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
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

2942 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Dec 2013 at 9:59 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report