Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, MIT, UN climate, climate change, surface layer, alarmisms, global warming skeptics, Secretary of State John Kerry, effects of global warming  
•       •       •

1626 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 9:12 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

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

/favorited!
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report