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  
•       •       •

2921 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

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


 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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