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.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   Latest attempt to rescue global warming research ship abandoned due to thick wedges of consolidated irony   (smh.com.au) divider line 202
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

2922 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2013 at 9:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-30 10:01:18 AM  
OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY
 
2013-12-30 10:01:26 AM  
Summat appropriate --
 
2013-12-30 10:01:59 AM  
Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]
 
2013-12-30 10:02:19 AM  

dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY


You'd have a point, but one of the tenets of global warming is that the north polar icecap should be breaking up. It is ironic to be stuck in ice there.
 
2013-12-30 10:02:37 AM  

dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE SOUTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY


mahbad
 
2013-12-30 10:03:11 AM  
i.imgur.com

/Hurr. It's cold outside so global warming's a lie!
 
2013-12-30 10:04:11 AM  
If you read the article, you might realize the ship is close to the South Pole, not the North.
 
2013-12-30 10:04:16 AM  

dookdookdook: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE SOUTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

mahbad


Oh, that is different.  It's summer at the coldest place on the planet, where some ice is literally millions of years old.  Totally disproving things.
 
2013-12-30 10:06:34 AM  
It's almost like those on the left want Global Warming to be happening.

Imho, it's a big redistribution of wealth scheme that's just starting to fall apart
 
2013-12-30 10:07:04 AM  
I don't know; it seems pretty ironic to me that the global climate change people are trapped by ice.
 
2013-12-30 10:07:06 AM  
If the planet was so warm that there was no ice at the south pole we wouldn't be discussing global warming on the internet, we'd most likely be dead.
 
2013-12-30 10:07:25 AM  
Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great
 
2013-12-30 10:08:02 AM  
This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).
 
2013-12-30 10:08:58 AM  

dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY


DON'T SAY THINGS THAT CHALLENGE MY UNQUESTIONING FAITH IN MY CHOSEN BELIEFS!! THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD GLOBAL WARMING AND AL GORE IS HIS ONLY PROFIT!

I loved the use of all caps too. nice touch.
 
2013-12-30 10:09:36 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great


Just in your head.   An ice age is where we should be headed given those "natural cycles" you idiots keep blathering about.  Actual climate science had already settled on the natural of global warming by this point.
 
2013-12-30 10:10:52 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a media-invented lie that almost zero scientists actually believed?


ftfy

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-coo li ng-myth/
 
2013-12-30 10:11:38 AM  

Farking Canuck: This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).


Well, no, it's classic irony, except the problem is that idiots think it proves something.
 
2013-12-30 10:11:54 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great


No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?
 
2013-12-30 10:13:15 AM  

Tricky Chicken: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

DON'T SAY THINGS THAT CHALLENGE MY UNQUESTIONING FAITH IN MY CHOSEN BELIEFS!! THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD GLOBAL WARMING AND AL GORE IS HIS ONLY PROFIT!

I loved the use of all caps too. nice touch.


Well, they are Ice Caps...
 
2013-12-30 10:14:45 AM  
dookdookdook
2013-12-30 10:01:18 AM


OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

No, it's
Once again, the prognostication from the sudo-scientific sky is falling Chicken Littles that spent decades fear mongering with their "There will be no sea ice at all by 2013" prediction is being proved wrong. Wayyyy wrong. Laughably wrong. Again.

Once again, your predictions are less reliable than fromplaygroundstopolitics.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-30 10:14:57 AM  
Tricky Chicken: DON'T SAY THINGS THAT CHALLENGE MY UNQUESTIONING FAITH IN MY CHOSEN BELIEFS!! THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD GLOBAL WARMING AND AL GORE IS HIS ONLY PROFIT!

I loved the use of all caps too. nice touch.


"PROFIT". Wow, that was some clever wordplay!
 
2013-12-30 10:15:35 AM  

ikanreed: Farking Canuck: This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).

Well, no, it's classic irony, except the problem is that idiots think it proves something.


You can always debate what is or isn't ironic.

Personally I expect ice in the antarctic. I also expect climate scientists to go there. So climate scientists getting stuck in ice in the antarctic seems reasonably likely to me - as these things go.
 
2013-12-30 10:15:57 AM  
-25 in N WI right now.
 
2013-12-30 10:16:01 AM  
Hey, they have traveled farther south than anyone ever! That's why there is so much ice! Global Warming Derp!
 
2013-12-30 10:17:08 AM  
Anymore rescue ships get stuck?  Heard Australia was sending an icebreaker.  Why do China and Australia have icebreakers?  China decided the whole of Antarctica lies in its territorial waters, so they need one?   Some guy named Bruce, in Australia, decided they need one after a drunken weekend, and the other Bruces built it?  Who's next to arrive on the scene with a icebreaker, the Dominican Republic.
 
2013-12-30 10:17:12 AM  

Tricky Chicken: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

DON'T SAY THINGS THAT CHALLENGE MY UNQUESTIONING FAITH IN MY CHOSEN BELIEFS!! THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD GLOBAL WARMING AND AL GORE IS HIS ONLY PROFIT!

I loved the use of all caps too. nice touch.


Profit or prophet?
 
2013-12-30 10:18:24 AM  

dookdookdook: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE SOUTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

mahbad


In more ways than one.
 
2013-12-30 10:18:35 AM  

Farking Canuck: ikanreed: Farking Canuck: This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).

Well, no, it's classic irony, except the problem is that idiots think it proves something.

You can always debate what is or isn't ironic.

Personally I expect ice in the antarctic. I also expect climate scientists to go there. So climate scientists getting stuck in ice in the antarctic seems reasonably likely to me - as these things go.


Well sure, but by way of analogy: you expect skiers to go to cold places, you expect them to have a fire in their cabin, but "burning to death on a ski trip" is still ironic.
 
2013-12-30 10:19:16 AM  

This text is now purple: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

You'd have a point, but one of the tenets of global warming is that the north polar icecap should be breaking up. It is ironic to be stuck in ice there.


Not even close, Skippy.
 
2013-12-30 10:22:04 AM  
OnlyM3: sudo-scientific sky is falling Chicken Littles

Seriously. You are saying that climate scientists, with years of experience, PhDs in the field, mountains of data, and peer-reviewed publications are "sudo-scientific"? (your spelling - you a Linux person?)

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??

Wow.
 
2013-12-30 10:22:15 AM  
 
2013-12-30 10:22:49 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great


I'm still worried about the Killer Bees!
 
2013-12-30 10:23:32 AM  

Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?


Actually, there WAS much media coverage of the threat of Global Cooling.  See newsweek and The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972.

Actually, if you simply go to the Wikipedia page on 'global cooling', you will learn about several sources news about global cooling at the time. Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom is correct.  Global cooling was in the news in the 70s.  Add to that many of the major metropolitan area news programs eventually featured stories about it.
 
2013-12-30 10:25:11 AM  

Farking Canuck: OnlyM3: sudo-scientific sky is falling Chicken Littles

Seriously. You are saying that climate scientists, with years of experience, PhDs in the field, mountains of data, and peer-reviewed publications are "sudo-scientific"? (your spelling - you a Linux person?)

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??

Wow.


No, just truthier. (^_~)
 
2013-12-30 10:25:41 AM  

BigGrnEggGriller: It's almost like those on the left want Global Warming to be happening.

Imho, it's a big redistribution of wealth scheme that's just starting to fall apart


That's because you're a dolt.

Lemme give you a little hint: your insurance company believes in global warming. The CIA believes in global warming. Investment banks believe in global warming.

The people that don't, for some reason, are mostly American evangelicals
 
2013-12-30 10:27:07 AM  
badhatharry [TotalFark]

Hey, they have traveled farther south than anyone ever! That's why there is so much ice! Global Warming Derp!

Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.
 
2013-12-30 10:27:26 AM  

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]


Anyone ever tell you that you guys get really shrill and pissy when reality refuses to conform to your demands of it?
 
SH
2013-12-30 10:28:31 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great


Born in the 50's here. You completely made that shiat up.
 
2013-12-30 10:31:47 AM  

OnlyM3: ikanreed


Hey, guys, there's no global warming. There's ice, at the north pole, in winter. Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year - an increase of 29 per cent.

...days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores.


Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year).

More = Less. Got it. Let me guess. You learned math in U.S. public schools.


Green fear mongering prediction: 0 sea ice by 2013
Reality: Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record
...and over 2,000 low temperature records.


Wow, you suck at reading comprehension.  Thanks for sucking so hard, making people with your opinion seem like dim-witted morons who can only regurgitate the same few points.


jjorsett: ikanreed: ...

Anyone ever tell you that you guys get really shrill and pissy when reality refuses to conform to your demands of it?


Only ever heard that from even more shrill and pissy people.
 
2013-12-30 10:34:23 AM  

Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?

Just Time Magazine?

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population." -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000." -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age". -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

More recent:


wo German scientists, Horst-Joachin Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, say that "two naturally occurring climate cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the next century."

They added, "by the year 2100, temperatures on this planet will plunge to levels seen at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' in 1870."

i.dailymail.co.uk

i.dailymail.co.uk

"Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013, citing a scientist in the US who claimed this was a 'conservative' forecast. Perhaps it was their confidence that led more than 20 yachts to try to sail the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific this summer. As of last week, all these vessels were stuck in the ice, some at the eastern end of the passage in Prince Regent Inlet, others further west at Cape Bathurst."
 
2013-12-30 10:35:19 AM  

SH: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

Born in the 50's here. You completely made that shiat up.


You must have been sleeping. Again, just look up the Wikipedia page on Global Cooling.  It really was in the news, you just must have missed it.
 
2013-12-30 10:36:02 AM  

OnlyM3: badhatharry [TotalFark]

Hey, they have traveled farther south than anyone ever! That's why there is so much ice! Global Warming Derp!
Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012.


I meant climate change. Yeah, it's climate change.
 
2013-12-30 10:37:01 AM  
Is it too late to get this submitted for the HOTY?  I barked out laughter in a restaurant when I read it.
 
2013-12-30 10:37:24 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Global cooling was in the news in the 70s.


And Bigfoot is often in the news as well.

I ask again: Who get's their science from Time magazine? And who cares what people who get their science from Time magazine think? When you want to know what the scientists in the 1970s were researching you look at the scientific literature from the 1970s.

The science is on record. There is no debate. The climate trends were less clear back then so there were a couple of papers on cooling, a large number of papers on warming and the rest were neutral.

People who claim that there was any sort of scientific consensus that global cooling was happening in the 1970s are liars. Which is typical for deniers.
 
2013-12-30 10:37:55 AM  
Something something something something... ice caps are fresh water.... something something something, fresh water added to salt water lowers salinity, something something something, thereby raising the surrounding ocean water's freezing temperatures allowing ocean waters to freeze at warmer temps...
 
2013-12-30 10:42:46 AM  

Farking Canuck: OnlyM3: sudo-scientific sky is falling Chicken Littles

Seriously. You are saying that climate scientists, with years of experience, PhDs in the field, mountains of data, and peer-reviewed publications are "sudo-scientific"? (your spelling - you a Linux person?)

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??

Wow.


The problem with this particular field is that it relies so heavily on computer modeling that even experienced scientists scratch their heads when asked if the models are correct and predictions accurate.

The biggest problem with all the pessimistic predictions is that aren't going to stop China and India, if anything they'll be encouraged to use even more energy by our continued efforts to cripple our industries .
 
2013-12-30 10:43:42 AM  

Farking Canuck: Tricky Chicken: Global cooling was in the news in the 70s.

And Bigfoot is often in the news as well.

I ask again: Who get's their science from Time magazine? And who cares what people who get their science from Time magazine think? When you want to know what the scientists in the 1970s were researching you look at the scientific literature from the 1970s.

The science is on record. There is no debate. The climate trends were less clear back then so there were a couple of papers on cooling, a large number of papers on warming and the rest were neutral.

People who claim that there was any sort of scientific consensus that global cooling was happening in the 1970s are liars. Which is typical for deniers.


No, come on, they're authoritarian nincompoops regurgitating the same points over and over.  Yes, liars do that, but the typical denier is a someone who gets told what to say, then says it, without thinking.  You will never ever ever ever hear a topical reply, and only ever, ever, ever, ever one of the same 10-12 talking points that they get told to spew.  If you dismantle their argument, rather than replying to that, they go to the next point, as if it's a reply.
 
2013-12-30 10:44:06 AM  

ghare: BigGrnEggGriller: It's almost like those on the left want Global Warming to be happening.

Imho, it's a big redistribution of wealth scheme that's just starting to fall apart

That's because you're a dolt.

Lemme give you a little hint: your insurance company believes in global warming. The CIA believes in global warming. Investment banks believe in global warming.

The people that don't, for some reason, are mostly American evangelicals


I forgot to mention how angry the Global Warming cultists can be when it's pointed out to them that their catastrophic predictions aren't coming true.

Why can't they be more like the Hale Bop cultists?
 
2013-12-30 10:45:40 AM  

Tomass the Second: If you read the article, you might realize the ship is close to the South Pole, not the North.


Penguins, not bears.
 
2013-12-30 10:46:00 AM  
Farking Canuck

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??

Sorry, I didn't realize NASA was a right wing blog with no education.


The U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of 19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979.
 
2013-12-30 10:46:42 AM  

Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?


Even Carl Sagan was pushing a second ice age in the late 70's. I recall no one claiming AGW back then.
 
2013-12-30 10:49:47 AM  

Farking Canuck: Tricky Chicken: Global cooling was in the news in the 70s.

And Bigfoot is often in the news as well.

I ask again: Who get's their science from Time magazine? And who cares what people who get their science from Time magazine think? When you want to know what the scientists in the 1970s were researching you look at the scientific literature from the 1970s.

The science is on record. There is no debate. The climate trends were less clear back then so there were a couple of papers on cooling, a large number of papers on warming and the rest were neutral.

People who claim that there was any sort of scientific consensus that global cooling was happening in the 1970s are liars. Which is typical for deniers.


Way to move the goalposts there skippy!  You derided that there was an article in Time, so I showed you where you can find several others that are NOT Time magazine articles.  Now you scoff because there wasn't a consensus in the 70's when that was never the point.  The assertion was that global cooling was in the news in the 70's.  You have scoffed at that, but forwarded absolutely NOTHING to support your position other than that you do not agree with it now.
 
2013-12-30 10:50:09 AM  

Animatronik: The problem with this particular field is that it relies so heavily on computer modeling that even experienced scientists scratch their heads when asked if the models are correct and predictions accurate.


No, they don't.  They look at predictive success of the various models and can actually assign meaningful assessments as to the accuracy.  Not just p values, but degrees of covariance and contra-variance over time, on multiple measurements, and first, second, third derivatives.  That's where these big meta-studies you ignore like IPCC and what not focus.  They look at which models have had the most accuracy and how, and publish clear and meaningful conclusions, and the press reports it simply(the simple version is that human induced temperature forcing has a huge effect compared to pretty much all other changes)


The biggest problem with all the pessimistic predictions is that aren't going to stop China and India, if anything they'll be encouraged to use even more energy by our continued efforts to cripple our industries .

Okay, how about you just stick with saying "it's politically impossible" rather than being part of the problem on it being politically impossible, and let us make meaningful attempts a la Kyoto to fix it.
 
2013-12-30 10:50:45 AM  
Subby: The troll is strong in you. Well played, good sir. Well played.
 
2013-12-30 10:52:56 AM  

BigGrnEggGriller: ghare: BigGrnEggGriller: It's almost like those on the left want Global Warming to be happening.

Imho, it's a big redistribution of wealth scheme that's just starting to fall apart

That's because you're a dolt.

Lemme give you a little hint: your insurance company believes in global warming. The CIA believes in global warming. Investment banks believe in global warming.

The people that don't, for some reason, are mostly American evangelicals

I forgot to mention how angry the Global Warming cultists can be when it's pointed out to them that their catastrophic predictions aren't coming true.

Why can't they be more like the Hale Bop cultists?


Because they have functioning cognitive centers?
 
2013-12-30 10:53:42 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Farking Canuck: Tricky Chicken: Global cooling was in the news in the 70s.

And Bigfoot is often in the news as well.

I ask again: Who get's their science from Time magazine? And who cares what people who get their science from Time magazine think? When you want to know what the scientists in the 1970s were researching you look at the scientific literature from the 1970s.

The science is on record. There is no debate. The climate trends were less clear back then so there were a couple of papers on cooling, a large number of papers on warming and the rest were neutral.

People who claim that there was any sort of scientific consensus that global cooling was happening in the 1970s are liars. Which is typical for deniers.

Way to move the goalposts there skippy!  You derided that there was an article in Time, so I showed you where you can find several others that are NOT Time magazine articles.  Now you scoff because there wasn't a consensus in the 70's when that was never the point.  The assertion was that global cooling was in the news in the 70's.  You have scoffed at that, but forwarded absolutely NOTHING to support your position other than that you do not agree with it now.


Who cares?  Seriously, who cares if they were wrong about that?  The facts and honest study has been against your idiocy for literal decades, but you've latched onto reporters being wrong about something(and in turn some random poster being wrong about that)?  Is that an excuse for you intentionally choosing to be wrong?

What's wrong with you?
 
2013-12-30 10:54:17 AM  

zimbomba63: Anymore rescue ships get stuck?  Heard Australia was sending an icebreaker.  Why do China and Australia have icebreakers?  China decided the whole of Antarctica lies in its territorial waters, so they need one?   Some guy named Bruce, in Australia, decided they need one after a drunken weekend, and the other Bruces built it?  Who's next to arrive on the scene with a icebreaker, the Dominican Republic.


Well, the Aussies are actually pretty close to Antarctica.
 
2013-12-30 10:54:57 AM  

gweilo8888: Subby: The troll is strong in you. Well played, good sir. Well played.


The headline isn't really any more trollish than "[anything at all related to global warming]" and then letting the deniers air their stink in the thread.
 
2013-12-30 10:55:02 AM  

Lee451: Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?

Even Carl Sagan was pushing a second ice age in the late 70's. I recall no one claiming AGW back then.

As for the allegation that Sagan called for higher CO2 emissions, William Poundstone, who wrote a
That claim is new to me. While I can't prove a negative, I would be very skeptical of it unless they've got some period documentation. Sagan was at any rate one of the first to worry about global warming. He was a principal architect of the current understanding of Venus, showing that the carbon dioxide in its atmosphere caused it to be much hotter than astronomers of the time had imagined. In my Sagan biography I write (p. 45):
"One day in Berkeley, Carl told Ronald Blum (he had moved west, too) that he was worried about the carbon dioxide in the air. The burning of fuel was creating more carbon dioxide. This would increase the earth's greenhouse effect and warm the globe with disastrous consequences. At the time, that was an incredible if not crazy thing to say. It could not have been later than 1963."
This was based on an interview with Ronald Blum, a college friend.
Science historian
No, I never heard that Carl Sagan, or indeed anyone in the 1970s, endorsed the idea of producing CO2 to forestall an ice age. It's true that the idea of using CO2 in this way was circulated already early in the 20th century, but anything along those lines would have been speculation about a distant future--few expected a real ice age would come except over the course of centuries or, more likely, millennia.
Not only does the Washington Examiner op-ed revise 1970s history, it also takes liberties with more recent news. The op-ed, titled "Ice age threat should freeze EPA global warming regs," says astrophysicists recently predicted that because of low sunspot activity, "we may be heading into the next ice age."
But the scientists who conducted that solar research
 
2013-12-30 10:57:12 AM  
CeroX:

So a lot of that got cut out for some weird reason... read it all here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/07/28/if-you-wish-to-make-up-facts-f rom-scratch/183472
 
2013-12-30 10:58:49 AM  

Tricky Chicken: SH: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

Born in the 50's here. You completely made that shiat up.

You must have been sleeping. Again, just look up the Wikipedia page on Global Cooling.  It really was in the news, you just must have missed it.


Born in 1950, and I remember hearing about the coming Ice Age.
 
2013-12-30 11:03:08 AM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Farking Canuck: Tricky Chicken: Global cooling was in the news in the 70s.

People who claim that there was any sort of scientific consensus that global cooling was happening in the 1970s are liars. Which is typical for deniers.

Way to move the goalposts there skippy!  You derided that there was an article in Time, so I showed you where you can find several others that are NOT Time magazine articles.  Now you scoff because there wasn't a consensus in the 70's when that was never the point.  The assertion was that global cooling was in the news in the 70's.  You have scoffed at that, but forwarded absolutely NOTHING to support your position other than that you do not agree with it now.

Who cares?  Seriously, who cares if they were wrong about that?  The facts and honest study has been against your idiocy for literal decades, but you've latched onto reporters being wrong about something(and in turn some random poster being wrong about that)?  Is that an excuse for you intentionally choosing to be wrong?

What's wrong with you?


Wow, your username must be ironic. How is any of this MY idiocy? ACC comes up and somebody pulls out the 'in the 70s...' card then gets jumped on as if people back then didn't buy any of it.  I simply point out that in the 70s, people did indeed buy into the global cooling argument.  I made no claim about its merits or flaws or even the strength of the underlying science. I did not choose to be wrong. I simply chose to support the truth. You really should READ before you post.
 
2013-12-30 11:03:15 AM  

CeroX: CeroX:

So a lot of that got cut out for some weird reason... read it all here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/07/28/if-you-wish-to-make-up-facts-f rom-scratch/183472


So, it's one of those "deniers make up facts(that sound bad, but are pointless with respect to science) wholesale" cases, rather than "deniers take a very obviously cherry picked set of data, that any sane person would recognize as lacking statistical significance" cases.
 
2013-12-30 11:07:45 AM  
Tricky Chicken:
Wow, your username must be ironic. How is any of this MY idiocy? ACC comes up and somebody pulls out the 'in the 70s...' card then gets jumped on as if people back then didn't buy any of it.  I simply point out that in the 70s, people did indeed buy into the global cooling argument.  I made no claim about its merits or flaws or even the strength of the underlying science. I did not choose to be wrong. I simply chose to support the truth. You really should READ before you post.

Regurgitating a meaningless denialist point makes you a denialist, since there isn't an actual debate to be had(and that's the definition of denialism).  So, yes, I think it was entirely appropriate to accuse you of being willfully wrong with respect to science.


"I don't have anything to say about global warming itself" isn't middle ground, it's another form of denialism.
 
2013-12-30 11:17:32 AM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
Wow, your username must be ironic. How is any of this MY idiocy? ACC comes up and somebody pulls out the 'in the 70s...' card then gets jumped on as if people back then didn't buy any of it.  I simply point out that in the 70s, people did indeed buy into the global cooling argument.  I made no claim about its merits or flaws or even the strength of the underlying science. I did not choose to be wrong. I simply chose to support the truth. You really should READ before you post.

Regurgitating a meaningless denialist point makes you a denialist, since there isn't an actual debate to be had(and that's the definition of denialism).  So, yes, I think it was entirely appropriate to accuse you of being willfully wrong with respect to science.


"I don't have anything to say about global warming itself" isn't middle ground, it's another form of denialism.


Wow, your reading comprehension is terrible.  Stop trying to torture my words into what you think they are saying and actually try to read them. You really seem to have issues with general understanding. when did I ever say   "I don't have anything to say about global warming itself"  ? I don't think you could find that anywhere in this entire thread. I didn't mention anything about global warming.  If you are referring to what I bolded above, I must have confused you, because I was talking about the science behind the global cooling reporting in the 70s.

Do you openly deny that in the 70s, there were articles in several sources that advanced the notion that we were heading into a cooling period? Because if you do, you have been proven patently wrong.
 
2013-12-30 11:20:37 AM  

dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY


ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]


WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.
 
2013-12-30 11:22:48 AM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
Wow, your username must be ironic. How is any of this MY idiocy? ACC comes up and somebody pulls out the 'in the 70s...' card then gets jumped on as if people back then didn't buy any of it.  I simply point out that in the 70s, people did indeed buy into the global cooling argument.  I made no claim about its merits or flaws or even the strength of the underlying science. I did not choose to be wrong. I simply chose to support the truth. You really should READ before you post.

Regurgitating a meaningless denialist point makes you a denialist, since there isn't an actual debate to be had(and that's the definition of denialism).  So, yes, I think it was entirely appropriate to accuse you of being willfully wrong with respect to science.


"I don't have anything to say about global warming itself" isn't middle ground, it's another form of denialism.

Wow, your reading comprehension is terrible.  Stop trying to torture my words into what you think they are saying and actually try to read them. You really seem to have issues with general understanding. when did I ever say   "I don't have anything to say about global warming itself"  ? I don't think you could find that anywhere in this entire thread. I didn't mention anything about global warming.  If you are referring to what I bolded above, I must have confused you, because I was talking about the science behind the global cooling reporting in the 70s.

Do you openly deny that in the 70s, there were articles in several sources that advanced the notion that we were heading into a cooling period? Because if you do, you have been proven patently wrong.


Nope, that's not how it works.  Even if you had misread one of my posts to imply that there were no such articles, you'd be proving, in the end a grand total of nothing, to justify, in your own mind, your refusal to acknowledge basic science.

To repeat my basic point here:

Who cares? Who cares about whether some poster in this thread didn't read whatever stupid articles you did(or more likely heard about through a denier website)?  Who cares what a clearly non-scientific article from the 1970s may or may not have said(and may or may not have been proto-heartland propoganda), when the science has been clearly established since before that?
 
2013-12-30 11:25:13 AM  

trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.


Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.
 
2013-12-30 11:33:53 AM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
Nope, that's not how it works.  Even if you had misread one of my posts to imply that there were no such articles, you'd be proving, in the end a grand total of nothing, to justify, in your own mind, your refusal to acknowledge basic science.???????

(seriously, what the hell are you talking about?)

To repeat my basic point here:

Who cares? Who cares about whether some poster in this th ...


Wow, at this point I can only conclude that I have been trolled.  Well done sir! 10 troll points to you. spend them wisely.
 
2013-12-30 11:35:56 AM  

ikanreed: trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.

Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.


Why would I want to read anything else by someone whose post leads me to believe they are reactionary and emotional about the subject at hand?
 
2013-12-30 11:36:34 AM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
Nope, that's not how it works.  Even if you had misread one of my posts to imply that there were no such articles, you'd be proving, in the end a grand total of nothing, to justify, in your own mind, your refusal to acknowledge basic science.??????? (seriously, what the hell are you talking about?)

To repeat my basic point here:

Who cares? Who cares about whether some poster in this th ...

Wow, at this point I can only conclude that I have been trolled.  Well done sir! 10 troll points to you. spend them wisely.


Yeah, that's it, you've been trolled by the fact that you've latched onto the inconsequential and someone pointed it out to you.  Are you going to continue promoting lies in the future?  If so, we're not done.

Drop this point forever, please.  Will you do that?
 
2013-12-30 11:38:19 AM  

trappedspirit: ikanreed: trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.

Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.

Why would I want to read anything else by someone whose post leads me to believe they are reactionary and emotional about the subject at hand?


Yeah, that's me.  Tired of the same 10-12 points from deniers forever=reactionary.  Go away.
 
2013-12-30 11:40:14 AM  

OnlyM3: Farking Canuck

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??
Sorry, I didn't realize NASA was a right wing blog with no education.


The U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of 19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979.


Extent, or total volume? If it's only a foot thick, then it's far less than historical records.

I'll wait while you look that up...
 
2013-12-30 11:41:25 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Do you openly deny that in the 70s, there were articles in several sources that advanced the notion that we were heading into a cooling period? Because if you do, you have been proven patently wrong.


Why don't you come out and just say WHY you posted that statement then. The motivation. The reason. I mean, why all this hostility and chest thumping about tiny technicalities and steering the debate away from the core into this mind numbing circular debate about whatever bullshiat tripe you are going on about... Just spit it out... What's the point of posting this great wealth of 70's facts if you aren't using it as a source of rebutting global warming?
 
2013-12-30 11:46:33 AM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
Nope, that's not how it works.  Even if you had misread one of my posts to imply that there were no such articles, you'd be proving, in the end a grand total of nothing, to justify, in your own mind, your refusal to acknowledge basic science.??????? (seriously, what the hell are you talking about?)

To repeat my basic point here:

Who cares? Who cares about whether some poster in this th ...

Wow, at this point I can only conclude that I have been trolled.  Well done sir! 10 troll points to you. spend them wisely.

Yeah, that's it, you've been trolled by the fact that you've latched onto the inconsequential and someone pointed it out to you.  Are you going to continue promoting lies in the future?  If so, we're not done.

Drop this point forever, please.  Will you do that?


It is like I'm talking about one thing, and you are just spewing some massive unrelated derp string.
Derp you have spewed:
Accused me of denying science, but never pointed out any science I have denied.
Promoting lies, but never pointing out anything I have lied about.
Accused me of being wrong, and never pointing out what I am wrong about
Assumed that I deny climate change and never showing where I deny it.

Basicaly everything you have posted to me in this entire thread is nonsensical derp.  Just go wharrrrrgharrrble the hose please.
 
2013-12-30 11:47:34 AM  

CeroX: Tricky Chicken: Do you openly deny that in the 70s, there were articles in several sources that advanced the notion that we were heading into a cooling period? Because if you do, you have been proven patently wrong.

Why don't you come out and just say WHY you posted that statement then. The motivation. The reason. I mean, why all this hostility and chest thumping about tiny technicalities and steering the debate away from the core into this mind numbing circular debate about whatever bullshiat tripe you are going on about... Just spit it out... What's the point of posting this great wealth of 70's facts if you aren't using it as a source of rebutting global warming?


Heck since I didn't do it before.  Let's try this:

I'm wrong about articles about global cooling.  Let's put that in text.  I don't even know precisely what I said that was wrong, but let's say I am.
 
2013-12-30 11:48:13 AM  
This YouTube link is actual footage from the 1912 Mawson journey.  Note the lack of ice on the coastline.
http://youtu.be/k-9yJ6-6aEs

The tourists are being led by Chris Turney and you can google up who he is and what he does.

yes, this is a weather event.  Nobody plans on driving a non icebreaking ship into 12 foot thick ice flows. The ice surrounded them after bad weather.

This last ship that was going to rescue these folks was ITSELF trapped in pack ice for three weeks ending just a few weeks ago.

Most climate related stunts (and that's what this was) that get interrupted by bad weather are humorous.  Ric Romero is warming up the duhcopter for a closer look now.

They'll be helicoptering the passengers off this junket in a day or so and that will be the end of it.
We'll be back to normal derp in no time at all.
 
2013-12-30 11:49:27 AM  

dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY


Just because it's not a conspiracy doesn't mean it's not funny.
 
2013-12-30 11:52:58 AM  
The real problem with AGW is that it fails the common sense test.
 
2013-12-30 11:53:53 AM  

Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?


I'm commenting on the media coverage and it's influence on public opinion. In the 70's, global climate change was a pretty big topic, only the prognosticators were using the "science" to engender a doomsday scenario in which the earth was cooling.

It's just interesting to me that today, the same "science" is being used by climate scaremongers yet again, only they're warning of the exact opposite outcome.

I'm not making any arguments for or against AGCC, it's just interesting to me that the same data has been used to promote complete opposite predictions.
 
2013-12-30 11:56:39 AM  

maxheck: OnlyM3: Farking Canuck

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??
Sorry, I didn't realize NASA was a right wing blog with no education.


The U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of 19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979.

Extent, or total volume? If it's only a foot thick, then it's far less than historical records.

I'll wait while you look that up...


That same site also states that the land ice is shrinking due to melting conditions. So, add some fresh water to surrounding saltwater, lowering salinity and thereby raising the temperature needed to freeze the surrounding water, and what do you get?
 
2013-12-30 11:56:57 AM  

Snapper Carr: /Hurr. It's cold outside so global warming's a lie!


And in August you'll be saying, "It's 103f outside so global warming's real!"
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-30 11:56:58 AM  

Wook: The real problem with AGW is that it fails the common sense test.


But passes every meaningful test?  Please tell me you meant that part too.
 
2013-12-30 11:57:29 AM  
No real reason to head out to the temp sensors to collect the readings. They were just going to change them or make some up anyways.
 
2013-12-30 11:58:08 AM  

ikanreed: Wook: The real problem with AGW is that it fails the common sense test.

But passes every meaningful test?  Please tell me you meant that part too.


Tell me exactly how much is due to man and what factor is due to nature.  I'd prefer the answer in rates.
 
2013-12-30 12:02:35 PM  

CeroX: Tricky Chicken: Do you openly deny that in the 70s, there were articles in several sources that advanced the notion that we were heading into a cooling period? Because if you do, you have been proven patently wrong.

Why don't you come out and just say WHY you posted that statement then. The motivation. The reason. I mean, why all this hostility and chest thumping about tiny technicalities and steering the debate away from the core into this mind numbing circular debate about whatever bullshiat tripe you are going on about... Just spit it out... What's the point of posting this great wealth of 70's facts if you aren't using it as a source of rebutting global warming?


ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

Just in your head.   An ice age is where we should be headed given those "natural cycles" you idiots keep blathering about.  Actual climate science had already settled on the natural of global warming by this point.


Many of us were alive in the 70s and remember the talk at the time of Global Cooling.  Then an idiot like ikanreed chimes in and derps it to the max as if it wasn't something that really did happen. The honest response to people that remember the Global Cooling news of the time is to point out that climate data and models at the time were not as well developed as they are today, and that over time our understanding of most things does change with ever growing data sets.  But derpmasters like ikanreed simply react as if the articels aren't out there in the open for anybody to read. My posts were simply to point out how utterly wrong ikanreed is.  But they just kept wanting to reag out some sort of bizarre argument to delude themselves that they are somehow in the right.  People like this only provide moral support for the deniers of climate change since all they will see is that ikanreed was a frothing at the mouth supporter that was soundly proven wrong.  They won't understand that I accept that the climate has changed.

 Nobody came even close to settling on climate change for several decades. I pointed out that they were wrong in that this wan't just an islolated Time magazine article.

Or should I retract everything that I have said and acknowledge that there was no reporting on global cooling in the 70s?

ikanreed belongs in the 'you're not helping' group.
 
2013-12-30 12:06:14 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?

I'm commenting on the media coverage and it's influence on public opinion. In the 70's, global climate change was a pretty big topic, only the prognosticators were using the "science" to engender a doomsday scenario in which the earth was cooling.

It's just interesting to me that today, the same "science" is being used by climate scaremongers yet again, only they're warning of the exact opposite outcome.

I'm not making any arguments for or against AGCC, it's just interesting to me that the same data has been used to promote complete opposite predictions.


Consider the source of those scare tactics, from then, AND now... Back then there wasn't 24 hour news coverage, there wasn't a need to fill time when real news wasn't being generated. So a good ol' doomsday cover headline might sell a few million more copies that month. Now the sources care more about "the controversy" than any actual doomsday scenario... The media outlets create a doomsday effect not to actually scare people, but to make audiences believe there are other people in the world that are terrified. Meanwhile they make waves by creating a controversy between "the doomsdayers" and "common sense folk" with some clever marketing tactics. They have scientists on the air to answer questions, which ultimately they end up asking ridiculously slanted questions in order to generate more controversial headlines from.

Consider the source... If you think for one second that any 24 hour news outlet or AM radio talk show isn't Mainstream, you're fooling yourself.
 
2013-12-30 12:06:44 PM  
ts3.mm.bing.net
Movie dropped to help keep there minds off the cold.
 
2013-12-30 12:07:16 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin


What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.
 
2013-12-30 12:07:18 PM  
Subby is a retard.
 
2013-12-30 12:08:50 PM  

Wook: ikanreed: Wook: The real problem with AGW is that it fails the common sense test.

But passes every meaningful test?  Please tell me you meant that part too.

Tell me exactly how much is due to man and what factor is due to nature.  I'd prefer the answer in rates.


This is a common argumentative fallacy where you demand information in such a strict way that it is literally impossible to satisfy the question.
 
2013-12-30 12:12:42 PM  

ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.


That is clear from every other post you have made so far.
 
2013-12-30 12:16:22 PM  

Tricky Chicken: CeroX: Tricky Chicken: Do you openly deny that in the 70s, there were articles in several sources that advanced the notion that we were heading into a cooling period? Because if you do, you have been proven patently wrong.

Why don't you come out and just say WHY you posted that statement then. The motivation. The reason. I mean, why all this hostility and chest thumping about tiny technicalities and steering the debate away from the core into this mind numbing circular debate about whatever bullshiat tripe you are going on about... Just spit it out... What's the point of posting this great wealth of 70's facts if you aren't using it as a source of rebutting global warming?

ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

Just in your head.   An ice age is where we should be headed given those "natural cycles" you idiots keep blathering about.  Actual climate science had already settled on the natural of global warming by this point.

Many of us were alive in the 70s and remember the talk at the time of Global Cooling.  Then an idiot like ikanreed chimes in and derps it to the max as if it wasn't something that really did happen. The honest response to people that remember the Global Cooling news of the time is to point out that climate data and models at the time were not as well developed as they are today, and that over time our understanding of most things does change with ever growing data sets.  But derpmasters like ikanreed simply react as if the articels aren't out there in the open for anybody to read. My posts were simply to point out how utterly wrong ikanreed is.  But they just kept wanting to reag out some sort of bizarre argument to delude themselves that they are somehow in the right.  People like this only provide moral support for th ...


NO.


Look at the science from the day.

Look at the scientific papers from the era.  There are basically none backing this point, and it was always a naive approach ignoring human factors(ignoring human factors we should be getting colder).  This is a dishonest point used by deniers(like your dumbass self) to continue to cast doubt for no good reason.   It has jack-shiat to do with anything. 
It's just you wanting to be wrong, and take a "maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle" or "science is meaningless because sometimes some people are wrong" point.

A belief in a flat earth is wrong, but a belief in a spherical earth is also wrong (as it's actually a distorted spheroid) - however, saying that a spherical and flat earth are equally wrong, is more wrong than both those errors combined.


So, yes, I am saying you aren't to acknowledge it, because it doesn't matter.  It's a fallacy used to lie lie lie lie.  I don't think you're a liar.  I think you're an idiot taken in by a lie, and I'm asking you to be less stupid.


And I'm angry. I'm angry at you for thinking that you have any sort of point, and that it's not a complete and utter irrelevant point.  Stop it.  If you are a reasonable person, you have to look.  You have to see that no one who seriously looked at the data was endorsing this, and it was entirely a fabrication.
 
2013-12-30 12:16:34 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Many of us were alive in the 70s and remember the talk at the time of Global Cooling. Then an idiot like ikanreed chimes in and derps it to the max as if it wasn't something that really did happen. The honest response to people that remember the Global Cooling news of the time is to point out that climate data and models at the time were not as well developed as they are today, and that over time our understanding of most things does change with ever growing data sets. But derpmasters like ikanreed simply react as if the articels aren't out there in the open for anybody to read. My posts were simply to point out how utterly wrong ikanreed is. But they just kept wanting to reag out some sort of bizarre argument to delude themselves that they are somehow in the right. People like this only provide moral support for the deniers of climate change since all they will see is that ikanreed was a frothing at the mouth supporter that was soundly proven wrong. They won't understand that I accept that the climate has changed.

Nobody came even close to settling on climate change for several decades. I pointed out that they were wrong in that this wan't just an islolated Time magazine article.

Or should I retract everything that I have said and acknowledge that there was no reporting on global cooling in the 70s?

ikanreed belongs in the 'you're not helping' group.


So you spent all this time and effort and energy JUST to point out that there REALLY were some articles or news reports in the 70's about global cooling? Yeesh... wouldn't it have been easier just to have left a couple of links to some verified sources?

And while I can say yeah there were some inaccurate articles in the 70s about a coming ice age, when you look at the post you responded to, Doom was saying "remember when everyone was shiatting their pants?" and ikanreed was simply saying "no", because lets be honest, they were both exaggerated statements... If there was anyone metaphorically shiatting themselves over an ice age, they should have been committed... it wasn't an outright denial of articles existing, it was a rebuttal on an exaggerated statement...

Now... Lets all pull the nails out of our hands and feet and climb down off our crosses, shall we?
 
2013-12-30 12:17:54 PM  

ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.


Ha, ironically, that kinda is my point.
 
2013-12-30 12:19:31 PM  
Tricky Chicken:
Wow, you are all over the place.  Are you asserting that acknowledging that in the 70s there were stories abour global cooling automatically makes you a denier?

Just replying to this one sentence, since it's been an important part of what I've been saying, but yes.  It absolutely 100% does.  It's in the nature of denialism to latch onto one point you personally don't like, and repeat it forever.  Not every denier generates all of the same points, because all of them are personally hung up on some arbitrary point.  It's human psychology, and it's why we get these stupid, non-ending debates, and you should stop doing it.
 
2013-12-30 12:21:54 PM  

ikanreed: And I'm angry.


Look, calm down... You two are, at this point, arguing 2 different things... He is arguing semantics and your arguing about science...
 
2013-12-30 12:23:51 PM  

ikanreed: trappedspirit: ikanreed: trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.

Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.

Why would I want to read anything else by someone whose post leads me to believe they are reactionary and emotional about the subject at hand?

Yeah, that's me.  Tired of the same 10-12 points from deniers forever=reactionary.  Go away.


So you can assume things based on the headline but if I assume things base on a post a read of yours I get this attitude?  You sound like a miserable person.
 
2013-12-30 12:24:45 PM  
How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?
 
2013-12-30 12:25:38 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.

Ha, ironically, that kinda is my point.


No, no it isn't.  You're point would be that I'm putting things into containers, I get that much, what I don't get is why your interpretation is that.  Also, I'm already engaged in at least one meta-discussion that's driving me batty, so if you have a criticism about the nature of my posts that can lead to better posting on my part, I'd appreciate a more specific, and less, for lack of a better word, typifying description of it that I might reflect on it and move on.
 
2013-12-30 12:26:18 PM  

trappedspirit: ikanreed: trappedspirit: ikanreed: trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.

Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.

Why would I want to read anything else by someone whose post leads me to believe they are reactionary and emotional about the subject at hand?

Yeah, that's me.  Tired of the same 10-12 points from deniers forever=reactionary.  Go away.

So you can assume things based on the headline but if I assume things base on a post a read of yours I get this attitude?  You sound like a miserable person.


Well, I'd appreciate some leeway once I pointed it out, but ok.  Sure.
 
2013-12-30 12:28:52 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
Wow, you are all over the place.  Are you asserting that acknowledging that in the 70s there were stories abour global cooling automatically makes you a denier?

Just replying to this one sentence, since it's been an important part of what I've been saying, but yes.  It absolutely 100% does.  It's in the nature of denialism to latch onto one point you personally don't like, and repeat it forever.  Not every denier generates all of the same points, because all of them are personally hung up on some arbitrary point.  It's human psychology, and it's why we get these stupid, non-ending debates, and you should stop doing it.


Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

CeroX:

Please tell me you at least understand the above post.  This is the type of lunacy I was railing against. Simply acknowledging the articles exist makes you a denier.  This level of rank stupidity is all the deniers need to justify their position.
 
2013-12-30 12:31:30 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.


O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.
 
2013-12-30 12:32:55 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.


Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.
 
2013-12-30 12:35:12 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.


Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?
 
2013-12-30 12:43:16 PM  

ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.

Ha, ironically, that kinda is my point.

No, no it isn't.  You're point would be that I'm putting things into containers, I get that much, what I don't get is why your interpretation is that.  Also, I'm already engaged in at least one meta-discussion that's driving me batty, so if you have a criticism about the nature of my posts that can lead to better posting on my part, I'd appreciate a more specific, and less, for lack of a better word, typifying description of it that I might reflect on it and move on.


Just don't be so reactionary or defensive. To some of us, how the course of the global climate discussion has changed over the last 40 years is interesting. It doesn't make us idiots, "deniers", or anything else.
 
2013-12-30 12:46:10 PM  

Farking Canuck: This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).


Well, that depends on what the meaning of "is is" is.

In other news, for even stupider people, the word "it" and the word "is" have different meanings.

But please, by all means, talk about stupid people, and then go on to demonstrate that you can't even construct a coherent sentence.
 
2013-12-30 12:47:18 PM  

sufferpuppet: How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?


About as much as a vulcanologist who gets killed by a volcanic bomb. shiat happens. It's funny, but it doesn't mean anything.

That said, the leader of the field trip said the temperature outside rose to above freezing, and he thought he saw a few cracks in front of the boat, so things were maybe changing.  The very next update came in the way of much colder weather and blizzard like conditions, and cracks in 12 foot thick ice don't mean jack diddly.  In other words, the dude is trying to drink his own PR Kool-Aid.
 
2013-12-30 12:48:08 PM  
Did anyone point out that this article is from the future?
 
2013-12-30 12:50:17 PM  

SVenus: sufferpuppet: How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?

About as much as a vulcanologist who gets killed by a volcanic bomb. shiat happens. It's funny, but it doesn't mean anything.

That said, the leader of the field trip said the temperature outside rose to above freezing, and he thought he saw a few cracks in front of the boat, so things were maybe changing.  The very next update came in the way of much colder weather and blizzard like conditions, and cracks in 12 foot thick ice don't mean jack diddly.  In other words, the dude is trying to drink his own PR Kool-Aid.


There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

At best, you are intellectually dishonest. At worst, you're a knowing liar.
 
2013-12-30 12:50:22 PM  
Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom:
Just don't be so reactionary or defensive. To some of us, how the course of the global climate discussion has changed over the last 40 years is interesting. It doesn't make us idiots, "deniers", or anything else.

Bringing up the same irrelevant points does, though.  "The debate" is the problem.  I gotta be careful to not sideline into arguing against something you're not saying here, but discussing these points is like discussing "Piltdown man" in evolutionary science.  The confines of where it's relevant almost never match when people bring it up.
 
2013-12-30 12:51:04 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Please tell me you at least understand the above post. This is the type of lunacy I was railing against. Simply acknowledging the articles exist makes you a denier. This level of rank stupidity is all the deniers need to justify their position.


At this point, it's mute. You've strung him along to the point of it being an epic troll even if it wasn't intentional, and he's so angry he's seeing red... Both of you need to address the elephant in the room, which i believe i have done so earlier, but hey, whatever, it's something you both need to do.

You need to fess up and say yeah, they existed and they were all horseshiat scare tactics, and ikanreed needs to do the same... for those in the 70's that reported on an ice age it was never about science, it was about fear selling more copies to the audience... period. Those same people who published scare articles about the coming ice age also beat it into our heads that there were maniacs in every house slipping razor blades into kids candy bars during halloween. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now...
 
2013-12-30 12:56:07 PM  

CeroX: Tricky Chicken: Please tell me you at least understand the above post. This is the type of lunacy I was railing against. Simply acknowledging the articles exist makes you a denier. This level of rank stupidity is all the deniers need to justify their position.

At this point, it's mute. You've strung him along to the point of it being an epic troll even if it wasn't intentional, and he's so angry he's seeing red... Both of you need to address the elephant in the room, which i believe i have done so earlier, but hey, whatever, it's something you both need to do.

You need to fess up and say yeah, they existed and they were all horseshiat scare tactics, and ikanreed needs to do the same... for those in the 70's that reported on an ice age it was never about science, it was about fear selling more copies to the audience... period. Those same people who published scare articles about the coming ice age also beat it into our heads that there were maniacs in every house slipping razor blades into kids candy bars during halloween. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now...


...

...

Control-f "ikanreed"

hey look, I already did that because, hey, I didn't care about being wrong.  Didn't help.  So... take you're helpful "mediation" and shove it.
 
2013-12-30 12:56:50 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: ikanreed: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.

Ha, ironically, that kinda is my point.

No, no it isn't.  You're point would be that I'm putting things into containers, I get that much, what I don't get is why your interpretation is that.  Also, I'm already engaged in at least one meta-discussion that's driving me batty, so if you have a criticism about the nature of my posts that can lead to better posting on my part, I'd appreciate a more specific, and less, for lack of a better word, typifying description of it that I might reflect on it and move on.

Just don't be so reactionary or defensive. To some of us, how the course of the global climate discussion has changed over the last 40 years is interesting. It doesn't make us idiots, "deniers", or anything else.


no, they made it clear.  Just the fact that you are aware of things that were said in the 70s makes you automatically a denier.  And through inference, you are likely a creationist and a flat-earth adherent. You are supposed to vehemently deny that you ever heard any of this stuff. Also, we have always been at war with east-asia.
 
2013-12-30 12:59:15 PM  

Dirtybird971: Did anyone point out that this article is from the future?


DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!!!!
 
2013-12-30 01:01:06 PM  
These explanations are all over the map, like the blind men describing the elephant. [Aesop]

Apparently none of these people [and you] have ever been through an ice age.
It works like this:

warming [just a little] increases water content in atmosphere a little bit, which after a while saturates the entire atmosphere with a little more water content than usual.

 the seasons occur as usual, snowfall at the poles tends to be a little heavier [moisture content] creating ice a little thicker and a little faster.
meanwhile, a little warmer where the planet is usually warm, means a little more water is continually added to the atmosphere.

all the little bits add up....
eventually the reaction feeds it self into an acceleration phase so that the onset of an ice age is a 2 year affair after the initial build up.

 earth is about 50% into the build up phase, which self accelerates in a logarithmic fashion.
 the extremes of heat and cold will increase, along with violence in weather systems.

toward the very end of the build up 100-500' snowfall seasons will occur, along with record heatwaves in other places, temps of 150 deg over wide areas of sub tropical and tropical zones leading to spontaneous combustion of organic material.

The released pollutants will cool the earth, and meanwhile those 500' snowfall seasons have become 1-2000 ft seasons , which means the snow never melts, all the way down to N. Texas & etc. the heatwaves will pack that into durable ice...

then will come the year where there is no summer, winter begins in fall, and after that -0-0-0-0-0

Read the beginning of the Sagas [Scandinavian] for a clearer understanding of the the 2 year precipice.

[nomadcat.jpg]
 
2013-12-30 01:04:50 PM  

Egoy3k: If the planet was so warm that there was no ice at the south pole we wouldn't be discussing global warming on the internet, we'd most likely be dead.


I will be living the sweet life on an atoll, selling dirt for pure hydro
 
2013-12-30 01:05:27 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.

Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?


No, I will not deny that there was a time in the 70s where there was reporting of a potentially looming global cooling cycle. But like I previously mentioned, I will point out that at that time, the understanding of the climate was not the same as it is now.  And while some at the time predicted a pending cooling period, almost nobody is making that prediction at this time. I will not ever go on a moronic tirade insisting that everyone that has even read the articles is a denier, because I know just how definitively stupid that position is.
 
2013-12-30 01:05:28 PM  

sufferpuppet: How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?


You Win!!!

And thank you, good sir.
 
2013-12-30 01:06:29 PM  

LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

At best, you are intellectually dishonest. At worst, you're a knowing liar.


A qualified Ad-Hom.  You're slipping.
 
2013-12-30 01:13:52 PM  
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-christmas-storms-warn i ng-2971659

Like this, more and more often....

Conveniently erasing [grinding to powder, under ice] the evil industrial behemoth that sits upon the earth like a bacterial mat.
 Isn't it cool that its location is almost exactly where the glacial sheets like to cavort?

Revenge served;
Cold
 
2013-12-30 01:16:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: AL GORE


*chug*
 
2013-12-30 01:22:36 PM  

SevenizGud: Farking Canuck: This is ironic ... for stupid people ... who don't understand the difference between weather and climate ... and that is is cold in the antarctic (even with global warming).

Well, that depends on what the meaning of "is is" is.

In other news, for even stupider people, the word "it" and the word "is" have different meanings.

But please, by all means, talk about stupid people, and then go on to demonstrate that you can't even construct a coherent sentence.


Seriously.

The man who posts the same idiotic cherry picked graph in every thread is going to go after me because of an obvious typo?

I really didn't think you could get dumber. I guess I was wrong.
 
2013-12-30 01:30:42 PM  

Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling


Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop. This is the actual cover it was taken from:

img.timeinc.net


Article from Time about the often used fake cover

The other cover often posted about "the cooling of America" was actually about fuel prices.
 
2013-12-30 01:31:01 PM  

Animatronik: The problem with this particular field is that it relies so heavily on computer modeling that even experienced scientists scratch their heads when asked if the models are correct and predictions accurate.

The biggest problem with all the pessimistic predictions is that aren't going to stop China and India, if anything they'll be encouraged to use even more energy by our continued efforts to cripple our industries .


There is an old expression in science: "All models are wrong. Some are useful." I don't expect you to understand it.

I see you decided to pull out the old "Economy destroying measures" talking point. This is the strawman deniers pull out when they can't argue the science. It seems to boil down to "I don't like the proposed solution to the problem so let's pretend the problem doesn't exist!"

You do realize that not liking a proposed solution is not an argument against the science? Right? That you can say "Yes the evidence clearly shows AGW is happening but I do not agree with proposed solution X".

Personally I don't give a rat's ass about what solution, if any, the politicians put in place. I am just tired of mouth-breathers saying that the scientists are wrong and uneducated bloggers are right.
 
2013-12-30 01:33:07 PM  

Thrag: Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling

Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop.


I knew that there was one photoshop that deniers endlessly pull out ... but I also thought there were a few sensationalist global cooling articles out there as well.
 
2013-12-30 01:37:39 PM  

OnlyM3: Farking Canuck

But you think right-wing bloggers with no education in the field, no research, no data, and a clear political agenda are scientific??
Sorry, I didn't realize NASA was a right wing blog with no education.


The U.S. space agency NASA announced, the sea ice in the Antarctic has extended over an area of 19.47 million square meters at the end of September. That is the highest since measurements began in 1979.


NASA also says an increase in Antarctic ice does not disprove climate change.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
 
2013-12-30 01:38:07 PM  

Farking Canuck: Thrag: Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling

Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop.

I knew that there was one photoshop that deniers endlessly pull out ... but I also thought there were a few sensationalist global cooling articles out there as well.


I think there was one major scientific model/basis for the articles in the 70's.  All came from one source though there were several articles over several years.  Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

But, there have been some recent scientific studies/models predicting global cooling.  Russians a couple years ago, Germans this summer, and a former AGW guy just recently said that he sees global cooling occurring...can't think of his name but it was part of a Fark article in the last 2 weeks. So, it is interesting that in the recent past there is some actual science behind the global cooling "school" of thought.  Of course, some of that "school" is basing it on the lack of warming over the past few years rather than on some science as to why.  Though I think the Germans are looking at bigger historical trends.
 
2013-12-30 01:38:20 PM  

SVenus: LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

At best, you are intellectually dishonest. At worst, you're a knowing liar.

A qualified Ad-Hom.  You're slipping.


No. Do you know what ad-hominem means?

Basically, "you're wrong because (insult)". e.g. "A redheaded step-child like you wouldn't know anything about quantum physics!"

What I said was "You're wrong (for reasons unrelated to any insult), and that implies something insulting."

Not that I was even trying to insult, really, it's just a natural consequence of your statement. You lied. That makes you a liar. You find me one single reputable climate scientist who thinks the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles, or predicting any such result within hundreds of years.

In other words, the dudeSVenus is trying to drink his own PR Kool-Aid.
 
2013-12-30 01:51:57 PM  

I_C_Weener: But, there have been some recent scientific studies/models predicting global cooling. Russians a couple years ago, Germans this summer, and a former AGW guy just recently said that he sees global cooling occurring...can't think of his name but it was part of a Fark article in the last 2 weeks. So, it is interesting that in the recent past there is some actual science behind the global cooling "school" of thought. Of course, some of that "school" is basing it on the lack of warming over the past few years rather than on some science as to why. Though I think the Germans are looking at bigger historical trends.


We should be cooling right now due to where we are in the Milankovitch cycles. But that would be very slow cooling on the scale of thousands of years.

This is one reason that the current trend of very fast warming on the scale of hundreds of years is so concerning to scientists.
 
2013-12-30 01:52:28 PM  

Farking Canuck: Thrag: Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling

Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop.

I knew that there was one photoshop that deniers endlessly pull out ... but I also thought there were a few sensationalist global cooling articles out there as well.


There was a time magazine article in 1974 about the possibility of cooling, though it was not the cover story. It is still available online, but sadly all but a short bit of the opening is behind the paywall. Even in that article it mentioned that some scientists believed the cooling trend that was being experienced at that time was only temporary. There was also a Newsweek story about the possibility of cooling in 1975. Those two articles encompass the major media coverage of the event (there was probably other coverage like local new stories latching onto the Time or Newsweek articles, but as far as major publications that was about it).

I missed an opportunity here. I really should have replied to all the people claiming they were around in the 70s and remember the coverage by showing the fake cover and getting them to say "yeah, that's the one!" before posting the real one.
 
2013-12-30 01:55:21 PM  

I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.


There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.
 
2013-12-30 01:56:29 PM  

Thrag: I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.


You obviously are in the mood for a fight.  I am not.  Good day.
 
2013-12-30 02:00:35 PM  
How long until the Libs realize there is on Global Warming or Global Cooling and start bleating about "OMG!!! IT'S GLOBAL CLIMATE STAGNATION!!!! IT'S AMERICA'S FAULT!!!!
 
2013-12-30 02:04:01 PM  

LavenderWolf: reputable climate scientist who thinks the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles


You really haven't been following much on the whole situation here, so I'll cut you some slack.
This Turney fellow saw a few cracks in the ice around his stranded ship and figured they'd be able to get out soon.
I related that in this thread.  If you're trying to imply I mentioned something about the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles, feel free to continue to do so, but that certainly misinterprets anything I've mentioned in this thread.

I will certainly imply that Turney and friends must have intended to show how the Antarctic is somehow showing effects of a warmer climate now by comparing the current trip to Antarctica to that of the one taken in 1912, and it was going very well for him until multiyear ice came and surrounded the vessel many many miles from shore.  It was a weather event that merely looks funny.  It's not in fact very funny at all.

Likewise, taking a boat and getting stuck and needing rescue in Northern Canada is also amusing on the surface, but that's not for this thread.

it's a fact that the amount of ice around Antarctica is far above a long term average, almost the same number of standard deviations above the long term average as the Arctic ice is below the long term average.  We have many threads on Arctic ice dissappearing, and very few on Antarctic ice increasing.  One might try to argue that the melting ice is actually causing more sea ice and still try to tack this increasing Antarctic ice on global warming, but the ice around Turney's little cruise is very thick multi year sea ice and very few iceburgs are blocking their way to the open ocean.  The argument is a possible one, but it's very much up for debate.

The helicopter(s) are on the way to rescue the vacationers as I type this.  Strangely, Turney and friends will consider this whole adventure a net positive for their cause, because of the worldwide attention to this debacle.
 
2013-12-30 02:04:25 PM  

I_C_Weener: Thrag: I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.

You obviously are in the mood for a fight.  I am not.  Good day.


I'm not in the mood for a fight. I'm in the mood for factual accuracy. There simply was no hysteria about global cooling in the 70s. There were a total of two articles in major news publications. Is your criteria for "hysteria" really just two major articles?

Your timeline is also factually wrong. The two articles were in 1974 (Time) and 1975 (Newsweek). That's not the late 70s.

The only thing you were correct about is that there were some bad winters in the late 70s. As someone growing up in New York at the time I recall the 1978 blizzard well, mainly because to a kid it was totally awesome. I was really disappointed that nothing like that ever happened again while I lived there.
 
2013-12-30 02:05:32 PM  

Thrag: I_C_Weener: Thrag: I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.

You obviously are in the mood for a fight.  I am not.  Good day.

I'm not in the mood for a fight. I'm in the mood for factual accuracy. There simply was no hysteria about global cooling in the 70s. There were a total of two articles in major news publications. Is your criteria for "hysteria" really just two major articles?

Your timeline is also factually wrong. The two articles were in 1974 (Time) and 1975 (Newsweek). That's not the late 70s.

The only thing you were correct about is that there were some bad winters in the late 70s. As someone growing up in New York at the time I recall the 1978 blizzard well, mainly because to a kid it was totally awesome. I was really disappointed that nothing like that ever happened again while I lived there.


i586.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-30 02:07:04 PM  

ikanreed: trappedspirit: dookdookdook: OMG THERE'S ICE AT THE NORTH FARKING POLE GLOBAL WARMING IS A CONSPIRACY

ikanreed: Hey, guys, there's no global warming.  There's ice, at the north pole, in winter.  Even though there's less than any year in history besides last year or the year before, it's still totally evidence.


[democrat-independent-republican-belief-in-global-warming.jpg]

WTF?  Did you feel such a need to blurt out your bullshiat that you got your poles and seasons wrong?  Makes one wonder what else in your thinking is 180 degrees off.

Oh, look, I already addressed that very point in this thread.  But sure, you can jump on me without reading anything else I posted for the high crime of not reading an article the headline leads me to believe is link-bait.


wow.  you are one unpleasant bloke.  You blow up at everyone you disagree with, right or wrong?
 
2013-12-30 02:08:35 PM  

Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.

Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?

No, I will not deny that there was a time in the 70s where there was reporting of a potentially looming global cooling cycle. But like I previously mentioned, I will point out that at that time, the understanding of the climate was not the same as it is now.  And while some at the time predicted a pending cooling period, almost nobody is making that prediction at this time. I will not ever go on a moronic tirade insisting that everyone that has even read the articles is a denier, because I know just how definitively stupid that position is.


No one is asking you to deny it, just to stop bringing it up as if it is relevant.
 
2013-12-30 02:10:19 PM  
Freshwater has a higher freezing point than sea water. Where could all this freshwater freezing around the continent of Antarctica be coming from? This continent covered in ice. It is a mystery that will never be solved.
 
2013-12-30 02:17:36 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: ikanreed: Tricky Chicken: Wow, please re-read your own post over and over until you understand it.

O...kay...  I have critically applied the concept both to itself, and the underlying point that you shouldn't be hung up on what was reported by some unspecified number of journalists 40 years ago.  I cannot figure out what I'm missing, so please stop assuming I'm aware of whatever hypocrisy you see.

Oh, it is clear that you are unaware.

Nope, you don't get to do that.  You don't get to be a dense motherfarker, have it pointed out to you, say "you too" and then act smug without justifying it.

Since you're not going to do that...  Let's go back to my point.

Are you going to stop repeating the nonsense about articles in the 70s, so we have one less idiot dragging down the debate in all these threads? If no, why not, elaborate, if you can?

No, I will not deny that there was a time in the 70s where there was reporting of a potentially looming global cooling cycle. But like I previously mentioned, I will point out that at that time, the understanding of the climate was not the same as it is now.  And while some at the time predicted a pending cooling period, almost nobody is making that prediction at this time. I will not ever go on a moronic tirade insisting that everyone that has even read the articles is a denier, because I know just how definitively stupid that position is.

No one is asking you to deny it, just to stop bringing it up as if it is relevant.


I didn't bring it up.
 
2013-12-30 02:28:22 PM  
Tricky Chicken:
I didn't bring it up.

Oh you were doing what I thought Dow Jones was doing, and he was doing what I thought you were.  Hm.
 
2013-12-30 02:33:00 PM  

SVenus: LavenderWolf: reputable climate scientist who thinks the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles

You really haven't been following much on the whole situation here, so I'll cut you some slack.
This Turney fellow saw a few cracks in the ice around his stranded ship and figured they'd be able to get out soon.
I related that in this thread.  If you're trying to imply I mentioned something about the Earth is too warm for ice at the poles, feel free to continue to do so, but that certainly misinterprets anything I've mentioned in this thread.

I will certainly imply that Turney and friends must have intended to show how the Antarctic is somehow showing effects of a warmer climate now by comparing the current trip to Antarctica to that of the one taken in 1912, and it was going very well for him until multiyear ice came and surrounded the vessel many many miles from shore.  It was a weather event that merely looks funny.  It's not in fact very funny at all.

Likewise, taking a boat and getting stuck and needing rescue in Northern Canada is also amusing on the surface, but that's not for this thread.

it's a fact that the amount of ice around Antarctica is far above a long term average, almost the same number of standard deviations above the long term average as the Arctic ice is below the long term average.  We have many threads on Arctic ice dissappearing, and very few on Antarctic ice increasing.  One might try to argue that the melting ice is actually causing more sea ice and still try to tack this increasing Antarctic ice on global warming, but the ice around Turney's little cruise is very thick multi year sea ice and very few iceburgs are blocking their way to the open ocean.  The argument is a possible one, but it's very much up for debate.

The helicopter(s) are on the way to rescue the vacationers as I type this.  Strangely, Turney and friends will consider this whole adventure a net positive for their cause, because of the worldwide attention to this debacle.


And it's continued intellectual dishonesty. You literally implied that the guy thought the ice was going to melt - in a specific instance - because of climate change. Homie don't play me like that.
 
2013-12-30 02:54:16 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: Freshwater has a higher freezing point than sea water. Where could all this freshwater freezing around the continent of Antarctica be coming from? This continent covered in ice. It is a mystery that will never be solved.


You helped solve it. Very worthy point!
freshwater from temporary icemelts, heavy snowfall or rain could make Antarctica occupy as large as Africa due to very thicke sea ice. [like 1/2 mile thick]

 it is summertime in Antarctica, btw.

All of the differing scientists are partially correct...
@Aesop
 
2013-12-30 03:02:46 PM  
I hope all participants on this trip get stuck with an equal share of the bill for all the costs incurred trying to save their worthless hides from their own self-glorification.
 
2013-12-30 03:31:02 PM  
I like ice.
 
2013-12-30 03:34:35 PM  
intelligent designed ice.
 
2013-12-30 03:36:27 PM  

Deep Contact: intelligent designed ice.


Ice 9?
 
2013-12-30 03:40:51 PM  

LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."


Why not? In the Cretaceous, McMurdo would have been located on the shore of a temperate forest.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-30 04:05:52 PM  
I don't care.

I'll continue not to care.

When I think I might start caring, I come to threads like these on the internet and am quickly reminded of why I don't care by folks like ikanreed.

Environmentalism is the new religion as evidenced by it's zealots.

Back to being a "denier." Oh my, how will I go on?
 
2013-12-30 04:16:44 PM  

Walken's Sock Puppet: Back to being a "denier." Oh my, how will I go on?


A lot of luddites are proud of their anti-science position. You keep going with what your gut tells you to do.
 
2013-12-30 04:34:16 PM  
Meanwhile, the forecast for Chicken, AK says:

Today: Mostly cloudy with flurries...except mostly clear around eagle. Patchy fog. Highs zero to 10 below. Light winds.

Tonight: Cloudy. Lows 10 to 25 below. Light winds.

Tuesday: Mostly cloudy. Highs 5 to 15 below. Light winds.

Tuesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows 10 to 20 below. Light winds.

New Years Day: Cloudy. Chance of snow. Highs 6 below to 5 above. Light winds.

Wednesday Night: Cloudy. Chance of snow. Lows around 15 below.

Thursday Through Friday: Mostly cloudy. Highs around 5 below. Lows around 15 below.

Friday Night And Saturday: Cloudy. Lows around 10 below. Highs around 5 below.

Saturday Night: Mostly cloudy. Lows around 25 below.

Sunday: Partly cloudy. Highs around 10 below.


/Oh looky, it will be positively toasty. They should see a high of Zero today!
 
2013-12-30 05:04:43 PM  
This is one of those times when I wish everyone posted with their real names.   That way we can see who the science deniers are.

Don't believe in evolution?  Don't believe that the moon landings happened?  Don't believe that the world is more than 6000 years old?  Don't believe in the vast majority of scientists who think global warming is real?  Ok, now I know I'm talking to an idiot and I'll start using smaller words and simpler concepts.
 
2013-12-30 05:14:38 PM  

This text is now purple: LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

Why not? In the Cretaceous, McMurdo would have been located on the shore of a temperate forest.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x260]


That's continental drift.  The land was literally in a different location other than the south pole.  The polar regions stay where they are; land masses can move in and out of them.
 
2013-12-30 05:38:30 PM  

ikanreed: Tricky Chicken:
I didn't bring it up.

Oh you were doing what I thought Dow Jones was doing, and he was doing what I thought you were.  Hm.


If I may sum up the previous exchange from the perspective of an observer:

DJatToD: Anyone else remember that one Bigfoot video from the 60's?
Tricky: It's known as the Patterson-Gimlin film.
ikanreed: Bigfoot is not real, stop saying that.
Tricky: When did I say Bigfoot is real?
ikanreed: By confirming the existence of the film, you're saying Bigfoot is real.
Tricky: I'm saying the film is a real thing. It was actually made and exists. Nothing about Bigfoot being real.
ikanreed: You said it again!
Tricky: Ni!
DJatToD: Nu!
Cerox: My word, what a state we're in when two anonymous men on the internet can be found saying Ni to a zealous climate aware old woman.

/I might be mildly baked
 
2013-12-30 05:45:27 PM  

mgshamster: This text is now purple: LavenderWolf: There isn't a climate scientist on the planet who thinks that the polar regions are ever going to be "warm."

Why not? In the Cretaceous, McMurdo would have been located on the shore of a temperate forest.
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x260]

That's continental drift.  The land was literally in a different location other than the south pole.  The polar regions stay where they are; land masses can move in and out of them.


There were temperate forests at what was then 85 degrees South -- which is about 5 degrees south of where McMurdo is now.

And what was in the Antarctic during the Cretaceous? Mostly what's currently Antarctica, plus a little of southern Australia.
 
2013-12-30 05:47:19 PM  
mgshamster:

That's continental drift.  The land was literally in a different location other than the south pole.  The polar regions stay where they are; land masses can move in and out of them.


I like the point you bring up.
Could it be that if the antarctic becomes too heavy with ice and the added mass is not quite centered on the pole[axis of rotation], then the continental drift accelerates or the pole [axis of rotation] shifts, possibly suddenly, throwing other zones into arctic/antarctic latitudes?

It appears from maps that the S. Hemisphere has a lot less land surface than the N. Hemisphere.
Is Antarctica the heavy 'dark mass' that makes up the balance?

Of all the continents, Antarctica has a most peculiar shape, like it was formed in a whirl...
 
2013-12-30 06:00:26 PM  

ikanreed:

An ice age is where we should be headed given those "natural cycles" you idiots keep blathering about. Actual climate science had already settled on the natural of global warming by this point.
Oh, you mean those "natural cycles" that warmer alarmists kept blathering were destroyed by too much carbon dioxide, resulting in inexorable warming?   THOSE cycles?

Well, science seems to LOVE to give warmer alarmists really big clues that they don't know what they're talking about.  Of course, anyone willing to say (non-ironically) that "the science is settled" clearly does not have the scientific foundation to understand clues of even that size.

And, YES, the next "temperature problem" humanity is going to face actually *IS* a colloquial "ice age."

 
2013-12-30 06:38:36 PM  
"When police found him in the snow, the man was clutching a cell phone and had another person's ID on him. Detectives initially thought the victim, dressed all in black and wearing a ski mask, may have been a robber whose victim had turned the tables on him.

"But a phone call from a family member indicated the man was carrying his cousin's ID and was wearing the mask to protect himself from frigid temperatures. Police are still seeking the shooter, but the victim has not been much help, Kieffer said."

Riiiiight. "MAH BABY AIN'T NEVER ROB NO ONE! He was carrying his cousin's ID and not his own for reasons completely unrelated to giving a false name to the po-po!"
 
2013-12-30 06:39:36 PM  
Ah hell, naturally I type that in the wrong tab. My bad.
 
2013-12-30 06:42:08 PM  
Great. The green threadshiatter is back. Must need some cash for his Christmas credit card bill.
 
2013-12-30 06:43:23 PM  
It wains, it's gwobal warming, if it's dry it's gwobal warming, if it's hot it's gwobal warming, if it's cold it's gwobal warming.  Better right a check to the gubmint so they can fix it like they fixed health care!!!!!
 
2013-12-30 06:53:41 PM  

Tricky Chicken:

Way to move the goalposts there skippy! You derided that there was an article in Time, so I showed you where you can find several others that are NOT Time magazine articles. Now you scoff because there wasn't a consensus in the 70's when that was never the point. The assertion was that global cooling was in the news in the 70's. You have scoffed at that, but forwarded absolutely NOTHING to support your position other than that you do not agree with it now.
That's the process...  So far in this thread, (and I read consecutively,) I haven't seen a single argument -- just constant insults of anyone who doesn't toe the line, as they see it. It's a typical (and transparent) ploy to attempt to stop the debate before it can start.  Let's not forget that, while it is true that 97% of scientists believe man's release of carbon dioxide DOES have a warming effect, it is also true that only 0.3% of scientists believe that the U.N.'s panic-mongering is the correct response.  So, in reality, the CONSENSUS is that man is warming the planet, but that the IPCC are panic-mongering idiots.  Science triumphs again.
 
2013-12-30 07:02:52 PM  

ikanreed:

They look at predictive success of the various models and can actually assign meaningful assessments as to the accuracy.
Yeah, about that....

tucsoncitizen.com

If that were what was being done, the entire AGW hypothesis would have been discarded long ago.  It is CRYSTAL clear that something in it is grossly wrong, given the consistent failure to predict accurately.

 
2013-12-30 07:06:36 PM  

X-boxershorts:

BigGrnEggGriller: ghare: BigGrnEggGriller: It's almost like those on the left want Global Warming to be happening.

Imho, it's a big redistribution of wealth scheme that's just starting to fall apart

That's because you're a dolt.

Lemme give you a little hint: your insurance company believes in global warming. The CIA believes in global warming. Investment banks believe in global warming.

The people that don't, for some reason, are mostly American evangelicals

I forgot to mention how angry the Global Warming cultists can be when it's pointed out to them that their catastrophic predictions aren't coming true.

Why can't they be more like the Hale Bop cultists?

Because they have functioning cognitive centers?
Well, couldn't the warmer alarmists PRETEND to have functioning cognitive centers?
 
2013-12-30 07:31:01 PM  

Egoy3k: If the planet was so warm that there was no ice at the south pole we wouldn't be discussing global warming on the internet, we'd most likely be dead.


Congrats.

You win the "dumbest thing said today" award.

If there were no ice at the south pole, we'd be living in a climate similar to the one that allowed the explosion of mammalian evolution to take place.  A climate much more average for Earth than the current one, let alone the colder glacial cycles.
 
2013-12-30 07:36:19 PM  

GeneralJim: ikanreed: They look at predictive success of the various models and can actually assign meaningful assessments as to the accuracy.Yeah, about that....
[tucsoncitizen.com image 817x613]
If that were what was being done, the entire AGW hypothesis would have been discarded long ago.  It is CRYSTAL clear that something in it is grossly wrong, given the consistent failure to predict accurately.


So the general trend is correct but not falling within the predicted area so the theory is wrong?     The hypothesis (global warming) is proving correct, only the amount of warming is proving wrong.   The phrase 'we seem to have gotten lucky' comes to mind.   So why not keep working to control global warming and do further research work to clarify the models?
 
2013-12-30 08:10:20 PM  

sufferpuppet: How much stock should we put in the science!!! done by people who were outsmarted by ice?


Ha! Outsmarted by ice!  Back in my day they did sciencing, the old-timey way.  None of this fancy, "We got stuck in the ice with a bunch of Rooskies" nonsense.  No, wouldn't trust them at all.  I don't even like ice polluting my bourbon or rye.
 
2013-12-30 08:19:43 PM  
Eventually it will be realized what the earth is experiencing is climate shift.
 
2013-12-30 08:21:27 PM  

Mean Daddy: It wains, it's gwobal warming, if it's dry it's gwobal warming, if it's hot it's gwobal warming, if it's cold it's gwobal warming.  Better right a check to the gubmint so they can fix it like they fixed health care!!!!!


Yeah let's all "right" checks.

English is almost as hard as science!!
 
2013-12-30 09:07:14 PM  
drop:
If there were no ice at the south pole, we'd be living in a climate similar to the one that allowed the explosion of mammalian evolution to take place.  A climate much more average for Earth than the current one, let alone the colder glacial cycles.

Your comment reminds me,
All of our analysis [incl mine] may have missed an important ingredient in the theory of how an Ice Age can start.

from my last comment;
It appears from maps that the S. Hemisphere has a lot less land surface than the N. Hemisphere.
Is Antarctica the heavy 'dark mass' that makes up the balance?


after thinking about and looking up the statement above, I'd like to add this clue;
["About 7/8 of the world's land area is in the Northern Hemisphere;  only about 61% ocean versus 81% for the southern hemisphere."
"The heat that tropical and subtropical surface water provide is just a veneer of warmth over a cold ocean; typical deep ocean temperature vary from ¨1° to 3°C." ]

If that deep water water suddenly were on the surface, we'd freeze up real quick. As in, mammoths have been found frozen upright with buttercups still in their mouths.

If the buildup of ice exceeds (x) in certain parts, such as Antarctica or the arctic & its north lands that border it; then a pole shift may occur.

A poleshift can suddenly bring to the surface the cold, almost freezing ocean waters over huge areas, causing or adding to the acceleration towards an ice age precipice.

'Of all the continents, Antarctica has a most peculiar shape, like it was formed in a whirl'...
such as caused by the last poleshift.
interestingly, the Arctic ocean around the N. Pole is of similar size and shape as the antarctic land mass.

The main fault with the AGW & other theoretical research is that scientists tend to become dogmatic and stop adding clues, becoming 'frozen' into a particular model.
let's keep an open mind....
whilst the world turns...

I'd like NASA to build a scale model of the earth in a weightless environment, composed of materials which would allow a simulation in quick time the actions of water and continents, mantle & other factors under certain spin conditions.

NASA? are you up for this?
 
2013-12-30 09:34:05 PM  

hasty ambush: Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?
Just Time Magazine?

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population." -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000." -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age". -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

More recent:


wo German scientists, Horst-Joachin Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, say that "two naturally occurring climate cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the next century."

They added, "by the year 2100, temperatures on this planet will plunge to levels seen at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' in 1870."

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 638x341]

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 638x345]

"Only six years ago, the BBC reported that the Arctic wo ...


See, now we are all going to freeze in the next ice age because of those twisted light bulbs.
 
2013-12-30 10:50:11 PM  

ikanreed:

Who cares? Seriously, who cares if they were wrong about that? The facts and honest study has been against your idiocy for literal decades, but you've latched onto reporters being wrong about something(and in turn some random poster being wrong about that)? Is that an excuse for you intentionally choosing to be wrong?

What's wrong with you?
Maybe he's one of those with that "functioning cognitive center;" that could appear to be a problem, from your perspective.  You keep making this sound as if science is somehow backing up the warmer alarmists.  It most clearly is NOT backing them up, and is, in fact, falsifying their ANTI-science position at every turn.  How many times does AGW have to be falsified before you admit it should be discarded?   (HINT:  The SCIENTIFIC answer is: ONCE.)
 
2013-12-31 12:12:00 AM  

CeroX:

Lee451: Farking Canuck: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Remember in the 70's and early 80's when everyone was shiatting their pants over a second ice age? Where 60% of the earth would be covered in ice and snow, and we'd all be living in igloos in the Caribbean?

That was great

No. I remember the science being heavily leaning towards global warming in the 70's.

You know how I remember this? Because all the scientific literature from the 70's is available and it clearly shows this.

There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling ... but you wouldn't be stupid enough to get your science from Time magazine would you?

Even Carl Sagan was pushing a second ice age in the late 70's. I recall no one claiming AGW back then.
As for the allegation that Sagan called for higher CO2 emissions, William Poundstone, who wrote a
That claim is new to me. While I can't prove a negative, I would be very skeptical of it unless they've got some period documentation. Sagan was at any rate one of the first to worry about global warming. He was a principal architect of the current understanding of Venus, showing that the carbon dioxide in its atmosphere caused it to be much hotter than astronomers of the time had imagined. In my Sagan biography I write (p. 45):
"One day in Berkeley, Carl told Ronald Blum (he had moved west, too) that he was worried about the carbon dioxide in the air. The burning of fuel was creating more carbon dioxide. This would increase the earth's greenhouse effect and warm the globe with disastrous consequences. At the time, that was an incredible if not crazy thing to say. It could not have been later than 1963."
This was based on an interview with Ronald Blum, a college friend.
Science historian
No, I never heard that Carl Sagan, or indeed anyone in the 1970s, endorsed the idea of producing CO2 to forestall an ice age. It's true that the idea of using CO2 in this way was circulated already early in the 20th century, but anything along those lines
would have been speculation about a distant future--few expected a real ice age would come except over the course of centuries or, more likely, millennia.
Not only does the Washington Examiner op-ed revise 1970s history, it also takes liberties with more recent news. The op-ed, titled "Ice age threat should freeze EPA global warming regs," says astrophysicists recently predicted that because of low sunspot activity, "we may be heading into the next ice age."
But the scientists who conducted that solar research
This is a massive fail of copypasta.   Care to try again?

 
2013-12-31 12:17:50 AM  

CeroX:

CeroX:

So a lot of that got cut out for some weird reason... read it all here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/07/28/if-you-wish-to-make-up-facts-f rom-scratch/183472
Yeah, on the subject of making up facts from scratch, Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom (I think it was him...) just said that Carl Sagan was on-board with the idea of the upcoming ice age.    You reply: "No, I never heard that Carl Sagan, or indeed anyone in the 1970s, endorsed the idea of producing CO2 to forestall an ice age."  Nobody claimed he did, and I don't care to research it to see if it's true.
 
2013-12-31 04:01:26 AM  

ikanreed:

I'm wrong about articles about global cooling. Let's put that in text. I don't even know precisely what I said that was wrong, but let's say I am.
You are.   It's mostly irrelevant, other than it's wrong like the rest of the crap copied from the skepticalscience blog.  But it's a start...
 
2013-12-31 04:06:17 AM  

Wook:

The real problem with AGW is that it fails the common sense test.
While you're certainly RIGHT, I would not say that is the "real problem."  I would say that the real problem is that AGW has been falsified, and warmer alarmists just won't let it go.
 
2013-12-31 05:19:14 AM  

ikanreed:

And I'm angry. I'm angry at you for thinking that you have any sort of point, and that it's not a complete and utter irrelevant point. Stop it. If you are a reasonable person, you have to look. You have to see that no one who seriously looked at the data was endorsing this, and it was entirely a fabrication.
People don't think well when they're angry.  James Hansen (NASA GISS Director) wrote the model that started the "ice age panic."   And, yeah, it was stupid, just as AGW is stupid now, only nobody had figured out a way to tax people for the planet cooling off, so there was not the same amount of backing for it.

Read about Hansen here....
 
2013-12-31 05:22:22 AM  

ikanreed:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ignoring the name calling, you seem rather preoccupied with putting people into the neat little categorical containers that the media has prepared for you. Subjects like global climate change and evolution are generally not served well by black and white thinking. That arrests the discussion instead of furthering it. Just sayin

What?

No, seriously, what?

I can't even begin to guess what point you're making.
EXACTLY! You have no clue what point he's making, but you sure are going to defend against it, whatever it is. *SIGH*
 
2013-12-31 05:26:31 AM  

ikanreed:

Tricky Chicken:
Wow, you are all over the place.  Are you asserting that acknowledging that in the 70s there were stories abour global cooling automatically makes you a denier?

Just replying to this one sentence, since it's been an important part of what I've been saying, but yes.  It absolutely 100% does.  It's in the nature of denialism to latch onto one point you personally don't like, and repeat it forever.  Not every denier generates all of the same points, because all of them are personally hung up on some arbitrary point.  It's human psychology, and it's why we get these stupid, non-ending debates, and you should stop doing it.
I guess we can add "human psychology" to the list of topics about which you know close to nothing.  So, if one were to believe your outrageous claim, there are only two kinds of people: Liars, and deniers.  There really WERE such articles, and they were started by people from NASA, including James Hansen, the Soros sockpuppet.
 
2013-12-31 05:32:49 AM  

ikanreed:

I gotta be careful to not sideline into arguing against something you're not saying here, but discussing these points is like discussing "Piltdown man" in evolutionary science. The confines of where it's relevant almost never match when people bring it up.
Yeah, but in climate science, we STILL have people pushing Piltdown Man, even after the jawbone filing was discovered.  That's just messed up.
 
2013-12-31 05:56:47 AM  

Farking Canuck:

Thrag: Farking Canuck: There was a time magazine cover in the 70's about cooling

Actually, no. The Time magazine cover with the penguin on it is a photoshop.

I knew that there was one photoshop that deniers endlessly pull out ... but I also thought there were a few sensationalist global cooling articles out there as well.
Keep a'spinnin', Sparky....
Coming Ice Age Articles....

 
2013-12-31 06:03:16 AM  

I_C_Weener:

So, it is interesting that in the recent past there is some actual science behind the global cooling "school" of thought. Of course, some of that "school" is basing it on the lack of warming over the past few years rather than on some science as to why. Though I think the Germans are looking at bigger historical trends.

Keep fabricating....   Here's the simple truth, and a warning:



www.infiniteunknown.net

 
2013-12-31 06:08:45 AM  

Farking Canuck:

I_C_Weener: But, there have been some recent scientific studies/models predicting global cooling. Russians a couple years ago, Germans this summer, and a former AGW guy just recently said that he sees global cooling occurring...can't think of his name but it was part of a Fark article in the last 2 weeks. So, it is interesting that in the recent past there is some actual science behind the global cooling "school" of thought. Of course, some of that "school" is basing it on the lack of warming over the past few years rather than on some science as to why. Though I think the Germans are looking at bigger historical trends.

We should be cooling right now due to where we are in the Milankovitch cycles. But that would be very slow cooling on the scale of thousands of years.

This is one reason that the current trend of very fast warming on the scale of hundreds of years is so concerning to scientists.
Ach, we ARE cooling, and we've warmed faster without carbon dioxide.   Get it right.

upload.wikimedia.org

 
2013-12-31 06:13:51 AM  

Thrag:

I_C_Weener: Most of the hysteria was due to the late 70's bad winters and ergo, some scientist saying global cooling makes for some nice background for a media hsyteria article on snow.

There was no hysteria. The idea that there was is pure revisionist history.
Wrong -- Read the Chicken-Littling from Earth Day, April 22, 1970....
 
2013-12-31 06:18:12 AM  

Thrag:

I'm not in the mood for a fight. I'm in the mood for factual accuracy. There simply was no hysteria about global cooling in the 70s. There were a total of two articles in major news publications. Is your criteria for "hysteria" really just two major articles?
So, you consider it your right to outright lie?
 
2013-12-31 06:25:37 AM  
www.avoidingthepuddle.com
 
2013-12-31 07:06:14 AM  

Cyber_Junk:

This is one of those times when I wish everyone posted with their real names.   That way we can see who the science deniers are.

Don't believe in evolution?  Don't believe that the moon landings happened?  Don't believe that the world is more than 6000 years old?  Don't believe in the vast majority of scientists who think global warming is real?  Ok, now I know I'm talking to an idiot and I'll start using smaller words and simpler concepts.

I believe in the scientists; they exist -- I've even met a couple of them...  I also think the planet has warmed, from the mid-1970s until somewhere around 1997.   And, on a longer term, the planet has been warming for about 300 years, since the end of the mini ice age.  ( I note that the warming trend is about twice as long as the industrial revolution has been. )

But, while almost all scientists believe that mankind has warmed the planet through carbon dioxide -- as I do, too, that does NOT mean that most scientists buy the bullshiat being put out by the IPCC, and cheating scientists like Michael Mann, James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones, and Keith Briffa.  As a matter of fact, more scientists believe that the planet has not warmed, or that people had NOTHING to do with it than believe the U.N.   I don't know about YOU, but I certainly do NOT call a 0.3% agreement with the IPCC a "consensus."

Once more, an HONEST look at the data show that most scientists believe that mankind has warmed the planet, but not by much at all, and certainly not to any point approaching danger.   And that is, almost certainly, correct in both aspects.


 
2013-12-31 07:17:01 AM  

Cyber_Junk:

So the general trend is correct but not falling within the predicted area so the theory is wrong? The hypothesis (global warming) is proving correct, only the amount of warming is proving wrong. The phrase 'we seem to have gotten lucky' comes to mind. So why not keep working to control global warming and do further research work to clarify the models?
Several reasons.   First, there's no need to "control global warming."   We're about as cold as the planet has ever been now -- the "normal" temperature is 7-10 K warmer.

Second, I really can't see destroying American industry and fostering industrial growth in India and China, while constantly INCREASING emissions as much of a "solution."  I really don't believe the planet cares where carbon dioxide comes from; Indian or Chinese carbon dioxide is the same as American carbon dioxide.   And, of course, NONE of them is actually a pollution.

Third, those funding the "research" have no interest in correcting the models.   If the models were correct, they would show a normal amount of warming for leaving a little ice age, and a tiny bit more.   Unless they were REALLY fixed, and showed the upcoming cooling period, and there's no way to control and tax in either of those two scenarios.

 
2013-12-31 07:21:25 AM  

JSTACAT:

NASA? are you up for this?
No, they are not.   Haven't you seen their directives?   They are now tasked with supporting AGW, and engaging in Muslim outreach.  No, seriously.
 
2013-12-31 07:37:03 AM  
GeneralJim:

Well, now we know who Fred Singer's Fark ID is...
 
2013-12-31 07:56:30 AM  
I feel we need to post the Big Lebowski for Evey one of these threads.

"Walter, you aren't wrong. You're just an asshole."
 
2013-12-31 08:21:54 AM  

GeneralJim: People don't think well when they're angry.  James Hansen (NASA GISS Director) wrote the model that started the "ice age panic."   And, yeah, it was stupid, just as AGW is stupid now, only nobody had figured out a way to tax people for the planet cooling off, so there was not the same amount of backing for it.


Actually, there wasn't as much backing for it because the non-scientists (where the real political power is) couldn't be driven to panic as easily by scaring them with promises of blizzards and whole continents buried under ice, as they could be by promises of floods and whole continents sunk beneath the ocean. Not that the "global cooling" line didn't scare a lot of people, but it's like comparing movie revenues from "The DaVinci Code" to movie revenues from "Avatar." Scaring people with threats of disasters that nearly everyone could relate to gave the scientific authorities far more political power than scaring them with disasters only people living north of the Arctic Circle could relate to, and that was the real goal of all the "climate science" in the first place.

/the pseudoscientists needed a new schtick after Carl Sagan discredited astrology
//of course, Sagan made mint by being the first advocate to make the leap, and using his authority over the field he helped pioneer like one might use a rifle to extort money from those that want to travel through a barricade
 
2013-12-31 09:56:09 AM  
And there it is. The infamous "Green Wall of Lies".

Don't bother debating him. His lies have been debunked literally dozens of times. He will still post them again next time he is short of money. All in green (easy to count) at the end of the thread.
 
2013-12-31 05:02:57 PM  

GeneralJim: JSTACAT: NASA? are you up for this?No, they are not.   Haven't you seen their directives?   They are now tasked with supporting AGW, and engaging in Muslim outreach.  No, seriously.


This is not only absurd, but gives an idea of how ideologically-motivated GeneralJim can be - his ability to only look at selected bits of evidence, ignore the rest and make wild statements about it is not limited to the science itself.
 
2013-12-31 05:17:20 PM  

GeneralJim: Cyber_Junk:

So the general trend is correct but not falling within the predicted area so the theory is wrong? The hypothesis (global warming) is proving correct, only the amount of warming is proving wrong. The phrase 'we seem to have gotten lucky' comes to mind. So why not keep working to control global warming and do further research work to clarify the models?
Several reasons.   First, there's no need to "control global warming."   We're about as cold as the planet has ever been now -- the "normal" temperature is 7-10 K warmer.



There's a lot wrong with what GeneralJim claims, but let's focus on this especially absurd bit for a moment.

This definition of "normal", through its wildly inappropriate long scale (hundreds of millions of years), is pretty much useless given the context. Any change, no matter how catastrophic, could be considered "normal". For example, according to this argument that GeneralJim is trying to make, there would also be no need to prevent the extinction of the human racesince, given the long period of time considered, "normally" humans don't exist.  As an exercise, I can come up with some other equally absurd examples using GeneralJim's argument:

- There's no need to stop your house from burning down since "normally", your house did not exist.

- There's no need to vote next election since "normally", people have been ruled by absolute monarchs
- There's no need to stop that guy about to stab you since "normally", you don't exist.

Now what you should be asking yourself is what GeneralJim's absurd argument, bordering on irrationality, say about how he approaches this topic?
 
2013-12-31 05:25:12 PM  

Farking Canuck:

And there it is. The infamous "Green Wall of Lies".

Don't bother debating him. His lies have been debunked literally dozens of times. He will still post them again next time he is short of money. All in green (easy to count) at the end of the thread.

Really?   Care to figure out how we could put some money on that?  Any, and ALL parts of it.
This is really great.  You warmer alarmists, even the shills, have apparently totally given up on even TRYING to present "evidence," even the fraudulent evidence you used to use.  Now, it's NOTHING but insult, and appeal to authority.  Your side's collapse is imminent.

izquotes.com

 
2013-12-31 05:33:03 PM  

And, in case anyone is wondering, here's what cheating on the data looks like.  In 1998, James Hansen went through the GISS data set, and altered most of the values.  Freedom of Information filings have forced him to release his "adjustment" program.  It is filled with date functions, that is lower temperatures that are older, and raise temperatures that are newer, to make it LOOK like there has been more warming than there actually has been.  The problem is, ever since about 1990, people have known that alteration of the data has taken place, and have kept copies of the data set.   Here is the SAME data set, before and after James Hansen's 1998 alteration:



wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com


If the warmer alarmists are right, why do they feel the need to change the data to better support their hypothesis?

 
2013-12-31 08:16:34 PM  

GeneralJim: And, in case anyone is wondering, here's what cheating on the data looks like.  In 1998, James Hansen went through the GISS data set, and altered most of the values.  Freedom of Information filings have forced him to release his "adjustment" program.  It is filled with date functions, that is lower temperatures that are older, and raise temperatures that are newer, to make it LOOK like there has been more warming than there actually has been.  The problem is, ever since about 1990, people have known that alteration of the data has taken place, and have kept copies of the data set.   Here is the SAME data set, before and after James Hansen's 1998 alteration:

[wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com image 500x355]
If the warmer alarmists are right, why do they feel the need to change the data to better support their hypothesis?


GeneralJim: You warmer alarmists, even the shills, have apparently totally given up on even TRYING to present "evidence," even the fraudulent evidence you used to use.



[facepalm]

It takes a certain amount of reckless unawareness to post such an admonishment in one post, then go on to do the exact same thing yourself in the very next post.

For anyone who is actually interested in the evidence rather than imagining malfeasance in the absence of such, the changes are documented in the paper associated with the revision in the data set -  Hansen et al. 2001. From the abstract:

Changes in the GISS
analysis subsequent to the documentation by Hansen et al. [1999] are as follows: (1) incorporation of corrections for time-of-observation bias and station history adjustments in the United States based on Easterling et al. [1996a], (2) reclassification of rural, small-town, and urban stations in the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico based on satellite measurements of night light intensity [Imhoff et al., 1997], and (3) a more flexible urban adjustment than that employed by Hansen et al. [1999], including reliance on only unlit stations in the United States and rural stations in the rest of the world for determining long-term trends.


This was a paper whose express purpose was to document and explain the reasons for the changes that GeneralJim is referring to. This was of course easy to find.

What you should be asking is why didn't GeneralJim check for this kind of thing and more importantly why did he instead choose fabricate a story?
 
2013-12-31 09:09:59 PM  

Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: Cyber_Junk:

So the general trend is correct but not falling within the predicted area so the theory is wrong? The hypothesis (global warming) is proving correct, only the amount of warming is proving wrong. The phrase 'we seem to have gotten lucky' comes to mind. So why not keep working to control global warming and do further research work to clarify the models?
Several reasons.   First, there's no need to "control global warming."   We're about as cold as the planet has ever been now -- the "normal" temperature is 7-10 K warmer.


There's a lot wrong with what GeneralJim claims, but let's focus on this especially absurd bit for a moment.

This definition of "normal", through its wildly inappropriate long scale (hundreds of millions of years), is pretty much useless given the context. Any change, no matter how catastrophic, could be considered "normal". For example, according to this argument that GeneralJim is trying to make, there would also be no need to prevent the extinction of the human racesince, given the long period of time considered, "normally" humans don't exist.  As an exercise, I can come up with some other equally absurd examples using GeneralJim's argument:

- There's no need to stop your house from burning down since "normally", your house did not exist.
- There's no need to vote next election since "normally", people have been ruled by absolute monarchs
- There's no need to stop that guy about to stab you since "normally", you don't exist.

Now what you should be asking yourself is what GeneralJim's absurd argument, bordering on irrationality, say about how he approaches this topic?

I just un-ignored you to see what misleading, lying crap you were promulgating, and I am not disappointed.

The fact that you do not understand the arguments does NOT mean I am being dishonest, irrational, or whatever other insults you care to hurl.  It just means you are not understanding the argument -- whether naturally or intentionally.   Here's the comment being responded to: "If the planet was so warm that there was no ice at the south pole we wouldn't be discussing global warming on the internet, we'd most likely be dead."

That's utterly wrong, and utterly in keeping with the propaganda from the green groups working with the U.N.   It's a lie.   For most of history, Earth has had no ice caps.  Again, you are the most dishonest debater on Fark -- in my experience, anyway.    You also seem to be equating the planet being a few degrees warmer with a house burning down.  That's so far off the mark, it's just a lie.  The pace of natural climate change is, in many cases, incredibly slow.  As our solar system moves into a galactic arm, we are in increasing cosmic ray flux, so clouds are enhanced, and the planet cools.  It matters not that our species isn't old enough to have been here the last time there were no ice caps on the planet.  In other words, our species has been around ONLY in an ice age.

So, you are equating the end of the ice age we are in with the destruction of the planet.  Why is that?  What makes you think of a couple extra degrees as the burning of a house, etc.

This is a false equivalence, and I'm quite certain you know it.   Warm spells of climate on Earth are called "optima."   That is, they are the best.  During an optimum, biomass is at its peak, diversity is at its peak, and evolution is running at its fastest.  In other words, the planet is running at peak efficiency, and will support more life than when parts of it are covered in ice sheets.  That makes perfect sense.  But, I understand.  Lower primates often soil themselves when faced with change that frightens them.  I don't think you're the lower primate kind, so that means you are deliberately trying to panic people -- and that's evil.

And when people are talking about losing the ice caps as the end of our species, they are operating out of panic, not knowledge or reason.  At that point, it is reasonable to mention that there have been very few (geological) ice ages, and that Earth has no ice caps at all around 90% of the time.  For you to call pointing this out "absurd" brands you as incredibly devious.  And, while it is somewhat gratifying to note that the warmers find me enough of a threat to their hoax that I get my own personal nay-sayer, I'd much rather you just buggered off.


 
2013-12-31 09:23:03 PM  

Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: JSTACAT: NASA? are you up for this?

No, they are not.   Haven't you seen their directives?   They are now tasked with supporting AGW, and engaging in Muslim outreach.  No, seriously.

This is not only absurd, but gives an idea of how ideologically-motivated GeneralJim can be - his ability to only look at selected bits of evidence, ignore the rest and make wild statements about it is not limited to the science itself.
More lies....  You just can't stop, can you?   But, I'll grant you that the idea is absurd -- but I didn't make it up.   That would be Fearless Leader.   I'll await your apology.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent interview that his "foremost" mission as the head of America's space exploration agency is to improve relations with the Muslim world.

 
2013-12-31 09:26:22 PM  

Damnhippyfreak:

What you should be asking is why didn't GeneralJim check for this kind of thing and more importantly why did he instead choose fabricate a story?
More lies and bullshiat.   Again, you are a waste of time.   Back in the bit bucket with you.

*PLONK*
 
Displayed 202 of 202 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