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.

(Think Progress)   Congressman: Well, if humans are the cause of global warming, then how did dinosaurs go extinct? Checkmate   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 228
    More: Obvious, global warming, extinction of the dinosaurs, NCA, climate change denial  
•       •       •

2871 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jun 2014 at 6:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-06-09 05:43:47 PM  
A Republican from Florida doesn't understand how science works. News at 11.
 
2014-06-09 05:49:08 PM  
As Calvin and Hobbes already explained, it was time traveling big game hunters.
 
2014-06-09 05:54:06 PM  
Okay. I'll admit it. I lulz'd.

/it was the checkmate
 
2014-06-09 05:57:21 PM  
Global warming killed the dinosaurs?  I thought it was a massive ice age.
 
2014-06-09 05:57:49 PM  
Or was it Foxtrot? I can't remember
 
2014-06-09 05:58:50 PM  

Aarontology: As Calvin and Hobbes already explained, it was time traveling big game hunters.


WEEP FOR THE DAMAGE THAT OBAMA'S TIME MACHINE HAS CAUSED! WEEEP!
 
2014-06-09 05:59:28 PM  
mimg.ugo.com

img.photobucket.com

Simpsons did it
 
2014-06-09 06:01:46 PM  
I was bored and playing on GIS. Found this and it gave me a giggle, so I thought I'd share.

thenakedlistener.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-09 06:03:46 PM  

hubiestubert: Aarontology: As Calvin and Hobbes already explained, it was time traveling big game hunters.

WEEP FOR THE DAMAGE THAT OBAMA'S TIME MACHINE HAS CAUSED! WEEEP!


NOW HOW WILL RAPTOR JESUS SAVE OUR SOULS AND HUNT THE WEAK?
 
2014-06-09 06:14:10 PM  
"Then why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Were there men that were causing - were there cars running around at that point that were causing global warming? No,"

I don't think I've ever actually yelled at the TV before, but I did when I heard this.
 
wee
2014-06-09 06:15:38 PM  
They evolved to believe in faith-based medicine.
 
2014-06-09 06:18:57 PM  

grumpfuff: A Republican from Florida doesn't understand how science works. News at 11.


I came here to comment about the same observations.
 
2014-06-09 06:19:40 PM  
"Then why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Were there men that were causing - were there cars running around at that point that were causing global warming? No,"

Duh, the dinosaurs went extinct because they were made of fossil fuels.
thumbs3.ebaystatic.com
 
2014-06-09 06:33:39 PM  
A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11.
 
2014-06-09 06:33:41 PM  
His state will be one of the first to drown.
 
2014-06-09 06:36:10 PM  
I have a feeling that he not only doesn't know the answer to that question, but doesn't care. And that is the problem right there.
 
2014-06-09 06:40:32 PM  
This is how Poe's law came to be. When someone says this sort of thing you just assume they're joking.
 
2014-06-09 06:41:45 PM  
I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, but underneath that is a boiling mass of magma, which is like rocks except on fire. So back in the days of the dinosaurs, the earth's crust was very brittle, sort of like a pie that's been baking for a while, where the crust looks crispy, but is really very thin and prone to cracking.

So, imagine it...you've got a young, brittle, fragile earth with a very thin crust, and lots of dinosaurs that keep getting bigger and bigger. Huge, in fact -- I mean, they went from little amphibians  that weren't much bigger than chickens to brontosauruses and t-rexes. So what do you think happened when all those huge beasts started stomping around on the earth's brittle crust?

That's right --  geological events. You've heard of them -- earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions. And whenever one of these would happen, the dinosaurs would get scared, which ironically would make them run even faster, which in turn caused even  moregeological disruptions -- what scientists call a "feedback loop." So basically the dinosaurs stomped and stampeded around enough that the whole world started erupting, which put lots of smoke and lava into the air, which caused it to get very hot. In other words, global warming. ]

As an example of proof supporting this, here's an artist's rendition of the earliest stages of that massive disaster:  http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/volcanic-eruption-triassic- e xtinction-22032013/#!WMNdK .

So here we are, then, with the irony of the repetitive nature of history staring us in the face. The dinosaurs caused their own extinction by getting too big, and then failing to recognize that it was their own panicked reaction to the effects that was pushing them into oblivion. And now there's us, all these years later, and we're bringing about our own extinction by becoming too big (as a society) and failing to act in time.  And we're doing it all by burning the very species that went extinct originally. That's irony, subby. That's deep, dirty irony. You don't need snark to make it any more poignant than it is.
 
2014-06-09 06:47:01 PM  

jokideo.com

 
2014-06-09 06:47:33 PM  
Oh good grief.
 
2014-06-09 06:50:37 PM  
People die naturally, I guess that means murder is impossible.
 
2014-06-09 06:50:53 PM  
s2.hubimg.com
 
2014-06-09 06:51:20 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, but underneath that is a boiling mass of magma, which is like rocks except on fire. So back in the days of the dinosaurs, the earth's crust was very brittle, sort of like a pie that's been baking for a while, where the crust looks crispy, but is really very thin and prone to cracking.

So, imagine it...you've got a young, brittle, fragile earth with a very thin crust, and lots of dinosaurs that keep getting bigger and bigger. Huge, in fact -- I mean, they went from little amphibians  that weren't much bigger than chickens to brontosauruses and t-rexes. So what do you think happened when all those huge beasts started stomping around on the earth's brittle crust?

That's right --  geological events. You've heard of them -- earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions. And whenever one of these would happen, the dinosaurs would get scared, which ironically would make them run even faster, which in turn caused even  moregeological disruptions -- what scientists call a "feedback loop." So basically the dinosaurs stomped and stampeded around enough that the whole world started erupting, which put lots of smoke and lava into the air, which caused it to get very hot. In other words, global warming. ]

As an example of proof supporting this, here's an artist's rendition of the earliest stages of that massive disaster:  http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/volcanic-eruption-triassic- e xtinction-22032013/#!WMNdK .

So here we are, then, with the irony of the repetitive nature of history staring us in the face. The dinosaurs caused their own extinction by getting too big, and then failing to recognize that it was their own panicked reaction to the effects that was pushing them into oblivion. And now there's us, all these years later, and we're bringing about our own extinction by becoming too big (as a society) and failing to act in time.  And we're doing it all by burning the very species that went extinct originally. That's irony, subby. That's deep, dirty irony. You don't need snark to make it any more poignant than it is.


That was beautiful.

/bonus points for using irregardless
 
2014-06-09 06:54:49 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: His state will be one of the first to drown.


Along with Mexico City.
 
2014-06-09 06:56:38 PM  
Mass shootings due to lax mental health laws?
 
2014-06-09 06:58:15 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Along with Mexico City.


heeee
 
2014-06-09 06:59:15 PM  
iconicionic.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-09 07:00:12 PM  
Well, at least he admits dinosaurs existed. That's progress, I guess.
 
2014-06-09 07:01:45 PM  
"Congressman there were no dinosaurs. They are fakes put there by Satan to lead us to sin! Check mate on you, you Pagan!"
 
2014-06-09 07:02:09 PM  

Aarontology: As Calvin and Hobbes already explained, it was time traveling big game hunters.


That might explain the T Rex in the F15.
 
2014-06-09 07:02:12 PM  
What a maroon.
 
2014-06-09 07:07:27 PM  

The GOP, ladies and gentlemen. The GOP.

 
2014-06-09 07:08:32 PM  
they got tired of carrying Jebus on their backs
 
2014-06-09 07:09:19 PM  

SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11


Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?
 
2014-06-09 07:09:44 PM  
We can invent fire but we still can't figure out what happen to those dinosaurs. Good job, science.
 
2014-06-09 07:18:03 PM  
Congressman, if your mother was pure and chaste, how are you here?
 
2014-06-09 07:19:00 PM  
Hey we had fires and things burning down BEFORE man could make fires -> Obviously all the people in prison for arson should be set free!
 
2014-06-09 07:21:28 PM  
At least he admitted dinosaurs were real. That's a step forward from thinking fossils were planted there by the devil.
 
2014-06-09 07:21:35 PM  
"While no scientist disputes that the climate has changed in the past, the issue is that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are forcing it to change faster and differently than it would without them.

The argument is, essentially, a non-sequitur."

Only if you're a dipshiat who doesn't know what a non sequitur is.

Now, before the Fark Butthurt Brigade decides that I'm a fundie climate change denier, and before certain trolls/morons on here rally to my cause, allow me to state that I believe that we are affecting our climate. I just don't like it when people lob words or phrases they know nothing about and consider themselves smart.

Of course, the author may have learned literary devices from Alanis Morissette.
 
2014-06-09 07:21:39 PM  

the_celt: Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that ...


I had to read that in the voice of the film narrator in the first Jurrasic Park movie.
 
2014-06-09 07:21:45 PM  
img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-09 07:21:54 PM  
I knew before I clicked the link that this would be from a state that borders the Gulf of Mexico.  Un-farking-believable.
 
2014-06-09 07:25:10 PM  
Is the answer lack of access to affordable health care?
 
2014-06-09 07:25:56 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-09 07:28:34 PM  
And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

Yeah and there are probably even  two or threeclimatologists on the side that doesn't agree in man made climate change. It's not like that list is made up of people who are geologists and chemists, only.
 
2014-06-09 07:28:51 PM  
FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.
 
2014-06-09 07:29:05 PM  
Jesus was one hungry motherfarker after he was resurrected.

That is where the dinos went.
 
2014-06-09 07:30:02 PM  

fusillade762: Well, at least he admits dinosaurs existed. That's progress, I guess.


He just thinks they missed the ark and the fossil record shows that they were too stupid to get to the highest ground possible, unlike the humans (which australopithecus and homo erectus really are, just old, decrepit, and short humans...at least when they're not just apes and nothing like humans)...
 
2014-06-09 07:30:09 PM  

RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.


That doesn't help.
 
2014-06-09 07:31:52 PM  

RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.


What a great and concise proof that there is no such thing as Climate Change, you have changed my mind.
 
2014-06-09 07:33:06 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, b ...


You are the man!
 
2014-06-09 07:33:35 PM  
Pocket Ninja:

...for President.
 
2014-06-09 07:35:50 PM  

whither_apophis: "Congressman there were no dinosaurs. They are fakes put there by Satan to lead us to sin! Check mate on you, you Pagan!"


i586.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-09 07:37:15 PM  
HighOnCraic:

img.fark.net

I'm going to use that line the next time someone tries to tell me about Jesus.
 
2014-06-09 07:42:13 PM  
I thought it was gay marriage that killed off the dinosaurs.
 
2014-06-09 07:47:32 PM  

davidhyde: I thought it was gay marriage that killed off the dinosaurs.


It was socialized medicine, Ornithomimacare and it's death panels factored in heavily with increased costs.
 
2014-06-09 07:50:31 PM  
thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com
Sorry Governor, not yet.
 
2014-06-09 07:55:27 PM  
ftv "It's not a settled argument."

Gah! I may never be sober.
 
2014-06-09 07:57:58 PM  

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?


It's like he takes the thing that hurts him the most deeply and then cleverly (ha ha!) changes it around so that it becomes a critique of those he most despises.  It's sad, really, to watch him run out of original bullshiat.
 
2014-06-09 07:58:25 PM  

Corvus: Hey we had fires and things burning down BEFORE man could make fires -> Obviously all the people in prison for arson should be set free!


I have incontrovertible evidence that people die of natural causes. Therefore my client cannot be guilty of murder, as nothing that can happen naturally sometimes can be caused by man in other instances.


/fark lawyering, climate lunatic style, fun for everyone
 
2014-06-09 08:01:02 PM  

RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.


Stayed up all night thinking that one up, did you?
 
2014-06-09 08:01:53 PM  

spongeboob: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

What a great and concise proof that there is no such thing as Climate Change, you have changed my mind.


"Concise" describes it very well, and in just 2 syllables, too.
 
2014-06-09 08:02:26 PM  

RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.


This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012. The directly relevant bits from the paper are as follows:

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.

img.fark.net
a, Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.  b-d, Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5-95%uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5-95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.



Give me a shout if you want to read the paper but can't get it yourself. I'll gladly put it up for you and even work through it with you if you want.
 
2014-06-09 08:03:24 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012


Keep on forgetting that FARK does not like Nature links. Here you go:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html#/
 
2014-06-09 08:05:51 PM  

Rav Tokomi: At least he admitted dinosaurs were real. That's a step forward from thinking fossils were planted there by the devil.

I don't think they ever denied the existence of dinos... they just believed that Jesus rode one into town when he founded America.

Ergo, the second amendment does not apply to T-Rex, who has tiny arms. QED, which is Latin for USA! USA! USA!
 
2014-06-09 08:06:07 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012. The directly relevant bits from the paper are as follows:

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.

[img.fark.net image 850x602]
a, Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.  b-d, Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5-95%uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5-95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.


Give me a shout if you want to read the paper but can't get it yourself. I'll gladly put it up for you and even work through it with you if you want.


You damn hippy freak. Go hug a tree...
 
2014-06-09 08:07:49 PM  

ImpendingCynic: Rav Tokomi: At least he admitted dinosaurs were real. That's a step forward from thinking fossils were planted there by the devil.
I don't think they ever denied the existence of dinos... they just believed that Jesus rode one into town when he founded America.

Ergo, the second amendment does not apply to T-Rex, who has tiny arms. QED, which is Latin for USA! USA! USA!


Obviously, you haven't been exposed to some of the more fundamental flocks.
 
2014-06-09 08:08:54 PM  
It amazes me that we choose people who are this ignorant to lead us.
 
2014-06-09 08:11:19 PM  
thinkprogress.org

Who pissed him off?
 
2014-06-09 08:11:45 PM  

Pocket Ninja: underneath that is a boiling mass of magma, which is like rocks except on fire


This is my favorite.
 
2014-06-09 08:12:00 PM  
Oh fark me, this asshat is my rep. The morons love him in this godforsaken place.
 
2014-06-09 08:12:37 PM  

sugardave: ImpendingCynic: Rav Tokomi: At least he admitted dinosaurs were real. That's a step forward from thinking fossils were planted there by the devil.
I don't think they ever denied the existence of dinos... they just believed that Jesus rode one into town when he founded America.

Ergo, the second amendment does not apply to T-Rex, who has tiny arms. QED, which is Latin for USA! USA! USA!

Obviously, you haven't been exposed to some of the more fundamental flocks.


I don't understand how so many people can buy into the lie of dinosaurs, it's just ridiculous. The Bible never mentions dinosaurs so they obviously weren't created by God. We're supposed to believe that these "dinosaur bones" are made of rock but how could something with a skeleton made of rock actually survive? How could they be millions of years old if the Earth itself is only about 6,000 years old?

It's hard to teach my kids about dinosaurs not being real. I try to tell them that it's just another one of Satan's tricks but dinosaurs are so popular. Their school teaches them that so many of Satan's lies are true but I can't afford the time to home school them or send them to private school.


How do you guys deal with teaching your kids about how dinosaurs are fake?

I'd really appreciate any advice, my kids are at that "dinosaur age". Please help!

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1584570/pg1

/that guy might be trolling but there are those who believe the bones were hidden by satan to make people doubt gods word.
 
2014-06-09 08:15:57 PM  

Mikey1969: [thinkprogress.org image 638x450]

Who pissed him off?


A man like RingoMiller has got a great big hole, right in the middle of him. He can never kill enough, or steal enough, or inflict enough pain to ever fill it. 
Wyatt Earp: What does he need? 
Doc Holliday: Revenge. 
Wyatt Earp: For what? 
Doc Holliday: Bein' born.
 
2014-06-09 08:29:12 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-09 08:33:19 PM  
cdn.hark.com

Now, children, come on over here. I'm going to tell you a bedtime story. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time, there lived a magnificent race of animals that dominated the world through age after age. They ran, they swam, and they fought and they flew, until suddenly, quite recently, they disappeared. Nature just gave up and started again. We weren't even apes then. We were just these smart little rodents hiding in the rocks. And when we go, nature will start over. With the bees, probably. Nature knows when to give up, David.
 
2014-06-09 08:38:04 PM  

fusillade762: Well, at least he admits dinosaurs existed. That's progress, I guess.


That was my thought, too.  At least he's not a young-earth creationist.
 
2014-06-09 08:40:29 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-09 08:44:56 PM  

ImpendingCynic: Rav Tokomi: At least he admitted dinosaurs were real. That's a step forward from thinking fossils were planted there by the devil.
I don't think they ever denied the existence of dinos... they just believed that Jesus rode one into town when he founded America.

Ergo, the second amendment does not apply to T-Rex, who has tiny arms. QED, which is Latin for USA! USA! USA!


...can't...stop...giggling...
 
2014-06-09 08:50:44 PM  

Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]


Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/
 
2014-06-09 08:53:11 PM  

Jairzinho: [thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com image 558x339]
Sorry Governor, not yet.


Hey look, its the idiot that wanted to stop "Volcano monitoring" to save money.
 
2014-06-09 08:54:12 PM  

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?


The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?  Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it.  That's what I'm getting at.
 
2014-06-09 08:58:14 PM  
TFA: "Were there men that were causing - were there cars running around at that point, that were causing global warming? No."

My favorite part is that he was about to ask "Were there men that were causing global warming?" before catching himself and asking about cars instead.

It was a good save.  If he had said that there were no humans alive at the time of dinosaurs, he would have been primaried by a Young Earth Creationist claiming that "Congressman Miller denies Genesis."
 
2014-06-09 08:59:03 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?

The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?  Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it.  That's what I'm getting at.


img.fark.net

Getting a lot of use out of this picture today..

Are you having a stroke? Do you need someone to call your nurse or 911?
 
2014-06-09 09:02:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?

The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?  Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it.  That's what I'm getting at.


Wait you think that science believes that dinosaurs were killed off by natural changes in the Earth's climate and not by an asteroid strike that started a new ice age?
 
2014-06-09 09:04:17 PM  
imageshack.com
imageshack.com
 
2014-06-09 09:04:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?

The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?  Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it.  That's what I'm getting at.



What the climate change that killed the dinosaurs might look like:

abcnews.go.com
 
2014-06-09 09:11:20 PM  

spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/


How can it not be sodomy?
 
2014-06-09 09:11:56 PM  
t2.gstatic.com

I thought they were just cancelled
 
2014-06-09 09:24:04 PM  
SkinnyHead: ...Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it,

First, no one can know something that isn't true.

Second, I think it's highly likely that most people (the majority of people) who have any idea about it believe the meteor theory.
 
2014-06-09 09:31:08 PM  

grumpfuff: A Republican from Florida doesn't understand how science works. News at 11.


I couldn't pull up the article but I immediately thought he'd be from Texas or Florida.
 
2014-06-09 09:35:45 PM  
Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.
 
2014-06-09 09:37:26 PM  

SkinnyHead: The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?


That was just sloppy on her part

I think she meant not "most people" but "all people who are not farking retarded"
 
2014-06-09 09:38:08 PM  

grumpfuff: A Republican from Florida doesn't understand how science works. News at 11.


They understand. They're lying.
 
2014-06-09 09:40:58 PM  
api.ning.com
 
2014-06-09 09:46:22 PM  

thebadmitton: I thought they were just cancelled


Sadly that finale is more appropriate than you realize. The dinosaurs systematically destroy their environment in the name of corporate profit and start the ice age, freezing them all to death.
 
2014-06-09 09:48:59 PM  

spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.


1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.
 
2014-06-09 09:55:00 PM  

SomeoneDumb: SkinnyHead: ...Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it,

First, no one can know something that isn't true.

Second, I think it's highly likely that most people (the majority of people) who have any idea about it believe the meteor theory.


I think most paleontologists side with the gradual climate change hypothesis as the best explanation for dinosaur extinction.
 
2014-06-09 09:56:25 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.


So we should study it out?
 
2014-06-09 09:56:29 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: "Then why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Were there men that were causing - were there cars running around at that point that were causing global warming? No,"

I don't think I've ever actually yelled at the TV before, but I did when I heard this.


Yeah, hasn't this guy ever seen The Flintstones? Geez.
 
2014-06-09 09:57:55 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.


So, this single data point in a single geological point in the world is a checkmate?  You really don't understand how science works, do you?  Read a book.

You are exactly the same kind of dim thinker as the congressman in the article.
 
2014-06-09 09:59:03 PM  
The dinosaurs were doing fine until one of them decided vaccinations cause autism. Then they were wiped out in a measles epidemic.
 
2014-06-09 10:02:24 PM  

SkinnyHead: SomeoneDumb: SkinnyHead: ...Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it,

First, no one can know something that isn't true.

Second, I think it's highly likely that most people (the majority of people) who have any idea about it believe the meteor theory.

I think most paleontologists side with the gradual climate change hypothesis as the best explanation for dinosaur extinction.


Does that make it most likely true?
 
2014-06-09 10:02:49 PM  

SkinnyHead: SomeoneDumb: SkinnyHead: ...Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it,

First, no one can know something that isn't true.

Second, I think it's highly likely that most people (the majority of people) who have any idea about it believe the meteor theory.

I think most paleontologists side with the gradual climate change hypothesis as the best explanation for dinosaur extinction.


For those of you who are unfamiliar with SkinnyHead, he is saying what killed the dinosaurs is the change in climate caused by the asteroid(or was it a meteor? I can never remember which is which) strike. He is, as usual, arguing from the position of being technically correct, which we all know is the best type of correct.
 
2014-06-09 10:04:02 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.

So, this single data point in a single geological point in the world is a checkmate?  You really don't understand how science works, do you?  Read a book.

You are exactly the same kind of dim thinker as the congressman in the article.


I was going to post something similar but I realized it would be pointless.  May I suggest the point and laugh approach.
 
2014-06-09 10:05:04 PM  
grumpfuff:

For those of you who are unfamiliar with SkinnyHead, he is saying what killed the dinosaurs is the change in climate caused by the asteroid(or was it a meteor? I can never remember which is which) strike. He is, as usual, arguing from the position of being technically correct, which we all know is the best type of correct.

Yet he ignores scientific consensus elsewhere?  What an idiot.
 
2014-06-09 10:07:02 PM  
mrshowrules:

I was going to post something similar but I realized it would be pointless.  May I suggest the point and laugh approach.

How about point, laugh, and debunk.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/climate-change.htm
www.nps.gov
Warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes. Over the past 50 years Alaska's annual average temperature has increased at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States' average, and here in Southeast Alaska winters are 5 degrees warmer. Glacier Bay is expected to become warmer and drier over the next century. Widespread effects in Alaska include earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, bark beetle infestations, shoreline erosion, and more forest fires.
 
2014-06-09 10:08:49 PM  

notto: So, this single data point in a single geological point in the world is a checkmate?  You really don't understand how science works, do you?


Maybe he's just really, really bad at chess.
 
2014-06-09 10:10:53 PM  
Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:
www.blastr.com
 
2014-06-09 10:12:09 PM  

fusillade762: notto: So, this single data point in a single geological point in the world is a checkmate?  You really don't understand how science works, do you?

Maybe he's just really, really bad at chess.


static.guim.co.uk
 
2014-06-09 10:13:10 PM  

notto: SkinnyHead: SomeoneDumb: SkinnyHead: ...Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it,

First, no one can know something that isn't true.

Second, I think it's highly likely that most people (the majority of people) who have any idea about it believe the meteor theory.

I think most paleontologists side with the gradual climate change hypothesis as the best explanation for dinosaur extinction.

Does that make it most likely true?


No, it means that the congressman was stating a point of view that has strong scientific support.  Think Progress, as usual, don't know what they're talking about.
 
2014-06-09 10:13:52 PM  

mrshowrules: Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.

So we should study it out?


I studied it out and all I found was the National Park Service describing the effects climate change is having there ...
 
2014-06-09 10:15:13 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.

So, this single data point in a single geological point in the world is a checkmate?  You really don't understand how science works, do you?  Read a book.

You are exactly the same kind of dim thinker as the congressman in the article.


But but but... Books teach communism!
 
2014-06-09 10:15:29 PM  

notto: mrshowrules:

I was going to post something similar but I realized it would be pointless.  May I suggest the point and laugh approach.

How about point, laugh, and debunk.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/climate-change.htm
[www.nps.gov image 844x384]
Warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes. Over the past 50 years Alaska's annual average temperature has increased at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States' average, and here in Southeast Alaska winters are 5 degrees warmer. Glacier Bay is expected to become warmer and drier over the next century. Widespread effects in Alaska include earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, bark beetle infestations, shoreline erosion, and more forest fires.


doh! Too slow.
 
2014-06-09 10:19:12 PM  

mrshowrules: spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/

How can it not be sodomy?


So you are saying sodomy can lead to sexual reproduction, how else are there baby birds and snakes?
 
2014-06-09 10:19:40 PM  
Welp, that's it for me folks... The level of derp has finally exceeded my theoretical limit. If you need me I'll be busy inventing and building a rocket capable of taking me to Mars and letting me live there or possibly some other world in a far off solar system that hopefully has intelligent life that's beyond derping just to try and out derp everyone else... If a miricle happens and the "other half" suddenly come to their senses before I leave please let me know so I can die of a heart attack due to the shock and die happy knowing sanity has returned.
 
2014-06-09 10:20:10 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.


That and the industrial revolution started in 1760.
 
2014-06-09 10:20:27 PM  
I thought Miller's picture looked familiar.  It's being used to illustrate the word "idiot" in the latest edition of Webster's Dictionary.
 
2014-06-09 10:21:02 PM  
SkinnyHead:

No, it means that the congressman was stating a point of view that has strong scientific support.  Think Progress, as usual, don't know what they're talking about.

Impact from an extra-terrestrial body is not earths natural climate.    The congressman was not referring to an extra-terrestrial body impact by anybodys reading and specifically mentions 'global warming' and suggests that it caused the demise of the dinosaurs.  He is an idiot.
 
2014-06-09 10:21:28 PM  

notto: mrshowrules:

I was going to post something similar but I realized it would be pointless.  May I suggest the point and laugh approach.

How about point, laugh, and debunk.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/climate-change.htm
[www.nps.gov image 844x384]
Warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes. Over the past 50 years Alaska's annual average temperature has increased at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States' average, and here in Southeast Alaska winters are 5 degrees warmer. Glacier Bay is expected to become warmer and drier over the next century. Widespread effects in Alaska include earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, bark beetle infestations, shoreline erosion, and more forest fires.


There is no "debunking".  The truth is not the goal.  The goal is to keep the political debate away from what can be done about it.  As long as you can even pretend that global warming is not real or not manmade, the longer you can prevent doing something about it.  Too that extent, they won around two decades ago until today.
 
2014-06-09 10:22:11 PM  

yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.


You do know that I was quoting from the article and that my own remarks were actually pointing out that most of the scientists who claim that Global Warming is not happening are not climatologists?
 
2014-06-09 10:22:26 PM  

spongeboob: mrshowrules: spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/

How can it not be sodomy?

So you are saying sodomy can lead to sexual reproduction, how else are there baby birds and snakes?


If Jesus is in your heart and you don't enjoy it, you can reproduce by butt sex.
 
2014-06-09 10:22:46 PM  

notto: grumpfuff:

For those of you who are unfamiliar with SkinnyHead, he is saying what killed the dinosaurs is the change in climate caused by the asteroid(or was it a meteor? I can never remember which is which) strike. He is, as usual, arguing from the position of being technically correct, which we all know is the best type of correct.

Yet he ignores scientific consensus elsewhere?  What an idiot.


SH's opinion on scientific consensus is dependent on what he can troll the hardest with. This thread happens to be one where he is concern trolling about being technically correct.
 
2014-06-09 10:23:51 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.

So, this single data point in a single geological point in the world is a checkmate?  You really don't understand how science works, do you?  Read a book.

You are exactly the same kind of dim thinker as the congressman in the article.


It's the one "data point" that actually happened, as opposed to theoretical shiat and the imagination of doomsayers and self-serving hoaxers. I'm saying that it is empirical evidence that warming has slowed during the last century ( the carbon footprint century ) as opposed to the previous century based on the documented timeline of Glacier Bay. But feel free to make your case as to how the Glacier Bay timeline doesn't prove that warming has slowed during the last hundred years.
 
2014-06-09 10:26:57 PM  

mrshowrules: spongeboob: mrshowrules: spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/

How can it not be sodomy?

So you are saying sodomy can lead to sexual reproduction, how else are there baby birds and snakes?

If Jesus is in your heart and you don't enjoy it, you can reproduce by butt sex.


well I hope those girls practicing Saddlebacking don't enjoy it then.
 
2014-06-09 10:28:47 PM  
Noam Chimpsky:But feel free to make your case as to how the Glacier Bay timeline doesn't prove that warming has slowed during the last hundred years.

You need to make our case first.  You haven't How does this one point prove that warming has slowed during the last hundred years?

Please be specific and use things like actual temperature measurements and stuff.  Go on, get to the proof!  You are just making a claim without actually demonstrating it.

How does this single data point discount all other actual data points from the entire world.  Come on, go and demonstrate how that is?  Your argument is clearly laughable at even it's most basic premise.
 
2014-06-09 10:29:05 PM  

notto: mrshowrules:

I was going to post something similar but I realized it would be pointless.  May I suggest the point and laugh approach.

How about point, laugh, and debunk.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/climate-change.htm
img.fark.net
Warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes. Over the past 50 years Alaska's annual average temperature has increased at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States' average, and here in Southeast Alaska winters are 5 degrees warmer. Glacier Bay is expected to become warmer and drier over the next century. Widespread effects in Alaska include earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, bark beetle infestations, shoreline erosion, and more forest fires.


Look at how chilly and uninviting the world looked back in those primitive 'THEN' times.  Now, examine how pleasantly warm and much more inviting the world is 'NOW'.  We've moved from a frigid, immobile environment of poor technology and repression in to a relaxed, modern time of freedom, prosperity and casual sex with strangers.

Kudos, humanity, on conquering Nature!

/unless you thing those graphics perhaps over-dramatize the prevailing conditions in each case
//naw!
 
2014-06-09 10:29:25 PM  

spongeboob: mrshowrules: spongeboob: mrshowrules: spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/

How can it not be sodomy?

So you are saying sodomy can lead to sexual reproduction, how else are there baby birds and snakes?

If Jesus is in your heart and you don't enjoy it, you can reproduce by butt sex.

well I hope those girls practicing Saddlebacking don't enjoy it then.


I wonder how one would go about meeting those girls for you know, Bible study and so on.
 
2014-06-09 10:31:47 PM  
TheOther:

/unless you thing those graphics perhaps over-dramatize the prevailing conditions in each case
//naw!


If you consider constructing a graph that can easily be used to identify data differences in a specific set of data as 'dramatization' then you may not understand the actual purpose of putting data in graphs.
 
2014-06-09 10:35:00 PM  

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?

The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?  Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it.  That's what I'm getting at.

Wait you think that science believes that dinosaurs were killed off by natural changes in the Earth's climate and not by an asteroid strike that started a new ice age?


Actually, there is evidence that some if not most dinosaurs were on the decline when the asteroid hit 65 Million years ago. It is not certain what happened to them at this point.
 
2014-06-09 10:37:19 PM  
Zeppelininthesky:

Actually, there is evidence that some if not most dinosaurs were on the decline when the asteroid hit 65 Million years ago.

Really?  Do you have a link or reference for that?
 
2014-06-09 10:40:51 PM  

notto: SkinnyHead:

No, it means that the congressman was stating a point of view that has strong scientific support.  Think Progress, as usual, don't know what they're talking about.

Impact from an extra-terrestrial body is not earths natural climate.    The congressman was not referring to an extra-terrestrial body impact by anybodys reading and specifically mentions 'global warming' and suggests that it caused the demise of the dinosaurs.  He is an idiot.


There are two schools of thought on this.  There are gradualists & catastrophists.  Gradualists believe that gradual climate change over a long period of time caused dinosaur extinction.  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.  You seem to be a proponent of catastrophism, i.e., blaming comets, asteroids, meteors, floods and the like.  Catastrophism  is popular amongst astronomers and creation scientists.   I'm not taking sides in the matter, I'm just saying that the Congressman's view has strong scientific support and that Think Progress looks foolish.
 
2014-06-09 10:40:57 PM  
"If them Sandy Hook kids were killed by guns, then how do you explain all the children who died before gunpowder was invented?"
 
2014-06-09 10:43:02 PM  

SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.


No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.
 
2014-06-09 10:43:13 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:But feel free to make your case as to how the Glacier Bay timeline doesn't prove that warming has slowed during the last hundred years.

You need to make our case first.  You haven't How does this one point prove that warming has slowed during the last hundred years?

Please be specific and use things like actual temperature measurements and stuff.  Go on, get to the proof!  You are just making a claim without actually demonstrating it.

How does this single data point discount all other actual data points from the entire world.  Come on, go and demonstrate how that is?  Your argument is clearly laughable at even it's most basic premise.


Noam Chimpsky is a "birther". He is, therefore, mentally ill. Do not expect rational thought from him.
 
2014-06-09 10:44:40 PM  

notto: Zeppelininthesky:

Actually, there is evidence that some if not most dinosaurs were on the decline when the asteroid hit 65 Million years ago.

Really?  Do you have a link or reference for that?


Okay, maybe not "most", but the larger herbivore dinosaurs and some others were.  http://www.amnh.org/our-research/science-news/2012/were-dinosaurs-und e rgoing-long-term-decline-before-mass-extinction
 
2014-06-09 10:45:56 PM  

mrshowrules: spongeboob: mrshowrules: spongeboob: mrshowrules: spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/

How can it not be sodomy?

So you are saying sodomy can lead to sexual reproduction, how else are there baby birds and snakes?

If Jesus is in your heart and you don't enjoy it, you can reproduce by butt sex.

well I hope those girls practicing Saddlebacking don't enjoy it then.

I wonder how one would go about meeting those girls for you know, Bible study and so on.


Here or here
 
2014-06-09 10:48:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: notto: SkinnyHead:

No, it means that the congressman was stating a point of view that has strong scientific support.  Think Progress, as usual, don't know what they're talking about.

Impact from an extra-terrestrial body is not earths natural climate.    The congressman was not referring to an extra-terrestrial body impact by anybodys reading and specifically mentions 'global warming' and suggests that it caused the demise of the dinosaurs.  He is an idiot.

There are two schools of thought on this.  There are gradualists & catastrophists.  Gradualists believe that gradual climate change over a long period of time caused dinosaur extinction.  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.  You seem to be a proponent of catastrophism, i.e., blaming comets, asteroids, meteors, floods and the like.  Catastrophism  is popular amongst astronomers and creation scientists.   I'm not taking sides in the matter, I'm just saying that the Congressman's view has strong scientific support and that Think Progress looks foolish.


Creationism is not science.
 
2014-06-09 10:48:30 PM  
Zeppelininthesky:

Okay, maybe not "most", but the larger herbivore dinosaurs and some others were.

From your link
The researchers found that hadrosaurs and ceratopsids, two groups of large-bodied, bulk-feeding herbivores-animals that did not feed selectively-may have experienced a decline in biodiversity in the 12 million years before the dinosaurs ultimately went extinct. In contrast, small herbivores (ankylosaurs and pachycephalosaurs), carnivorous dinosaurs (tyrannosaurs and coelurosaurs), and enormous herbivores without advanced chewing abilities (sauropods) remained relatively stable or even slightly increased in biodiversity.
 
2014-06-09 10:50:03 PM  

SkinnyHead: There are two schools of thought on this.  There are gradualists & catastrophists.  Gradualists believe that gradual climate change over a long period of time caused dinosaur extinction.  Most paleontologists side with gradualism


You've said this several times without evidence, which leads me to believe you're full of sh*t.
 
2014-06-09 10:51:16 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, but underneath that is a boiling mass of magma, which is like rocks except on fire. So back in the days of the dinosaurs, the earth's crust was very brittle, sort of like a pie that's been baking for a while, where the crust looks crispy, but is really very thin and prone to cracking.

So, imagine it...you've got a young, brittle, fragile earth with a very thin crust, and lots of dinosaurs that keep getting bigger and bigger. Huge, in fact -- I mean, they went from little amphibians  that weren't much bigger than chickens to brontosauruses and t-rexes. So what do you think happened when all those huge beasts started stomping around on the earth's brittle crust?

That's right --  geological events. You've heard of them -- earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions. And whenever one of these would happen, the dinosaurs would get scared, which ironically would make them run even faster, which in turn caused even  moregeological disruptions -- what scientists call a "feedback loop." So basically the dinosaurs stomped and stampeded around enough that the whole world started erupting, which put lots of smoke and lava into the air, which caused it to get very hot. In other words, global warming. ]

As an example of proof supporting this, here's an artist's rendition of the earliest stages of that massive disaster:  http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/volcanic-eruption-triassic- e xtinction-22032013/#!WMNdK .

So here we are, then, with the irony of the repetitive nature of history staring us in the face. The dinosaurs caused their own extinction by getting too big, and then failing to recognize that it was their own panicked reaction to the effects that was pushing them into oblivion. And now there's us, all these years later, and we're bringing about our own extinction by becoming too big (as a society) and failing to act in time.  And we're doing it all by burning the very species that went extinct originally. That's irony, subby. That's deep, dirty irony. You don't need snark to make it any more poignant than it is.


I want to frame this and hang it on the wall. Truly a thing of beauty.
 
2014-06-09 10:51:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: There are two schools of thought on this.  There are gradualists & catastrophists.  Gradualists believe that gradual climate change over a long period of time caused dinosaur extinction.  Most paleontologists side with gradualism

You've said this several times without evidence, which leads me to believe you're full of sh*t.


SH is full of shiat?

Quick, help me find my fainting couch.
 
2014-06-09 10:52:49 PM  
img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-09 10:56:41 PM  
Is there a collection, somewhere, of the greatest, stupidest quotations by conservatives? Things on par with this?

/by Liberals, too, if that makes you feel good
 
2014-06-09 10:57:32 PM  

notto: Zeppelininthesky:

Okay, maybe not "most", but the larger herbivore dinosaurs and some others were.

From your link
The researchers found that hadrosaurs and ceratopsids, two groups of large-bodied, bulk-feeding herbivores-animals that did not feed selectively-may have experienced a decline in biodiversity in the 12 million years before the dinosaurs ultimately went extinct. In contrast, small herbivores (ankylosaurs and pachycephalosaurs), carnivorous dinosaurs (tyrannosaurs and coelurosaurs), and enormous herbivores without advanced chewing abilities (sauropods) remained relatively stable or even slightly increased in biodiversity.


Sorry, that was the wrong link, but I guess it is interesting. Next time I will read my links before posting them to Fark. This is the one I was talking about.  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2009/april/dinosaurs-declined-befo r e-mass-extinction31031.html
 
2014-06-09 11:00:05 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Is there a collection, somewhere, of the greatest, stupidest quotations by conservatives? Things on par with this?

/by Liberals, too, if that makes you feel good


A Fark Politics thread?
 
2014-06-09 11:00:47 PM  

notto: SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.

No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.


I don't know them by name, I just know about the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism, and that paleontologists tend to favor gradualism.  Geologists are evenly split.  Plus, I read it on the internet.
 
2014-06-09 11:00:51 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:But feel free to make your case as to how the Glacier Bay timeline doesn't prove that warming has slowed during the last hundred years.

You need to make our case first.  You haven't How does this one point prove that warming has slowed during the last hundred years?


It's the most well documented instance of climate change ever, documented by people in real time, specifically the naturalist John Muir. No tea leaves or proxies needed. It's the most dramatic instance of climate change that humans have witnessed.  The transformation from glacier to bay has a documented timeline that is now over 200 years long.
 
2014-06-09 11:02:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: notto: SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.

No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.

I don't know them by name, I just know about the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism, and that paleontologists tend to favor gradualism.  Geologists are evenly split.  Plus, I read it on the internet.


You don't always admit that you're trolling. I'll give you that one because you did pretty well there.
 
2014-06-09 11:02:31 PM  

notto: Zeppelininthesky:

Okay, maybe not "most", but the larger herbivore dinosaurs and some others were.

From your link
The researchers found that hadrosaurs and ceratopsids, two groups of large-bodied, bulk-feeding herbivores-animals that did not feed selectively-may have experienced a decline in biodiversity in the 12 million years before the dinosaurs ultimately went extinct. In contrast, small herbivores (ankylosaurs and pachycephalosaurs), carnivorous dinosaurs (tyrannosaurs and coelurosaurs), and enormous herbivores without advanced chewing abilities (sauropods) remained relatively stable or even slightly increased in biodiversity.


I know there are a lot of different ideas about this, but we still don't know *why* some declined.
 
2014-06-09 11:06:01 PM  

SkinnyHead: notto: SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.

No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.

I don't know them by name, I just know about the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism, and that paleontologists tend to favor gradualism.  Geologists are evenly split.  Plus, I read it on the internet.


I know a few paleontologists in real life and none of them actually side with gradualism.
 
2014-06-09 11:10:18 PM  
Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:

It was because Adric never learned to type.

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-09 11:11:17 PM  

WI241TH: mrshowrules: Noam Chimpsky: Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years ( before cars, industry, etc ).

Glacier Bay, AK..... Checkmate.

No, really, it's checkmate. Go educate yourself on how Glacier Bay came into existence. Hint: It wasn't a bay in 1800. It's empirical evidence that the climate hoaxers are full of shiat and really nothing more need be said.

So we should study it out?

I studied it out and all I found was the National Park Service describing the effects climate change is having there ...


They used to have this there before they realized it debunks the climate hoaxers:

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html
 
2014-06-09 11:11:23 PM  
Zeppelininthesky:

Sorry, that was the wrong link, but I guess it is interesting. Next time I will read my links before posting them to Fark. This is the one I was talking about.  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2009/april/dinosaurs-declined-befo r e-mass-extinction31031.html

I guess I'm more interested in what you meant by "It is not certain what happened to them at this point." in your original post.  There is very little doubt that an impact event put an end to the age of the dinosaurs.

Even the study your article is based on does not dispute that it was an impact that finished them off.

This observation supports the suggestion that factors other than the end-Cretaceous bolide impact were responsible for instigating a downward trend in taxonomic richness that preceded the unquestionably abrupt disappearance of many dinosaur taxa at the boundary itself
 
2014-06-09 11:13:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: notto: SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.

No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.

I don't know them by name, I just know about the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism, and that paleontologists tend to favor gradualism.  Geologists are evenly split.  Plus, I read it on the internet.


This will be the last time I respond to you.  I should have listened to the others.  Troll.
 
2014-06-09 11:14:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ArcadianRefugee: Is there a collection, somewhere, of the greatest, stupidest quotations by conservatives? Things on par with this?

/by Liberals, too, if that makes you feel good

A Fark Politics thread?


Well, ok, but I had meant "elected officials".
 
2014-06-09 11:16:49 PM  
i1.ytimg.com

Unavailable for comment.
 
2014-06-09 11:18:03 PM  

thebadmitton: [t2.gstatic.com image 256x197]

I thought they were just cancelled


NOT THE MOMMA!
 
2014-06-09 11:19:25 PM  
Noam Chimpsky:

They used to have this there before they realized it debunks the climate hoaxers:

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html


So, how does that demonstrate what you claim it does or debunk anything?  This single point is representative of warming trends throughout the entire world?  That doesn't make a bit of sense.

There is plenty of content on glacier bay that includes discussions of the glacial expansion due to the little ice age and what has happened since.  Don't pretend that this is something that is being hidden.

Now, can you clearly describe how this single geologic area is model for worldwide warming or somehow demonstrate your claim?  What was the rate of temperature change between 100-200 years ago?  You must know, right?  Your claim depends on it.  Where is your data?
 
2014-06-09 11:22:01 PM  

notto: Zeppelininthesky:

Sorry, that was the wrong link, but I guess it is interesting. Next time I will read my links before posting them to Fark. This is the one I was talking about.  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2009/april/dinosaurs-declined-befo r e-mass-extinction31031.html

I guess I'm more interested in what you meant by "It is not certain what happened to them at this point." in your original post.  There is very little doubt that an impact event put an end to the age of the dinosaurs.

Even the study your article is based on does not dispute that it was an impact that finished them off.

This observation supports the suggestion that factors other than the end-Cretaceous bolide impact were responsible for instigating a downward trend in taxonomic richness that preceded the unquestionably abrupt disappearance of many dinosaur taxa at the boundary itself


Okay. No one is disputing that the final factor that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was an asteroid impact. Sorry for the confusion. My point is that some dinosaurs were already on the decline once the impact happened.

Although there are a couple that *do* think that the impact didn't cause the extinction. Just look up Gerta Keller.  http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/chicxulub.html
 
2014-06-09 11:24:31 PM  

notto: SkinnyHead: notto: SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.

No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.

I don't know them by name, I just know about the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism, and that paleontologists tend to favor gradualism.  Geologists are evenly split.  Plus, I read it on the internet.

This will be the last time I respond to you.  I should have listened to the others.  Troll.


That's a strange response.  I don't know what sets you people off sometimes.  You've never heard of the theory of intrinsic gradualism?
 
2014-06-09 11:28:34 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: It's the one "data point" that actually happened

...


All moving pictures, little reading, no math.

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-09 11:29:44 PM  
Zeppelininthesky:
Although there are a couple that *do* think that the impact didn't cause the extinction. Just look up Gerta Keller.  http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/chicxulub.html

She is only addressing one impact crater that is a suspect. She does not discount that an impact or multiple impacts were part of the extinctions at the end of the age.

A multi-impact scenario is most consistent with the current evidence of impact ejecta and Ir anomalies
 
2014-06-09 11:34:24 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:

They used to have this there before they realized it debunks the climate hoaxers:

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html

So, how does that demonstrate what you claim it does or debunk anything?  This single point is representative of warming trends throughout the entire world?  That doesn't make a bit of sense.

There is plenty of content on glacier bay that includes discussions of the glacial expansion due to the little ice age and what has happened since.  Don't pretend that this is something that is being hidden.

Now, can you clearly describe how this single geologic area is model for worldwide warming or somehow demonstrate your claim?  What was the rate of temperature change between 100-200 years ago?  You must know, right?  Your claim depends on it.  Where is your data?


The data is the reality of what happened. You can't wrap your mind around it because "data", in your mind, doesn't include concrete empirical evidence. If reality is at odds with the dogma, then reality is something that the cultist will discard as being unreliable.

I have challenged the climate cultists with this before and I even had a cultist once who claimed he was a climate scientist dismiss John Muir as a toady of big oil.
 
2014-06-09 11:34:25 PM  

HighOnCraic: [i1.ytimg.com image 300x300]

Unavailable for comment.


Whoa, total flashback.
 
2014-06-09 11:37:41 PM  

notto: Zeppelininthesky:
Although there are a couple that *do* think that the impact didn't cause the extinction. Just look up Gerta Keller.  http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/faculty/keller/chicxulub.html

She is only addressing one impact crater that is a suspect. She does not discount that an impact or multiple impacts were part of the extinctions at the end of the age.

A multi-impact scenario is most consistent with the current evidence of impact ejecta and Ir anomalies


I know. I saw one of her lectures, and it was interesting to say the least. Of course, this was quite a few years ago, but she did refine her ideas that there were other forces at play.
 
2014-06-09 11:38:52 PM  

HawgWild: Okay. I'll admit it. I lulz'd.

/it was the checkmate


Yea it got me too. I imagined it being said by a comedic buffoon in one of them funnies they showin on the big screen these days and it gave me a hearty chuckle.

\wearing red white and blue pants with bells and spurs and all that good stuff
\\i think the movie I'm thinking of is "The Election" i dunno its one of those with those funny guys
///do slashies go this way?
 
2014-06-09 11:39:43 PM  
Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.
 
2014-06-09 11:45:04 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.


ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.
 
2014-06-09 11:46:14 PM  
It's amazing and sad how two flaming dipshiats can utterly spoil an otherwise interesting thread.
 
2014-06-09 11:47:02 PM  
Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.


Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?
 
2014-06-09 11:48:26 PM  

BMulligan: It's amazing and sad how two flaming dipshiats can utterly spoil an otherwise interesting thread.


We're talking about dinosaurs in a politics thread and not about the dipshiat in the article - it could be worse.
 
2014-06-09 11:51:01 PM  

notto: Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html


That's all. I don't need anything more. It is smoking gun proof.
 
2014-06-09 11:56:10 PM  

notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?


Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.
 
2014-06-09 11:57:49 PM  

spongeboob: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

What a great and concise proof that there is no such thing as Climate Change, you have changed my mind.


I'd interpreted his laconic, yet insightful, reply as "methane production by cattle has a significant impact, and would affect such a study." However, he's still quite wrong - and, worse still, even if he were correct, the production of cattle is a direct result of human activities and, as such, would actually reinforce the above statement.

In short, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's a chucklehead.
 
2014-06-09 11:59:24 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: notto: Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html

That's all. I don't need anything more. It is smoking gun proof.


notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?


Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.


Called it.
 
2014-06-10 12:02:36 AM  

Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.


The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.
 
2014-06-10 12:05:56 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.



The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.
 
2014-06-10 12:08:22 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


In addition, what you're arguing only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperatures. That climate has changed before, does not somehow mean it isn't changing now nor does it mean we are somehow not responsible.

This is notable because this is the exact same mistake the congressman in TFA is making.
 
2014-06-10 12:15:40 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


A two hundred year exception? "The exception", according to the climate culty, is the empirical smoking gun evidence whereas "the rule" is evidence gleaned through proxies ( and even those results need to hide the decline during the 1900s ), predictions, unproven-but-peer-reviewed models, etc.
 
2014-06-10 12:15:58 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


In Arizona, it sometimes reaches 100 degrees. By your example, this means it can never be below freezing in Antarctica.
 
2014-06-10 12:17:26 AM  
RINO. Real Republicans believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
 
2014-06-10 12:19:30 AM  
Well, that's enough of the "Deep Thoughts with Skinny & Chimpy Show". I'm out.
 
2014-06-10 12:27:58 AM  

fusillade762:  I'm out.


I'm sure there'll be a parade.
 
2014-06-10 12:41:48 AM  
Seriously, what is the deal with the increased SH posting?

Is this a sign he's about to burn out or something?
 
2014-06-10 12:43:40 AM  

Noam Chimpsky: Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


A two hundred year exception?


An exception more spatially than temporally. Again, you cannot make meaningful inferences about global conditions from a single place.

In addition, you're still running into the problem thatwhat you're arguing only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperatures. This is of course not the case. The analogy that gets bandied about here is that the fact that natural forest fires have existed in the past does not mean that someone cannot burn down a forest intentionally.


Noam Chimpsky: "The exception", according to the climate culty, is the empirical smoking gun evidence whereas "the rule" is evidence gleaned through proxies ( and even those results need to hide the decline during the 1900s ), predictions, unproven-but-peer-reviewed models, etc.


Note that ice melting (as what you yourself are invoking) is itself a proxy for temperature.
 
2014-06-10 12:44:49 AM  

yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.


How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,
 
2014-06-10 12:46:40 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


Yeah but Wealth Distribution™
 
2014-06-10 12:47:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


"My ignorance is as good as your knowledge."

Because First Amendment, or something.
 
2014-06-10 01:01:25 AM  

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


img.fark.net
 
2014-06-10 01:06:51 AM  
I wouldn't be surprised if many "skeptics" just feel that politicizing anything and (oh god NO) talking about it is just an annoying thing liberals like to do to feel important.
 
2014-06-10 01:36:26 AM  
s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-06-10 01:44:06 AM  

Heliovdrake: Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,

[img.fark.net image 850x637]


Those 25% screech louder than the 75%, and through the help of their friends Gerry and Fox are in near control of 1/3 to 1/2 of the government (as dimwitted as they may be). Pretty much guarantees our failure as a nation unless major reforms are made.
 
2014-06-10 02:03:29 AM  
images.starpulse.com

www.wearysloth.com
 
2014-06-10 02:55:38 AM  
Yes, but DO owls exist? I think there are a few people who think there might not be. And if the owls wear hats, that makes them even less likely to exist, especially if we put them in the box with the cat.
 
2014-06-10 02:57:11 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Yes, but DO owls exist?


boards.cannabis.com
 
2014-06-10 03:00:32 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


I'm going with tobacco companies.
 
2014-06-10 03:05:56 AM  
www.owlpages.com

kitty would be in a world of hurt for a while
 
2014-06-10 03:07:54 AM  
Also, there are ways liberals can manipulate 5 into being a larger number than 15. I don't need to cite any sources.

It's common knowledge.
 
2014-06-10 03:16:21 AM  

whidbey: Also, there are ways liberals can manipulate 5 into being a larger number than 15. I don't need to cite any sources.

It's common knowledge.


Dude.
 
2014-06-10 03:21:11 AM  

Kittypie070: whidbey: Also, there are ways liberals can manipulate 5 into being a larger number than 15. I don't need to cite any sources.

It's common knowledge.

Dude


What? They're already trying to get us to believe 2+2=5.
there are 4 lights

thedoubtexpress.files.wordpress.com

/Yes I'm on my 3rd Sierra Nevada Torpedo
//why do you arsk?
 
2014-06-10 04:03:17 AM  
hellinahandbasket.net
 
2014-06-10 05:06:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Yes, but DO owls exist? I think there are a few people who think there might not be. And if the owls wear hats, that makes them even less likely to exist, especially if we put them in the box with the cat.


img.fark.net

Unavailable for comment.
 
2014-06-10 05:07:31 AM  
If global warming is real, then why come it snow in January?
 
2014-06-10 06:44:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


The problem is willful ignorance. Scientists have been waving the evidence in everyone's faces. The deniers have been closing their eyes, plugging their ears, chanting "Na na na na na na! We can't hear you!"
 
2014-06-10 07:54:39 AM  
My favorite thing about this thread is the guy who thought that one glacier in the US and literally nowhere else is proof that global warming isn't man made.
 
2014-06-10 08:02:26 AM  

stoli n coke: If global warming is real, then why come it snow in January?


Ladies and Gentlemen, THIS is the epitome of the Republican argument against climate change.  12 words and the discussion, as far as they're concerned, is over.
 
2014-06-10 08:04:06 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, b ...


Quite a walk there
 
2014-06-10 08:13:31 AM  

notto: TheOther:

/unless you thing those graphics perhaps over-dramatize the prevailing conditions in each case
//naw!

If you consider constructing a graph that can easily be used to identify data differences in a specific set of data as 'dramatization' then you may not understand the actual purpose of putting data in graphs.


That's not a graph; it's a graphic.  As science, strong contrast and close focus are necessary, even as an illustration.  This looks more like a polemic.  The inverse presentation by deniers would be to show a line of 100 degrees C with a 2 degree range shaded in very muted colors, minimalizing the differnce and scoffing at its significance.
 
2014-06-10 08:20:47 AM  

TheOther:  The inverse presentation by deniers would be to show a line of 100 degrees C with a 2 degree range shaded in very muted colors, minimalizing the differnce and scoffing at its significance.


I agree that deniers would add content and unneeded context to the graphic that would misrepresent the actual differences in data the graphic is intended to convey.  Not sure what component of the NASA graph you would think is unnecessary. It only includes the scale needed and choses colors to clearly show the variation based on that scale which is the purpose of the graphic.  Quick to understand, easy to read.
 
2014-06-10 09:27:41 AM  
Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...
 
2014-06-10 09:35:28 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, b ...


farm3.staticflickr.com
 
2014-06-10 09:43:08 AM  
Well if human brains are the cause of speech then how are you talking? checkmate

/dnrtfa
 
2014-06-10 10:12:24 AM  

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?


At this point projection is all he has left. You can't take that away from him.
 
Ab3
2014-06-10 10:22:40 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:
[www.blastr.com image 550x413]


Also wanted for questioning.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-10 10:24:12 AM  

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


And, surprisingly, quite a few folks still consider that whole thing to be a big hoax. We still have a hole in the ozone layer. In fact, the largest it's ever been was just eight years ago. None of that matters, though, because big business figured out how to make money off it, so no more delaying tactics, misinformation, and denial are required.

That's the whole point of climate change denial, you realize - to buy enough time for corporations to figure out how to adjust their long-term strategies and minimize impact. If they can get enough folks to believe that it's a hoax, well, you'll keep on consuming enough to float their income while they slowly, quietly, work with government to mitigate the financial impact on them. Too much mitigation, too fast, and governments get more power at the expense of corporations. Too little mitigation, and governments destabilize as populations & economies suffer too much. So, if you can convince, say, a quarter of the population, well, that's enough to ensure reasonable profits even as you develop new services & products for embracing reality in the near future - hardier crops, better energy storage and delivery, better transportation, cheaper desalinization. You're well-situated to exploit the coming changes, the population's been exploited enough to prepare for the new reality, and most governments weather the change with little or no social upheaval.

Mass social manipulation is fun, isn't it?
 
2014-06-10 10:27:09 AM  

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


Same with acid rain.
 
2014-06-10 11:51:40 AM  

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


Yep... and quick action lead to us avoiding disaster.  It is a PERFECT comparison, by the way.... Scientists find an alarming phenomenon that had global implications and it becomes clear that said phenomenon is directly caused by man's actions.  Scientists then recommend that we take steps to reduce the negative influence....  everyone agrees.... and the threat is reduced quickly.

Why this became politicized and supressed....I mean, let's hem and haw for a little bit more until we're ROYALLY FARKED and have no option other than to sit back and enjoy a rather slow and excruciatingly painful environmental apocalypse.  If it weren't for the fact that we'd be completly porked, I would love to see the looks on the deniers faces when they finally realize that their asshatery caused us to not fix this mess in time.
 
2014-06-10 12:03:43 PM  

MassD: SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...

Yep... and quick action lead to us avoiding disaster.  It is a PERFECT comparison, by the way.... Scientists find an alarming phenomenon that had global implications and it becomes clear that said phenomenon is directly caused by man's actions.  Scientists then recommend that we take steps to reduce the negative influence....  everyone agrees.... and the threat is reduced quickly.

Why this became politicized and supressed....I mean, let's hem and haw for a little bit more until we're ROYALLY FARKED and have no option other than to sit back and enjoy a rather slow and excruciatingly painful environmental apocalypse.  If it weren't for the fact that we'd be completly porked, I would love to see the looks on the deniers faces when they finally realize that their asshatery caused us to not fix this mess in time.


It's being "politicized and suppressed" because doing the right thing to reduce climate change would put Big Oil out of business. That's reason enough to sink as much capital and political muscle into denying that climate change is occurring.

And no, I have to laugh when anyone suggests that the petroleum industry is ready to switch over to some "green" infrastructure they've been "researching" for 30+ years. In other words, "greenwashing."

They make so much goddamn money keeping the status quo the way is. Why allow any threats to such a dependable cash cow?
 
2014-06-10 12:17:32 PM  
I'll take a stab at guessing. Since it's dinosaurs, first place goes to Joe Barton. After that, it's

Lynn Westmoreland
Louie Ghomert
Michelle Bachmann
Todd Akin
Vicky Hartzler

*** checks article ***

Damn, six guesses and not even close. But given that it's just run of the mill climate change denialism, and not that very special brand of Stupid trotted out by the the Microcephaly Caucus, I suppose it could really have been any of them.
 
2014-06-10 12:20:55 PM  

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: Derp

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?


Does it matter? If you spend all your time pretending to be a moron on the internet just to rile people up, eventually it's no longer pretending
 
2014-06-10 12:24:55 PM  

mrshowrules: spongeboob: Mantour: [i.imgur.com image 800x647]

Um aren't dinosaurs related to birds, birds have a cloaca so wouldn't have dinosaurs have had a cloaca?


How can it be sodomy to place a penis in a cloaca?


/

How can it not be sodomy?


Well, the city of Sodom didn't even exist back then, for one.

Though, being a fictional city it strictly speaking never existed, but you know what I mean.
 
2014-06-10 01:34:16 PM  

MassD: SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...

Yep... and quick action lead to us avoiding disaster.  It is a PERFECT comparison, by the way.... Scientists find an alarming phenomenon that had global implications and it becomes clear that said phenomenon is directly caused by man's actions.  Scientists then recommend that we take steps to reduce the negative influence....   everyone agrees.... and the threat is reduced quickly.


Wait, you're taking about CFC depletion of the ozone layer?   That's not what happened at all.  The Ozone depletion problem was subject to the same denial tactics by the usual suspects on the far right, and the problem was dismissed by many as environmentalist doomcrying.

You can still see some of this if you dig up Rush Limbaugh's first book, where he claims that the ozone hole was caused by a volcanic eruption and then closed up (no and no).  He also started the long-held talking point that volcanic eruptions dump far more chlorine into the upper atmosphere than humans ever could---in fact, volcanic eruptions do emit chorine, but in a soluble form that is rained out of the lower atmosphere.  CFCs are dangerous precisely because they are unnaturally inert, and can reach the upper atmosphere to cause harm.
 
2014-06-10 02:50:37 PM  

whidbey: because doing the right thing to reduce climate change would put Big Oil out of business.


Let me laugh harder
 
2014-06-10 03:18:41 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012. The directly relevant bits from the paper are as follows:

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.

[img.fark.net image 850x602]
a, Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.  b-d, Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5-95%uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5-95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.


Give me a shout if you want to read the paper but can't get it yourself. I'll gladly put it up for you and even work through it with you if you want.


If that's the case it's a damn good thing we're here warming the planet. Otherwise the earth would look much like Europa. Thanks AGW! You're saving the Earth
 
2014-06-10 03:30:10 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:
[www.blastr.com image 550x413]


WRONG!
application.denofgeek.com
He killed them by not being as good at math as he should have been
 
2014-06-10 03:31:05 PM  

LordOfThePings: Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:

It was because Adric never learned to type.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 313x176]


BLAST YOU! BLAST YOU TO HELL!
:)
 
2014-06-10 06:37:22 PM  

RedVentrue: Damnhippyfreak: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012. The directly relevant bits from the paper are as follows:

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.

[img.fark.net image 850x602]
a, Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.  b-d, Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5-95%uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5-95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.


Give me a shout if you want to read the paper but can't get it yourself. I'll gladly put it up for you and even work through it with you if you want.

If that's the case it's a damn good thing we're here warming the planet. Otherwise the earth would look much like Europa. Thanks AGW! You're saving the Earth



Not quite. While the greenhouse effect is responsible for why the surface of the planet is warm enough to be inhabitable, the effect does not somehow stop at a certain point as we continue to put more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. What the bit you were previously incredulous about and are highlighting now is about warming since 1950, far above what is needed to get us away from Europa-like conditions.

You can think of it as too much of a good thing, if it helps.
 
2014-06-10 07:24:01 PM  
 
Displayed 228 of 228 comments

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