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.

(Telegraph)   British ideologue declares climate change over. Thank goodness   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 52
    More: Dumbass, consequences of climate change, gross world product, IPCC reports, Thank Goodness, utterances, science studies, climate change, believers  
•       •       •

1308 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Apr 2014 at 10:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-07 08:32:42 AM  
FTA: Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right. There are too many imponderables.


Imponderables indeed. Sounds like after studying it out, he harmonized the variables, and concluded weather is climate, which is truly imponderable.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-07 08:44:43 AM  
It's cute that he puts it in the "non-fiction" category.
 
2014-04-07 09:12:10 AM  
Goddamn it deniers are stupid.
 
2014-04-07 09:38:50 AM  
All this time they were just forecasting weather? Who knew?
 
2014-04-07 09:41:34 AM  
He demonstrates that he doesn't even understand the subject matter in the first sentence.

I remember when the Telegraph was the 'respected conservative newspaper'.

Of course that was before Cameron and the Tory shiat Wizard Club decided they wanted to model their politics on Bush. Apparently because of how successful that was.
 
2014-04-07 09:54:14 AM  
I read this headline as "British idiot", and I see that was a correct description.
 
2014-04-07 09:57:39 AM  
Like most of those on both sides of the debate, Rupert Darwall is not a scientist. He is a wonderfully lucid historian of intellectual and political movements, which is just the job to explain what has been inflicted on us over the past 30 years or so in the name of saving the planet.

Selfish assholes thinking of the planet.
 
2014-04-07 10:17:49 AM  
After the UN's breathless horrified, "WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!!!!1!!!!111!1!one" moment, why not?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-07 10:25:07 AM  
 Like most of those on both sides of the debate, Rupert Darwall is not a scientist.

No, he's a shill for coal and oil interests.  There isn't a debate.  There are people with vested interests who want the problem ignored and there are people who want to deal with the problem.

 
2014-04-07 10:26:28 AM  
So once again, we have someone who can't comprehend the difference between "weather" and "climate".
 
2014-04-07 10:30:24 AM  
WE'RE DOOOOOMMMMMED! Oh, wait....WE'RE SAVED! Where's my drink.
 
2014-04-07 10:33:07 AM  
<I>Proper science studies what is - which is, in principle, knowable - and is consequently very cautious about the future - which isn't. No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days. </I>

What the fark am I reading?
 
2014-04-07 10:33:39 AM  
He really nailed that noted climate scientist Prince Charles.

There actually is a threshold, though. It's called 2C of warming. At that point, Arctic soils will have warmed enough to become a source of GHGs equal to the current human production. At that point, we should just become as panicky as Bill Paxton. OTOH, I've looked at what it will take to keep us below 2C of warming.


/400 ppm
//.9C of warming
///Faust Scene III line 74
 
2014-04-07 10:41:06 AM  
Are we dead yet?
 
2014-04-07 10:44:06 AM  
You can trust him because he has a British accent.
 
2014-04-07 10:46:15 AM  
So between this and the ebola outbreak, should I bother doing my taxes or can I skip that?

/Really don't want to do my taxes.
//Really don't want ebola either.
///Also really don't want the Atlantic in my front yard.
 
2014-04-07 11:10:01 AM  

dillengest: <I>Proper science studies what is - which is, in principle, knowable - and is consequently very cautious about the future - which isn't. No, they are the result of a belief that something big and bad is going to hit us one of these days. </I>

What the fark am I reading?


Donald Rumsfeld and the 'known unknowns' speech?
 
2014-04-07 11:14:09 AM  
We thought it was carbon but turns out its actually a gargantuan 11 year old burning the earth with a magnifying glass.
 
2014-04-07 11:21:47 AM  
Wait, wait, I can't type I'm laughing so hard. Seriously.

Drunken mod greens a 5 year old global warming article and then after being shown it's a five year old global warming article has to pull it,
so this lame link gets insta-greened in its stead?

I'm tickled. You guys made my morning.
 
2014-04-07 11:21:59 AM  
I'm guessing this moron hasn't heard about CO2.

What a complete idiot.
 
2014-04-07 11:22:00 AM  
Nothing is over until Brooklyn hipsters declare it is over.
 
2014-04-07 11:32:43 AM  
Tea baggers and deniers.
 
2014-04-07 11:38:03 AM  
Exactly how do you get a job writing arrogant diatribes about subjects you demonstrate zero understanding of? It sounds a hell of a lot easier than my job and it doesn't seem like there's any shortage of work.

"I threw a dozen rats in the air and none of them evolved into birds before they hit the ground! Thus I have refuted the so-called theory of evolutionism those silly scientists never shut up about! Also, they didn't all hit the ground at the same time so that's Newtonian physics disproven too!".

...Hmm, it's actually hard to get the right level of smug douchebaggery in there. Maybe they earn their paychecks after all.
 
2014-04-07 11:56:56 AM  

SVenus: Wait, wait, I can't type I'm laughing so hard. Seriously.

Drunken mod greens a 5 year old global warming article and then after being shown it's a five year old global warming article has to pull it,
so this lame link gets insta-greened in its stead?

I'm tickled. You guys made my morning.




This time slot was scheduled for a global warming thread, so they had to come up with something...
 
2014-04-07 12:16:45 PM  
Doomed, we're all DOOMED.

Quick, stop breathing!
You go first.
 
2014-04-07 12:34:20 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Doomed, we're all DOOMED.

Quick, stop breathing!
You go first.


I know you're not being serious, but just because I haven't seen it posted in a long time:

Breathing is carbon neutral, asshole.
 
2014-04-07 12:46:20 PM  
Summary of that article:
"Hi, I have no idea what I'm talking about regarding this issue, but here's my opinion on it anyway."

Start by reading this:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.htm l
 
2014-04-07 12:49:43 PM  
The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government.

Obviously this mans idea of a healthy breakfast includes a few spoonfuls of lead paint.
 
2014-04-07 12:54:57 PM  
Who the heck is Rupert Darwall?

He doesn't have a Wikipedia page.  He doesn't publish in the scientific literature.  All I can find on him is his think tank biography that states "Rupert Darwall is a corporate strategist, economist and author. He was special adviser to Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1993, and also worked at the Conservative Research Department. He has also advised a number of blue-chip companies on M&A, regulatory, licensing and competition issues."

Can literally anyone publish a climate denial manifesto these days, without even pretending to put in the time to learn the science?
 
2014-04-07 01:00:22 PM  
The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won't last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America's natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome's work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: "The world has cancer and the cancer is man.").

So warmism was invented by Farklibs?
 
2014-04-07 01:11:26 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won't last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America's natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome's work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: "The world has cancer and the cancer is man.").


And that's why warmists invented quantum mechanics, with the result that CO2 began absorbing light in the infrared part of the spectrum. Quantum mechanics must be overturned!!!
 
2014-04-07 01:26:28 PM  

dillengest: IamKaiserSoze!!!: The origins of warmism lie in a cocktail of ideas which includes anti-industrial nature worship, post-colonial guilt, a post-Enlightenment belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth, a hatred of population growth, a revulsion against the widespread increase in wealth and a belief in world government. It involves a fondness for predicting that energy supplies won't last much longer (as early as 1909, the US National Conservation Commission reported to Congress that America's natural gas would be gone in 25 years and its oil by the middle of the century), protest movements which involve dressing up and disappearing into woods (the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift, the Mosleyite Blackshirts who believed in reafforestation) and a dislike of the human race (The Club of Rome's work Mankind at the Turning-Point said: "The world has cancer and the cancer is man.").

And that's why warmists invented quantum mechanics, with the result that CO2 began absorbing light in the infrared part of the spectrum. Quantum mechanics must be overturned!!!




Obligatory:
i58.tinypic.com
Conservative Christians protest the second law of thermodynamics on the steps of the Kansas Capitol.

Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics

TOPEKA, KS-The second law of thermodynamics, a fundamental scientific principle stating that entropy increases over time as organized forms decay into greater states of randomness, has come under fire from conservative Christian groups, who are demanding that the law be repealed.

"What do these scientists want us teaching our children? That the universe will continue to expand until it reaches eventual heat death?" asked Christian Coalition president Ralph Reed, speaking at a rally protesting a recent Kansas Board Of Education decision upholding the law. "That's hardly an optimistic view of a world the Lord created for mankind. The American people are sending a strong message here: We don't like the implications of this law, and we will not rest until it has been reversed in the courts."

The controversial law of nature, which asserts that matter continually breaks down as disorder increases and heat is lost, has long been decried by Christian fundamentalists as running counter to their religion's doctrine of Divine grace and eternal salvation.

"Why can't disorder decrease over time instead of everything decaying?" asked Jim Muldoon of Emporia, KS. "Is that too much to ask? This is our children's future we're talking about."

"I wouldn't want my child growing up in a world headed for total heat death and dissolution into a vacuum," said Kansas state senator Will Blanchard (R-Hutchinson). "No decent parent would want that."

Calling the second law of thermodynamics "a deeply disturbing scientific principle that threatens our children's understanding of God's universe as a benevolent and loving place," Blanchard is spearheading a nationwide grassroots campaign to have the law removed from high-school physics textbooks. The plan has already met with significant support in the state legislatures of Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi.
 
2014-04-07 01:52:03 PM  
Checkmate, libs.
 
2014-04-07 02:04:09 PM  
Fark these guys.

Seriously, fark them.  They've muddied the waters so goddamn badly, it's gonna be another generation at the least before we get things sorted out....
 
2014-04-07 02:22:58 PM  
Hey look! It only took him one paragraph to show that he has no farking clue what he is talking about.  And he was able to put his false thesis in the first sentence of the second paragraph.  Saved me a lot of time.
 
2014-04-07 02:23:57 PM  
There are lots of Dems in DC. DC is very low lying ground (below sea level in some places). If DC floods, thousands of Dems could die. If Climate change isn't stopped, this is a likely possibility. Ergo, conservatives want it to happen.
 
2014-04-07 03:07:16 PM  
Teh Climatez are achanging, Fear it folks and pay up.  If you deny it, I'll call you angry names.
 
2014-04-07 03:15:53 PM  
Of course the climate is changing. It didn't rain yesterday and it's raining today.
 
2014-04-07 03:25:26 PM  
i.imgur.com

Republican response: "Rich people might get a little LESS RICH! And that would be worse than FIFTEEN HOLOCAUSTS!"
 
2014-04-07 03:27:38 PM  
First paragraph - starting off talking about weather forecasts as a parallel to climate study.  Bad start.

Second paragraph - the first sentence is an outright lie.  He then continues to conflate "prediction" with "model".  We know we're dealing with someone who has no understanding of the scientific process, and has probably never read an unbiased study on the subject.

Third paragraph - begins dropping loaded words like "warmist", followed by ridicule and dismissal based on appealing to political source, and confusing definitions.  No need to continue.

So, someone paid money to this asshole for this piece?  Why not ask me for a critique of 15th century watercolor from Portugal...I'm about as knowledgeable on that as this guy is on climate science.
 
2014-04-07 03:35:15 PM  

Khellendros: First paragraph - starting off talking about weather forecasts as a parallel to climate study.  Bad start.

Second paragraph - the first sentence is an outright lie.  He then continues to conflate "prediction" with "model".  We know we're dealing with someone who has no understanding of the scientific process, and has probably never read an unbiased study on the subject.

Third paragraph - begins dropping loaded words like "warmist", followed by ridicule and dismissal based on appealing to political source, and confusing definitions.  No need to continue.

So, someone paid money to this asshole for this piece?  Why not ask me for a critique of 15th century watercolor from Portugal...I'm about as knowledgeable on that as this guy is on climate science.


People who don't actually know shiat about climatology, but are paid by energy companies to claim climate change isn't real, are more accurate and trustworthy than the vast, VAST majority of actual climatologists.

/That is what Republicans actually believe
 
2014-04-07 04:11:44 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: After the UN's breathless horrified, "WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!!!!1!!!!111!1!one" moment, why not?


Derp, massively increased risks, as evidenced by substantive science:

"Well, better pretend this is doom mongering, so i can continue to ignore reality."

How does your brain do that?  Do you try to be colossal moron with no understanding of anything, because I can't see anyone coming to write the sentence you just did without a burning desire to be viewed as a mental incompetent.

//Seriously, answer the bold question.
 
2014-04-07 04:25:09 PM  

Tigger: He demonstrates that he doesn't even understand the subject matter in the first sentence.

I remember when the Telegraph was the 'respected conservative newspaper'.

Of course that was before Cameron and the Tory shiat Wizard Club decided they wanted to model their politics on Bush. Apparently because of how successful that was.


To be fair another Telegraph writer posted this article pointing out the climate and weather are not the same the day after.
 
2014-04-07 04:30:34 PM  

LordJiro: [i.imgur.com image 500x333]

Republican response: "Rich people might get a little LESS RICH! And that would be worse than FIFTEEN HOLOCAUSTS!"




Rich people and politicians won't be affected as much as the poor.

This isn't an "everyone wins" situation. Dealing with climate change means there will be some winners, but whole industries will be regulated out if existence. Putting hard working people onto the street until they can find a place into the new economy means a lot of stress and poverty.
Some nations might not go along. Some people will get explody in the height of their frustration.
There will probably be more than a little shooting.

So, yes, it would be good if we can get a true conscious from the science community (which rarely agrees on anything) about the nature of this problem and how it should be handled.
This means an actual gathering of minds and not just one side or another declaring everyone agrees with them.

Everyone always thinks they're right about everything, right before a war starts.
 
2014-04-07 04:33:30 PM  

LordJiro: People who don't actually know shiat about climatology, but are paid by energy companies to claim climate change isn't real, are more accurate and trustworthy than the vast, VAST majority of actual climatologists.

/That is what Republicans actually claim they believe



Personally, I believe they're merely lying, solipsistic nihilists.
 
2014-04-07 05:09:35 PM  
Even if we successfully go carbon neutral and still maintain an advancing civilization, there will still be changes to the climate that will need to be adapted to in the long term. What we learn from handling the current challenges will go a long way to helping with the future. Climate effect mitigation, prevention, and eventually even control will be part of the foundation of future society in much the same way logistics is an unseen foundation of modern society.
 
2014-04-07 05:18:10 PM  

way south: LordJiro: [i.imgur.com image 500x333]

Republican response: "Rich people might get a little LESS RICH! And that would be worse than FIFTEEN HOLOCAUSTS!"

Rich people and politicians won't be affected as much as the poor.

This isn't an "everyone wins" situation. Dealing with climate change means there will be some winners, but whole industries will be regulated out if existence. Putting hard working people onto the street until they can find a place into the new economy means a lot of stress and poverty.
Some nations might not go along. Some people will get explody in the height of their frustration.
There will probably be more than a little shooting.



Like what?  I'm truly curios about which industries would suddenly up and vanish because we decided to reduce the acceptable levels of pollution in our water and air.
 
2014-04-07 05:38:06 PM  

Tigger: He demonstrates that he doesn't even understand the subject matter in the first sentence.

I remember when the Telegraph was the 'respected conservative newspaper'.

Of course that was before Cameron and the Tory shiat Wizard Club decided they wanted to model their politics on Bush. Apparently because of how successful that was.


I wouldn't say they're modelling their politics on Bush. I think that's unfair to GWB, as it suggests that he had any inkling of what the government he was nominally president of was doing.

But, there used to be the joke that the two main political parties in the US are the Republicans, who are to the right of the Tories in the UK and the Democrats, who are to the right of the Tories in the UK.

I would say that within my lifetime, all of UK politics have lurched to the right. Even Thatcher didn't have the chutzpah to privatise he Royal Mail. But hey, grossly undervaluing it and giving priority to certain investors certainly made a tidy profit for a few cronies.

And, with the Tory party line on the BBC recently, they're bound to fark it up as much as they can in the next parliament.

And the problem is that there is no effective opposition. Ed was supposed to be red, but nobody seems to like him much and the Labour party is unable to deliver a coherent front against the Tories. The Lib-Dems are dead for going back on the promises they made pre-coalition. UKIP is more credible than the Lib-Dems. And certain people will lap up UKIP rhetoric.

/Bit pissed off at my bro at the mo too; browsing Facebook last night, discovered he's a member of English nationalist/anti-Muslim FB groups.
//And he's Scottish, and used to enjoy military history.
///Sent him a polite text asking if he remembers any other people in the 20th century that were uber-nationalist and didn't like Semitic people.
 
2014-04-07 05:49:58 PM  

Khellendros: Why not ask me for a critique of 15th century watercolor from Portugal


It sucked. Also, it was a hoax to get grant money from the nobles.
 
2014-04-07 06:32:02 PM  

Flappyhead: way south: LordJiro: [i.imgur.com image 500x333]

Republican response: "Rich people might get a little LESS RICH! And that would be worse than FIFTEEN HOLOCAUSTS!"

Rich people and politicians won't be affected as much as the poor.

This isn't an "everyone wins" situation. Dealing with climate change means there will be some winners, but whole industries will be regulated out if existence. Putting hard working people onto the street until they can find a place into the new economy means a lot of stress and poverty.
Some nations might not go along. Some people will get explody in the height of their frustration.
There will probably be more than a little shooting.


Like what?  I'm truly curios about which industries would suddenly up and vanish because we decided to reduce the acceptable levels of pollution in our water and air.


Well, Global Polluting Inc. and their subsidiaries would go under pretty quick - it's right there in the company name!
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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