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 55
    More: Obvious, MIT, UN climate, climate change, surface layer, alarmisms, global warming skeptics, Secretary of State John Kerry, effects of global warming  
•       •       •

1623 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 9:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-30 09:17:54 AM  
8 votes:
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 10:50:48 AM  
6 votes:

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 09:31:06 AM  
6 votes:
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 10:15:16 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:08:50 AM  
3 votes:

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


True that.

www.geologinternational.com
2013-09-30 08:40:30 AM  
3 votes:
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 03:47:41 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:19:43 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:05:51 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:57:00 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:45:48 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:29:14 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:09:32 AM  
2 votes:
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 08:44:02 AM  
2 votes:
Lindzen isn't just some amateur contrarian, he's a professional.
2013-09-30 06:13:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:09:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:38:35 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:36:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:27:58 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:13:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:04:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:02:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:46:44 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:39:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:00:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:38:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:19:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:08:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:03:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:25:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:19:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:56:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:15 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:47:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:04:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:01:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:59:23 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:34:44 AM  
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: A single disagreeing report invalidates the hypothesis?


There have actually been several papers.
2013-09-30 11:31:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:54 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:14:15 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:10:54 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:06:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:00:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:41:56 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:37:23 AM  
1 votes:
img.fark.net
2013-09-30 10:19:25 AM  
1 votes:
"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 10:11:26 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:09:40 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:04:49 AM  
1 votes:
We've got no chance as a species
2013-09-30 09:51:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:14:40 AM  
1 votes:
2013-09-30 09:13:48 AM  
1 votes:

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


Do you believe in Freedom or not?
2013-09-30 09:01:51 AM  
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 55 of 55 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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