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



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-30 08:50:13 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 31 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