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



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-30 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. "
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report