have only used language like "likely" with a specific meaning since the last report.)

You're right.  It was 2-4.5 in the last report.

While they do use the word "likely", they also make the footnote:
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on
values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. "



Just to add onto this, note that they can't give a singular number for a best estimate, but assessed probability distributions are not equal throughout that range. Check out figure 10.20 (caution, large pdf) if you've got time.
 
2013-09-30 02:38:55 PM

joeshill: All of these steps are some mix of science and politics.


Actually, only steps 6-8 include what I'd call "political" components, where there are questions about what OUGHT be done, rather than merely scientific questions what IS happening. (Not that ought-preconceptions can't bias people's judgement for is-question evaluation; but minimizing that tendency is a large part of science as a body of anthropological practices.)

Fart_Machine: It's like when the anti-vax crowd quotes Andrew Wakefield.


Unlike Wakefield, however, Lindzen has only been caught massively screwing up on his math, rather than willfully falsifying data.

lennavan: I love that using an example to illustrate how the scientific process works turned into a pedantic argument over what exact historical time period I was referring to. What goes through your head when you post? Was it something like "Haha! If he was talking about people believing in a flat earth during the middle ages, then I proved global warming correct!"


I suspect it's more indirect -- something like "Hey, here's something which might be used to indicate that in general his understanding is not as good as he thinks, which might induce enough cognitive dissonance to trigger his re-examining his current ideas about other things". Alas, changing someone's mind is seldom that simple.

The First Four Katy Perry Albums: Wow, there sure are a lot of scientists on fark.com!


While there's a heck of a lot more (amateur) "science communicator" types than working scientists, my impression is that Fark's commentariat includes disproportionate number of professional researches in various scientific fields, compared to (say) the relative level in the US population overall.
 
2013-09-30 02:41:15 PM

joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.



A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.
 
2013-09-30 02:49:50 PM

Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.


I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>
 
2013-09-30 02:55:17 PM

joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.

I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>



Fair enough! How about 'said some things very publically and prominently that were really unsupported by the evidence'.
 
2013-09-30 03:00:39 PM

joeshill: If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).


And what, precisely, is "extreme" about the example you gave?

Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.

It sounds like you haven't even read the criticisms of her that you're complaining about.

She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.

That's a highly amusing interpretation of what she has actually said, and one that sounds pretty much like a "party line" itself.
 
2013-09-30 03:05:15 PM

joeshill: There is a whole spectrum of skepticism.

1) People who do not believe in the Greenhouse effect. (I've never seen any of these, but we can include them for the sake of argument.)


The amount of deliberate ignorance needed to deny the existance of the greenhouse effect pales in comparison to that needed to believe that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old--and we have those folks serving on the House science committee.
 
2013-09-30 03:05:56 PM

Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.

I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>


Fair enough! How about 'said some things very publically and prominently that were really unsupported by the evidence'.


Well, do we want to start comparing "unsupported by the evidence"  Like upside-down Tijander Varve proxies?

Scientists make errors.  If the only unforgivable errors are crossing the party line, then we've stopped talking about science, and we're talking politics.

As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.
 
2013-09-30 03:22:23 PM

Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories hypotheses?


FTFY
 
2013-09-30 03:39:04 PM

joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.


Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.
 
2013-09-30 03:42:29 PM

mrshowrules: Curious why you need to be convinced


His name isn't "Joe's Hill", it's ________.
 
2013-09-30 03:46:44 PM

joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Damnhippyfreak: joeshill: Ambitwistor: joeshill:

Ambitwistor:   Newsflash:  when respected scientists start saying stupid things, especially in public, they're no longer respected by their peers.  This is not unique to climate science.  It is true that climate science is in the public eye, which is perhaps why other scientists feel compelled to point out that they're saying stupid things, as opposed to just quietly ignoring them as is common in most fields.

Yep.  That's how it worked for Lysenko and his "peers".

I'm having trouble parsing your sarcasm.  Are you seriously arguing that climate science is somehow unique in scientists losing respect among their peers when they say stupid things?  Especially after describing how contentious scientists are about each other's theories?

If you define disagreement with stupidity, then yes, climate science would be towards an extreme (maybe not unique, but not mainstream).  Judith Curry's sin was not saying "stupid" things.  She simply stopped accepting the party line as truth, and suggested the examination of evidence on its merits.


A bit of both. Curry said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence. One can of course suggest that one should examines the evidence on its merits, but what one finds when one actually does so also matters.

I think "said some things that were really unsupported by the evidence" can be said of just about every scientist at some time or another.  Across every discipline.  Einstein had his "God does not play dice."  I'm sure he still regrets that.  <g>


Fair enough! How about 'said some things very publically and prominently that were really unsupported by the evidence'.

Well, do we want to start comparing "unsupported by the evidence"  Like upside-down Tijander Varve proxies?


I'm unfamiliar with this issue, but you're more than welcome to discuss it if you wish.


joeshill: Scientists make errors.  If the only unforgivable errors are crossing the party line, then we've stopped talking about science, and we're talking politics.


There's errors, then there's errors made in interviews with the press - already somewhat outside of science, and well into the realm where politics dominates.


joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.


This is fair. I suggest getting your information from realms where there isn't any name-calling - the scientific literature, or as close to it as you can get.
 
2013-09-30 03:47:41 PM

Triumph: Mikey1969: Um, wasn't last summer the "hottest ever" until this summer topped it?

Where the fark do you live? There were like 1600 record cold temperatures in the U.S. this summer. In the mid-Atlantic it got above 90 maybe 20 times.



[ohjeeznotthisshiatagain.jpg]

The US covers less than 2% of the earth's surface. As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
 
2013-09-30 03:56:21 PM

mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.


Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.
 
2013-09-30 04:02:39 PM

joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.



Note that bare assertions are not solid arguments either.
 
2013-09-30 04:04:35 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Ambitwistor: Yes, but it warms the surface less, because the heat is going into the depths, not hanging around near the surface.

Because as everyone knows, heat sinks.



Because as everyone knows, thermohaline circulation is a myth.

Explanation here (if you have the bucks, the original article is here).
 
2013-09-30 04:06:57 PM
Can't link to original article. Here's the URL:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/nclimate1229.html
 
2013-09-30 04:08:51 PM

DarnoKonrad: What "astounds" me (really it doesn't, you and I both know you're using your incredulity to delude yourself into sounding authoritative) is how many people simply dismiss the media as their whole argument without any other concern.  Just about the laziest thinking out there.



You linked to a page that says 2012 was one of the warmest years. I contested that it was the hottest. From your comments I assumed you were going to prove me wrong not support my argument.
 
2013-09-30 04:12:08 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:


That is a nifty map.  Is it based on satellite or ground data?  I ask, because the oceans seem to be well covered, yet there are to pieces in the interior of South America and Africa respectively that lack data.  I can believe there being no weather stations in those places, but the Pacific and Siberia are well-covered.
 
2013-09-30 04:13:30 PM

joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.


In other words, lay people can have an opinion on the science because the subject is politicized.  If Gore made a movie about genetically engineered foods, we would have alot of GED biologists/geneticists filling the blogs today.

I suggest the science should not be politicized.  ACC is real.  Period.  Full stop.  What can and should be done about it (cost of energy) is when the politics should kick in and where the debate should begin.

Conservatives calling ACC a hoax for over a decade has delayed the real and important debate about what if anything could/should be done about it.  A much more complex question than the reality of ACC itself.
 
2013-09-30 04:17:11 PM
AndEhBus: You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."


give me doughnuts: No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.



Nice to see you both have the same template to following. Need to work on your phony statistics though.
 
2013-09-30 04:18:42 PM

give me doughnuts: Jesus invented gravity after he had Lazarus shot down with a Patriot missile.

Ad they're still looking for a way to make a profit from it like God intended, but the freeloader entitlement-sucking LIEberals want it to be FREE not to float off into space.


Actually, I think there is a poor country somewhere in the Himalayan mountains that is exploiting gravity for profit.  They have little in the way of natural resources, but plenty of topography, so they built more hydro power capacity than their nation needs and are selling the surplus.
 
2013-09-30 04:27:58 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.


According to several of you in these threads, it hasn't changed since 1998.

/deliver my internets when you can
 
2013-09-30 04:33:41 PM

mrshowrules: joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.

There are very few scientific topics that are hotly debated and also have the potential to affect peoples lives in a real way.  If the earth warms by 2 degrees in the next hundred years, that doesn't affect me much.  But if energy doubles or triples in price in order to meet specific carbon caps, that does affect me a lot.  Before I want to get onboard for such a large expense, I'd like to know that the people asking me to make the sacrifice can make a solid case for it.

Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.

In other words, lay people can have an opinion on the science because the subject is politicized.  If Gore made a movie about genetically engineered foods, we would have alot of GED biologists/geneticists filling the blogs today.

I suggest the science should not be politicized.  ACC is real.  Period.  Full stop.  What can and should be done about it (cost of energy) is when the politics should kick in and where the debate should begin.

Conservatives calling AC ...


I'd ask you to define "lay people".   I've seen the argument made that statisticians like Steve McIntyre have no place in the Global Warming debate because he is not a "climatologist".

As far as GM foods goes, I think that we all have a stake in that too.  Every farmer who has to worry about being sued by Monsanto because his crops got cross contaminated and now Monsanto wants him to pay royalties.  Every organic farmer who is trying to keep from inadvertently getting cross-contaminated.   The overwhelming fact that more and more we are growing less variety in favor of standardized varieties, which leave us more open when a new threat to that particular species occurs.

I would welcome scientists not politicizing their science.  But people like James Hansen and Michael Mann have crossed that line long ago.   It's a genie that won't go back into the bottle.
 
2013-09-30 04:33:55 PM
Here are my thoughts on global warming:

As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.

Unfortunately, I cannot determine myself whether the earth is getting warmer or colder. Unfortunately, Liberals have taken the potential for man-made climate disruptions and turned them into a political tool to advance their agenda and grow the government. What's worse, the media has followed lock-step. Together they are working tirelessly to advance their global warming agenda. Not to save the world but to grow government and increase government regulation in our lives. There have been numerous examples of the manipulation of data. This is done via manipulation,  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoro u ghly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice or omitting temperature readings altogether.  http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud- e xpands-part-1/

The article referenced by the subby is another example. Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play. It would be beneficial if everyone called out the dishonesty and ridiculed those practicing it. Instead they are defended and the people who call them out are called fringe even though they may be correct. All of this politicizing of the issue ensures that if Global warming is real people will always oppose it from a political standpoint. If global warming is not real, we will be wasting trillions of dollars and potentially many lives.

Finally, if global warming is real, and Liberals are really in this to save the world. Let's find a solution that doesn't benefit them politically speaking. It seems the end result they want is more taxes. If this real and they aren't just using this for their agenda they should approach it with politically neutral solutions. Start with strict carbon caps not taxes just limits. No profiteering from it. Something tells me we wouldn't be hearing about global warming if that was the case.
 
2013-09-30 04:36:20 PM

joeshill: mrshowrules: joeshill: As I said, after 20 years of watching this debate, I'm still unconvinced of either side.  It would help if the side claiming the moral/scientific high ground didn't resort to name calling so often.

Are you a climatologist?

Curious why you need to be convinced.  What is your position on the toxicity levels for lead in drinking water, do you question the way Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory handles infinities or perhaps whether or not near-Earth asteroid 433 Eros will collide with earth.

I just find it funny that this particular science gets to be questioned by the general public but that that they pretty much take the word of the scientific community on every other scientific subject.

Not a climatologist.  Just an interesting topic.

None of the other topics you've mention seem at all hotly contested.  Climate science is.  And the debate is personally interesting to me.


From the journal Science:

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."


Name calling, and elitism are not solid arguments.  A lot of what seems to pass for climate science seems to me to fail at basic statistics.


So you've read a lot of those scientific papers, have you? Which ones in particular did you find lacking in basic statistics?
 
2013-09-30 04:38:35 PM
Just one piece of data NOAA got caught altering:
img.fark.net

NOAA Fraud:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud -e xpands-part-1/
 
2013-09-30 04:56:03 PM

Triumph: texanb4: Garet Garrett: We have an entire industry that is 100% dependent on responsible for climate change

True that.

[www.geologinternational.com image 697x401]

See Conoco Philips on your list there? They completely bankrolled CNN's global warming scaremonger series "Planet in Peril" in 2007. Al Gore just got a $100 million from Qatar - oil money straight in his pocket. Usually it's not as direct as that, but the money behind AGW research often comes from big oil. It's called profit protection. Strip away the controls by the cartels and the various propaganda efforts and a gallon of gas would never have cost more than a buck.


You're including Gore and his partners selling his cable network to Al Jazeera as part of the great Global Warming Conspiracy? I should have invested in aluminum foil.
 
2013-09-30 05:00:35 PM

AndEhBus: AndEhBus: You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."

give me doughnuts: No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.


Nice to see you both have the same template to following. Need to work on your phony statistics though.


Yes, most people understand you're using old BS talking points that are a few years old. Time to step up your game!
 
2013-09-30 05:09:57 PM

flondrix: common sense is an oxymoron: As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:

That is a nifty map.  Is it based on satellite or ground data?  I ask, because the oceans seem to be well covered, yet there are to pieces in the interior of South America and Africa respectively that lack data.  I can believe there being no weather stations in those places, but the Pacific and Siberia are well-covered.



MLOST combines ground data from weather stations on land with satellite + buoy/ship reports for the oceans.
 
2013-09-30 06:13:19 PM

AndEhBus: Here are my thoughts on global warming:


I'm stoked.

AndEhBus: As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.



This is true.  It was significantly warmer a few weeks ago for instance.  Today is a nice 70F.  But I bet there will be SNOW on the ground in mere months.  Global warming my ass, amirite?

AndEhBus: Together they are working tirelessly to advance their global warming agenda. Not to save the world but to grow government and increase government regulation in our lives.



Yeah, that makes sense.  Liberals don't care about anything other than just generally growing government for no purpose at all.  That's not a loony opinion at all.

AndEhBus: There have been numerous examples of the manipulation of data. Here are two blogs proving it.



I get my scientific information from blogs too.

AndEhBus: Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play.



Thank you, good sir, for being the only honest one willing to post blogs and remind us the liberals just want to grow government for no reason whatsoever.  If only everyone was as honest as you.

AndEhBus: It would be beneficial if everyone called out the dishonesty and ridiculed those practicing it.



I would never ridicule people.

AndEhBus: Instead they are defended and the people who call them out are called fringe even though they may be correct


That never made sense to me.  Why is it, just because we know liberals are out to get us and want to grow government and tax us for no purpose whatsoever, we are considered fringe lunatics?  We're HEROES man, HEROES.

AndEhBus: If global warming is not real, we will be wasting trillions of dollars and potentially many lives.



Why don't liberals understand this?  If it turns out global warming is not real, people are going to DIE.  WAKE UP LIBS.  And it will waste trillions of dollars!  TRILLIONS.  Think about it.  We'll build what, lots of solar power plants or some shiat to get off of fossil fuels?  Mandate electric cars?  If global warming is false, those solar power plants are USELESS and those cars WONT WORK.  WAKE UP LIBS.

AndEhBus: It seems the end result they want is more taxes.



Definitely.  Most people don't notice this.  Global Warming is just a way for liberals to increase taxes.  Shiat, I once had a conversation with a liberal and the moment I even slightly admitted global warming might possibly be real dude stole my wallet.  What's up with that?  Can you imagine what they will do if we agree it's real?

AndEhBus: Finally, if global warming is real ... Start with strict carbon caps not taxes just limits. No profiteering from it. Something tells me we wouldn't be hearing about global warming if that was the case.

Exactly.  Liberals and their Prius filled fantasy worlds are in it for taxes, government and profits.  You don't see a single person making any money off of global warming remaining in question.  Cripes, libs act as if those are the most profitable companies in the world.

I like your honesty AndEhBus, you're the only decent guy here.
 
2013-09-30 06:20:54 PM

AndEhBus: Here are my thoughts on global warming:

As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.

Unfortunately, I cannot determine myself whether the earth is getting warmer or colder. Unfortunately, Liberals


[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]
 
2013-09-30 06:32:49 PM

AndEhBus: AndEhBus: You realize the last climate fad was global cooling. This was being pushed just as hard as global warming and believe it or not the church of global cooling is still be practiced by some.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."

give me doughnuts: No, it wasn't. It was one or two papers (kind of like the one this article is about), and Time magazine decided to put it on the cover.

Nice to see you both have the same template to following. Need to work on your phony statistics though.


Statistics?  I presented a simple fact - there were seven scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals during the 15 year period from 1965-1980 that discussed "global cooling", as opposed to several dozen which discussed global warming. This simple fact contradicts your silly talking point that "the last climate fad was global cooling" (Though I will admit that I mistakenly said 6, not 7)

Do you have any evidence that supports your position? Or that contradicts the facts I listed? I'd be happy to see your evidence. Or your admission that you were wrong. Or are you just going to change the subject to a different talking point? Because that what liars and denialists do. You're not one of those, are you? I mean, I would hate to find out that you are no different from all the Creationsists, AGW deniers and anti-vaxxers.
 
2013-09-30 06:52:25 PM

AndEhBus: Here are my thoughts on global warming:

As I understand it, the earth is either going into an ice-age or coming out of an ice-age. So common-sense tells me the earth either get's colder or warmer at any given time it doesn't stay the same.



The heat-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide are far better understood than the paleoclimatological record. And does your common sense tell you that natural climate change can make a 40% increase in a known greenhouse gas in just a couple of centuries irrelevant? If so, my handle has a few words for you.


Unfortunately, I cannot determine myself whether the earth is getting warmer or colder.


Fortunately, other people have thermometers, all over the world.
.

Unfortunately, Liberals have taken the potential for man-made climate disruptions and turned them into a political tool to advance their agenda and grow the government. What's worse, the media has followed lock-step. Together they are working tirelessly to advance their global warming agenda. Not to save the world but to grow government and increase government regulation in our lives. There have been numerous examples of the manipulation of data. This is done via manipulation,  http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoro u ghly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice or omitting temperature readings altogether.  http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud- e xpands-part-1/


A Newsbusters article which misinterprets the original article and posts a fake graph.

Their graph (y-axis labeling? what's that?):
newsbusters.org

Real graph:
upload.wikimedia.org

And a blog with pages like "1970s Global Cooling Scare" and "The Holocaust Began With Gun Control--After A Shooting," whose writer unsurprisingly seems to think that the US = the world.


The article referenced by the subby is another example. Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play. It would be beneficial if everyone called out the dishonesty and ridiculed those practicing it. Instead they are defended and the people who call them out are called fringe even though they may be correct. All of this politicizing of the issue ensures that if Global warming is real people will always oppose it from a political standpoint. If global warming is not real, we will be wasting trillions of dollars and potentially many lives.


Why will there always be political opposition, and who is doing the politicizing? As I posted in an earlier thread, what if An Inconvenient Truth had been written by someone other than a Democratic politician?

Trillions of dollars and "potentially" many lives? And "if" it is real, the political delays will increase the costs by more zeros (and more lives) than even your big-L-liberal-fueled nightmares could come up with.


Finally, if global warming is real, and Liberals are really in this to save the world. Let's find a solution that doesn't benefit them politically speaking.


And you accuse the "Liberals" of politicizing this...


It seems the end result they want is more taxes. If this real and they aren't just using this for their agenda they should approach it with politically neutral solutions. Start with strict carbon caps not taxes just limits. No profiteering from it. Something tells me we wouldn't be hearing about global warming if that was the case.


A carbon cap is meaningless without enforceability. Given the fossil-fuel industries' attempts to eliminate, or at least defund, existing environmental regulations, does anyone think they would voluntarily accept any penalties for exceeding a carbon cap? It's more likely that their lobbyists would push for making the recording of air-quality data from power plants a felony).
 
2013-09-30 06:57:35 PM

AndEhBus: Unfortunately, there is a lot of dishonesty at play.


That is truly the most accurate thing you said. Too bad you've misunderstood who's being dishonest.
 
2013-09-30 06:57:36 PM

lennavan: I'm stoked.


Have you reached your snark quota for the day? Or should we all join in so he'll feel compelled to hand you more ammunition?
 
2013-09-30 07:11:09 PM
This guy technically has a point, but in such a way that it misses the point.

Is human industrial emissions the  main contributor to climate change?  Eh, maybe.

Is it the only significant factor that humans have actual control over, with enough impact that we could make intentional changes for a mitigating effect?  Pretty much 100% on that one.
 
2013-09-30 07:36:18 PM

Pick: I KNOW it is caused by the sun. The sun generates all the heat for this planet. I see all these so called college students don't know this. Do they not teach astrophysics and astronomy in college these days?

Another group of misinformed, low information liberals, drinking the kool aide. Sad, very sad.



Without the sun, there's no global warming because we'd all be frozen.  Also, oxygen did 9/11.  Without it, there wouldn't have been any combustion.  The ignition of gunpowder is what has caused every gun death.  There's never any need to investigate things like this any further, because we already have all the answers.
 
2013-09-30 07:57:31 PM

Damnhippyfreak: HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.


That the climate changes for different reasons and at different times does not mean that some changes aren't caused by us, nor does it mean that said changes can't have serious, negative consequences.

One can use fire as an analogy - that fires have always existed does not mean that someone can't burn your house down, with negative consequences.


I cannot believe you actually believe I take anything you say seriously.
Seriously.
Give up.
Go get laid.
Have a beer.
 
2013-09-30 08:37:48 PM
FTFA:
"Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate."

Imagine how much more compelling the case would be if the climate was, you know, actually changing.
 
2013-09-30 08:39:23 PM

Uncle Tractor: 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 ...?


How about believing the, you know, actual scientific data?
 
2013-09-30 08:43:30 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: img.fark.net


Because that continuation of warming is juuuuuuuuuuuuust around the corner, amirite?

And as we all know, climate catastrophe delayed is climate catastrophe intensified.
 
2013-09-30 08:44:14 PM

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


This is why we need to get Pelosi and Gore, and smash their heads together.
 
2013-09-30 08:47:17 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: The US covers less than 2% of the earth's surface. As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:


...when compared to a cherrypicked cold reference datum.

It's only cherrypicking when THEY do it.
 
2013-09-30 08:50:13 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Damnhippyfreak: HotIgneous Intruder: Can anybody tell me a time when the climate was not changing?

I'll give you a million internets if you can.


That the climate changes for different reasons and at different times does not mean that some changes aren't caused by us, nor does it mean that said changes can't have serious, negative consequences.

One can use fire as an analogy - that fires have always existed does not mean that someone can't burn your house down, with negative consequences.

I cannot believe you actually believe I take anything you say seriously.
Seriously.
Give up.
Go get laid.
Have a beer.



Some things are true, even though you may not like who's telling it to you.
 
2013-09-30 08:50:39 PM

Jim_Callahan: This guy technically has a point, but in such a way that it misses the point.

Is human industrial emissions the  main contributor to climate change?  Eh, maybe.


What is the evidence for your position that anthropogenic forcings are not the dominant driver of the climatic change since ~1950? Because the evidence in favor is pretty easy to find. It's convincing enough to warrant an increase in confidence to 95%, which is as others have noted, comparable to our confidence that cigarettes cause cancer.

In the past, I think I've chastised you a bit for a kind of "both sides have a point, but"/fallacy of the golden mean stance that is in actuality at odds with the scientific evidence on this subject.

I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything, I'm just curious- why do you post this sort of thing? It clearly doesn't stem from a familiarity with the scientific literature. So what is the motivation?
 
2013-09-30 08:55:45 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: 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.


Considering he's having to "publish" his "papers" on his failed hypothesis in outlets like E+E, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, and the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" (YA RLY), I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
 
2013-09-30 09:07:07 PM

SevenizGud: ...when compared to a cherrypicked cold reference datum.


I'd love to see the mental gymnastics behind this. By all means, elaborate.
 
2013-09-30 09:36:33 PM

Fart_Machine: You're including Gore and his partners selling his cable network to Al Jazeera as part of the great Global Warming Conspiracy? I should have invested in aluminum foil.


When somebody sells a worthless channel getting 0.0 audience shares for $500 million - yeah, color me suspicious. That's exactly how political payoffs are done - right out in the open. Gore's richer than Romney now and I don't think either one of those guys could profitably manage a Quiznos.
 
2013-09-30 09:48:43 PM

Triumph: When somebody sells a worthless channel getting 0.0 audience shares for $500 million - yeah, color me suspicious.


He didn't get the money for the programming; he got the money for the channel.  You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?
 
2013-09-30 10:01:58 PM

Fart_Machine: Triumph: When somebody sells a worthless channel getting 0.0 audience shares for $500 million - yeah, color me suspicious.

He didn't get the money for the programming; he got the money for the channel.  You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?


Oh, so all the mismanaged unprofitable cable channels out there are automatically worth a half-billion, huh? I'm sure they're happy to know that. And clearly I'm the only one who thinks it's fishy.
 
2013-09-30 10:03:24 PM
Fark's filter threw away my link:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/opinion/kurtz-gore-al-jazeera/index.htm l
 
2013-09-30 10:11:02 PM

Triumph: Fart_Machine: Triumph: When somebody sells a worthless channel getting 0.0 audience shares for $500 million - yeah, color me suspicious.

He didn't get the money for the programming; he got the money for the channel.  You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

Oh, so all the mismanaged unprofitable cable channels out there are automatically worth a half-billion, huh? I'm sure they're happy to know that. And clearly I'm the only one who thinks it's fishy.


For access, as well as studios, personnel, and equipment for a major media operation in NYC it's probably cheaper than starting from scratch.  But I see Howard Kurtz of Fox is "concerned".
 
2013-09-30 10:22:11 PM

Fart_Machine: for a major media operation in NYC


Ask Keith Olbermann what a major media operation it was. You might have to wait 20 minutes for him to stop laughing.
 
2013-09-30 10:27:18 PM

Triumph: Fart_Machine: for a major media operation in NYC

Ask Keith Olbermann what a major media operation it was. You might have to wait 20 minutes for him to stop laughing.


Because his show couldn't draw an audience?  Just because you have access to millions of subscribers (on Time Warner alone) doesn't mean people want to see you.
 
2013-09-30 10:30:42 PM

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: The US covers less than 2% of the earth's surface. As for the rest of the planet, this is what summer 2013 looked like:

...when compared to a cherrypicked cold reference datum.

It's only cherrypicking when THEY do it.



It must be comforting to live in a fantasy world where a 30-year running mean is cherrypicking while choosing a specific record-setting El Nino year to start a timeline, then adjusting the length of the timeline instead of the start date, is Serious ScienceTM.
 
2013-09-30 11:13:05 PM

Fart_Machine: Triumph: Fart_Machine: for a major media operation in NYC

Ask Keith Olbermann what a major media operation it was. You might have to wait 20 minutes for him to stop laughing.

Because his show couldn't draw an audience?  Just because you have access to millions of subscribers (on Time Warner alone) doesn't mean people want to see you.


IIRC, his lawsuit accused Gore of being a "dilettante impersonating a media executive" or something to that effect. He said the main studio was like a broom closet with bad wiring and the lights went out a lot. I'll admit it's probably a pot/kettle thing, but ESPN still gave him a show in a prime slot, so maybe not.
 
2013-09-30 11:21:11 PM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
"Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate."

Imagine how much more compelling the case would be if the climate was, you know, actually changing.


See, more evidence that HotIgneous Intruder owes me some internets.

/also, for SevenizGud, what lack of warming?
 
2013-09-30 11:33:19 PM

flondrix: joeshill: There is a whole spectrum of skepticism.

1) People who do not believe in the Greenhouse effect. (I've never seen any of these, but we can include them for the sake of argument.)

The amount of deliberate ignorance needed to deny the existance of the greenhouse effect pales in comparison to that needed to believe that the entire universe is less than 10,000 years old--and we have those folks serving on the House science committee.


I don't know.  The greenhouse effect can easily be demonstrated with very simple experiments that an elementary school student can set up and observe.  I'd argue that denying that would show more ignorance than believing the universe is 6000 years old.
 
2013-10-01 12:16:56 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 ...


Made up numbers on made up infographic are made up.

C'mon, man!  use your brain and filter the BS graphics out.  as many denier groups as there are out there there HAVE to be more than 24.  that should be obvious.  Someone just made this crap up, just like 99 percent of all facebook graphics you find.
 
2013-10-01 01:30:06 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 ...

No, just keep being a unthinking ass.   It's worked for you so far.  What does your graphic say?   VERY few people deny the climate is changing.   Which is, of course, true -- the climate is changing all the time.

To take that, and run with it, saying, first, that what people say PROVES something about it, is very stupid.  To then assume that the lying, non-peer-reviewed IPCC's grossly inflated estimates must be true moves beyond stupid into the realm of checking for organic brain damage.  And, then, if you have been gullible enough to have swallowed all the IPPC-approved WWF environmentalist propaganda, thinking that sending trillions of dollars, and uncounted jobs to China and India, while allowing overall levels of carbon dioxide to increase, will FIX anything -- well, that is proof that you should be locked up, and medicated until the symptoms disappear.

 
2013-10-01 02:05:15 AM

IlGreven:

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.

That's an INCREDIBLY stupid lie.  Billions of dollars?   As if. You can LOOK at the records of multinational corporations. They are NOT giving money in any appreciable quantities to stop the lemming rush to higher taxes and more government control.

The oil companies already won, and they won so hard that YOU are doing their work, and not even being paid for it.  They have OWNED you, and the entire green movement.  You are (collectively) just not bright enough to see that.  They won it the same way the insurance companies won the battle over medical costs -- their lobbyists wrote the legislation being considered, the same way that insurance industry lobbyists wrote the ACA.  They've guaranteed themselves higher profits, for longer, if the cap-and-tax passes than if it doesn't.  Big oil now supports your position; think about THAT for a minute.

And, another area of retardation.   Let's take JUST the WWF,  the World Wildlife Fund.  They have total assets of almost half a billion dollars.  Their revenue last year was over $255 Million, incuding more than $41 Million from federal grants and contracts.   The money they spent on "programs" is over $205 million dollars.

By comparison, the total revenue of the Heritage Foundation is about $82 Million, for all the different areas they cover.  And it is about the only organization on its side of the fence, whereas the pro-AGW crowd at WWF has Greenpeace, and a plethora of other environmental activist groups lined up.  And government units contribute TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars.  Do you seriously believe that a couple million TOTAL will overthrow the political influence that tens of billions of dollars will buy?   If so, you're hopeless.  If you want to "follow the money," which is always good advice, you'll be following it back to WWF, of course, but mostly to governments that want a specific outcome from this research.

 
2013-10-01 03:05:04 AM

SevenizGud: Uncle Tractor: 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 ...?

How about believing the, you know, actual scientific data?


I don't have the time nor the knowhow to wade through the mountains of data that have accumulated on this topic. Few people do. The exception are the people who are paid to do so. You know; scientists -- the people who have dedicated their lives to studying the climate.

I'd rather trust them than some oil baron.
 
2013-10-01 09:59:11 AM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
"Once again, the science grows clearer, the case grows more compelling and the costs of inaction grow beyond anything that anyone with conscience or common sense should be willing to even contemplate."

Imagine how much more compelling the case would be if the climate was, you know, actually changing.


i1326.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-01 11:20:30 AM

Triumph: Fart_Machine: Triumph: Fart_Machine: for a major media operation in NYC

Ask Keith Olbermann what a major media operation it was. You might have to wait 20 minutes for him to stop laughing.

Because his show couldn't draw an audience?  Just because you have access to millions of subscribers (on Time Warner alone) doesn't mean people want to see you.

IIRC, his lawsuit accused Gore of being a "dilettante impersonating a media executive" or something to that effect. He said the main studio was like a broom closet with bad wiring and the lights went out a lot. I'll admit it's probably a pot/kettle thing, but ESPN still gave him a show in a prime slot, so maybe not.


Um, Olbermann chose his own studio site.
 
2013-10-01 12:30:44 PM
Can't help but notice no one with faith that man-made global warming is real cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data.

img.fark.net

NOAA Fraud:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud -e xpands-part-1/
 
2013-10-01 12:45:44 PM

AndEhBus: Can't help but notice no one with faith that man-made global warming is real cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data.

[img.fark.net image 500x355]

NOAA Fraud:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud -e xpands-part-1/


Wait, you're upset that no one responded to your animated gif from a Blog?  While I think that's silly, it seems you are in luck.  Someone did respond to it, yesterday in a direct response to you.  Where the fark were you?

The best part, the guy's name who wrote to you was "common sense is an oxymoron."
 
2013-10-01 01:24:18 PM

AndEhBus: You realize the last climate fad was global cooling.


Ctrl-Alt-Del: No, it wasn't. 6 articles written more than thirty years ago is hardly a "fad."


AndEhBus: Nice to see you both have the same template to following. Need to work on your phony statistics though.


Ctrl-Alt-Del: Do you have any evidence that supports your position? Or that contradicts the facts I listed? I'd be happy to see your evidence. Or your admission that you were wrong. Or are you just going to change the subject to a different talking point? Because that what liars and denialists do


AndEhBus: Can't help but notice no one with faith that man-made global warming is real cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data


Because that what liars and denialists do
 
2013-10-01 01:50:02 PM

AndEhBus: Can't help but notice no one... cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data.

[img.fark.net image 500x355]


In what way do you believe that you have presented "evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data"?

Please in your own words describe the data set in question, the ostensible manipulation, and what you think this implies about the reality or attribution of warming.

If you do that, I'll be happy to explain the differences between those two images.
 
2013-10-01 03:20:30 PM

Jon Snow: AndEhBus: Can't help but notice no one... cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data.

[img.fark.net image 500x355]

In what way do you believe that you have presented "evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data"?

Please in your own words describe the data set in question, the ostensible manipulation, and what you think this implies about the reality or attribution of warming.

If you do that, I'll be happy to explain the differences between those two images.


You mean a 'shoop yanked off a sucky blog isn't evidence?
 
2013-10-01 07:36:59 PM

lennavan:

AndEhBus: Can't help but notice no one with faith that man-made global warming is real cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data.

[img.fark.net image 500x355]

NOAA Fraud:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/noaa-temperature-fraud -e xpands-part-1/

Wait, you're upset that no one responded to your animated gif from a Blog?  While I think that's silly, it seems you are in luck.  Someone did respond to it, yesterday in a direct response to you.  Where the fark were you?

The best part, the guy's name who wrote to you was "common sense is an oxymoron."

Oh, yeah, check of the box that says "responded to."  Once you've done that, it's okay that NOAA and NASA have been altering the historical records such that the altered data supports AGW better than the real data, 'cause you have an ANSWER.  No matter that the data has been jimmied -- why, it was the GOVERNMENT that did it, and none of the government-heine-smooching press has seen fit to report it, so it didn't happen.

And just WHERE did the ox moron respond to the NOAA data manipulation evidence?

And, rant on about using NOAA data that was made into a convenient animated GIF file, and put on a blog.  Later, another of you jackasses will "prove" some similar point with data from the skepticalscience blog.

 
2013-10-01 07:44:57 PM

Jon Snow:

AndEhBus: Can't help but notice no one... cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data.

[img.fark.net image 500x355]

In what way do you believe that you have presented "evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data"?

Please in your own words describe the data set in question, the ostensible manipulation, and what you think this implies about the reality or attribution of warming.

If you do that, I'll be happy to explain the differences between those two images.

Yes, officer, you caught me driving a car which is not mine that I hot-wired.  I know you think this indicates I stole it, but, before I answer your question about where I got it, in your own words, describe the seventy-four major steps that went into manufacturing the engine in this automobile, after which I will gladly answer your question.  You can't eh?   Well, then, I'll just be on my way.

I want to watch you try this in real life...

 
2013-10-01 08:05:05 PM

DarwiOdrade: You mean a 'shoop yanked off a sucky blog isn't evidence?

Not great evidence, not in itself.  It does, however, accurately portray the same data released by NOAA at different times.  The same has been done at NASA.  The only difference is that James Hansen has been caught altering NASA GISS data without annotating the changes, whereas the person doing the same at NOAA is bright enough to have avoided detection all this time.   Since you obviously don't like the GIF animations, here are two simple charts as released by NASA at different times -- pre-corruption and post-corruption:


i44.tinypic.com
NASA Temp Data from Science News, March 1, 1975

i41.tinypic.com
Current NASA data, clipped to end at the same time as the above graph
 
2013-10-01 08:08:35 PM

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: AndEhBus: Can't help but notice no one... cared to comment on evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data.

[img.fark.net image 500x355]

In what way do you believe that you have presented "evidence showing NOAA has manipulated data"?

Please in your own words describe the data set in question, the ostensible manipulation, and what you think this implies about the reality or attribution of warming.

If you do that, I'll be happy to explain the differences between those two images.
Yes, officer, you caught me driving a car which is not mine that I hot-wired.  I know you think this indicates I stole it, but, before I answer your question about where I got it, in your own words, describe the seventy-four major steps that went into manufacturing the engine in this automobile, after which I will gladly answer your question.  You can't eh?   Well, then, I'll just be on my way.
I want to watch you try this in real life...


So you think if someone makes an accusation, they shouldn't have to explain what they think the accused did?

The accused should just defend themselves against a non-specific and vague accusation?

That sounds pretty libelous to me, maybe even fraudulent. You should explain yourself.
 
2013-10-01 08:13:12 PM

GeneralJim: DarwiOdrade: You mean a 'shoop yanked off a sucky blog isn't evidence?Not great evidence, not in itself.  It does, however, accurately portray the same data released by NOAA at different times.  The same has been done at NASA.  The only difference is that James Hansen has been caught altering NASA GISS data without annotating the changes, whereas the person doing the same at NOAA is bright enough to have avoided detection all this time.   Since you obviously don't like the GIF animations, here are two simple charts as released by NASA at different times -- pre-corruption and post-corruption:
[i44.tinypic.com image 850x496]
NASA Temp Data from Science News, March 1, 1975

[i41.tinypic.com image 680x440]
Current NASA data, clipped to end at the same time as the above graph


You should have clipped the second graph to exclude the southern hemisphere too.... How many times are you going to post this same bullshiat?

At this point I am honestly confused - are you a trolling liar just posting for shiats and giggles, or are you too stupid to realize that "global" and "northern hemisphere" (FROM THE LABELS ON YOUR GRAPHS) are words that don't mean the same thing?

My money's on 'trolling liar,' but only because you've been caught lying here before.
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report