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.

(LA Times)   Chipotle admits, that much like the rest of GW hysteria, the claim they are pulling guacamole due to climate change is "way overblown"   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, chipotles, guacamole, climate change, global warming  
•       •       •

3991 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 4:39 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-03-06 12:25:10 AM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: mistrmind: Sigh.  Global warming is just a big lie.

I'll bite. Let's say it is. Let's say global climate cooling/heating/changing whatevering is all fake/wrong/lies/mistakes whatevers. So. What.

What is the downside? Less toxic shiat in the air & water? More and better 'clean' energy? How is that bad????


valuesaustralia.com
 
2014-03-06 12:28:18 AM  

DesertDemonWY: HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

The dishonest farkwit who tells a bald faced lie like you just did?

Hey, I'm just the messenger. If you think the woodfortrees.org data index is a lie maybe you should bring that up with them

BTW, has anyone else noticed the colder it gets, the more name calling you hear from the AGW morons?


Right..... blame the data for your failures to understand how to present it honestly. Typical.
 
2014-03-06 12:29:10 AM  

umad: TofuTheAlmighty: umad: Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

Ability and willingness are not the same thing.

Not in this case. The US could go nuts doing the right thing. It won't stop anybody else from doing whatever the fark they want to do. Global consensus on anything is impossible.


Right!  Right!  So why should anybody do anything ever???

You.  Are sooooo.  Stupid.

/I'd give a better explanation but frankly this one about maxes out your level of understanding.
 
2014-03-06 12:39:49 AM  

karmaceutical: Fark is kind of pathetic today...


I feel like there are more submissions being greenlit.  If so, I'd guess it's because of the uptick in complaints recently.  Which are not invalid-- there are definitely Farkers who "camp" news-sites and rush to submit--but the unintended consequences may be... undesirable.  Such as people who used to spread their derpitude out now realizing they can't cover all the posts in a given day, and instead focusing on a few threads that contain their pet derpitude.  Or possibly, the other way around: the folks who previously tamped down the derpitude by weight of sane postings are now trying to keep up with all the posts and aren't in any one thread long enough to drown out the derp.

Another problem in complex system modeling.
 
2014-03-06 12:44:50 AM  
I created this alt just for this thread:  Hmmm, the millennium began in 2000, not 2001.

For strict accuracy: no it didn't.  The previous millennium ended in 2000.  The new millennium began in 2001.  The reason being that the Gregorian-based calendar we use began with Year 1.

When debating the credibility of facts, it's super important to get your own right.
 
2014-03-06 12:52:46 AM  

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Yeesh.

www.skepticalscience.net

Over and over again you keep on running into the same mistake. Short-term variability does not necessarily accurately reflect longer-term trends.

This shouldn't be all that difficult of a concept, yet you run right into it time after time after time.

What about it do you not understand? We can help you out, but you gotta be intellectually honest and not hide from this argument.
 
2014-03-06 01:54:40 AM  
This blog, Hockey Schtick, just destroys the global warming climate change "because science" crowd.

And Chipotle sucks. My local Mex joint has way better burritos, and they don't practice that silly "buy local" religion, so their guacamole supply chain is secure.
 
2014-03-06 01:59:07 AM  
Uhm, yeah,

they are going to stop selling you something for 2 bucks that might cost them a quarter?

i think not.
 
2014-03-06 02:45:48 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Just as an FYI, you're responding to a denalist who's masquerading as someone who wants to learn about ACC so he can bring up talking points and areas of "concern."


He seems to have branched out to some kind of libertarian, burning fossil fuels equals freedom vs. pricing in externalities/increasing energy efficiency/using renewable energy equals tyranny argument.   And that includes a bonus "voluntarily switching to green energy is okay, but being forced to is bad" argument which is hilariously stupid because one of the main obstructions to solving the issue is the tragedy of the commons problem. So at least he's not a one note moron when it comes to AGW.  He can make LOTS of dumb points.
 
2014-03-06 05:14:38 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Just as an FYI, you're responding to a denalist who's masquerading as someone who wants to learn about ACC so he can bring up talking points and areas of "concern."


Lol. "talking points".


That's kind of what the Comments section is for.  If you don't like discussion and comments, er, "talking points", you are on the wrong farking website.

i257.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-06 05:33:00 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Shakin_Haitian: Just as an FYI, you're responding to a denalist who's masquerading as someone who wants to learn about ACC so he can bring up talking points and areas of "concern."

Lol. "talking points".


That's kind of what the Comments section is for.  If you don't like discussion and comments, er, "talking points", you are on the wrong farking website.

[i257.photobucket.com image 581x721]



I think what he means by 'talking points' is something like canned points disseminated in a top-down fashion from a narrow range of sources and stated without any intention of being part of a rational discussion. This would be in contrast to presenting your own thoughts arising from your own understanding and with the aim of some sort of discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, but there you go.
 
2014-03-06 05:56:26 AM  

alcoholwasinvolved: MartinD-35: Gentoolive: umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

But the libtards must make every effort to force new regulations upon everyone..

Climate change... Did the whole "global warming" thing not pan out for you dopes?

I'm guessing here, but you appear to have a room temperature IQ.  But in any event, CO2 is acidifying the oceans and the phytoplankton are in real serious trouble.  But you sound like you probably are related to a coal miner.  Burning coal is killing the planet.

As a coal miner, I'm getting a kick out these replies, etc. etc.  By the way, my company supplied one hour of your power today (and yesterday, and the day before blah blah blah). I love liberal garbage like this.  We'd stop mining it if THERE WASN'T SUCH A HUGE FARKING DEMAND FOR IT.  My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My electricity comes from NUCLEAR (which also has a few problems I admit) but you missed the entire point  of my comment (which is  not surprising considering your black lungs) CO2 is KILLING the oceans KILLING - we cannot live on this planet with dead oceans.   Now, back to your People Magazine and your meth.
 
2014-03-06 06:37:24 AM  

Baryogenesis: He seems to have branched out to some kind of libertarian, burning fossil fuels equals freedom vs. pricing in externalities/increasing energy efficiency/using renewable energy equals tyranny argument.


Only because you read poorly and like to fabricate an evil which to argue against.

That's what's entertainingly analog to fire and brimstone religious types.
Basing the argument on moral belief of what we "should" do. Taking up false the mantle of a good cause to force others to conform.
What's next?  Going to borrow from the WBC and picket with bigoted slogans?
Or just continue to sermonize about how if we don't live life as you see proper that we'll burn in hell?(or on earth, in this case)

You people get ignored for the most part, for the same reason I posted above:
So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.

That's why religion moderately succeeds, it's got it's martyrs.  They have genuine faith, crazy as it may be.

You people though, you sit with your armchair-degrees and try to show how superior you are...over the anonymous internet.
/unverifiable claims to actually be doing something more useful in 3...2...
 
2014-03-06 06:56:16 AM  
Now he's on the ACC = religion point. Has he brought up the volcanoes or ozone hole not growing crap yet? Next will probably be Antarctic sea ice extent.
 
2014-03-06 07:28:13 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: Now he's on the ACC = religion point.


No.

Fark  Alarmist  Brigade = Religious zealotry

But keep farking that chicken fabricating that villain via willful misinterpretation.  Whatever helps you get it up, Sparky.
 
2014-03-06 07:29:50 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: He seems to have branched out to some kind of libertarian, burning fossil fuels equals freedom vs. pricing in externalities/increasing energy efficiency/using renewable energy equals tyranny argument.


Only because you read poorly and like to fabricate an evil which to argue against.


Let's see if I was totally off base.

omeganuepsilon: I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.


Don't restrict people now, fark future generations, don't force others to sacrifice even though our actions will force others to sacrifice in our stead...looks like I hit the nail on the head.

You're freely admitting your "fark you, got mine" attitude, I don't have to fabricate anything.  Pricing in negative externalities, for example, isn't restricting anyone, it's paying for the actual cost of the thing you are consuming.

omeganuepsilon: That's what's entertainingly analog to fire and brimstone religious types.
Basing the argument on moral belief of what we "should" do. Taking up false the mantle of a good cause to force others to conform.
What's next?  Going to borrow from the WBC and picket with bigoted slogans?
Or just continue to sermonize about how if we don't live life as you see proper that we'll burn in hell?(or on earth, in this case)

You people get ignored for the most part, for the same reason I posted above:
So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.

That's why religion moderately succeeds, it's got it's martyrs.  They have genuine faith, crazy as it may be.

You people though, you sit with your armchair-degrees and try to show how superior you are...over the anonymous internet.
/unverifiable claims to actually be doing something more useful in 3...2...


It cracks me up watching you get crazier with every post.  Yes, anyone advocating sensible environmental policy, reasonable solutions to the serious problem of global warming, paying the *full* costs of our consumption and promoting renewable energy is the same thing as a religious zealot preaching fire and brimstone.

Shakin_Haitian: Now he's on the ACC = religion point. Has he brought up the volcanoes or ozone hole not growing crap yet? Next will probably be Antarctic sea ice extent.


Nah, as you may have noticed, he doesn't argue the scientific side of AGW or the cost/benefits of mitigation vs. adaption or public policy.  He's just here to demonize (the strawman versions of) his political enemies with meandering rants.  He steers clear of substantial and possibly productive discussion because that would highlight his astounding ignorance and misunderstanding of the relevant subjects.  You know, something as simple as "For the sake of argument, how can we ameliorate the problems of man made climate change without draconian restrictions or placing undue burden on a fragile economy precariously dependent on fossil fuels" would go a long way.
 
2014-03-06 07:50:17 AM  

Baryogenesis: omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: He seems to have branched out to some kind of libertarian, burning fossil fuels equals freedom vs. pricing in externalities/increasing energy efficiency/using renewable energy equals tyranny argument.


Only because you read poorly and like to fabricate an evil which to argue against.

Let's see if I was totally off base.

omeganuepsilon: I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.

Don't restrict people now, fark future generations, don't force others to sacrifice even though our actions will force others to sacrifice in our stead...looks like I hit the nail on the head.

You're freely admitting your "fark you, got mine" attitude, I don't have to fabricate anything.  Pricing in negative externalities, for example, isn't restricting anyone, it's paying for the actual cost of the thing you are consuming.

omeganuepsilon: That's what's entertainingly analog to fire and brimstone religious types.
Basing the argument on moral belief of what we "should" do. Taking up false the mantle of a good cause to force others to conform.
What's next?  Going to borrow from the WBC and picket with bigoted slogans?
Or just continue to sermonize about how if we don't live life as you see proper that we'll burn in hell?(or on earth, in this case)

You people get ignored for the most part, for the same reason I posted above:
So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.

That's why religion moderately succeeds, it's got it's martyrs.  They have genuine faith, crazy as it may be.

You people though, you sit with your armchair-degrees and try to show how superior you are...over the anonymous internet.
/unverifiable claims to actually be doing something more useful in 3...2...

It cracks me up watching you get crazier with every post.  Yes, anyone advocating sensible environmental policy, reasonable solutions to the serious problem of global warming, paying the *full* costs of our consumption and promoting renewable energy is the same thing as a religious zealot preaching fire and brimstone.

Shakin_Haitian: Now he's on the ACC = religion point. Has he brought up the volcanoes or ozone hole not growing crap yet? Next will probably be Antarctic sea ice extent.

Nah, as you may have noticed, he doesn't argue the scientific side of AGW or the cost/benefits of mitigation vs. adaption or public policy.  He's just here to demonize (the strawman versions of) his political enemies with meandering rants.  He steers clear of substantial and possibly productive discussion because that would highlight his astounding ignorance and misunderstanding of the relevant subjects.  You know, something as simple as "For the sake of argument, how can we ameliorate the problems of man made climate change without draconian restrictions or placing undue burden on a fragile economy precariously dependent on fossil fuels" would go a long way.


Ahh. After reading a part of one post, I noticed that he wasn't actually being genuine. So he's one of the political shills. I hope he's getting paid to carry water for them, at least.
 
2014-03-06 07:57:32 AM  
omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak

(ignored: GW alarmist, fallacy queen, dishonest)


omeganuepsilon: Going to borrow from the WBC and picket with bigoted slogans


omeganuepsilon: If every single effort is a betterment, why don't you get off the internet right now and live off the grid? Safely get rid of all technology and don't get any more, no modern fabrics, no metal-working, no fires, etc.  You're part of the problem.


omeganuepsilon: Fark  Alarmist  Brigade = Religious zealotry


Even though you can't point out any examples of alarmism or anything akin to religious zealotry.  People calling you out for saying stupid things isn't religious zealotry.  But please, go ahead and find some examples of the "fark alamist brigade".  I wonder if your examples will be as good as the ones I quoted above.  What DO you call a person who puts intelligent people on ignore for espousing a different opinion, accuses his opponents of religious zealotry on par with the WBC and exaggerates their opinions to the point of absurdity?

Oh and just because I hadn't quoted this exquisite gem in a long while...

omeganuepsilon:We're presently following an ice age, there's no where to go but get warmer. A perspective of decades is pointless because we're on that upcurve. The planet, in a majority of the time in that larger picture, has no ice caps. The sky is not falling, we're simply on schedule.

 Any other perspective is anti-corporation greenpeace nonsense or a reasonable facsimile thereof.



Omega doesn't like when I point out the blindingly obvious source of his opposition to AGW and the reason for the vitriol he spews at anyone who disagrees with him on the subject.
 
2014-03-06 08:11:30 AM  
What a magnificent circle jerk of lies you guys have going on.  Same as it ever was.

Hit f3, and type "average".

But you're right, it's only substantial and possibly productive if it agrees with you.  If it does not agree with you, it's troll, denier, shill, political, etc.

And I'm the judgemental one..HA!
/that  you don't see the applicability of "fallacy queen" is a bonus
//more so the whole discussion about me, and quite literally, from people who've had a grudge with me for years now.  I was talking to someone I don't recognize at all, and BOOM, out of the woodwork, accusations about old talking points, etc.  That's kind of what you do with people you don't know.  If someone comes up and asks your name, do you scream, "OLD TALKING POINT" at them?

You guys are caricatures of the worst sorts of people, really.  I'd wager you break poe's law.  You not only Believe, you like to aggrandize and vehemently argue, thereby having your cake and eating it.  Very much the cousin to other rabid fark celebrities, (to avoid "calling out other farkers not present", people who are disgusted by 3d printing, who really favor and defend Intelligent Design, etc)  Only they tend to outwardly insult much less(except for the anti-3d printing guy), so you at least have that going for you, you're better than them at that.
 
2014-03-06 08:28:05 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Hit f3, and type "average".


I gave a meaningful reply to that post which you ignored so you could nail yourself to a cross and throw out another rant about those meanies who disagree with you.  The science of AGW doesn't begin and end at global average temperature.  There are plenty of studies about regional impacts of warming as they relate to agriculture, water security and disease among other things.

omeganuepsilon: more so the whole discussion about me


fair enough

Baryogenesis: "For the sake of argument, how can we ameliorate the problems of man made climate change without draconian restrictions or placing undue burden on a fragile economy precariously dependent on fossil fuels"


Considering your concern for business and economic liberty, What are some pros and cons of pricing in the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels with a carbon tax or cap and trade system?  The Stern Review on the economics of climate change list the costs of adapting to climate change as significantly greater than the costs of mitigation.  We shouldn't shoot ourselves and our economy in the leg because we're unwilling to make changes in the short term.
 
2014-03-06 09:01:49 AM  
Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.


No. It's just a normal part of life that we all will adjust to gradually. No major shift in lifestyle will occur.
 
2014-03-06 09:27:40 AM  

Baryogenesis: I gave a meaningful reply to that post which you ignored so you could nailyourself to a cross.


And whatever drivel you figure you're being clever with.

I did not see that post because long ago I chose to ignore you, using the actual mechanic put into fark, because even if you do make a relevant post now and again, it's so seldom as to not be worth the bullshiat, even the effort to just scroll past it..  But when I'm bored, there's a handy feature at the top of each page which enables me temporarily see posts from such people.  I get curious where there's post after post in a thread and no actual new posts, so I tick that little box.

Sure enough, the same bullshiat most of the time.  I'm talking about something with someone else, and stalkers decide to faliciously call me out.

Most of the time, I choose to not talk to you because you're full of misinformation, dishonesty, false superiority, and spew fallacies that would make SteveB or IDW blush in shame.  Your goals may not be clear, but it's clear you're in it partly because you enjoy taunting and behaving in an aggrandizing manner and are too aware of fark's posting rules and how the tend to be enforced, all so you can creep around them and still be as insulting as possible.  Assurances of honesty, integrity and genuine behavior in 3...2...

Meaningful reply? That's rich.  "Or we can pretend it's important anyway." *goalshift* "Now what do we do about it?"

Whatever, I'm no longer bored enough to consider you entertaining.
Have a crappy day and a shiatty life! : )
 
2014-03-06 12:44:39 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: I gave a meaningful reply to that post which you ignored so you could nailyourself to a cross.

And whatever drivel you figure you're being clever with.

I did not see that post because long ago I chose to ignore you, using the actual mechanic put into fark, because even if you do make a relevant post now and again, it's so seldom as to not be worth the bullshiat, even the effort to just scroll past it..  But when I'm bored, there's a handy feature at the top of each page which enables me temporarily see posts from such people.  I get curious where there's post after post in a thread and no actual new posts, so I tick that little box.

Sure enough, the same bullshiat most of the time.  I'm talking about something with someone else, and stalkers decide to faliciously call me out.

Most of the time, I choose to not talk to you because you're full of misinformation, dishonesty, false superiority, and spew fallacies that would make SteveB or IDW blush in shame.  Your goals may not be clear, but it's clear you're in it partly because you enjoy taunting and behaving in an aggrandizing manner and are too aware of fark's posting rules and how the tend to be enforced, all so you can creep around them and still be as insulting as possible.  Assurances of honesty, integrity and genuine behavior in 3...2...

Meaningful reply? That's rich.  "Or we can pretend it's important anyway." *goalshift* "Now what do we do about it?"

Whatever, I'm no longer bored enough to consider you entertaining.
Have a crappy day and a shiatty life! : )



The problem is that Instead of responding to the arguments presented, by your own admission here you've ignored them and instead chosen to spend undue energy complaining about how persecuted you perceive yourself and your viewpoint to be.

In this way, what you're choosing to post is much more like those posters you yourself decry (SteveB or IDW). If you indeed dislike that style of argumentation, then I strongly suggest you stop engaging in it yourself.

As Baryogenesis pointed out, there's a response to the post you mentioned (about "averages")  that you didn't get around to. Or, of course, one of mine you also ignored. Here's a chance for you to practice what you preach. Let's see what you choose to do.
 
2014-03-06 12:47:33 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Let's see what you choose to do.


Oh, I know, I know!
 
2014-03-06 12:53:17 PM  

doubled99: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.


No. It's just a normal part of life that we all will adjust to gradually. No major shift in lifestyle will occur.


I presume you have research that shows that?
 
2014-03-06 01:02:31 PM  

cubic_spleen: I want to thank subby for providing a thread where the climate change deniers can bleat their FOX News talking points while they wipe the latest Limbaugh felch from their chins. Keeps the rest of Fark clear for people with actual intelligence.


Not entirely. There are scores of them, and they are vocal... like the hissing cockroach of Madagascar.
 
2014-03-06 01:38:11 PM  
I presume you have research that shows that?


Reams of it. It's quite overwhelming.
 
2014-03-06 02:36:52 PM  

StanTheMan: This blog,


Your blog sucks.
 
2014-03-06 04:56:14 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: I gave a meaningful reply to that post which you ignored so you could nailyourself to a cross.

And whatever drivel you figure you're being clever with.

I did not see that post because long ago I chose to ignore you, using the actual mechanic put into fark, because even if you do make a relevant post now and again, it's so seldom as to not be worth the bullshiat, even the effort to just scroll past it..  But when I'm bored, there's a handy feature at the top of each page which enables me temporarily see posts from such people.  I get curious where there's post after post in a thread and no actual new posts, so I tick that little box.

Sure enough, the same bullshiat most of the time.  I'm talking about something with someone else, and stalkers decide to faliciously call me out.

Most of the time, I choose to not talk to you because you're full of misinformation, dishonesty, false superiority, and spew fallacies that would make SteveB or IDW blush in shame.  Your goals may not be clear, but it's clear you're in it partly because you enjoy taunting and behaving in an aggrandizing manner and are too aware of fark's posting rules and how the tend to be enforced, all so you can creep around them and still be as insulting as possible.  Assurances of honesty, integrity and genuine behavior in 3...2...

Meaningful reply? That's rich.  "Or we can pretend it's important anyway." *goalshift* "Now what do we do about it?"

Whatever, I'm no longer bored enough to consider you entertaining.
Have a crappy day and a shiatty life! : )


That's rich coming from the guy who spent the whole thread calling every opponent a religious bigot and refused to actually discuss the topic.  But, damnhippyfreak already pointed out the large disparity between your supposed concern for arguing in good faith and your complete lack of the same.

But I think there's half a nugget of actual discussion in that last comment....

omeganuepsilon: "Or we can pretend it's important anyway." *goalshift* "Now what do we do about it?"


You may be aware that engaging in a debate on a topic doesn't mean you accept the topic to be true.  People often use the phrase "for the sake of argument" to let it be known the don't necessarily hold the view in their comment.

For example:

Baryogenesis: You know, something as simple as "For the sake of argument, how can we ameliorate the problems of man made climate change without draconian restrictions or placing undue burden on a fragile economy precariously dependent on fossil fuels" would go a long way.


 But I see that you consider this a goal post shift for some reason, maybe you should look up "moving the goal posts" because that ain't it.  Engaging in separate discussions within the same topic doesn't qualify.  Moving the goal posts is like asking you to cite a journal article supporting your position and after you do that asking for 10.

Although I suppose you could just be really eager to get back to your point about averages and you don't want to skip ahead, even for the sake of argument.  You could have just said that.

 

omeganuepsilon: The planet exists and supports life, within a range.  There is no summing up that range with a single digit derived from an average.  It's not that the means of averaging is flawed, that much is pretty straight forward.  But attempting to draw meaningful information from the result, is naive at best, dishonest or willfully ignorant at worst.


Here are my two responses from earlier in the thread

Baryogenesis: Or, the increase in global average temperature is a convenient way to summarize the issue and isn't the end of the discussion but rather the start.

From there we can talk about regional impacts of warming, like increased drought in the American SW or water insecurity in areas that rely on glacier.


Baryogenesis: The science of AGW doesn't begin and end at global average temperature.  There are plenty of studies about regional impacts of warming as they relate to agriculture, water security and disease among other things.


Again, the total heat content anomaly or the increase in global average temperature are just ways of summarizing the total effect we're having on the planet and, of course, aren't the sum total of the topic.


Damnhippyfreak: Here's a chance for you to practice what you preach. Let's see what you choose to do.


Yup.  I'm waiting as well.  Intelligent and on topic reply or more accusations of persecution and religious fervor?
 
2014-03-06 05:14:21 PM  

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?


I have a better graph for you:
i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-06 05:14:48 PM  
Yeah, it's unrealistic of me to want to talk about what I'm posting about.  I should totally only talk about what you want to talk about.

God, you'd think I was putting it in your ass for what you want me to do for you.  What the fark kind of drugs are you on?

Seriously, I'm beyond caring about what anyone else thinks, this late in the thread and all, you're the only one reading.  I'm posting now for your benefit and yours alone.  You're a moron who's badly attempting, and hence failing, to be clever.  That's my favor to you, to let you know of your ass-hat like behavior.  I hold out hope yet that you're not such a simpleton.  I don't expect it mind you, but I have some hope.

If you are incapable of being a better person, well then, goodbye.  Have a shiatty life. : )
 
2014-03-06 06:17:41 PM  
As predicted, no answers to the people that responded to his preposterous statements, more insults, and claiming to be persecuted when people expect him to actually respond when his various flat out wrong statements are corrected.

Gee, it's almost like he's still posting in the same blatantly obtuse manner he rails against.

Show of hands: who was shocked by this stunning turn of events?
 
2014-03-06 06:18:49 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Yeah, it's unrealistic of me to want to talk about what I'm posting about.  I should totally only talk about what you want to talk about.


You are of course welcome to talk about what you want. You can also ignore it when others respond to what you post, and instead complain about other posters.  However, it's not a particularly rational nor honest way of going about things.

I mean, you could fill every thread with delusional ramblings if that is what you want to do - it's just not a good idea.


omeganuepsilon: God, you'd think I was putting it in your ass for what you want me to do for you.  What the fark kind of drugs are you on?


Responding in a rational way isn't all that much of a burden, especially when you appear to be asking the same of others. It's not all that big of a stretch to ask that you practice what you preach.


omeganuepsilon: Seriously, I'm beyond caring about what anyone else thinks, this late in the thread and all, you're the only one reading.  I'm posting now for your benefit and yours alone.  You're a moron who's badly attempting, and hence failing, to be clever.  That's my favor to you, to let you know of your ass-hat like behavior.  I hold out hope yet that you're not such a simpleton.  I don't expect it mind you, but I have some hope.

If you are incapable of being a better person, well then, goodbye.  Have a shiatty life. : )


If you're examining behavior, then I suggest looking at your own. How would you describe the behavior of someone who ignores it when counter-argumentation is presented and instead complains about some sense of persecution?

Again, there's at least two rational counter-arguments to what you've presented, but have been ignored by you. Here's yet again a chance for you to be "a better person".   Will you walk the talk?
 
2014-03-06 06:46:02 PM  

omeganuepsilon: you're the only one reading


Well, I was wrong there.  May as well be the same guy though.
But hey, good for you guys.  That's enough for a circle jerk.
 
2014-03-06 07:01:41 PM  

omeganuepsilon: omeganuepsilon: you're the only one reading

Well, I was wrong there.  May as well be the same guy though.
But hey, good for you guys.  That's enough for a circle jerk.



Heh. It's only a circle jerk because you're vehemently refusing to provide rational argumentation.We're actively trying to get you to provide that alternative viewpoint - why you're refusing to do so is something only you can answer.
 
2014-03-06 07:04:27 PM  
Blessed silence!
/Disclaimer: Merely a figure of speech.
 
2014-03-06 07:09:26 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Blessed silence!
/Disclaimer: Merely a figure of speech.


Indeed.

inwallspeakers1.com

Peaceful, I'm sure, but not very useful in describing reality.
 
2014-03-06 08:42:15 PM  

Zafler: Show of hands: who was shocked by this stunning turn of events?


I am shocked face.

Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: Yeah, it's unrealistic of me to want to talk about what I'm posting about.  I should totally only talk about what you want to talk about.

You are of course welcome to talk about what you want. You can also ignore it when others respond to what you post, and instead complain about other posters.  However, it's not a particularly rational nor honest way of going about things.

I mean, you could fill every thread with delusional ramblings if that is what you want to do - it's just not a good idea.


If you are going to do that though (you = omeganuepsilon, or anybody else who's thinking about it), delusional ramblings do work somewhat better if they're all in green text. I'm not sure why, but the delusional is accentuated with a  soupçon of je ne sais quoi that makes the rambles just that little bit more rambly.
 
2014-03-07 02:30:43 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: omeganuepsilon: omeganuepsilon: you're the only one reading

Well, I was wrong there.  May as well be the same guy though.
But hey, good for you guys.  That's enough for a circle jerk.


Heh. It's only a circle jerk because you're vehemently refusing to provide rational argumentation.We're actively trying to get you to provide that alternative viewpoint - why you're refusing to do so is something only you can answer.


Heck, I even gave out a possible line of questioning from his point of view.
 
Displayed 39 of 189 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | 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