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  
•       •       •

15543 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2014 at 9:19 PM (16 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
 
2014-07-01 11:29:27 AM  
Jon Snow:

Marcott 2013?
really?

wow.

I guess it's fitting you put that in a thread about altering temperatures.
 
2014-07-01 11:30:05 AM  

GeneralJim: Shakin_Haitian: Even the libtards in the Department of Defense are buying into this climate change malarkey.
Of COURSE they are -- they're part of the government. Obama's been firing any general officer who won't agree to fire on American citizens, so what's a bit of going along with a government scam?

So, are you STILL of the opinion that scientific facts are swayed by the belief in them people have? Unbelievable.

[www.evolvefish.com image 380x253]


It's amazing how deep the conspiracy goes.  All the way from the entirety of the DoD down through the state and local governments, and even to the local real estate salespeople.  I heard fartbongo himself has commissioned a gigantic ball to be forced into the ocean off the coast of Virginia to cause those houses to flood.
 
2014-07-01 11:34:53 AM  

SVenus: Marcott 2013?
really?

wow.


Oh, hey! Are you going to pretend to be interested in the science of this, or just post drivebys and flee the thread the minute someone asks you a question, yet again?

Feel free to substitute any Holocene-length temperature reconstruction for Marcott et al.'s as you see fit. Hell, ignore Marcott completely if it makes you feel better. It does not change the point that the data are in no way sine wave-shaped.

Also, feel free to link to any peer reviewed papers showing significant errors in Marcott's reconstruction in the primary scientific literature. I'll wait!
 
2014-07-01 11:36:16 AM  

Jon Snow:

You're talking to someone who swore up and down on Fark that he had discovered incontrovertible evidence, due to some supposed analysis he ran, that the Earth wasn't warming and by implication that all of the different agencies (NOAA, NASA, Met Hadley, not to mention the satellite temp and reanalysis groups) responsible for the various independent temperature records were part of some diabolical conspiracy.

You know, a flaming nutjob.
And, oddly enough, with the exception of the satellite records, he was RIGHT... despite your derision.

Hell, both Romney and Palin look positively prescient in retrospect, and they were also derided by leftist jackasses.

The left is very good at rallying derision for the people who scare it...  But when it comes to getting things right, they suck.  It is JUST like climate science -- when you cheat by altering data, cherry-pick, and deride your opponents, it may make for a PR victory, but natural laws are not going to be swayed by a good PR campaign.  But here's you, with your BS line a-swinging, in a thread about NOAA admitting their guilt by putting back real data, proving many warmtard claims to be based upon bullshiat.

I didn't figure any of you had the grace to admit when you've been had...  So, yeah, KEEP doubling down, and have some more pudding.


i2.wp.com

 
2014-07-01 11:36:17 AM  

Shakin_Haitian: It's amazing how deep the conspiracy goes.  All the way from the entirety of the DoD down through the state and local governments, and even to the local real estate salespeople.  I heard fartbongo himself has commissioned a gigantic ball to be forced into the ocean off the coast of Virginia to cause those houses to flood.


Little known fact: sea level rise isn't caused by thermal expansion, but by fat Virginians going for a swim, and Global Warming is actually caused by the friction of their thighs and flaps slapping together. Occasionally, though, it is the big brass balls of a real American displacing mass and clanging together proudly, and for that we should be thankful.
 
2014-07-01 11:38:24 AM  

Jon Snow: This "looks like a sine wave" to you?


Well, it looks like half a sine wave.

People are more talking about charts like this:

sy-weather.com

Or this:

www.ec.gc.ca

Global temperature experiences periodic fluctuation over hundreds of thousands of years.  It's not a smooth curve, and experiences periodic fluctuations over tens of thousands of years following a trend.  Those fluctuations are themselves the general trend of periodic fluctuations over hundreds of years, which are the general trend of periodic fluctuations over years, which are the general trend of periodic fluctuations from day to day.

The small units are easy to observe:  it gets hot during the day and cold at night, while it also gets hot during the summer and cold in winter.  So you can imagine a wavy line--a sine wave--which is itself then twisted into the general shape of a bigger wavy line.  The resulting curve is itself twisted into a much bigger periodic curve, and so on.

It's important to look at both the big picture and the small variations.  The big picture tells you not to panic just because it seems to be getting hotter lately; the smaller variations tell you if it's getting hotter more or less than usual in this trend, i.e. if it usually does get hotter, but this time it's getting a biatchload hotter really fast.
 
2014-07-01 11:38:30 AM  
The fact that deniers always fall back on politics shows that they have absolutely zero interest in the actual science. For them it is an us vs. them debate ... facts are irrelevant as long as your side wins.
 
2014-07-01 11:42:13 AM  

GeneralJim: Shakin_Haitian: Even the libtards in the Department of Defense are buying into this climate change malarkey.
Of COURSE they are -- they're part of the government. Obama's been firing any general officer who won't agree to fire on American citizens, so what's a bit of going along with a government scam?

So, are you STILL of the opinion that scientific facts are swayed by the belief in them people have? Unbelievable.

[www.evolvefish.com image 380x253]


Your green text is like the internet equivalent of a teenager dyeing their hair weird colors for attention.
 
2014-07-01 11:43:00 AM  

Farking Canuck: The fact that deniers always fall back on politics shows that they have absolutely zero interest in the actual science. For them it is an us vs. them debate ... facts are irrelevant as long as your side wins.


It's as though they think it's a debate about how their favorite football team is better than your favorite football team.
 
2014-07-01 11:46:26 AM  
Obama's been firing any general officer who won't agree to fire on American citizens, so what's a bit of going along with a government scam?

This is the sort of thing that made me suspect that GeneralJim's absence meant that he had finally been committed to a mental institution.
 
2014-07-01 11:46:59 AM  

Shakin_Haitian:

It's amazing how deep the conspiracy goes. All the way from the entirety of the DoD down through the state and local governments, and even to the local real estate salespeople. I heard fartbongo himself has commissioned a gigantic ball to be forced into the ocean off the coast of Virginia to cause those houses to flood.
Keep deriding anyone pointing out the truth.  I LOVE how stupid it makes you look.   And, as I've said for at least five years, there are only a handful of actual corrupt scientists.  Politicians, on the other hand, can be counted on to be corrupt.  Let me guess...  You're stupid enough to think that leftists aren't corrupt, right?  That would be consistent.

So, if nobody is corrupt, who changed the data?   And who changed it at NASA?   And what were they hoping to accomplish?   And, if they WEREN'T cheating on the data, what did they put in its place, and where did they get THAT.  Also, why does the CURRENT data match was was published before 1998?  You really can't win this one.  You are defending people who have admitted guilt.  And, it should disturb you that it was the GOVERNMENT that has been lying about temperature for so long...

I'm trying to locate where your cognitive processes are breaking down...  Any clues?

 
2014-07-01 11:53:48 AM  

GeneralJim: Shakin_Haitian: It's amazing how deep the conspiracy goes. All the way from the entirety of the DoD down through the state and local governments, and even to the local real estate salespeople. I heard fartbongo himself has commissioned a gigantic ball to be forced into the ocean off the coast of Virginia to cause those houses to flood.Keep deriding anyone pointing out the truth.  I LOVE how stupid it makes you look.   And, as I've said for at least five years, there are only a handful of actual corrupt scientists.  Politicians, on the other hand, can be counted on to be corrupt.  Let me guess...  You're stupid enough to think that leftists aren't corrupt, right?  That would be consistent.

So, if nobody is corrupt, who changed the data?   And who changed it at NASA?   And what were they hoping to accomplish?   And, if they WEREN'T cheating on the data, what did they put in its place, and where did they get THAT.  Also, why does the CURRENT data match was was published before 1998?  You really can't win this one.  You are defending people who have admitted guilt.  And, it should disturb you that it was the GOVERNMENT that has been lying about temperature for so long...
I'm trying to locate where your cognitive processes are breaking down...  Any clues?


The government is infiltrating our eyes. The sea rise that we can literally see isn't real.
 
2014-07-01 12:04:42 PM  
My text is green, your argument is invalid.
 
2014-07-01 12:09:33 PM  

browntimmy: My text is green, your argument is invalid.


*cough*
 
2014-07-01 12:20:05 PM  

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?


Manifest Destiny, my friend, Manifest Destiny.
 
2014-07-01 12:22:43 PM  

Farking Canuck: thefonz37: Not taking anyone's side, but I think the point was that if the car runs on electricity, and the electricity comes from a coal plant...

Is that the car's fault or the state's fault?


I didn't pass judgement on either.  It actually wasn't even my point in the first place.
 
2014-07-01 12:24:29 PM  

bluefoxicy: Jon Snow: This "looks like a sine wave" to you?

Well, it looks like half a sine wave.

People are more talking about charts like this:

[sy-weather.com image 600x433]


The first "graph" you posted is the deranged scribblings of a religious fanatic. Notice how it goes into the future? Notice how there are no sources for the data?

Or this:

[www.ec.gc.ca image 450x412]


Yes, those are Milankovitch cycles. In the absence of any GHG emissions by us, they're pretty cyclical (but . Guess what?

i.imgur.com

We've interrupted.

And guess what, in the absence of anthropogenic warming, Milankovitch forcing would be doing to the climate?

Hint: It ain't warming.

Global temperature experiences periodic fluctuation over hundreds of thousands of years.  It's not a smooth curve, and experiences periodic fluctuations over tens of thousands of years following a trend.  Those fluctuations are themselves the general trend of periodic fluctuations over hundreds of years, which are the general trend of periodic fluctuations over years, which are the general trend of periodic fluctuations from day to day.

The small units are easy to observe:  it gets hot during the day and cold at night, while it also gets hot during the summer and cold in winter.


What you're talking about are actual, real cycles. The diurnal cycle. The seasonal cycle. But these don't manifest as sine wave shaped global changes in temperature for obvious reasons. The diurnal cycle doesn't affect the whole Earth at the same time. The seasonal cycle isn't uniform due to the relative distribution of land vs. ocean (with their differing heat capacities and albedos). And so on.

Do real cycles exist in nature? Sure. But they have names and known properties. We know their amplitudes and periodicities. They aren't magic.

So you can imagine a wavy line--a sine wave--which is itself then twisted into the general shape of a bigger wavy line.  The resulting curve is itself twisted into a much bigger periodic curve, and so on.

Except, that's not at all what is actually happening in the temperature record.

It's important to look at both the big picture and the small variations.  The big picture tells you not to panic just because it seems to be getting hotter lately; the smaller variations tell you if it's getting hotter more or less than usual in this trend, i.e. if it usually does get hotter, but this time it's getting a biatchload hotter really fast.

Real cycles exist, and we know what they are, and what they're doing (and would be doing in the absence of anthropogenic GHGs). There are also things like solar variability apart from the 11 year sunspot cycle. And non-cyclical volcanic eruptions. And of course human emissions of GHGs, aerosols, and black carbon.

The climate system isn't magic. If you push it, it responds.
 
2014-07-01 12:25:58 PM  

bluefoxicy: 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?

It doesn't help to use fraudulent analysis to prove a valid point.  That just shows you don't care if it's valid.

I did some filling and ran a Histogram analysis with imagemagick.  Looks a little heavy on top by area, and comes up with 53 points above the regression and 60 points below.

You can correct both of these by lifting the left side of the linear regression and lowering the right side.  This produces a balanced regression, still showing a warming trend, but less dramatic.


I was doing statistics when you were still sneaking a peek at your sister in the shower, so don't try to baffle me with BS.

Any analysis that requires that much massaging to get the result you want is not a valid analysis.
 
2014-07-01 12:33:57 PM  
What I find amazing as well is that the deniers are only looking at the CO2 which is pumped into the atmosphere.

There's an even more insidious greenhouse gas that is being released more & more each day, due to the global (not regional) warming.  Methane.  If you think CO2 is bad, Methane is basically CO2 on steroids.

The permafrost in places like Alaska and Siberia have been melting and allowing the old growth to decay, which produces a lot of CO2 and even more methane.  There's also the frozen methane that will be released if the temperatures go high enough to melt the ice that it's presently trapped in.

So, go right on believing that the scientists studying the changes to the climate are lying, all for those fat grant checks (*snerk*), while the rest of the people who actually use their brains realize that things can and possibly WILL be much worse before they get better.
 
2014-07-01 12:38:22 PM  

Farking Canuck:

The fact that deniers always fall back on politics shows that they have absolutely zero interest in the actual science. For them it is an us vs. them debate ... facts are irrelevant as long as your side wins.
Hi, useless!    So, it's not relevant that the data was fabricated to bolster a position, and then replaced when the heat got to be too much?   Seriously?    You know, to ME, that looks like YOU don't care what the facts are, as long as you win.

I mean, if you're using data that have been faked, what does your analysis tell you about the real world?   On further thought, this question is probably too tough for you, so, it tells you NOTHING.  To get real-world conclusions, you need to use real-world data.  Science is funny that way, ALL branches of science.  I mean, in politics, you can tell your brainless faithful that you are going to insure millions more people, and add a whole new layer of bureaucracy, and it will save money, reduce premiums by $250 dollars, and not add a dime to anyone's taxes OR the debt, and the brainless faithful WILL believe it...  but, when it comes time to crank the organ, you find out the organ grinder is really the monkey... the economic science of the situation kicks in, and we get the cluster-fark we have now.  Thank GOD the truth of the climate hoax is coming out before we had a chance to screw up our energy use as badly as we've screwed up our health care.

You guys sure can insult and deride anyone not of your faith, but when it comes to RESULTS, your team screws the pooch on a regular basis.  At a certain point, you really ought to take a step back and analyze the basics...  For example, if your ideas are so superior, why in the Hell does your shiat always blow up in your face?

Leftist command economies the world over have either reformed, or collapsed.  As we become more and more socialist, OUR economy is beginning to collapse.  We have two experiments with controls: Germany and Korea.   Half of each went communist, and half went capitalist.  Let a couple decades pass, and in both countries, the capitalist halves became world economic powers, and the communist halves became poor, polluted, just damned DEPRESSING hell-holes.  How many goddam clues do you need before you can draw a reasonable conclusion?  Seriously, WTF is wrong with your thinking?

Now, science doesn't have anything to do with politics -- or at least, it SHOULDN'T.   But, even in this, the analogy is useful.  Science was "advanced" with the power of the state in the USSR with Lysenkoism.  Does this shiat sound familiar?

"Lysenko's widespread popularity provided him a platform to denounce theoretical genetics and to promote his own agricultural practices. He was, in turn, supported by the Soviet propaganda machine, which overstated his successes and omitted mention of his failures. This was accompanied by fake experimental data supporting Lysenkoism from scientists seeking favor and the destruction of counter-evidence to Lysenko's theories. "   
(From the Wikipedia article - emphasis mine.)  There is no mention of whether or not Lysenko had paid trolls on Fark.

In case your pattern-recognition is as poor as other parts of your cognitive skills, that's pretty much the exact process that "climate science" has followed lately.   Crops in the Soviet Union failed to prosper as predicted in much the same way that the climate has failed to live up to the alarmist predictions of the warmtards.  Government backing of a hypothesis doesn't make it any truer than it already is -- in both of these cases, that would be "not true at all."

 
2014-07-01 12:40:11 PM  

browntimmy:

My text is green, your argument is invalid.
Your name is brown, your argument is shiatty.
 
2014-07-01 12:47:46 PM  

GeneralJim: *incredible amount of derp*


You try too hard, dude.
 
2014-07-01 12:50:09 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-01 12:58:20 PM  

The government has managed, as Jon Stewart has said, to shift the burden of proof from the wacky conspiracy theorists to the government.  The ideas of the conspiracy theorists were so outright crazy that the government decided to prove them correct... and faking the data to support the falsified "anthropogenic climate change" hypothesis is just one more case of this.

Possibly NSFW clip from Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show."

 
2014-07-01 12:59:30 PM  
Does Drew pay the trolls by the word, because...damn.  Jim seems to write entire NOVELS of derp when he gets going.
 
2014-07-01 01:01:48 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-01 01:23:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Shakin_Haitian: Even the libtards in the Department of Defense are buying into this climate change malarkey.
Of COURSE they are -- they're part of the government. Obama's been firing any general officer who won't agree to fire on American citizens, so what's a bit of going along with a government scam?

So, are you STILL of the opinion that scientific facts are swayed by the belief in them people have? Unbelievable.

[www.evolvefish.com image 380x253]


Everytime I see NDT, I think I'm looking at Isaac from Love Boat.  [finger guns]
 
2014-07-01 01:26:33 PM  

Unbelievable....  With proof of fraud right in their faces, the Fark leftist monkey congress keeps farking that chicken.   It's GOTTA be paid trolls.  Nobody who can get on the Internets is that friggin' stupid without getting a paycheck for it.

lh6.googleusercontent.com

 
2014-07-01 01:28:16 PM  

GeneralJim: Unbelievable....  With proof of fraud right in their faces, the Fark leftist monkey congress keeps farking that chicken.   It's GOTTA be paid trolls.  Nobody who can get on the Internets is that friggin' stupid without getting a paycheck for it.[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 800x446]


Oh, so you do it for free?  Good to know.  I mean, everyone has to have a hobby, right? :)
 
2014-07-01 01:42:56 PM  

grumpfuff: browntimmy: My text is green, your argument is invalid.

*cough*


Yeah, it's not everyday internet weirdo behavior. It's something else. Going back to just the green thing, he had to decide at some point, "I'm going to make the effort to add html code to every single one of my Fark posts so it appears green because (insert illogical belief here). This will be my thing, this will be my legacy."

The only thing that makes sense to my mind is he does this because it's a troll color. But then I don't believe any normal person could be this dedicated to trolling.
 
2014-07-01 01:49:36 PM  
I've never been prouder of a Fark thread than seeing nobody engage General Jim.  One guy sort of half-heartedly, but nobody seriously engaged him.  Brings a smile to my heart.
 
2014-07-01 01:53:32 PM  

GeneralJim: Unbelievable....  With proof of fraud right in their faces, the Fark leftist monkey congress keeps farking that chicken.   It's GOTTA be paid trolls.  Nobody who can get on the Internets is that friggin' stupid without getting a paycheck for it.[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 800x446]


Look, just because most of the planet thinks all humans no matter the color, are uncles of monkeys descended from fish that mutated after crawling out of an ocean which used to be a pool of ooze, doesn't mean you have to call fark a monkey congress. You can however treat yourself out of your own money to a beer of your choice somewhere and chill.

It's not like voters on the whole turn to farkers as the premier authorities on anything.  Hell, anyone who does needs to sober up.
 
2014-07-01 01:58:53 PM  

Marshal Tito: I've never been prouder of a Fark thread than seeing nobody engage General Jim.  One guy sort of half-heartedly, but nobody seriously engaged him.  Brings a smile to my heart.


shiat... sorry.
 
2014-07-01 02:05:10 PM  

Marshal Tito: I've never been prouder of a Fark thread than seeing nobody engage General Jim.  One guy sort of half-heartedly, but nobody seriously engaged him.  Brings a smile to my heart.

You have to engage him at least a little bit...
 
2014-07-01 02:10:04 PM  

leadmetal: Then there is the infilling, the gridding, the zombie stations, the stations where estimated data is used even when real data is available.... but let's just look at one plot showing how NOAA adjusts data... past cooler, present warmer.


SlothB77: 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.


At who's behest? Through both Democrat and Republican administrations? Through many heads of NOAA? Through countless scientists studying the climate record in NOAA and outside of NOAA? And all those folks are in on the conspiracy and have kept quiet for decades?

I'm not quite sure you're insinuating what you think you're insinuating.

/unless you're insinuating that you're a dumbass
 
2014-07-01 02:14:27 PM  

SurfaceTension: leadmetal: Then there is the infilling, the gridding, the zombie stations, the stations where estimated data is used even when real data is available.... but let's just look at one plot showing how NOAA adjusts data... past cooler, present warmer.

SlothB77: 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.

At who's behest? Through both Democrat and Republican administrations? Through many heads of NOAA? Through countless scientists studying the climate record in NOAA and outside of NOAA? And all those folks are in on the conspiracy and have kept quiet for decades?

I'm not quite sure you're insinuating what you think you're insinuating.

/unless you're insinuating that you're a dumbass


It's the illuminati man! They've been doing this since Svante Arrhenius first described this bogus "Greenhouse Effect". They've been trying to take control for over a century! Don't be fooled man!!!

/Enough extra punctuation?!?
 
2014-07-01 02:20:20 PM  

cwolf20: It's not like voters on the whole turn to farkers as the premier authorities on anything.



i62.tinypic.com
 
2014-07-01 02:24:19 PM  

Farking Canuck: The fact that deniers always fall back on politics shows that they have absolutely zero interest in the actual science. For them it is an us vs. them debate ... facts are irrelevant as long as your side wins.


Or maybe it shows that we recognize the greater threat. Science, by itself, doesn't kill anyone. Politics, on the other hand, does, and politics supported with false and fraudulent "scientific consensus" has killed so many millions in the last century that the number of victims may never be known for certain.

/ask anyone who suffered the "better world" that the scientific consensus of Social Darwinism was supposed to create
//that was AGW's big mistake, not waiting for all the Holocaust survivors to die out before starting up the "bandwagon science" again
 
2014-07-01 02:25:51 PM  
And there's the Godwin, you lose, good day sir. The rest of your post is bat shiat crazy.
 
2014-07-01 02:32:44 PM  

Zafler: And there's the Godwin, you lose, good day sir. The rest of your post is bat shiat crazy.


Which post? You have to quote to be specific
 
2014-07-01 02:35:18 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Farking Canuck: The fact that deniers always fall back on politics shows that they have absolutely zero interest in the actual science. For them it is an us vs. them debate ... facts are irrelevant as long as your side wins.

Or maybe it shows that we recognize the greater threat. Science, by itself, doesn't kill anyone. Politics, on the other hand, does, and politics supported with false and fraudulent "scientific consensus" has killed so many millions in the last century that the number of victims may never be known for certain.

/ask anyone who suffered the "better world" that the scientific consensus of Social Darwinism was supposed to create
//that was AGW's big mistake, not waiting for all the Holocaust survivors to die out before starting up the "bandwagon science" again


So, what you're saying is, you are mad at the deniers for politicizing this?
 
2014-07-01 02:39:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Obama's been firing any general officer who won't agree to fire on American citizens


This from a gullible rube who believes he knows about a secret, non-toxic cure for all tumors, and who gets scientific advice from a UFO cult about how the Shroud of Turin recorded the "time-shifted heat" given off by "higher frequency radiation" at the moment of the death of Jesus.

So, you know, seems legit.  I'm sure he's a master of climate science too.  Let's be sure to get his opinion on the moon landing.
 
2014-07-01 02:47:05 PM  

grumpfuff: So, what you're saying is, you are mad at the deniers for politicizing this?



The problem with global warming is that it was politicised early on, by the sorts of people who saw it as a way enabling wealth redistribution and centralised planning. There was also the bonus result of diminishing the power and influence of western industrialized nations in favour of backwards agrarian societies left out to dry after the end of the cold war.


Global Warming is not really about the climate, especially here in this thread. Global Warming is a basically political issue that has some limited involvement with thermometers. So if you're pure of heart and above all that rubbish, and genuinely concerned about the climate, you need to worry a bit less about applying asinine labels like 'denier', and more about purging your own ranks of opportunistic goons with a political axe to grind.
 
2014-07-01 02:48:21 PM  

letrole: grumpfuff: So, what you're saying is, you are mad at the deniers for politicizing this?


The problem with global warming is that it was politicised early on, by the sorts of people who saw it as a way enabling wealth redistribution and centralised planning. There was also the bonus result of diminishing the power and influence of western industrialized nations in favour of backwards agrarian societies left out to dry after the end of the cold war.


Global Warming is not really about the climate, especially here in this thread. Global Warming is a basically political issue that has some limited involvement with thermometers. So if you're pure of heart and above all that rubbish, and genuinely concerned about the climate, you need to worry a bit less about applying asinine labels like 'denier', and more about purging your own ranks of opportunistic goons with a political axe to grind.


Trolling is a religion.
 
2014-07-01 03:05:24 PM  
Regurgitating moronic, long-debunked talking points that people have patiently explained in depth to me are wrong while ignoring the decades of research and thousands of papers detailing the scientific evidence demonstrating anthropogenic warming is occurring is my surname.
 
2014-07-01 03:20:31 PM  

grumpfuff: letrole: grumpfuff: So, what you're saying is, you are mad at the deniers for politicizing this?


The problem with global warming is that it was politicised early on, by the sorts of people who saw it as a way enabling wealth redistribution and centralised planning. There was also the bonus result of diminishing the power and influence of western industrialized nations in favour of backwards agrarian societies left out to dry after the end of the cold war.


Global Warming is not really about the climate, especially here in this thread. Global Warming is a basically political issue that has some limited involvement with thermometers. So if you're pure of heart and above all that rubbish, and genuinely concerned about the climate, you need to worry a bit less about applying asinine labels like 'denier', and more about purging your own ranks of opportunistic goons with a political axe to grind.

Trolling is a religion.


I'd really like to have a frank Q & A with letrole or GeneralJim where they explain the appeal of trolling. I can see how it could be amusing for 5-10 minutes if you're bored, immature, and have zero hobbies, but these guys have been doing it for years. Is it really like that cartoon where they think we're all bashing our keyboards in frustration when in reality we're just slightly annoyed we wasted 8 seconds reading what they wrote? What are they getting out of it? Is negative attention better than no attention when you reap no other benefits from it?
 
2014-07-01 03:29:54 PM  

vrax: cwolf20: It's not like voters on the whole turn to farkers as the premier authorities on anything.


[i62.tinypic.com image 302x206]


What, we aren't are we? Or are we. Why doesn't anyone tell me these things? I could mold people to my insomniac adhd hyperactive view of life and we'll all run screaming out our doors
 
2014-07-01 03:31:52 PM  

letrole: grumpfuff: So, what you're saying is, you are mad at the deniers for politicizing this?


The problem with global warming is that it was politicised early on, by the sorts of people who saw it as a way enabling wealth redistribution and centralised planning. There was also the bonus result of diminishing the power and influence of western industrialized nations in favour of backwards agrarian societies left out to dry after the end of the cold war.


Global Warming is not really about the climate, especially here in this thread. Global Warming is a basically political issue that has some limited involvement with thermometers. So if you're pure of heart and above all that rubbish, and genuinely concerned about the climate, you need to worry a bit less about applying asinine labels like 'denier', and more about purging your own ranks of opportunistic goons with a political axe to grind.



To be fair, it is also the hyperbolic opposition to perceived political opponents and simplistically framing this issue in terms of opposing ideologies (such as you've done here) that has also contributed to the politicization.

This issue becomes more about the politics than the science when people are willing to disbelieve what the evidence is actually telling us in favor of their politically-based preconceptions(such as here).

Sadly, you're part of the problem.
 
2014-07-01 03:41:08 PM  
The US government likes to use the process called "the big lie." This theory states that no matter how big the lie is (or more precisely, because it's so big), people will believe it if you repeat it enough.
Probably caught it from all the Nazi's we brought over after the war.
 
2014-07-01 03:43:54 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: To be fair, it is also the hyperbolic opposition to perceived political opponents and simplistically framing this issue in terms of opposing ideologies (such as you've done here) that has also contributed to the politicization.


That's also why recognising criminal behaviour and responding accordingly is a contributor to rising crime rates. Circular logic shall make you free.
 
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