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.

(The Daily Caller)   Remember when NOAA said that July 2012 was the hottest month ever recorded in the US? Yeah, about that   (dailycaller.com) divider line 293
    More: Followup, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, temperature record, average surface temperature  
•       •       •

15530 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2014 at 9:19 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-30 11:04:50 PM
The tornado alarms just went off over here.
 
2014-06-30 11:06:14 PM
The hoaxycrats will need to continously fabricate hotter months to keep up the human warming weather hoax . It only appeals to the sub 80 IQ community at this point. Unfortunately, it's the fastest growing demographic in the US right now
 
2014-06-30 11:09:08 PM
That's it. The shills and trolls have overrun the thread. I'm out.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-30 11:15:14 PM
I get all my science from "The Daily Caller"
 
2014-06-30 11:15:36 PM

snocone: Let's twist again like we did last summer.
Twisted data is the best data.


ham-operator: Good.  All the global warming scammers can go cry in their organic beers now.


SlothB77: 98% of scientists agree, there is man-made global warming when using falsified data.

The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.  They have been manipulating the data.  it isn't accurate.  It is falsified.

Wanna talk about unskewing the statisticals?  NOAA is the king of unskewing.


Noam Chimpsky: The hoaxycrats will need to continously fabricate hotter months to keep up the human warming weather hoax . It only appeals to the sub 80 IQ community at this point. Unfortunately, it's the fastest growing demographic in the US right now


What you folks should have noticed (besides the fact that if you don't know the reason for something does not mean it's a conspiracy), is that  the change TFA talks about revises temperature trends DOWNWARDS.
 
2014-06-30 11:16:08 PM

EllenTheBad: Cripes! The Earth has been passing into a new ice age for decades now. That's just the Earth's cycle.There's nothing we can do about it. The nasty heat comes before the cold, then the cold gets worse: greenhouse effect, then "nuclear" winter. Earth Science 101. It's happened before.


You are bad at this.
 
2014-06-30 11:17:06 PM

Noam Chimpsky: The hoaxycrats will need to continously fabricate hotter months to keep up the human warming weather hoax . It only appeals to the sub 80 IQ community at this point. Unfortunately, it's the fastest growing demographic in the US right now


Didn't you used to be believable?
 
2014-06-30 11:19:34 PM

mark12A: I am NOT for demonizing capitalism


There is a difference in pointing out a propaganda campaign designed to delay any action on AGW and being "anti-capitalism".

Blindly felating any corporation no matter what they do is not being "pro-capitalist" - it is just being an idiot who is easily manipulated.
 
2014-06-30 11:20:29 PM

jim32rr: fusillade762: spamdog: Do these guys need constant reassurance or what?

Gotta muddy the waters so people will still think there's a debate when there isn't. It's the exact same thing they did with acid rain and cigarette smoke.


jim32rr: thefonz37: Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.

They make V-12's you know

Screw that noise.

[o.aolcdn.com image 628x417]

Sixteen cylinders. Flat out the tank is empty in 12 minutes.

I'll see your Bugatti Veyron, and suck that fuel down the old school way ...

[sp.yimg.com image 480x194]


Fun fact, the EPA had a Superbird modified to NASCAR specs to measure Jet Exhaust emissions.  It followed jets down the runway at take off.

/Has to be the coolest EPA job in history "I follow jets down the runway in modified Superbird"
 
2014-06-30 11:24:32 PM

farkstorm: SphericalTime: Bets are that he's looking at two slightly different data sets and simply doesn't know how to tell the difference.

Acknowledging that this is a weather statistic and not climate, how many different data sets does NOAA keep, it total, if you include all of them?


Probably hundreds. Surface temps, water temps, atmosphere temps. Urban vs rural. Altitude vs sea level. All of those are different, and then all of the averages, seasons, trending data.
 
2014-06-30 11:25:29 PM

Farking Canuck: mark12A: I am NOT for demonizing capitalism

There is a difference in pointing out a propaganda campaign designed to delay any action on AGW and being "anti-capitalism".

Blindly felating any corporation no matter what they do is not being "pro-capitalist" - it is just being an idiot who is easily manipulated.


In fact, many if not most of the solutions to global warming are better in the long run for capitalism than blindly continuing to rely solely on a finite resource.
 
2014-06-30 11:26:07 PM

ongbok: The tornado alarms just went off over here.


Get somewhere safe.  Ignore the tornado denialists.
 
2014-06-30 11:31:28 PM
Can anyone explain why some Americans react so violently to any talk of climate change? The fact that it's occurring is obvious to even the dimmest of our species. And yet people with absolutely no expertise or even education in science seem to spend a lot of time on the Internet arguing against it.
 
2014-06-30 11:32:38 PM

ongbok: The tornado alarms just went off over here.


There have been no scientific experiments of how tornadoes have been formed. You only see the aftermath of the damage left behind by one which can easily be explained by lightening or hail. If those scienceticians wanted to prove tornadoes are the cause of all that damage, they would have stuck cameras in them to directly measure the effects. Those cameras could have easily been measuring hurricanes or dust devils instead. Instead we just have models and forecasts. They're not scientists, they're easily probabilitists. How do we even know tornadoes happened in the past?
 
2014-06-30 11:36:30 PM

whatshisname: Can anyone explain why some Americans react so violently to any talk of climate change? The fact that it's occurring is obvious to even the dimmest of our species. And yet people with absolutely no expertise or even education in science seem to spend a lot of time on the Internet arguing against it.


Because most of the talk about climate change is dog-whistle for "America is too rich and we need for them to give some of their wealth to the poorer countries."

This passage in the article gave me a hearty guffaw:

"the U.S. temperature time series is now informed by an improved suite of quality assurance algorithms "

IOW, the data wasn't making our case for us, so we adjusted it accordingly.
 
2014-06-30 11:38:02 PM

worlddan: The problem is that when NOAA decides to hype the weather, it's fair comment that they don't hype the weather in the other direction.


The NOAA dataset hits record highs for U.S. annual-average temperatures now and then - more often "now" than "then".  It still hasn't broken the record low in 1915.  Ever wonder why?

We see this same issue with economic statistics from the BEA. One number is released and then they constantly adjust it for the next five years and sometimes those adjustments lead to data that is the exact opposite of the original data.

An adjustment from "highest" to "second highest", measuring hundredths of a degree, is hardly "the exact opposite of the original data".  The two years are basically tied.
 
2014-06-30 11:39:56 PM

Cataholic: Because most of the talk about climate change is dog-whistle for "America is too rich and we need for them to give some of their wealth to the poorer countries."


In the minds of paranoid delusionals.  Derp on, brother.

This passage in the article gave me a hearty guffaw:
"the U.S. temperature time series is now informed by an improved suite of quality assurance algorithms "
IOW, the data wasn't making our case for us, so we adjusted it accordingly.


You think the new dataset makes the case for them any better?

Derp derp derp.
 
2014-06-30 11:42:23 PM
fusillade762:[media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com image 236x174]

Isn't that the actual plot to Crichton's "State of Fear"?
 
2014-06-30 11:43:20 PM

Cataholic: Because most of the talk about climate change is dog-whistle for "America is too rich and we need for them to give some of their wealth to the poorer countries."


So what you're saying is that it threatens your lifestyle?
 
2014-06-30 11:45:34 PM
nickerj1:
Every day of June 2012 your max temperature is 29.4 celsius, you record it as 29.
Every day of June 2013, your max temp is 29.5 celsius you record it as 30.
Your pretty graph shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees fahrenheit.
When in reality your max temperature increased .18 degrees fahrenheit.


That's not how averages work.  There's an average across a huge number of stations.  It's not going to be rounded to the nearest integer after that.  (They also compute differences over time rather than absolute temperatures.)
 
2014-07-01 12:06:56 AM

whatshisname: Can anyone explain why some Americans react so violently to any talk of climate change? The fact that it's occurring is obvious to even the dimmest of our species. And yet people with absolutely no expertise or even education in science seem to spend a lot of time on the Internet arguing against it.


Fossil fuel corporations buy the GOP.  The GOP shills for them.  Everyone who is still a Republican is either a right wing authoritarian who unquestioningly echoes the party line, or directly gains short term profit from GOP policies.  If you don't understand the psychology of authoritarianism, read this, and you'll understand why they react so violently to facts that they disagree with.
 
2014-07-01 12:08:42 AM

mark12A: It's stupid that we're clinging to old, destructive forms of energy (let alone allowing corporations to get away with dumping their shiat in the air and water, with no more than a slap on the wrist if they do it TOO blatantly), because energy companies are too shortsighted and greedy to invest in the future, rather than maximizing profits *now*.

I am all for cleaning up energy production. I am NOT for demonizing capitalism, especially when it's being done to justify increasing government control of the economy, and trying to impose a socialist controlled economy.

Free markets and capitalism has VASTLY improved the world standard of living, and socialism will impoverish us all, as it already has where ever it's tried. Fark Scandinavia. They tried, saw it wasn't working, and backed away from nationalization, government control of production, etc. The counties that didn't see sense, didn't back away, went poor and collapsed or currently struggle along (USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.).


You seem to have confused 'Socialism' and 'Communism.'. You do know they aren't the same thing, right?

 For that matter, the government giving energy companies incentives to clean up their act (whether it's by responsibly disposing of their waste products, or by investing in cleaner energy), while discouraging pollution is ALSO not socialism.

Very few people are advocating that we turn America fully socialist. There are shades of gray between Gilded Age America and Socialism, and right now, the we're leaning dangerously towards the former.
 
2014-07-01 12:17:32 AM
In geological terms, earth is still in an ice age.
History tells us that we are in an inter-glacial period.
History tells us that earth should continue to warm for the next 40,000 to 60,000 years before starting to cool again.
Earth should be back in full-on global ice glacier mode in about 90,000 years.
The ice has been on a 100,000 year interval for a few million years now.
Current atmospheric CO2 is about one third of one percent.
How do plants even survive these?
When the dinosaurs went extinct in the late Cretaceous 65 million years ago the atmosphere was 20% CO2 and jungles covered Antarctica.
Who are we to say that isn't a more "natural" environment for Earth?.
Dinos ruled for almost 100,000,0000 years.
Homo Sapiens have been around for a couple hundred thousand at most and modern history society probably less than 50K by the most liberal interpretations of "society."

ps: Most of the Prius automobiles in Texas effectively run on coal.
 
2014-07-01 12:18:21 AM
farking revised data, how does it work?

Wow, 3/100 of a degree difference.
You people are farking retarded
 
2014-07-01 12:25:33 AM
With it getting toasty this summer, it almost makes me feel sad for the people in the next subdivision over that mostly have evaporative coolers. Almost. Sure it's more expensive to run, but 6" thick walls negate a lot of the heat transfer. I keep turning the air conditioners off during the day, my son turns them on at night. Wakes me up being so cold. Here in N.M., it gets hot quickly, Cools off quickly at night. Here in ABBQ, it's higher up than the south part of the state, with Carlsbad hitting 109 yesterday. Having a swamp fan does good,but when you get over 90 or so, doesn't seem so effective.
Better than the winter, where in February 2012, it hit -17 here.
 
2014-07-01 12:28:18 AM
With weather like that, it sounds like you should come back to Texas.
 
2014-07-01 12:34:46 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29Link
 
2014-07-01 12:35:37 AM

cameroncrazy1984: RedVentrue: This ^^^^^

Thank you for your valuable contribution to our discussion.

I'm going to take that to mean you believe the science is settled and humans are warming the earth.


Right. That's it.
 
2014-07-01 12:38:40 AM

LordJiro: Life finds a way, and all that.


Is this some religious mumbo jumbo?
 
2014-07-01 12:39:03 AM

SphericalTime: farkstorm: SphericalTime: Bets are that he's looking at two slightly different data sets and simply doesn't know how to tell the difference.

Acknowledging that this is a weather statistic and not climate, how many different data sets does NOAA keep, it total, if you include all of them?

Probably hundreds. Surface temps, water temps, atmosphere temps. Urban vs rural. Altitude vs sea level. All of those are different, and then all of the averages, seasons, trending data.


Those would not be different data sets, but various sets of different data.
 
2014-07-01 12:42:31 AM
Someone, please also "unskew" the USDA's plant hardiness zone maps. They're showing too much climate change!
www.greentechforum.net
/the conspiracy runs deeper than you can imagine!
//chemtrails! wind turbine syndrome! USDA plant maps!
 
2014-07-01 12:47:20 AM

Gyrfalcon: *sigh*
--eyeroll--
GROAN

That should cover it.


Thank you for that scientific explanation.
 
2014-07-01 12:50:28 AM

nickerj1: I'm always amused to how NOAA rounds to the nearest degree celsius when recording temperatures and then are like .... ZOMG!!!! 2 degree Fahrenheit anomaly!!!!! It's more like "No shiat, sherlock".

Every day of June 2012 your max temperature is 29.4 celsius, you record it as 29.
Every day of June 2013, your max temp is 29.5 celsius you record it as 30.

Your pretty graph shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees fahrenheit.

When in reality your max temperature increased .18 degrees fahrenheit.

When you're talking about assertions like "Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.31 to 0.48°F per decade)", why let false precision stop you?


Indeed. They have serious significant digits problem going on too.

Getting beaten over the head with how AGW is science and here they are violating the rules of science that are taught or at least were taught in grade school.

LordJiro: i.imgur.com


And that's how it always go, when the lying is exposed, the liars resort to 'but it's a good thing'. It's a good thing they want to do, to manage, to control our lives. It's a good thing, so it's ok for them to do what they've been doing. Be it climate change or NSA spying or multitude of other lies over the last century and half that have come to light.

Cpl.D: Sure it was. I appreciate the proof you've offered. And sure, scientists just love the glitsy lifestyles with all the glamor and fast cars and fancy women they get because all scientific grants also come with million dollar per diem giveaways, while those poor oil industry executives who have NO PAST HISTORY WHATSOEVER of doing anything slightly wrong in the interest or protecting their profits in the history of ever have to suffer with the small incomes they all probably make.


I'm sorry you haven't kept up. Do try using a search engine. It's a political figure and thus is BS. Further more, even if we use the one that comes from paper counts, that's where the funding is. Government supports what gives it more power and more of our wealth.

There is practically if not zero money, no grants, no nothing for people who don't believe the AGW religion. Not even big oil will fund the people out there doing the work that shows governments are altering data and not playing by the rules of science. That these government intellectuals are simply trying to scare people into submission.

LordJiro: Yes, it's the vast majority of climate scientists whose motives are driven by money! Not the ones on the payroll of energy companies, THEIR motives are pure and just!


It's amazing how statists think that government money doesn't corrupt intellectuals. For thousands of years rulers have employed intellectuals to justify their power over the masses. Be it a priest class or modern government sponsored science. Furthermore all of these warmists claiming big oil money have no clue. It simply doesn't exist. Those presenting work showing the fraudulent nature of government supported climate science are self funded. One cannot have a career going against AGW. It's a career killer because there is zero money in it.

Oh and you want a cite? Here's an article that summarizes how it's been debunked so many ways.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230348030457957846 2 813553136
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/ ne ws/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Farking Canuck: The anti-science crowd has been endless spewing propaganda to confuse the uneducated masses but anyone with a science background (who isn't blinded by politics) can see right through their lies. There is massive amounts of evidence from multiple different scientific fields that have all combined to give a very clear picture of what has happened and what is happening.


Except warmists are violating scientific method that at least used to be taught in gradeschool. Data is not to be changed. Data is not to be made up or estimated. Analysis is to be full documented.   They are changing data, making up data, and then not completely documenting what they are doing. That's not science, that's politics.

And as to basic math, when a hockey stick shaped warming curve of "corrections" is applied to a temperature record, a record that shows no change will show hockey stick warming after the corrections are applied. Part of the scientific method is not changing the data to match theory!

Furthermore all the bloggers are doing is compare data sets from the past and present to see how they are changing. The bloggers also remove all the estimated data and work with the actual raw temperature readings and compare that to the 'adjusted' or 'corrected' data. It's not rocket science. Hell, one can just compare papers from over the decades to watch the temperature record morph. Because some how temps in the 1930s are different now than they were 20 or 40 years ago. "1984" wasn't a scientific manual.

Besides, even NOAA itself admits their "corrections" and "adjustments" are warming the present data.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov
 
2014-07-01 12:53:52 AM

leadmetal: It's amazing how statists think that government money doesn't corrupt intellectuals. For thousands of years rulers have employed intellectuals to justify their power over the masses.


Have you always had a deep-seated expertise and interest in climate change?
 
2014-07-01 01:00:07 AM

leadmetal: The temperature record is garbage due to undocumented changes that seem to be done on pretty much a daily basis.


http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/luling-keeps -c hanging/

Then there is the infilling, the gridding, the zombie stations, the stations where estimated data is used even when real data is available....


You seriously don't remember the climate change denier (professor in CA) who did a huge study to prove just what you're saying, and discovered the opposite was true?

Convenient memory loss, it was only about a year ago....
 
2014-07-01 01:06:36 AM

leadmetal: The temperature record is garbage due to undocumented changes that seem to be done on pretty much a daily basis.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 650x502]


Wow, you really aren't smart are you? "Undocumented" changes that are 100% documented on the page you take the graph from?

And by the way, those adjustments are due to something called "science" which I know you don't understand, but that's obvious from your ignorance.
 
2014-07-01 01:15:23 AM

leadmetal: Except warmists are violating scientific method that at least used to be taught in gradeschool. Data is not to be changed. Data is not to be made up or estimated. Analysis is to be full documented.   They are changing data, making up data, and then not completely documenting what they are doing. That's not science, that's politics.


You know what really pisses me off? Artists also violate the art that used to be taught in grade school. Who the fark do they think they are that they're too good for flesh-colored crayons? They say 'flesh-colored' right on them - who the hell ever heard of a blue person?

It's almost like fifth grade teacher shouldn't even try to force their students to adhere to cutting-edge professional standard anymore, but should just dumb things down to the lowest age-appropriate common denominator so they can continue to rake in the massive piles of cash as the over-glorified babysitters they clearly are.
 
2014-07-01 01:20:52 AM
If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds. Also, if you practiced what you preached. Most of you are living the American lifestyle with meat 7 days a week in a single family home in the 'burbs where living is cheaper than near your work in the city.

The US generates 3x the CO2 per capita of China, and 10x India. If you want to effect change you are going to have to convince America to give up meat, private vehicles and single family homes far from their work - and 10 years of life expectancy. That is what you need to do to convince the world that even Americans should not live like Americans and they should not aspire to that carbon rich lifestyle and 3.2 children. You have to convince America to give up The American Dream.


Good luck with that.
 
2014-07-01 01:26:59 AM

RedVentrue: mark12A: Whatever is going on the difference so far is so slight people can sling this argument back and forth. So lets start building nukes, because pumping out all that CO2 indefinitely can't be good, and hold off seizing control of people's lives until we have something absolutely solid to go on. And stop hyping the goddam models. So far they've been useless. None of their predictions are happening. Storms are NOT getting more numerous and intense, and claiming that it will just hurts scientific credibility. A whole bunch of greedy government/socialist types are drooling at the chance to tax our current lifestyle into oblivion.

We're not going to turn into Venus, mmm'kay? The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, and the earth recovered. No reason why it won't again. IF the science is solid, AGW will be established/verified at some point. Right now it is just too politicized. The non-stop ideological war over this is destroying public trust in science. People will tune it all out, and when something really needs to be done, the people will ignore it.

This ^^^^^


The science IS solid and AGW HAS been established and verified.  Your inability to understand the data and refusal to accept it doesn't constitute a failing of the underlying science.  Clearly the huge, expensive campaign of doubt and misinformation by the fossil fuel industry is doing it's job, though.  Nice to know that the public is as willing as ever to claim expertise about things they clearly don't understand after reading a couple of skewed, non-scientific articles, though.
 
2014-07-01 01:37:17 AM

Carthax: zzrhardy: NOAA? I only get my climate news from reputable sources...

whatdidIjustread.jpg

/and why the hell did I read it?


Because it was a thing of rare beauty.
 
2014-07-01 01:51:48 AM

whatshisname: Can anyone explain why some Americans react so violently to any talk of climate change? The fact that it's occurring is obvious to even the dimmest of our species. And yet people with absolutely no expertise or even education in science seem to spend a lot of time on the Internet arguing against it.


People feel informed by the dubious, non-scientific articles in popular media that cast doubt on climate change, even if they contain no actual data.
Simultaneously, actual scientific articles are often difficult both to find and read for people who aren't familiar with scientific language and studies, and, they're usually boring and dry reads.

Another, compounding factor is that the largely under-educated rural conservatives view anything "scientific" as something produced by a bunch of stuffy, condescending, ivory-tower liberals that makes them feel dumb.  Since science is associated with liberalism as well as being made to feel dumb, anything produced by it is both to be disbelieved and angry about -- unless it supports their position, in which case it is to be deified, no matter how much of a minority case it is.
 
2014-07-01 01:51:49 AM

symbolset: If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds. Also, if you practiced what you preached. Most of you are living the American lifestyle with meat 7 days a week in a single family home in the 'burbs where living is cheaper than near your work in the city.

The US generates 3x the CO2 per capita of China, and 10x India. If you want to effect change you are going to have to convince America to give up meat, private vehicles and single family homes far from their work - and 10 years of life expectancy. That is what you need to do to convince the world that even Americans should not live like Americans and they should not aspire to that carbon rich lifestyle and 3.2 children. You have to convince America to give up The American Dream.


Good luck with that.


So the American Dream is to be a selfish, greedy twat with no regard for the world around them?
 
2014-07-01 02:09:41 AM

LordJiro: symbolset: If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds. Also, if you practiced what you preached. Most of you are living the American lifestyle with meat 7 days a week in a single family home in the 'burbs where living is cheaper than near your work in the city.

The US generates 3x the CO2 per capita of China, and 10x India. If you want to effect change you are going to have to convince America to give up meat, private vehicles and single family homes far from their work - and 10 years of life expectancy. That is what you need to do to convince the world that even Americans should not live like Americans and they should not aspire to that carbon rich lifestyle and 3.2 children. You have to convince America to give up The American Dream.


Good luck with that.

So the American Dream is to be a selfish, greedy twat with no regard for the world around them?


And anyone who points out that there might be negative consequences is a jerk. If scientists uncover evidence that technological civilization is digging its own grave, they should just politely keep that information to themselves.
 
2014-07-01 02:43:12 AM
Bowtie Boy is now a climate scientist?
 
2014-07-01 02:50:36 AM

mark12A: Whatever is going on the difference so far is so slight people can sling this argument back and forth. So lets start building nukes, because pumping out all that CO2 indefinitely can't be good, and hold off seizing control of people's lives until we have something absolutely solid to go on. And stop hyping the goddam models. So far they've been useless. None of their predictions are happening. Storms are NOT getting more numerous and intense, and claiming that it will just hurts scientific credibility. A whole bunch of greedy government/socialist types are drooling at the chance to tax our current lifestyle into oblivion.

We're not going to turn into Venus, mmm'kay? The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, and the earth recovered. No reason why it won't again. IF the science is solid, AGW will be established/verified at some point. Right now it is just too politicized. The non-stop ideological war over this is destroying public trust in science. People will tune it all out, and when something really needs to be done, the people will ignore it.


The rebuttal to all this is "no".  Pretty much to all your beliefs.  The science is solid, the effect is well validated and the path forward scientifically is clear.

we don't need to turn into Venus for humans to go through one of our worst times as a species.  Homo Sapien has bumped up against near extinction before

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080424-humans-extinc t_ 2.html

If our species can go from planet-conquering apex predators to struggling bands of degenerate hold outs then bounce back 20,000 years later, then it can happen again.  Do YOU want to be a species that scrapes by and hangs on, again?  by our own doing?

We are nearly genetically identical to those humans.  A nice disruption and can you build a combustion engine from some books in a library?  Climate change will already reduce our food stores and fresh water supplies.
 
2014-07-01 03:03:52 AM

MrBallou: Aw, fark. Is it time for a  "______________, therefore global warming is a fraud and you're all poopyheads" thread again already?

Gotta keep beating those drums or the lie won't become truthy, huh derpers?


I sincerely pray to whatever God these Warmist freaks sacrifice to, that they finish themselves off before they do any more damage.

If I wanted to join some freakish cult, that's ran by billionaires, I'd run for public office.
 
2014-07-01 03:32:08 AM
www.acrdepos.com
 
2014-07-01 04:16:19 AM

leadmetal: nickerj1: I'm always amused to how NOAA rounds to the nearest degree celsius when recording temperatures and then are like .... ZOMG!!!! 2 degree Fahrenheit anomaly!!!!! It's more like "No shiat, sherlock".

Every day of June 2012 your max temperature is 29.4 celsius, you record it as 29.
Every day of June 2013, your max temp is 29.5 celsius you record it as 30.

Your pretty graph shows an increase of 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees fahrenheit.

When in reality your max temperature increased .18 degrees fahrenheit.

When you're talking about assertions like "Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.31 to 0.48°F per decade)", why let false precision stop you?


Indeed. They have serious significant digits problem going on too.

Getting beaten over the head with how AGW is science and here they are violating the rules of science that are taught or at least were taught in grade school.


The thing about grade school science is that it isn't always complete, or tends to be a bit simplistic. For example, they do not teach you about averages. Trends are not taken from single measurements but instead averages of many, many measurements. Significant digits even out.


leadmetal: Cpl.D: Sure it was. I appreciate the proof you've offered. And sure, scientists just love the glitsy lifestyles with all the glamor and fast cars and fancy women they get because all scientific grants also come with million dollar per diem giveaways, while those poor oil industry executives who have NO PAST HISTORY WHATSOEVER of doing anything slightly wrong in the interest or protecting their profits in the history of ever have to suffer with the small incomes they all probably make.


I'm sorry you haven't kept up. Do try using a search engine. It's a political figure and thus is BS. Further more, even if we use the one that comes from paper counts, that's where the funding is. Government supports what gives it more power and more of our wealth.

There is practically if not zero money, no grants, no nothing for people who don't believe the AGW religion. Not even big oil will fund the people out there doing the work that shows governments are altering data and not playing by the rules of science. That these government intellectuals are simply trying to scare people into submission.


Science is also independent. Just casting aspersions on the motivations of the people involved can only get you so far - at some point one has to actually present evidence to support the position that what the science is telling us is somehow wrong. This has not happened.

For comparison, here is the creationist version of the exact same arguments as you are putting forth. The problems with said arguments are the same.

CA320. Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma.
CA321.1. Scientists' conclusions are motivated by money.
CA325. Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals.


leadmetal: LordJiro: Yes, it's the vast majority of climate scientists whose motives are driven by money! Not the ones on the payroll of energy companies, THEIR motives are pure and just!


It's amazing how statists think that government money doesn't corrupt intellectuals. For thousands of years rulers have employed intellectuals to justify their power over the masses. Be it a priest class or modern government sponsored science. Furthermore all of these warmists claiming big oil money have no clue. It simply doesn't exist. Those presenting work showing the fraudulent nature of government supported climate science are self funded. One cannot have a career going against AGW. It's a career killer because there is zero money in it.

Oh and you want a cite? Here's an article that summarizes how it's been debunked so many ways.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230348030457957846 2 813553136
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/ ne ws/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


I remember when some of these issues came up before. We can get more into it if you want, but the article makes some very misleading claims, from pretending that sampling isn't valid, to pretending that changing the criteria and sample space used in evaluating papers somehow negates previous findings, to citing surveys that aren't limited to scientists. As always, don't take this sort of information at face value, especially since it's an opinion piece.


leadmetal: Farking Canuck: The anti-science crowd has been endless spewing propaganda to confuse the uneducated masses but anyone with a science background (who isn't blinded by politics) can see right through their lies. There is massive amounts of evidence from multiple different scientific fields that have all combined to give a very clear picture of what has happened and what is happening.


Except warmists are violating scientific method that at least used to be taught in gradeschool. Data is not to be changed. Data is not to be made up or estimated. Analysis is to be full documented.   They are changing data, making up data, and then not completely documenting what they are doing. That's not science, that's politics.

And as to basic math, when a hockey stick shaped warming curve of "corrections" is applied to a temperature record, a record that shows no change will show hockey stick warming after the corrections are applied. Part of the scientific method is not changing the data to match theory!

Furthermore all the bloggers are doing is compare data sets from the past and present to see how they are changing. The bloggers also remove all the estimated data and work with the actual raw temperature readings and compare that to the 'adjusted' or 'corrected' data. It's not rocket science. Hell, one can just compare papers from over the decades to watch the temperature record morph. Because some how temps in the 1930s are different now than they were 20 or 40 years ago. "1984" wasn't a scientific manual.

Besides, even NOAA itself admits their "corrections" and "adjustments" are warming the present data.



What you're claiming here is flat out false. Again, what they taught you in grade school sometimes isn't the whole picture, and is sometimes a bit simplistic. Large data sets, with a variety of methodologies involved in its collection are changed as more and better information is incorporated. We can use one of the documented changes as an example -   Vose et al. 2003:

img.fark.net
It's an update to the time of day bias correction. I hope I don't have to explain why measuring temperatures in the morning can be different than in the afternoon.


This highlights the fundamental flaw with your reasoning. Bluntly put, that you do are not willing to find out the legitimate and documented reasons for changes does not mean you get to make up things to explain it. Just as gaps in the fossil record do not prove that God was somehow behind speciation, gaps in your knowledge do not prove that there is some sort of conspiracy at work. The big idea is that changes by themselves are not somehow evidence of some kind of conspiracy.
 
2014-07-01 04:29:07 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Farking Canuck: mark12A: I am NOT for demonizing capitalism

There is a difference in pointing out a propaganda campaign designed to delay any action on AGW and being "anti-capitalism".

Blindly felating any corporation no matter what they do is not being "pro-capitalist" - it is just being an idiot who is easily manipulated.

In fact, many if not most of the solutions to global warming are better in the long run for capitalism than blindly continuing to rely solely on a finite resource.


Well there's your problem right there. Most modern day "Pro-Capitalists" view relying on the long term as a sign of weakness and that only short term to immediate benefits are what matter most.
 
2014-07-01 04:36:47 AM

LordJiro: symbolset: If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds. Also, if you practiced what you preached. Most of you are living the American lifestyle with meat 7 days a week in a single family home in the 'burbs where living is cheaper than near your work in the city.

The US generates 3x the CO2 per capita of China, and 10x India. If you want to effect change you are going to have to convince America to give up meat, private vehicles and single family homes far from their work - and 10 years of life expectancy. That is what you need to do to convince the world that even Americans should not live like Americans and they should not aspire to that carbon rich lifestyle and 3.2 children. You have to convince America to give up The American Dream.


Good luck with that.

So the American Dream is to be a selfish, greedy twat with no regard for the world around them?


You're only figuring this out now?
 
Displayed 50 of 293 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report