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.

(Business Insider)   Go home Arctic, you're drunk   (businessinsider.com) divider line 128
    More: Interesting, Arctic  
•       •       •

12121 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 1:48 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 06:23:00 PM
Of course, the idea that the polar vortex is responsible for the current cold snap is a strong theory, not a fact
=====================================

If you can't use the word 'theory' correctly, the rest of your article is probably horse shiat.
 
2014-01-06 06:24:18 PM

BigOle8point: How long has that data been collected? How big is the sample size? Is it possible that you're wrong?


Idle speculation is just that: Idle. If you want to assert something specious, you need to back it up with empirical evidence.

Are you going to?
 
2014-01-06 06:49:10 PM

Ishkur: BigOle8point: How long has that data been collected? How big is the sample size? Is it possible that you're wrong?

Idle speculation is just that: Idle. If you want to assert something specious, you need to back it up with empirical evidence.

Are you going to?


Ship to investigate GW Antarctic impact frozen in ice...

DC expecting record breaking -temps tonight...

No significant temp increases in 20+ years...

Particulates in exhausts other than gh gases are blocking sunlight in higher proportions than gh effect of gh gases...

Not saying we don't have a pollution problem, we do, however the whole equation is not being balanced correctly by GW trolls correctly focused only on gh gases...
 
2014-01-06 06:51:58 PM

OscarTamerz: Just dropped in to say it's going to be 76o on the beaches today in the OC biatches.  Hope we survive somehow!


Fun fact: Ms. Herzigova's (2nd from left) belly button is a shoop. She doesn't have one as she was cloned in a lab in Bratislava, before the fall of the Iron Curtain it had to be taken out in an operation when she was a kid.
 
2014-01-06 06:58:38 PM

FarkQued: Ship to investigate GW Antarctic impact frozen in ice...
DC expecting record breaking -temps tonight...
No significant temp increases in 20+ years...
Particulates in exhausts other than gh gases are blocking sunlight in higher proportions than gh effect of gh gases...


Just asserting this doesn't make it true. Please post evidence that what you're saying is correct. And by evidence, I mean empirical research published in reputable journals and respectable literature supported and critiqued by the scientific community. Studies -- not blogs or graphs.

I would love to know what scientific studies you get all these counter-claims from. Like that "no temp increase in 20+ years" thing. That's been mentioned over and over again in this very thread, and I've seen it in other threads, but no one ever sources the claim. Where did it come from?
 
2014-01-06 06:58:45 PM

3StratMan: mongbiohazard: ArcadianRefugee: More LIEberal claptrap. They're telling us that global warming makes things colder?! Ha!

Sadly, I know I'm going to hear a line of reasoning like this soon from my Townhall-loving dad, but he'll be serious about it.

As usual I'll explain how in other places they're experiencing record warmth right now, and that a local weather patter may be cold while the overall climate trend is warmer. I'll even explain how warming temps and warming oceans may causes changes in weather patterns, making some places warmer or colder then they're used to seeing. I'll remind him that we've even had one of the warmest years on record where we are, that the fall/winter up until very recently has been much warmer than usual and that last winter it was so warm I was even able to plant my garden an entire month earlier....

And all that explaining about how your cherry-picked personal experience of just when it's cold in one particular part of the year - in one particular place - doesn't invalidate global trends wil fall on deaf ears. Folks who won't accept the reality of climate change at this point, by and large aren't incapable of understanding... they have actually chosen NOT TO. They have made the choice to believe what they want to believe, regardless of any facts or logic to the contrary.

Yeah, speaking of facts- how about that one about the global temperatures that have not risen for about 20 years now. Oh that's right...pretend that fact doesn't exist so it doesn't get in the way of all the GW/CC "facts" that you mix in with all of your smarter than everyone else "scientific" chatter.

Global Warming/Climate Change was invented for 2 things: to secure votes for Liberal politicians, and to bring in boatloads of cash for environmentalists.Nothing else. Except the jig is up, and the rest of the world is on to the scam. Regardless of how much "intellectual superiority" you throw out there, you've all been exposed. But keep having fun with it, Chicken Little. We're all quite amused with what now has the looks of a great comedy routine. Your Global Warming research ship that got caught in all that ice was an awesome episode to your show, by the way.


In every climate thread this same lie is repeated and quickly debunked. The "temps haven't risen for years" lie. The schtick is old and worn.
 
Al!
2014-01-06 07:01:00 PM

3StratMan: Your Global Warming research ship that got caught in all that ice was an awesome episode to your show, by the way


I like this one.  It isn't that the vessel was under way during the warmest part of the year, or that they navigated into the remains of a very, very large portion of a glacier that broke off into the ocean several years ago; it's that it became trapped in ice while investigating "global warming."

So, let's discuss this.  According to numerous reports, the Captain knew of the inclement weather and also of the possibility that the weather would blow pack-ice into their path.  Still, disregarding various warnings, the tourists departed on a scheduled inland treck.  The treck got off "several hours" late according to multiple sources, and one quotes the Captain as "becoming rather definite late in the afternoon that we needed to get everyone back on board ASAP because of the coming weather and the ice closing in."Despite the warnings given, the members of the trip were still numerous hours late returning to the vessel, and by the time they had returned, the pack-ice had blown in.

Second, the Antarctic is deadly dangerous in the best of conditions.  Weather patterns can change abruptly and drastically, stranding even the most well-prepared expedition.  On top of the general chaotic tendencies of Antarctic weather, the expedition was visiting Eastern Antarctica, where the weather can be even more tumultuous.  The average coastal high temperature for January is below freezing, so even under the best situations ice will be present and persistent.  Add to that the blizzard that was forcast for the region during the holiday season, and any reasonable person could be expected to understand that difficulties could arise.

Third, the ice flows and pack-ice are poorly mapped, mostly because of the treacherous conditions that present themselves year-round, but also because they can change drastically from hour to hour.

To conclude:
1: Operator Error
2: Antarctic adventures will be interrupted by inclement weather.
3: There's a whole lot of ice in the ocean around Antarctica.

/but but Summer Solstice in 3... 2... 1...
 
2014-01-06 07:04:06 PM
Trolls incorrectly focused, is what i meant.

Compiled evidence points to cooling, which could be a sign that partivulates in pollution (volcanic and man made) are reducing sun light faster than green house gases are trapping it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/12392-former-glob a l-warming-supporter-now-shows-data-that-refutes-it
 
2014-01-06 07:11:15 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimm-nf.html
 
2014-01-06 07:19:52 PM

FarkQued: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/12392-former-glob a l-warming-supporter-now-shows-data-that-refutes-it


This is not a study, this is a blog linking to another blog which talks about a Senate hearing on the subject.

I don't think you want to hedge all your bets on John Christy's work, btw. He does think AGW is happening and his work proves that, he just doesn't like it when others (especially the media) get carried away with the hyperbole. That's not the fault of climate scientists (which earlier was asserted aren't real scientists), that's the fault of our sensationalism-driven culture and the dire lack of scientific literacy and education.
 
2014-01-06 07:22:59 PM
http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/2011/07/is-china-s-coal-pollution-he lping-slow-down-global-warming--11743.html
 
2014-01-06 07:26:14 PM

Summoner101: shirtsbyeric: Summoner101: It's also 34 in Anchorage, so once again, weather does not equal climate

And the Theory of Global Warming does not equal Reality.

That's actually what a scientific theory does equal until a better theory, or more often a more complete theory, explains the observed data better or disproves the original theory outright.  Such as for evolution, it's still the theory of evolution, but it's the most complete explanation that we have for the observed data, the observed data being stuff like the fossil record.

Just because the scientific illiterate like to use "theory" as a pejorative only helps call them out as scientifically illiterate.


Yes, I know but I was using the Smug on Smug version of sarcasm (farkasm?). It's what I do.
 
2014-01-06 07:27:02 PM
Although repressed by GW fanatics, evidence of cooling caused by pollution seems to be reported by several peer reviewed scientific sources, hmm.

Like i said the equation is not yet balanced, and all the variables not known, but either way pollution is not good.
 
2014-01-06 07:27:09 PM
I also want to add that the hyperbole is something both sides are doing.

There is real data here to collect and study and draw conclusions from. Screaming "IT'S ALL TRUE WE'RE GOING TO DIE" is just as futile as screaming "IT'S ALL FALSE NOTHING IS WRONG".
 
2014-01-06 07:28:09 PM
The second link is a Nova program. It's not a scientific study.

The third link is broken.

Please post studies for now on.
 
2014-01-06 07:29:04 PM

FarkQued: Although repressed by GW fanatics, evidence of cooling caused by pollution seems to be reported by several peer reviewed scientific sources, hmm.


Such as?

Please post some.
 
2014-01-06 07:31:37 PM

shirtsbyeric: Summoner101: shirtsbyeric: Summoner101: It's also 34 in Anchorage, so once again, weather does not equal climate

And the Theory of Global Warming does not equal Reality.

That's actually what a scientific theory does equal until a better theory, or more often a more complete theory, explains the observed data better or disproves the original theory outright.  Such as for evolution, it's still the theory of evolution, but it's the most complete explanation that we have for the observed data, the observed data being stuff like the fossil record.

Just because the scientific illiterate like to use "theory" as a pejorative only helps call them out as scientifically illiterate.

Yes, I know but I was using the Smug on Smug version of sarcasm (farkasm?). It's what I do.


Then let's say you're not covering your ass and let my correction be for the lurkers out there
 
2014-01-06 07:38:55 PM
Current temp in Juneau, Alaska - 36 degrees 
Current temp in Panama City Beach, Florida - 35 degrees 
 
Florida is now colder than Alaska.

/mindblown
 
2014-01-06 08:11:53 PM

FarkQued: http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/2011/07/is-china-s-coal-pollution-h e lping-slow-down-global-warming--11743.html


Okay, now don't go away because I want to talk about this one. This is a very interesting study indeed, but I'm not really interested in the science, but rather you.

The big question I want answered is: Why do you trust THIS particular study, with rockhard, absolute, 100% unwavering certainty, and not any of the other studies that claim any other thing? What is it about this particular paper that makes it more valid than any other? And how did you reach that determination?

Obviously you're not a scientist. But you're a skeptic, and that's good, because science should never be taken at face value. You seem to be a smart guy, and you're not the paranoid type who rejects all science, so you do concede at some level to experts who study these things at a far greater extent than you do. Now, what methodology do you use to decide which science is correct and which isn't? To the layman, it's technically all believable, because they don't have the understanding to make a qualified judgment (and neither do you, and neither do I for that matter). So which do you choose is right or wrong? And are you aware of your inherent bias in accepting the flimsiest of things as true because you want them to be and rejecting dead solid data as false because it doesn't fit your preconceived prejudices?

And if you don't think you do that, then by all means divulge: How do you know which studies are true? What parameters do you use to make that (uneducated) verification?
 
2014-01-06 09:30:55 PM
Always hilarious discussions here.  The global warmers crow all summer long about how every heat wave, drought, and hurricane are clear evidence of global warming.  But blizzards, cold snaps, and record frigid temps are simply normal seasonal variations, and that weather does not equate to climate.   Funny folks.
 
2014-01-06 10:06:45 PM
Oh look, another sleeper troll.
 
2014-01-06 10:14:01 PM

smitton: Always hilarious discussions here.  The global warmers crow all summer long about how every heat wave, drought, and hurricane are clear evidence of global warming.  But blizzards, cold snaps, and record frigid temps are simply normal seasonal variations, and that weather does not equate to climate.   Funny folks.

Basically, I think there need to be Nuremberg-like trials for deniers.

 
2014-01-06 10:54:04 PM

Ishkur: FarkQued: http://www.wjla.com/blogs/weather/2011/07/is-china-s-coal-pollution-h e lping-slow-down-global-warming--11743.html

Okay, now don't go away because I want to talk about this one. This is a very interesting study indeed, but I'm not really interested in the science, but rather you.

The big question I want answered is: Why do you trust THIS particular study, with rockhard, absolute, 100% unwavering certainty, and not any of the other studies that claim any other thing? What is it about this particular paper that makes it more valid than any other? And how did you reach that determination?

Obviously you're not a scientist. But you're a skeptic, and that's good, because science should never be taken at face value. You seem to be a smart guy, and you're not the paranoid type who rejects all science, so you do concede at some level to experts who study these things at a far greater extent than you do. Now, what methodology do you use to decide which science is correct and which isn't? To the layman, it's technically all believable, because they don't have the understanding to make a qualified judgment (and neither do you, and neither do I for that matter). So which do you choose is right or wrong? And are you aware of your inherent bias in accepting the flimsiest of things as true because you want them to be and rejecting dead solid data as false because it doesn't fit your preconceived prejudices?

And if you don't think you do that, then by all means divulge: How do you know which studies are true? What parameters do you use to make that (uneducated) verification?


I'm not 100% sure of these findings but I am 100% sure that GW fear mongering is bull crap.  First I would say observation and common sense are driving my skepticism of the GW crew.  Observations like recorded temperatures not increasing as expected in the time period as they should have if gh gases were wreaking so much havoc on our environment.  Other observations that evidence by scientists bucking GW has been excluded from discussion by the GW community, who I think are enamored by the attention (especially political) the discussion is drawing versus pragmatic ruling out or in new/updated information.  Common sense and statistics say to me we haven't scientifically/accurately recorded evidence for a long enough period of time from a geologic perspective to do thorough predictions one way or another at this point - but any GW nut will tell you we are in eminent danger of a heatpocalypse tomorrow if we burn one more candle.  Ice cores have yielded data both ways, for instance that during times of high CO2 levels, many times higher than now, there was also an ice age - an environment not expected in a green house atmosphere?

Common sense also says to me, we need to produce energy and food in a way that does not create poisonous pollution and by products and we do this by reinvesting scientific studies into energy production and food production technologies instead of wasting time with investing in government regulations/punishment for existing fossil fuel technologies.  Really you cant let business or government be in control of this work, it needs to be controlled by independent scientific organizations seeking to better our world through innovation, not indoctrination into some Pythagorean cult chanting "reduce your carbon footprint".  Once science has had a chance to figure out how to produce clean energy efficiently and scalable for the entire world to use, then bring in the guberments to tell the corporations to make a change to the new technology or get fined out of existence.

We sit on top of 65,000,000,000 square miles molten magma for God's sake, maybe we could somehow harness that heat to produce steam and run turbines for limitless electricity?
 
2014-01-06 11:06:30 PM

Ishkur: Why would you trust an uneducated source like that instead of actual people doing the actual work in the actual field?


Education is indoctrination.  Ignorance is strength.
 
2014-01-06 11:29:32 PM

FarkQued: I'm not 100% sure of these findings but I am 100% sure that GW fear mongering is bull crap.


How? In what way?

FarkQued: First I would say observation and common sense


Okay, I have to stop you there. I see what your problem is.

Common sense is not evidence. It is not facts, it is not truth, it is not practical application. It is not beset by any physical dimensions, it has no predictive power, it is not based on any rules or laws of logic, reason or investigative inquiry, it is not prescriptive or based on any model of actual reality. In short, common sense is Colbert's truthiness taken to myopic extremes. It is not science or reason.

Common sense is completely worthless. It is a copout phrase people use to think that they are rationally deducing a solution from a set of clues, but they really aren't. What you really have is an emotional bias against the political left and you have developed a kneejerk presuppositionalist stance that all leftist issues must be politically annihilated and instead of actually doing some critical thinking you have let the "common sense" of your presuppositional logic do all the thinking for you.

Y'know, Aristotle used common sense to assert all kinds of truths, and he was wrong about nearly every single one of them.

In short: What you are doing is bluff, bluster and bullshiat. You are lying to yourself and to reality and you are using your own uninformed, ignorant assumptions define what you think is going on and then you go out and seek only those facts that validate those assumptions. That's what Creationists do.

Now, I don't really care that you do that. I just hope you realize that that's what you do.
 
2014-01-07 01:12:35 PM
 In short: What you are doing is bluff, bluster and bullshiat. You are lying to yourself and to reality and you are using your own uninformed, ignorant assumptions define what you think is going on and then you go out and seek only those facts that validate those assumptions. That's what Creationists do.

Now, I don't really care that you do that. I just hope you realize that that's what you do.



In short, you are so afraid that you are wrong about GW that you are attacking a person and counterpoint that has been supported by several articles and papers.  Instead reconcile the point against the theory with facts and figures.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.  "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.  Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/03/Whitehouse-GT_Standst il l.pdf
 
2014-01-07 02:27:56 PM

FarkQued: says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.


David Whitehouse = not a climate scientist
Global Warming Policy Foundation. = not a research institution but a policy (propaganda) institution with hidden funding.
 
2014-01-07 03:11:14 PM

FarkQued: In short, you are so afraid that you are wrong about GW that you are attacking a person and counterpoint that has been supported by several articles and papers


Actually, I'm actually fairly ambivalent about the science on GW in general (but I do lean slightly in the "yeah it's happening" camp). I'm more interested in why you think the science is wrong when you rely on the science to inform your opinion on why the science is wrong. Creationists do the same thing when they use biological studies to disprove evolution.

At some point you had to make a decision on which science is correct and which science is wrong, and given that you have not the qualifications or the education to make such a judgment call, you decided that your political presuppositions can make your decisions for you.

What you are doing is not critical thinking. It is partisan hackery.

If you would wish to stop doing this, then I recommend you first clear your head of all biases. And then -- and this is the most important part -- you must apply the same level of skepticism and scrutiny to everything you come across.
 
Displayed 28 of 128 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report