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.

(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
    More: Followup, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, temperature record, average surface temperature  
•       •       •

15624 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2014 at 9:19 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-06-30 05:02:24 PM  
Let's twist again like we did last summer.
Twisted data is the best data.
 
2014-06-30 05:53:45 PM  
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?
 
2014-06-30 08:32:50 PM  
Bets are that he's looking at two slightly different data sets and simply doesn't know how to tell the difference.
 
2014-06-30 09:23:01 PM  
*sigh*
--eyeroll--
GROAN

That should cover it.
 
2014-06-30 09:25:40 PM  
ohboyherewego.jpeg?
 
2014-06-30 09:26:39 PM  
Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.
 
2014-06-30 09:27:18 PM  
Not.  This.  shiat.  Again.
 
2014-06-30 09:28:39 PM  
if global warming is real then why is it still 98.6 degrees in my pants?
 
2014-06-30 09:28:41 PM  

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
 
2014-06-30 09:29:28 PM  
I hate summer now. It's too fricking hot, and I'm up in a northern state. Our winter sucked, but this hot, muggy, Georgia-like weather can just go fark itself.
 
2014-06-30 09:29:40 PM  

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


Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.
 
2014-06-30 09:30:08 PM  
It's completely obvious that NOAA skews data to further a global communist conspiracy to end capitalism and force us back into a hunter-gatherer lifestyle while living in tiny high-rise apartments. We know this because of NOAA data.

/Daily Caller, y'all.
 
2014-06-30 09:30:40 PM  
This means Sarah Palin is automatically relevant again and that Fartbongo's got to run a Polish Water Ice cart out by the Delaware River.
 
2014-06-30 09:31:03 PM  

HairyNevus: ohboyherewego.jpeg?


OK.
static1.i4u.com
 
2014-06-30 09:32:51 PM  
Well if a fine upstanding scientific journal like the Daily Caller doubts climate change then maybe I'm all turned around on the issue.
 
2014-06-30 09:34:09 PM  

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


I'd say that's about right. July of 2012 had thousands super accurate of data points, July 1936 had hundreds of points of "good" data.

But what does it all mean? nothing considering weather isn't climate and 1 year of hotness in a region doesn't mean that the sky is falling.

/doing it right?
 
2014-06-30 09:34:54 PM  
So, a statistical anomaly in fractions of a degree in one year that doesn't in any way disprove the increase in average temperature over the last 100 years suddenly disproves climate change? What is is, Fox News?
 
2014-06-30 09:35:43 PM  
Let me guess, misreading the data and a ridiculous amount of sophistry.
 
2014-06-30 09:36:03 PM  
Do these guys need constant reassurance or what?
 
2014-06-30 09:36:29 PM  
Daily Caller, aka Daily Troller
 
2014-06-30 09:39:03 PM  
Well it was that month.
 
2014-06-30 09:39:15 PM  
The last 2 NOAH satellites crashed and burned, lets see how the next one fakes the data.
 
2014-06-30 09:39:42 PM  
I love global warming threads. I am not a denier but the trolls have to do so little to get such a response. Getting my popcorn!
 
2014-06-30 09:39:52 PM  

Nix Nightbird: I hate summer now. It's too fricking hot, and I'm up in a northern state. Our winter sucked, but this hot, muggy, Georgia-like weather can just go fark itself.


Right there with you. Upstate NY and a heat advisory tomorrow... what the fark...
 
2014-06-30 09:39:55 PM  

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


You're right.  Let's run this mother into the ground.
 
2014-06-30 09:40:36 PM  
That 2012 summer was hot and sunny. No matter what I did my grass stayed brown until August. Everybody's grass around here was like that. I thought I was going to have start all over with my lawn the next summer until the heat broke and we got a little cloud cover in August. When that happened the green came back.
 
2014-06-30 09:41:12 PM  
Unskew NOAA Now!

static5.businessinsider.com
 
2014-06-30 09:41:16 PM  
Interestingly enough, this Heartland Institute affiliated blogger and AGW denier apparently did not attempt to contact NOAA in any way, and inquire about the alleged discrepancy.

Watt's up with that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
 
2014-06-30 09:41:36 PM  
Wait, is the scandal that they listed 2012 as the "hottest", that they fixed the error, or that they "quietly" made 1936 the "hottest" again? I don't quite follow these scandals.

I mean, you don't change it back if you're trying to 'manipulate' the data as some kind of political machinations, you leave it changed. Of course, the Daily Caller's mobile format sucks dick, so there may be an explanation for all of this in TFA, I just got tired of trying to read that shiatty layout...
 
2014-06-30 09:41:59 PM  

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

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.


Which I know I shouldn't condone but at the same time I find it hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DC4ZdPVp1g
 
2014-06-30 09:43:26 PM  
Its not August yet.
winter comes in feb
hootedt I've seen it was 119 degree air temp in 2012. My teva sandals melted.
 
2014-06-30 09:45:56 PM  
It's getting hot in here.
 
2014-06-30 09:46:26 PM  

ongbok: That 2012 summer was hot and sunny. No matter what I did my grass stayed brown until August. Everybody's grass around here was like that. I thought I was going to have start all over with my lawn the next summer until the heat broke and we got a little cloud cover in August. When that happened the green came back.


There you have it.... The fact that the heat EVER broke is a prime example of the reason that global warming is a lie. How can we be still having winters if it's getting "colder"?

Seriouslythat summer sucked here, as did last summer. Luckily, we have yet to see a 100 degree here this summer. YAY!! Midsummer 90s for the 4th is going to be much easier to handle.
 
2014-06-30 09:47:54 PM  
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....  but let's just look at one plot showing how NOAA adjusts data... past cooler, present warmer.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov
 
2014-06-30 09:47:59 PM  
content8.flixster.com

I remember when he said to check my blood sugar and check it often. I never did find any damned oatmeal in it.

/bastard
 
2014-06-30 09:50:29 PM  
Good.  All the global warming scammers can go cry in their organic beers now.
 
2014-06-30 09:50:52 PM  

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

Sixteen cylinders. Flat out the tank is empty in 12 minutes.
 
2014-06-30 09:50:58 PM  
And they would have gotten away with, too, if it weren't for Tucker Carlson's bow tie of truth!
 
2014-06-30 09:52:48 PM  
So they updated the model based on new observations?

OMG CLIMATE CHANGE IS SO FUICKING FALSE NOW!
 
2014-06-30 09:53:38 PM  
The comment section is that article is just sad. We've completely failed at teaching critical thinking skills in this country.
 
2014-06-30 09:55:05 PM  

MrEricSir: The comment section is that article is just sad. We've completely failed at teaching critical thinking skills in this country.


Thanks a lot, Reagan.
 
2014-06-30 09:55:37 PM  

libranoelrose: It's getting hot in here.


SO TAKE OFF ALL YOUR CLOTHES
 
2014-06-30 09:56:52 PM  

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


Or get a private jet. AL Gore's Gulf Stream burns more fuel on a single trip to go lecture us on vehicles than a Hummer does in a year.
 
2014-06-30 09:57:48 PM  
NOAA? I only get my climate news from reputable sources...
 
2014-06-30 09:59:31 PM  
nsidc.org
 
2014-06-30 09:59:48 PM  

jst3p: DarthBart: thefonz37: Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.

Which I know I shouldn't condone but at the same time I find it hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DC4ZdPVp1g


I should internet stalk that girl, find her address, and ship her a big knife to slash that cockbag's tires with.
 
2014-06-30 10:01:04 PM  

MrEricSir: The comment section is that article is just sad. We've completely failed at teaching critical thinking skills in this country.


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. 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.

At the end of the day people fight fire with fire. If the global warming promoters use the press to hype their cause I can't blame the skeptics for doing the same thing.
 
2014-06-30 10:01:35 PM  
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.
 
2014-06-30 10:05:04 PM  

DarthBart: jst3p: DarthBart: thefonz37: Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.

Which I know I shouldn't condone but at the same time I find it hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DC4ZdPVp1g

I should internet stalk that girl, find her address, and ship her a big knife to slash that cockbag's tires with.


On one hand I agree, on the other smokers are gross. So I could go either way.
 
2014-06-30 10:06:08 PM  

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


whatdidIjustread.jpg

/and why the hell did I read it?
 
2014-06-30 10:06:47 PM  
It's only weather...
 
2014-06-30 10:09:59 PM  

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
 
2014-06-30 10:10:36 PM  
anyone dare me to fark my wife in this humidity tonight?
 
2014-06-30 10:10:43 PM  

Mikey1969: Wait, is the scandal that they listed 2012 as the "hottest", that they fixed the error, or that they "quietly" made 1936 the "hottest" again? I don't quite follow these scandals.


This isn't really one.  The average temperature in the US isn't terribly relevant to the global warming discussion, and that's what this article is about.  Average global temperature would be.
 
2014-06-30 10:13:41 PM  

SlothB77: The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.


Did you read the article? They said 1936 was reinstated as the warmest year, not because 2012 numbers were moved down, but because 1936 numbers were moved up.

So tell me how this changes anything?
 
2014-06-30 10:13:50 PM  
if you worry about climate change then you must be poor

meanwhile my health insurance costs more per year than I make gross
 
2014-06-30 10:14:27 PM  

austin_millbarge: SlothB77: The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.

Did you read the article? They said 1936 was reinstated as the warmest year, not because 2012 numbers were moved down, but because 1936 numbers were moved up.

So tell me how this changes anything?


because you are gay
 
2014-06-30 10:15:38 PM  

vodka: meanwhile my health insurance costs more per

yearmonth than I make gross per year

FTFM
 
2014-06-30 10:16:23 PM  
farking hell I hate the new Fark comment non-HTML bullshiat
 
2014-06-30 10:17:25 PM  

kvinesknows: anyone dare me to fark my wife in this humidity tonight?


Yeah. Fark her right in the humidity.
 
2014-06-30 10:17:45 PM  
After last Winter I really don't care how hot it gets.

/Coldest Winter ever.
//Ten straight days of zero degree weather.
///I live in the South btw.
 
2014-06-30 10:18:45 PM  

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.


People like you are the reason why scientists have had to just straight up literally film glaciers melting.
 
2014-06-30 10:18:47 PM  

fusillade762: kvinesknows: anyone dare me to fark my wife in this humidity tonight?

Yeah. Fark her right in the humidity.


its slippery when wet
 
2014-06-30 10:19:18 PM  
the daily caller citing anthony watts? the circle of derp is complete
 
2014-06-30 10:19:57 PM  

vodka: farking hell I hate the new Fark comment non-HTML bullshiat


i58.tinypic.com

Under preferences. Uncheck that second box.
 
2014-06-30 10:22:27 PM  
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.
 
2014-06-30 10:24:36 PM  
I love how one graph shows the trend in a different unit than the other. The first one shows the trend as +1.24° per century, but the other shows it as +0.1° per decade.
 
2014-06-30 10:24:41 PM  

Rindred: So, a statistical anomaly in fractions of a degree in one year that doesn't in any way disprove the increase in average temperature over the last 100 years suddenly disproves climate change? What is is, Fox News?


he NOAA trendline starts at 1900 and not 1914.  If it started at 1914, the trendline becomes even smaller as temps were cooler during the turn of the century than in the 1910-1915 range.  If you were to use the very warm 30s, you would probably get a line with a flat, or maybe even negative slope as the 30s were very warm.  Where you choose the start point makes all the difference in this analysis. Some points

 - Everyone agrees global temperatures change over time.  There is considerable debate over the cause
  - No one is doubting that global temperatures increased from the late 70s to the late 90s.
 - Most agree that temperatures have flattened since then.

In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment
 
2014-06-30 10:25:53 PM  
Go home, article. You're drunk and incomprehensible.
 
2014-06-30 10:26:17 PM  

austin_millbarge: SlothB77: The NOAA has been adjusting past temperatures down and recent temperatures up.

Did you read the article? They said 1936 was reinstated as the warmest year, not because 2012 numbers were moved down, but because 1936 numbers were moved up.

So tell me how this changes anything?


1936 was like 50 years ago man. I doubt last years temps changed what the temp were then. Unless we're affecting the past past dude.
 
2014-06-30 10:26:38 PM  
We're the government, we'll tell you what tge facts are.

When we change the facts, you'll simply accept it, citizen.

/pick up that can
 
2014-06-30 10:36:14 PM  
 
2014-06-30 10:36:15 PM  

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

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.


Nah, real men mod their diesels to run at 50% power over stock, and get 52 mpg.

/VW TDI
//slashies
///kneel before the god of Torque, biatches
////thank you, Rocketchip
 
2014-06-30 10:37:59 PM  

Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.


The 97% thing was debunked ages ago. But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.
 
2014-06-30 10:38:59 PM  
Does the university drop-out weatherman explain why such an allegedly dishonest organization would bother updating a past temperature. All it would accomplish is giving the anti-science crowd something else to rant on and on about. Which is exactly what is happening.
 Can any of the anti-science crowd explain what their motivation would be? If they are dishonest they could have just left the number alone. Why update it???
 
2014-06-30 10:40:07 PM  

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....  but let's just look at one plot showing how NOAA adjusts data... past cooler, present warmer.

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



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?
 
2014-06-30 10:40:53 PM  

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.


So tell me, how are the species that existed when CO2 levels were far higher doing?

Yeah, nobody reputable is saying the whole world is gonna end. Life finds a way, and all that. But we may very well destroy ourselves (or at least drastically change our civilization) if we don't change our path. 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.imgur.com
 
2014-06-30 10:41:12 PM  

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?
 
2014-06-30 10:42:53 PM  

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

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.

Nah, real men mod their diesels to run at 50% power over stock, and get 52 mpg.

/VW TDI
//slashies
///kneel before the god of Torque, biatches
////thank you, Rocketchip


I have a Jetta TDI with 214,000 miles on it, I must know more about your torque
 
2014-06-30 10:42:59 PM  
Interesting Fact (or Boring Fact, you choose): The NOAA is one of 7 federal uniformed services in the United States.
 
2014-06-30 10:43:26 PM  

leadmetal: Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.

The 97% thing was debunked ages ago.


[citation needed]

But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

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!
 
2014-06-30 10:45:48 PM  

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.


As versed in unskewing as you are, perhaps we should get another expert to help, so why don't we ask President Romney what he thinks about it?
 
2014-06-30 10:48:24 PM  

LordJiro: leadmetal: Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.

The 97% thing was debunked ages ago.

[citation needed]

But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

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!


Greedy people drive Camrys.
 
2014-06-30 10:48:29 PM  
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-30 10:50:06 PM  

mark12A: IF the science is solid, AGW will be established/verified at some point.


It has been established and verified for a decade (or longer) now.

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.

Cutting through the lies is easy ... look at the sources. Is it an ex-weather man who dropped out of university or is it 97% of the scientists actively working and publishing in the field. If it is the former then it is politically motivated propaganda. If it is the latter you can look at the papers they publish, you can see the evidence they've gathered, you can look into the methods they've used, you can replicated their calculations if you wish.

Real science has transparency ... it is not just blogs with unsubstantiated allegations and misinterpreted or intentionally distorted science.
 
2014-06-30 10:50:47 PM  
pic60.picturetrail.com

/freedom
 
2014-06-30 10:51:48 PM  
F(page 2 of)TFA:

"Many station observations that were confined to paper, especially from early in the 20th century, have been scanned and keyed and are now digitally available to inform these time series," Deke Arndt, chief of NOAA's Climate Monitoring Branch, told TheDCNF.

For the tl:dr crowd: NOAA scanned in and incorporated more historical data, which was on paper and not included in previous estimates, from old archives.  This new data raised the 1936 average by 0.2f.

NOAA has a more accurate data from the 1980s and on because it was all kept digitally.  The older data (From 1900 to the '80s, was on paper and gets added in as they get it scanned and processed.  This new data can change the graphs and models slightly as it is incorporated, but over all it doesn't necessarily negate or strengthen any climate change arguments.  Notice how the trend line (Taken over the same time period) didn't change.  This whole thing is a non-story.  It is the equivalent of a Pullitzer Prize winning author misspelling "there" as "thier" in 1 novel on page 387 and having people trying to claim he is illiterate.
 
2014-06-30 10:52:08 PM  
Look at 1980 on the two graphs. One clearly shows the average temperature above 76 degrees, the other shows it below. There is also a really obvious discrepancy in 1900.

These are clearly two different data sets.
 
2014-06-30 10:53:10 PM  

mark12A: The CO2 levels in our atmosphere have been far higher in the past, and the earth recovered. No reason why it won't again.


Citation needed.

Also, humans weren't around to continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere then.
 
2014-06-30 10:54:01 PM  

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 ^^^^^
 
pla
2014-06-30 10:54:45 PM  
SphericalTime : Bets are that he's looking at two slightly different data sets and simply doesn't know how to tell the difference.

DingDingDing, we have a winner!

Notice how one of those graphs has the word "average" in the title and the other doesn't?

If so, you've managed more than the "expert" climatologist that wrote TFA, congrats!


But seriously, quibbling over three hundredths of a degree? The "deniers" have waaaaay too much free time on their hands. Don't they have a gay christian abortion clinic to protest or something?
 
2014-06-30 10:55:51 PM  

Cpl.D: leadmetal:The 97% thing was debunked ages ago. But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

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.


media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com
 
2014-06-30 10:56:07 PM  

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.
 
2014-06-30 10:59:03 PM  
Wow, we've got a BUNCH of new sleeper shills popping up in this thread.
 
2014-06-30 11:00:46 PM  
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.

Climate change folks are saying we are hastening the advance. Maybe we are, maybe not. But one thing is sure: it's inevitable. Perhaps not in all our lifetimes--maybe we all have a hundred years--or two. Or fifty. Or Twenty (a meteor or comet could take us all out any time). NOBODY knows.

What we do now can mean something. The here and now is permanent. What comes after is out of our control, even though we think it isn't. shiat happens. No belief or religion will save us from that.

Here's where you're expecting me to say something like "be good to one another." Fark that. Hell, I don't care, as long as you don't have my home address. Do what you want. But know that you are mere dust in life's scheme of things. Or not. Hell, I have no idea what the Universe wants from us--if anything. I merely suggest you cover your bases.

/if I owned a house I'd have solar
//have no idea how slashies work
///going to bed now
 
2014-06-30 11:01:35 PM  
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.).

Ban the construction of new coal plants, and mandate all new power plants must be nuclear. Do things that actually reduce CO2, and stop pushing uneconomic "solutions" like wind and solar, which will never take the place of hydrocarbons unless an economic competitive means of storing electricity is found. The physics of that do not look promising. But the ideologues keep pushing wind/solar, simply not caring that it can't do the job, because they hold tight to their magical thinking that it will.
 
2014-06-30 11:03:45 PM  

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

Nah, gas guzzling V8 is so a year or two ago.  Now the Real Men(tm) mod their diesels to "roll coal" and belch out huge clouds of black smoke.


Everyone here uses DEF delete kits. DEF is a shiatty system.  It may work down south where it rarely gets below -25c, but up here it is a $1000+ repair bill EVERY time it gets below -25 and the DEF freezes cracking lines, injectors and breaking sensors.  Roll coal so you can have a reliable vehicle that will operate 12 months a year!  It is such a big problem that even commercial trucking companies are putting in DEF delete kits, despite the massive fines if caught. The fines are still cheaper than the repairs and downtime associated with DEF tanks.  The f550 i had last winter for work was a brand new vehicle. Between Nov - March the repair bills were over 50,000!!! We ended up driving an old f550 with a v10 for most the winter. The v10 got 4mpg but would turn over every morning.
 
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 11:31:28 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?
 
2014-07-01 04:37:57 AM  
As the article doesn't actually cite NASA or NOAA at all, but only utilizes two graphs designed by Watts which suffer from what he's always complaining about, namely no explanation as to how he arrived at the data, I'd say that this article is exactly what everyone obviously already suspects, or knows. That it's yet another example of bullshiat from the stupidest demographic on Earth, the global warming deniers. Subby, it's way past time to disassociate yourself from this sinking ship of idiots.
 
m00
2014-07-01 06:13:02 AM  

leadmetal: Except warmists are violating scientific method that at least used to be taught in gradeschool.


I say this with zero sarcasm: pretty much everything science or math related they teach you in grade-school is either overly simplified, outdated, or flat out wrong. It's just easier to teach children snappy parables that are wrong than actual, rigorous, science. It's also easier to give a bad answer than to admit we don't really know.

But I can't really blame educators, since clearly even the simplified version of science that you were taught was apparently too complex.
 
m00
2014-07-01 06:19:24 AM  

LordJiro: 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.


Actually, the Gilded Age wasn't that bad. Sure there were Robber Barons, but there are Robber Barons today. The only difference is that at least in the Gilded Age at least the Robber Barons were making products that people freely purchased. Today the Robber Barons exist because government takes money from the poor and gives it to them in the form of subsidies and contracts.

Socialism isn't that bad either. Scandinavia is probably the most socialist place on earth right now, and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc are nice places to live.

The US right now is completely off that spectrum. We're just a straight up kleptocracy -- the government takes what it would under socialism, but gives nothing back in the form of services.
 
2014-07-01 06:27:07 AM  

worlddan: MrEricSir: The comment section is that article is just sad. We've completely failed at teaching critical thinking skills in this country.

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. 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.

At the end of the day people fight fire with fire. If the global warming promoters use the press to hype their cause I can't blame the skeptics for doing the same thing.



Both sides are bad so vote Republican, right?
 
2014-07-01 06:31:07 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, farkwit, if I'm a vegetarian driving a Prius, living in proximity to my workplace, I've convinced you? Do you have any idea how logic or science works?
 
2014-07-01 06:41:14 AM  
nsidc.org
 
pla
2014-07-01 06:54:28 AM  
leadmetal : Besides, even NOAA itself admits their "corrections" and "adjustments" are warming the present data.

You understand, of course, that NOAA's United States Historical Climatology Network tracks long-term averages such as the 10-year normal, and that the chart you posted doesn't show "errors" in their data, it shows that the temperature has drastically exceeded the predictions of their long-term model?

tldr: That graph shows climate change, not NOAA bias, dumbass.
 
2014-07-01 06:57:25 AM  

Oldiron_79: AL Gore


DRINK!
 
2014-07-01 07:02:40 AM  

spamdog: Do these guys need constant reassurance or what?


Tell me how many "the sky is falling" articles are out there and ask that question again.
 
2014-07-01 07:04:01 AM  

symbolset: If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds.


christopherpatrickross.files.wordpress.com

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.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-07-01 07:05:49 AM  

VendorXeno: As the article doesn't actually cite NASA or NOAA at all, but only utilizes two graphs designed by Watts which suffer from what he's always complaining about, namely no explanation as to how he arrived at the data, I'd say that this article is exactly what everyone obviously already suspects, or knows. That it's yet another example of bullshiat from the stupidest demographic on Earth, the global warming deniers. Subby, it's way past time to disassociate yourself from this sinking ship of idiots.


Now, now...anti-vaxxers give the deniers a run for their money in the stupidity department...
 
2014-07-01 07:10:39 AM  

Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.


Right? Because there is no money to be made in the science...

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_re p orts/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf
 
2014-07-01 07:24:25 AM  

jaybeezey: Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.

Right? Because there is no money to be made in the science...

http://m.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_re p orts/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf


Multi trillion dollar conglomerate of energy corporations versus a few billion dollars split into tax cuts and various programs. Wow, you've uncovered the vast conspiracy of scientists.
 
2014-07-01 07:32:31 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.

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. Govern ...


www.preparationh.com
 
2014-07-01 07:38:18 AM  

TheWhoppah: 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.


1) A couple degrees warming over 50,000 years is something we might be able to evolve with, both biologically and technologically.  A couple degrees warming over 50 years -- not so much.

2) AGW is never going to get us to 20% CO2 (citation needed on that figure BTW), if only because we'll all die choking on our own exhaust long before we get to that point.  Humans cannot survive in an atmosphere of 20% CO2.

3) Protecting the environment isn't about saving the Earth.  The Earth has endured far worse things than Homo sapiens and will recover from anything we do short of large scale thermonuclear war.  Protecting the environment is about making sure the Earth doesn't recover by getting rid of us.

4) Opposition to climate change is a conservative position, at least as "conservative" was defined before the Plutocrat Party started saying "four legs conservative good, two legs liberal baaaaaaad".  We know we can survive, even thrive, in the climate as it is.  Why mess with a good thing?

5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, but most Priuses run on gasoline.  Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three.  As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car.  But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

7) Oh, but please proceed.  Go on and mod your diesel pickup with black smoking "Prius repellent" exhaust.  Funding jihad is expensive and King Abdullah needs the money.
 
2014-07-01 07:40:13 AM  

m00: LordJiro: 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.

Actually, the Gilded Age wasn't that bad. Sure there were Robber Barons, but there are Robber Barons today. The only difference is that at least in the Gilded Age at least the Robber Barons were making products that people freely purchased. Today the Robber Barons exist because government takes money from the poor and gives it to them in the form of subsidies and contracts.

Socialism isn't that bad either. Scandinavia is probably the most socialist place on earth right now, and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc are nice places to live.

The US right now is completely off that spectrum. We're just a straight up kleptocracy -- the government takes what it would under socialism, but gives nothing back in the form of services.


What the fark bizarro America do you live in where there are no government agencies at all? No roads? No minimum wage? No courts? No police? No fire departments? No army/navy/marines/Air Force?

Oh wait, sorry, you were trying to be pithy and failed miserably.
 
2014-07-01 08:14:09 AM  
Oooooh those "Yeah, about that" headlines are terrible! They always seem to have a completely unjustified "Hah! Take that" undertone.
 
2014-07-01 08:39:17 AM  
Got any other sources besides The Daily Whiner, Crier, Diaper crapper, puker?
 
2014-07-01 08:45:14 AM  
Lee Jackson Beauregard:
5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, bu, but most Priuses run on gasoline.  Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three.  As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car.  But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

7) Oh, but please proceed.  Go on and mod your diesel pickup with black smoking "Prius repellent" exhaust.  Funding jihad is expensive and King Abdullah needs the money.



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...
 
2014-07-01 08:48:50 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 see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.
 
2014-07-01 09:01:34 AM  

thefonz37: Lee Jackson Beauregard:
5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, bu, but most Priuses run on gasoline.  Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three.  As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car.  But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

7) Oh, but please proceed.  Go on and mod your diesel pickup with black smoking "Prius repellent" exhaust.  Funding jihad is expensive and King Abdullah needs the money.


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...


Which is true.  Granted my grandmother's home town in Michigan has had a nuclear power plant for many years, and in the past 15 a large tract of land had solar power set up on it to contribute to the grid via the state.

However, most cities don't have nuclear power.  And not everyone lives in an area where they can choose natural gas instead which is still a finite fuel.  Just with a hell of a lot larger amount available.  So, plug in car sucks in electricity created by a fossil fuel which adds to pollution.
 
2014-07-01 09:08:50 AM  

jjorsett: 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 see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.


Do you have alternate theories that are going to overturn electromagnetic and molecular theories, which demand that the bonds of carbon dioxide absorb infrared radiation?

If you do, please present them and claim your Nobel prize and the admiration of millions of scientists for being intelligent enough to uproot the foundations of our understanding of reality.
 
2014-07-01 09:10:15 AM  

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?
 
2014-07-01 09:11:39 AM  

cwolf20: thefonz37: Lee Jackson Beauregard:
5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, bu, but most Priuses run on gasoline.  Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three.  As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car.  But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

7) Oh, but please proceed.  Go on and mod your diesel pickup with black smoking "Prius repellent" exhaust.  Funding jihad is expensive and King Abdullah needs the money.


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...

Which is true.  Granted my grandmother's home town in Michigan has had a nuclear power plant for many years, and in the past 15 a large tract of land had solar power set up on it to contribute to the grid via the state.

However, most cities don't have nuclear power.  And not everyone lives in an area where they can choose natural gas instead which is still a finite fuel.  Just with a hell of a lot larger amount available.  So, plug in car sucks in electricity created by a fossil fuel which adds to pollution.


Point source pollution is much, much easier to control, and you don't have to worry about switching over the infrastructure of electric cars, as the cars don't care where the electricity comes from.  Fossil fuel powered cars, not so much.
 
2014-07-01 09:20:11 AM  

Damnhippyfreak: 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.


I went to public school, and even there I was taught more about averages than this. For example, trends and other forms of estimation are not empirical measurements, and trying to use them as such will lead you to all kinds of bizarre conclusions unsupported by reality, which is why a successful engineer learns to keep track of what the relative error is, and goes to great lengths to prevent the introduction of spurious digits generated by estimation methods.
 
2014-07-01 09:31:27 AM  
i got pretty bad heat rashes on my entire body after it got up to 106 degrees w/ 90% humidity in Nashville in the summer of 2012, so i'm getting a kick out of this
 
2014-07-01 09:39:13 AM  

leadmetal:  but let's just look at one plot showing how NOAA adjusts data... past cooler, present warmer.

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


1. Are you aware that the point of this Daily Caller article is that supposedly, the past was adjusted to be hotter and the present cooler?

2. Do you believe that the surface temperature data is fraudulently being manipulated?

3. Are you aware that there are satellite measurements that are completely independent of the surface record, and that the most widely used one is produced by a climate "skeptic"?

4. What do you think the satellites vs. the NOAA data look like?
 
2014-07-01 09:41:05 AM  

jjorsett: 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 see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.


BOOM boom boom boom - BOOM boom boom boom -  BOOM boom boom boom -  BOOM boom boom boom -  BOOM boom boom boom
 
2014-07-01 09:41:48 AM  

ongbok: That 2012 summer was hot and sunny. No matter what I did my grass stayed brown until August. Everybody's grass around here was like that. I thought I was going to have start all over with my lawn the next summer until the heat broke and we got a little cloud cover in August. When that happened the green came back.


Mother Earth is pretty good and fixing herself up...
 
2014-07-01 09:43:44 AM  

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...


This of course depends on what part of the country you live in. And further, whether or not a PHEV is a net reduction of GHG emissions compared to a conventional vehicle even if coal is a significant  source of local power still depends on a number of other factors, such as the MPG of the conventional vehicle, what type of coal is being burned, the relative efficiency of the power plant, how many miles per day are being driven, etc.
 
2014-07-01 09:51:48 AM  

jjorsett: 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 see the global warmongers


1) "Global warmongers" would be the Republicans.
2) And there's that ad hominem again.

have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason....is like administering medicine to the dead...." -- Thomas Paine

(Oh, and:  Project much?)
 
2014-07-01 09:53:22 AM  

Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time.  Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus.  Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate.  The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done.  Notice the deniers never do the science themselves.  Funny how that shiat works.


Right,  at the rate  of increase in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10th of one percent over 50 years.    Change due to man?  Most would agree (including me)....enough to drastically change global weather patterns.....not sure.   Also, a couple of other things.

1)  If you look at the long tern temperature pattern, it looks more like a sine wave, yet most of those predictive models are based on a linear trend.  Number of reasons for that...one, they didn't really know enough at the time the models were put together, or two, and here is where actual conspiracy theory stuff comes into play, is they did know about the nonlinear nature of the data and used linear models anyway so they could say "see, we told you reduction in carbon emissions would work!"  when they knew all along the increase in temperature would taper off naturally.

2)  The standard error associated with that model looks large.  Those values are bouncing around all over the place.  Another reason that one should be cautious in jumping to definitive conclusions.

I don't work for Exxon and would be the first in line to buy a Volt if the evidence was truly compelling, but....
 
2014-07-01 10:04:42 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: Most would agree (including me)


"Most" being the uneducated masses heavily influenced by anti-science propaganda.

When you look at the scientists working and publishing in all the related fields you will see an overwhelming majority are convinced that AGW is real and a real threat to our way of life.

But you go ahead and stick with the masses ... argumentum ad populum.
 
2014-07-01 10:08:17 AM  

Jon Snow: 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...

This of course depends on what part of the country you live in. And further, whether or not a PHEV is a net reduction of GHG emissions compared to a conventional vehicle even if coal is a significant  source of local power still depends on a number of other factors, such as the MPG of the conventional vehicle, what type of coal is being burned, the relative efficiency of the power plant, how many miles per day are being driven, etc.


Here's a map showing that PEVs outperform most low MPG conventionals pretty much anywhere, and outperform traditional hybrids and high MPG conventionals in many places:

i.imgur.com

As you can see, there are significant regional differences. These are mostly due to the availability of renewable energy and nukes, as well as the type of coal being burned.
 
2014-07-01 10:16:12 AM  

Cpl.D: leadmetal:The 97% thing was debunked ages ago. But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

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.


The fast women helps to compensate for all the attempts by deniers to get you fired, and the death threats.
 
2014-07-01 10:29:25 AM  

kvinesknows: anyone dare me to fark my wife in this humidity tonight?


Double dare: No showers first.
 
2014-07-01 10:31:15 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. highly-paid members of the insurance, defense, and international shipping communities...


FTFY.

Argue about the cause all you like, but global climate change is happening.
 
2014-07-01 10:38:40 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: Right,  at the rate  of increase in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10th of one percent over 50 years.


That's a strange way of putting it. It's really not the total amount that's important as the amount of change that's important.

We've increased atmospheric CO2 levels from the preindustrial background levels (for simplicity's sake, let's call it 280 ppm) to ~400 ppm. In other words, we're responsible for a ~42% increase in CO2 levels.

And of course we don't expect the increase to be remotely linear if emissions stabilization programs aren't enacted (blue curve).

i.imgur.com

Change due to man?  Most would agree (including me)....

Yes, the change is entirely due to humans. In fact, the terrestrial biosphere and oceans have absorbed a very large percentage of the total CO2 we've emitted. So what you see in terms of the increase in the atmospheric concentration is not just entirely human caused, without natural carbon sinks you'd see an even larger human-driven increase.

enough to drastically change global weather patterns.....not sure.

Why are you "not sure"? What scientific literature have you read on the subject? What is you understanding of planetary climate dynamics that leads you to the position that the current (and of course future) increase in GHG levels are not assuredly capable of altering the climate?

What do you think causes climatic change?

1)  If you look at the long tern temperature pattern, it looks more like a sine wave,

This "looks like a sine wave" to you?

i.imgur.com

Or this?

i.imgur.com

yet most of those predictive models are based on a linear trend.

No, they're based on the physical response of the climate system to a range of potential emissions scenarios, not the extrapolation of a linear trend.

Number of reasons for that...one, they didn't really know enough at the time the models were put together, or two, and here is where actual conspiracy theory stuff comes into play, is they did know about the nonlinear nature of the data and used linear models anyway so they could say "see, we told you reduction in carbon emissions would work!"  when they knew all along the increase in temperature would taper off naturally.

This is incomprehensible word salad.
 
2014-07-01 10:46:39 AM  

symbolset: If you warmists...


That's rich. I'll go ahead and take the word of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists over the word of people who likely haven't cracked a book open since high-school saying, "Nah, I don't  feel like it's true."
 
2014-07-01 10:53:16 AM  

Jon Snow: Pumpernickel bread: Right,  at the rate  of increase in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10th of one percent over 50 years.


We've increased atmospheric CO2 levels from the preindustrial background levels (for simplicity's sake, let's call it 280 ppm) to ~400 ppm. In other words, we're responsible for a ~42% increase in CO2 levels.


Which translates to a change in the atmospheric CO2 of approximately 1/10th of 1% over 50 years.  Percent change can be a very misleading statistic when used at the extremes of the distribution.  In this case, CO2 started out as composing less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere and even after 50 years of emissions and an increase of 42%.... still comprises less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere.    It isn't like we suddenly became Venus (97% CO2).
 
2014-07-01 10:55:14 AM  
I come to take a look, and what do I find. The same old arses sucking the same old wind.

You know, when some group has been lying about data, and when they are called on it by someone who kept the original data they published, AND THEY THEN PUT THE ORIGINAL DATA BACK, anyone who claims they weren't cheating is a jackass of the first water, or simply a paid shill.

And, no, just because leftist media sources choose not to mention it does NOT mean it didn't happen. It just means the media think you are stupid enough to keep your faith in the propaganda they push on you, all information to the contrary -- and, from this thread, it's clear that they are quite correct when it comes to the bulk of Fark's leftist brigade; you really are that dense.

People have been publishing graphs of the changes made all along. Warmtards have always ignored them, or claimed the source wasn't leftist enough to suit them. Well, tough shiat -- your pitiful excuses just aren't cutting it any more.

I would also note that people who actually have science on their side are essentially NEVER the ones who fabricate data.
As I have predicted, one-by-one, all of the lies and bad science of this socialist bullshiat position are being dismantled.
You can fark around with science for a while, but eventually, she will hand you your ass.
If you warmtards don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong, and got fooled, at least have the human decency to shut your pie holes.
Seriously, beating this dead and decaying horse really makes you look stupid.

sayanythingblog.com

 
2014-07-01 10:58:44 AM  

Pumpernickel bread: hich translates to a change in the atmospheric CO2 of approximately 1/10th of 1% over 50 years.  Percent change can be a very misleading statistic when used at the extremes of the distribution.  In this case, CO2 started out as composing less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere and even after 50 years of emissions and an increase of 42%.... still comprises less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere.    It isn't like we suddenly became Venus (97% CO2).


Do you understand how and why GHGs change the net radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere? It is indeed the relative change rather than the total amount of the atmosphere that is important. Increasing the atmospheric concentration from 280-400 ppm has a much larger impact on the net radiative forcing than a change from 9600 to 1000 ppm would. This has to do with the relative amount of absorption that CO2 is capable of as its concentrations increase, which is why the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing is logarithmic and not linear.

You don't seem to understand the first thing about this issue, but yet you seem to have a lot of very specific opinions about it. Where are you getting your information?
 
2014-07-01 11:05:49 AM  

GeneralJim: I come to take a look, and what do I find. The same old arses sucking the same old wind.

You know, when some group has been lying about data, and when they are called on it by someone who kept the original data they published, AND THEY THEN PUT THE ORIGINAL DATA BACK, anyone who claims they weren't cheating is a jackass of the first water, or simply a paid shill.

And, no, just because leftist media sources choose not to mention it does NOT mean it didn't happen. It just means the media think you are stupid enough to keep your faith in the propaganda they push on you, all information to the contrary -- and, from this thread, it's clear that they are quite correct when it comes to the bulk of Fark's leftist brigade; you really are that dense.

People have been publishing graphs of the changes made all along. Warmtards have always ignored them, or claimed the source wasn't leftist enough to suit them. Well, tough shiat -- your pitiful excuses just aren't cutting it any more.

I would also note that people who actually have science on their side are essentially NEVER the ones who fabricate data.
As I have predicted, one-by-one, all of the lies and bad science of this socialist bullshiat position are being dismantled.
You can fark around with science for a while, but eventually, she will hand you your ass.
If you warmtards don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong, and got fooled, at least have the human decency to shut your pie holes.
Seriously, beating this dead and decaying horse really makes you look stupid.

[sayanythingblog.com image 580x443]


Even the libtards in the Department of Defense are buying into this climate change malarkey.
 
2014-07-01 11:07:39 AM  

data2.whicdn.com

 
2014-07-01 11:15:27 AM  

browntimmy: symbolset: If you warmists...

That's rich. I'll go ahead and take the word of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists over the word of people who likely haven't cracked a book open since high-school saying, "Nah, I don't  feel like it's true."


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.
 
2014-07-01 11:15:36 AM  
10 years in and we're still having essentially the same exact global warming threads.
The same arguments, the same spin, the same bait, the same trolls.
Is anyone optimistic that we won't still have them ten years from now?


/ If nothing else, the internet is proof positive that people LOVE re-runs.
 
2014-07-01 11:20:47 AM  
Looking on Edmunds, the only EV under $25k is this hideous looking death trap ( link ) that has a range limited such that people who have to commute to work, as rent where the jobs are is too expensive, wouldn't be able to make use of it. Namely, low to mid income families. Check this game out ( link ) to see what it is like to not have money to spend on fancy eco-friendly cars.

Until people stop living paycheck to paycheck, the rent goes down, and EVs drop to the price of a Nissan Versa ($12k instead of $25k) or the ironically-named Chevy Spark (not the Spark EV that is $15k more than its less efficient brother), the only people driving EVs will be rich hipsters and others of similar ilk.
 
2014-07-01 11:23:43 AM  

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

 
2014-07-01 11:24:46 AM  

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.

Climate change folks are saying we are hastening the advance. Maybe we are, maybe not. But one thing is sure: it's inevitable. Perhaps not in all our lifetimes--maybe we all have a hundred years--or two. Or fifty. Or Twenty (a meteor or comet could take us all out any time). NOBODY knows.

What we do now can mean something. The here and now is permanent. What comes after is out of our control, even though we think it isn't. shiat happens. No belief or religion will save us from that.

Here's where you're expecting me to say something like "be good to one another." Fark that. Hell, I don't care, as long as you don't have my home address. Do what you want. But know that you are mere dust in life's scheme of things. Or not. Hell, I have no idea what the Universe wants from us--if anything. I merely suggest you cover your bases.

/if I owned a house I'd have solar
//have no idea how slashies work
///going to bed now


Finally, some sense.
 
2014-07-01 11:27:17 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?


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.
 
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.
 
2014-07-01 03:45:59 PM  

browntimmy: 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?


See the link I posted. I don't think GJ is pretending.
 
2014-07-01 03:46:12 PM  
People wouldn't believe in conspiracy theories if their leaders didn't systematically strip them of their faith in humanity. One day, after hearing about the Land of the Free really being the land of forced sterilizations, lynchings, warmongering, manifest destiny, genocide, and all manner of deceits and deceptions, they wake up so jaded that they unquestioningly accept yet another terrible to add to the parade, no matter how ridiculous or absurd it appears at face value.
 
2014-07-01 03:46:46 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



You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents.

If there is any jumping on bandwagons to be had here, it lies in the attitude you've put forward that values a politically-based "greater threat" rather than the actual evidence. Also note that it is this attitude that greatly contributed to the examples you yourself have invoked.
 
2014-07-01 03:48:48 PM  

cwolf20: 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


Farkers: Premier Authorities On ALL THE THINGS!
 
2014-07-01 03:56:10 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents.



I admit I'm not a meteorologist, nor a climatologist, nor a car washer. I frankly don't care that much about the weather.


I also don't have to study the mechanics of poisoning a baby with saline, and then ripping it limb from limb, and finally reassembling it in a catch-pan like a macabre jigsaw puzzle to make sure it was completely removed -- to know that abortion is murder.
 
2014-07-01 04:00:31 PM  
 
2014-07-01 04:04:23 PM  

letrole: 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.



This doesn't make much sense as you've phrased it here.

All I can suggest is that it is a grounding in evidence and empiricism that allows one to better explain a physical phenomenon. Circular logic (being self-referential) does not deal well with evidence and empiricism.

The thing is that if one wishes to get away from circular reasoning in this way, you have to value evidence and empiricism more than your own preconceptions in the first place. An example of not doing this would be to do something like assessing actual temperature data in the context of fabricated data based on your own preconceptions.
 
2014-07-01 04:13:51 PM  

letrole: Damnhippyfreak: You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents.


I admit I'm not a meteorologist, nor a climatologist, nor a car washer. I frankly don't care that much about the weather.


I also don't have to study the mechanics of poisoning a baby with saline, and then ripping it limb from limb, and finally reassembling it in a catch-pan like a macabre jigsaw puzzle to make sure it was completely removed -- to know that abortion is murder.



Case in point. When you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about. One can bring up all sorts of unrelated issues that have as their only relevance also belonging to the broad ideological brush one uses to paint their perceived political opponents.
 
2014-07-01 04:30:12 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.
letrole: That's also why recognising criminal behaviour and responding accordingly is a contributor to rising crime rates. Circular logic shall make you free.
Damnhippyfreak: This doesn't make much sense as you've phrased it here.


It's a simple comparison. You're blaming the reaction by one side, as being on par, and sharing blame, with the initial actors. You may as well blame the rising crime rate, at least in part, on those who seek to write laws and keep statistics and and put certain criminal behaviours in check.


So the problem is the leftish hysteria of global warming. Nobody on the right woke up and saw some rain clouds and thought weather was a communist plot to be stopped, or better yet, a scientific yet natural way of exploiting the proletariat. The politicisation came fully from the left.
 
2014-07-01 04:43:49 PM  

letrole: 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.
letrole: That's also why recognising criminal behaviour and responding accordingly is a contributor to rising crime rates. Circular logic shall make you free.
Damnhippyfreak: This doesn't make much sense as you've phrased it here.


It's a simple comparison. You're blaming the reaction by one side, as being on par, and sharing blame, with the initial actors. You may as well blame the rising crime rate, at least in part, on those who seek to write laws and keep statistics and and put certain criminal behaviours in check.



That's more clear. I tried to phrase what I said in a neutral way that applies to a variety of views, not just one side.

That out of the way, your analogy is invalid for the important reason that it involves some sort of grounding in evidence, such as keeping statistics or some sort of criminal behavior that can be investigated empirically. I can alter the analogy a bit - attempting to figure out whether a crime has been committed by examining the morals of the supposed criminal would be more apt. Neither this, nor, as I stated before, "hyperbolic opposition to perceived political opponents and simplistically framing this issue in terms of opposing ideologies" value the actual evidence. One does not prove malfeasance through opposing politics, whether in the courtroom or in science.
 
2014-07-01 04:45:39 PM  
Damnhippyfreak:  Case in point. When you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about.

But there is no actual physical phenomenon. It's just not there. It's getting harder and harder to sell this shiat to the rubes, because it's already 2014 and nothing has happened.


You do understand the meaning of petitio principii aka 'begged question'? You see, you keep trotting out the idea that the problem exists as support for the argument that something must be done about the problem that exists because you trotted out the solution to the problem. Dizzy yet?


So keep blaming coppers who arrest people for drugs as the reason there's a drug crime problem.
 
2014-07-01 04:59:31 PM  

letrole: Damnhippyfreak:  Case in point. When you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about.

But there is no actual physical phenomenon. It's just not there. It's getting harder and harder to sell this shiat to the rubes, because it's already 2014 and nothing has happened.


You do understand the meaning of petitio principii aka 'begged question'? You see, you keep trotting out the idea that the problem exists as support for the argument that something must be done about the problem that exists because you trotted out the solution to the problem. Dizzy yet?


So keep blaming coppers who arrest people for drugs as the reason there's a drug crime problem.



[facepalm]

It is you who is begging the question, right there in bold. What I was arguing for is examining the physical evidence in the first place that would allow one to assess whether such a statement is true or not as opposed to ignoring evidence in favor of political arguments. It's easier to see if you trace back the post you were responding to:


Damnhippyfreak: [...]
You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents. [...]



Come on now. That you know what begging the question means strongly suggests that you know why it's a fallacy. Why are you engaging in this yourself?
 
2014-07-01 05:04:40 PM  

jjorsett: 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 see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.


Sounds just like atheists.  Oops, am I not supposed to point that out?  My bad.
 
2014-07-01 05:08:17 PM  

letrole: So keep blaming coppers who arrest people for drugs as the reason there's a drug crime problem.


Forgot to drive my point home.

Coppers are supposed to arrest people for drugs because there's some evidence that they've done the crime,not because they see the criminal as being an opponent.

Again, when you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about. This enables someone to bring up things unrelated to the actual phenomenon of interest, such as the Holocaust, or social darwinism, or abortion.

Ignoring the science in favor of of the politics is as misguided as arresting someone for a drug offense because you don't like the music they're playing.
 
2014-07-01 05:11:38 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: All I can suggest is that it is a grounding in evidence and empiricism that allows one to better explain a physical phenomenon.


The main physical phenomenon is mostly just in the form of charts and graphs. More and more, the basis for the data of these projections is called into disrepute.

Did you yourself hop on a plane and/or time machine to circle the globe collecting the data that you used to cobble together some sort of graph? Or, more likely, did you use the compromised data that's the topic of the thread?

It's a good thing nobody used that data at all, or else there would be a fair number of retractions of papers and some really loud screaming about wasted research time going on right now.

It's a farking joke. Goobers wearing lab coats pretending to be scienticians, and nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right, just as long as it's in line with the all-holy consensus.
 
2014-07-01 05:13:36 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: It is you who is begging the question, right there in bold


so show it, and don't use a graph
 
2014-07-01 05:18:29 PM  
We've got the Illuminati guy and the Urantia Book guy supporting a "science" article published by a weather man who failed to achieve his engineering bachelor degree.

Should I go with their unsupported, politically motivated speculation or should I go with the evidence based research of pretty much all the scientists working in the field?

Walls of green text are somewhat mesmerizing, but I think I will choose to get my science from scientists.
 
2014-07-01 05:19:08 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Ignoring the science in favor of of the politics is as misguided as arresting someone for a drug offense because you don't like the music they're playing.


No. Not ignoring the science. The science has lost all its scienticity. The science is now just about as trustworthy as an advert that shows your brand of coffee tastes better because housewives were polled in a supermarket. You have big graphs to prove it.


Show me the weather.
 
2014-07-01 05:19:47 PM  

letrole: But there is no actual physical phenomenon.


But remember, claiming "skeptics" deny basic physics is a strawman.

(yeah, yeah, I know, blah blah blah surname).
 
2014-07-01 05:22:32 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-01 05:27:54 PM  

letrole: Damnhippyfreak: All I can suggest is that it is a grounding in evidence and empiricism that allows one to better explain a physical phenomenon.

The main physical phenomenon is mostly just in the form of charts and graphs.


Which, unfortunately, shows how little you know about this topic, or science in general. Besides the fact that any physical phenomenon can be characterized as such, charts and graphs are illustrative - the actual proof lies not in in charts and graphs, but the underlying data and analysis.


 

letrole: More and more, the basis for the data of these projections is called into disrepute.


That's fine. One can ask questions - the problem arises when people ignore the answers, or do not actually assess such claims. What matters is not whether someone makes a claim or not, it's whether such a claim is supported by the evidence or not that matters.


letrole: Did you yourself hop on a plane and/or time machine to circle the globe collecting the data that you used to cobble together some sort of graph? Or, more likely, did you use the compromised data that's the topic of the thread?

It's a good thing nobody used that data at all, or else there would be a fair number of retractions of papers and some really loud screaming about wasted research time going on right now.


You're begging the question, something that you know isn't solid reasoning. That changes have occurred in a data set (as it has many times in the past) does not somehow mean that it is compromised. Again, you actually have to examine the evidence in order to determine if such a claim is true - just asking the question tells you nothing.


letrole: It's a farking joke. Goobers wearing lab coats pretending to be scienticians, and nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right, just as long as it's in line with the all-holy consensus.


It is the poor reasoning such as yours that is the joke. Here, instead of actually assessing the evidence in a rational way, you're calling people names and dismissing scientific research as some sort of religious belief.

If indeed "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", it's because of attitudes like yours. Again, you're part of the problem.
 
2014-07-01 05:32:32 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: It is the poor reasoning such as yours that is the joke. Here, instead of actually assessing the evidence in a rational way, you're calling people names and dismissing scientific research as some sort of religious belief.If indeed "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", it's because of attitudes like yours. Again, you're part of the problem.


So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?


Since when does my attitude affect scienticious protocol?
 
2014-07-01 05:33:01 PM  

letrole: Damnhippyfreak: It is you who is begging the question, right there in bold

so show it, and don't use a graph



Alright:

letrole: But there is no actual physical phenomenon. It's just not there.


This is begging the question since you're arguing against my argument of pointing out the problems with ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents by assuming that there is "no actual physical phenomenon". The a priori assumption that the phenomenon does not exist begs the question of whether one should examine the phenomenon in the first place rather than the politics.
 
2014-07-01 05:36:51 PM  

letrole: Damnhippyfreak: Ignoring the science in favor of of the politics is as misguided as arresting someone for a drug offense because you don't like the music they're playing.

No. Not ignoring the science. The science has lost all its scienticity. The science is now just about as trustworthy as an advert that shows your brand of coffee tastes better because housewives were polled in a supermarket. You have big graphs to prove it.


Show me the weather.



We would seem to agree in that we shouldn't ignore the science. The rest of the post is bare assertion. Do you now accept that ignoring the science in favor of the politics involved is also not a good thing?
 
2014-07-01 05:40:46 PM  

letrole: [img.fark.net image 400x267]


letrole: No. Not ignoring the science.



What you tend to post strongly suggests this is not the case.

Note how there is not even a mention of the physical evidence or even valuing it in any way in the cartoon you posted.
 
2014-07-01 05:47:14 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: We would seem to agree in that we shouldn't ignore the science.


The first thing you need to do is stop treating science like it's some sort of discrete entity. There is no such thing as science. Science does not exist.
 
2014-07-01 05:47:59 PM  

letrole: Damnhippyfreak: It is the poor reasoning such as yours that is the joke. Here, instead of actually assessing the evidence in a rational way, you're calling people names and dismissing scientific research as some sort of religious belief.If indeed "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", it's because of attitudes like yours. Again, you're part of the problem.

So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?


Since when does my attitude affect scienticious protocol?



This is the attitude right there. You're part of the problem that "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", if you continue to jump to conclusions like this without any evidence.

Because you do not know the reason for something does not mean you get to make up reasons in its place. For the record, gaps in the fossil record also don't mean that God is responsible for evolution either.
 
2014-07-01 05:50:12 PM  

letrole: Damnhippyfreak: We would seem to agree in that we shouldn't ignore the science.

The first thing you need to do is stop treating science like it's some sort of discrete entity. There is no such thing as science. Science does not exist.



letrole: No. Not ignoring the science.



No, not at all ;)
 
2014-07-01 05:52:50 PM  
I see the idiots have shouted down all rational thought. Just another Denier Blitz.
 
2014-07-01 06:03:31 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-01 06:23:42 PM  
letrole: So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?


Damnhippyfreak: This is the attitude right there. You're part of the problem that "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", if you continue to jump to conclusions like this without any evidence.

No dear, the problem is that you think science actually exists, but the concept of bollocks escapes you. The prior data was bollocks. Again, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted?
 
2014-07-01 06:44:40 PM  

letrole: letrole: So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?


Damnhippyfreak: This is the attitude right there. You're part of the problem that "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", if you continue to jump to conclusions like this without any evidence.
No dear, the problem is that you think science actually exists, but the concept of bollocks escapes you. The prior data was bollocks. Again, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted?



You know when you've been soundly refuted not only when all you've got is repeating a bare assertion, but that  science itself somehow does not exist.It'sepistemological  hara-kiri :D

If you find it problematic that"nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right" then stop being part of the problem.
 
2014-07-01 06:45:29 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: It's epistemological hara-kiri :D


Nuts. I come up with an amusing turn of phase and I mess up the spacing.
 
2014-07-01 08:14:30 PM  
Hi Jon. I see your charts still end in 2000. Why is that? That was 13 years ago. Does the data since not fit your apocalyptic message?
 
2014-07-01 08:20:52 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: letrole: letrole: letrole: letrole......


I am going to go out on a limb here and say you were trolled.
 
2014-07-01 08:40:41 PM  

symbolset: Hi Jon. I see your charts still end in 2000. Why is that? That was 13 years ago. Does the data since not fit your apocalyptic message?



I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from.

Jon Snow: [..]
[i.imgur.com image 531x297]

[...]

[i.imgur.com image 850x607]

[...]

[i.imgur.com image 850x676]


[...]

The first pic is projections from (based the use of RCP scenarios) the IPCC AR5, the second explicitly ends in 2013, and third does not end in 2000, but was current to when  the graph was made in 2013. It's sometimes hard to judge these things when the axis is so coarse-grained, but note for the last one the HadCRU record does extend past 2000, contrary to your claim.
 
2014-07-01 09:10:53 PM  

symbolset: Hi Jon. I see your charts still end in 2000. Why is that? That was 13 years ago. Does the data since not fit your apocalyptic message?


Jesus christ. You seriously think that just because the last year isn't given its own tick on the x-axis, that the data don't go continue to it?

Get a ruler. Hold it up to the 2000 tick on the graphs. See how the lines keep going? Now look at the scale of the x-axes. Now look at how far the plotted lines extend past the last tick.

Un-farking-believable.
 
2014-07-01 10:10:26 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]


Tyson in Cosmos argued that human caused global warming is real so you posting his picture is quite appropriate.
 
2014-07-01 10:11:54 PM  

grumpfuff: browntimmy: 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?

See the link I posted. I don't think GJ is pretending.


I agree.  He does seem sincere.
 
2014-07-01 11:00:48 PM  

Bucky Katt: I agree.  He does seem sincere.


GJ believes that "Once again, science begins to catch up with the Urantia Book" - his words.

Calling him a whack-job is an insult to whack-jobs everywhere.

//Wiki link if you are not familiar with this brand of crazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book
 
2014-07-02 12:54:26 AM  

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]


I've made this point before, but I'll make it again. You've been here for years trying to convince people that global warming is a fraudulent conspiracy or some such nonsense. Instead, you've managed to convince most people here not that you're right about global warming, but instead that you're actually mentally ill.

Can you at least admit that you really suck at making arguments? I mean, it does take a special kind of stupid to fail at an argument so thoroughly that people actually think you're insane instead of correct.
 
m00
2014-07-02 06:36:55 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: m00: LordJiro: 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.

Actually, the Gilded Age wasn't that bad. Sure there were Robber Barons, but there are Robber Barons today. The only difference is that at least in the Gilded Age at least the Robber Barons were making products that people freely purchased. Today the Robber Barons exist because government takes money from the poor and gives it to them in the form of subsidies and contracts.

Socialism isn't that bad either. Scandinavia is probably the most socialist place on earth right now, and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc are nice places to live.

The US right now is completely off that spectrum. We're just a straight up kleptocracy -- the government takes what it would under socialism, but gives nothing back in the form of services.

What the fark bizarro America do you live in where there are no government agencies at all? No roads? No minimum wage? No courts? No police? No fire departments? No army/navy/marines/Air Force?

Oh wait, sorry, you were trying to be pithy and failed miserably.


Oh good comments aren't closed.

I have to laugh at you for thinking we get anywhere near what we pay for.

Military "services" corporate interests (free trade). FDA "services" big pharma. As for roads, try driving cross country on the easy coast and not hitting a toll.

Socialism implied the benifit goes to humans (I can't say people because corporations are now those).
 
2014-07-02 09:25:03 AM  

ringersol: Is anyone optimistic that we won't still have them ten years from now?


I don't know about internet arguments, but I am optimistic that 10 years from now we will have substantially altered our emissions trajectory, resulting a much less negative future. And to me, that's what's really important.
 
Displayed 289 of 289 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report