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 72
    More: Followup, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, temperature record, average surface temperature  
•       •       •

15499 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2014 at 9:19 PM (3 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-06-30 05:53:45 PM
8 votes:
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 10:33:24 PM
6 votes:

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.
2014-06-30 10:17:18 PM
5 votes:
Greatest astrotufing campaign in history.  Get a whole bunch of folks to doubt climate change to protect corporate profits, even though in the long term it'll be ruinous to their lives and their children's lives.  But so what?  At least you get to jam a big stick into the eye of that smartassed science guy you imagine slighted you in some way!  Yeah, take THAT, science man!  And when the climate shifts and crops fail, and people worldwide are dying in the millions, you can be content and secure in the knowledge that you personally helped bring this about.  Oh well, at least they gave you a coupon for a one time delivery of a half-days rations for one person and a little packet of pubic hairs the Koch brothers personally clipped from their balls.  But the important thing is you put them smug science farkers in their place, right?
2014-06-30 08:32:50 PM
4 votes:
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 11:19:34 PM
3 votes:

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 10:50:06 PM
3 votes:

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 10:43:00 PM
3 votes:
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.
2014-06-30 10:22:27 PM
3 votes:
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 09:52:48 PM
3 votes:
So they updated the model based on new observations?

OMG CLIMATE CHANGE IS SO FUICKING FALSE NOW!
2014-06-30 09:50:29 PM
3 votes:
Good.  All the global warming scammers can go cry in their organic beers now.
2014-06-30 09:47:54 PM
3 votes:
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 09:27:18 PM
3 votes:
Not.  This.  shiat.  Again.
2014-07-01 05:22:32 PM
2 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-07-01 11:34:53 AM
2 votes:

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 12:50:28 AM
2 votes:

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
2014-06-30 11:36:30 PM
2 votes:

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 11:26:07 PM
2 votes:

ongbok: The tornado alarms just went off over here.


Get somewhere safe.  Ignore the tornado denialists.
2014-06-30 11:17:06 PM
2 votes:

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 11:16:08 PM
2 votes:

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 11:09:08 PM
2 votes:
That's it. The shills and trolls have overrun the thread. I'm out.

i.imgur.com
2014-06-30 11:01:35 PM
2 votes:
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 10:55:51 PM
2 votes:

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 10:24:41 PM
2 votes:

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 10:01:35 PM
2 votes:
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 10:01:04 PM
2 votes:

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 09:56:52 PM
2 votes:

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 09:39:42 PM
2 votes:
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 09:30:08 PM
2 votes:
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 09:26:39 PM
2 votes:
Time to sell the Prius and go buy a big gas guzzling v8 I guess? Seems legit.
2014-06-30 09:23:01 PM
2 votes:
*sigh*
--eyeroll--
GROAN

That should cover it.
2014-07-01 05:13:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:30:12 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:26:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:01:48 PM
1 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-07-01 11:38:30 AM
1 votes:
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 11:05:49 AM
1 votes:

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 10:55:14 AM
1 votes:
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 10:38:40 AM
1 votes:

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 10:08:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:04:42 AM
1 votes:

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 08:48:50 AM
1 votes:

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.
pla
2014-07-01 06:54:28 AM
1 votes:
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 06:41:14 AM
1 votes:
nsidc.org
2014-07-01 04:37:57 AM
1 votes:
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.
2014-07-01 04:16:19 AM
1 votes:

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 01:51:48 AM
1 votes:

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 01:26:59 AM
1 votes:

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 01:20:52 AM
1 votes:
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.
2014-06-30 11:43:20 PM
1 votes:

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 11:00:46 PM
1 votes:
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 10:59:03 PM
1 votes:
Wow, we've got a BUNCH of new sleeper shills popping up in this thread.
pla
2014-06-30 10:54:45 PM
1 votes:
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 10:53:10 PM
1 votes:

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 10:51:48 PM
1 votes:
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 10:48:29 PM
1 votes:
31.media.tumblr.com
2014-06-30 10:43:26 PM
1 votes:

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 10:40:53 PM
1 votes:

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 10:37:59 PM
1 votes:

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 10:19:57 PM
1 votes:

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


i58.tinypic.com

Under preferences. Uncheck that second box.
2014-06-30 10:16:23 PM
1 votes:
farking hell I hate the new Fark comment non-HTML bullshiat
2014-06-30 10:10:43 PM
1 votes:

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 09:59:48 PM
1 votes:

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 09:57:48 PM
1 votes:
NOAA? I only get my climate news from reputable sources...
2014-06-30 09:55:37 PM
1 votes:

libranoelrose: It's getting hot in here.


SO TAKE OFF ALL YOUR CLOTHES
2014-06-30 09:55:05 PM
1 votes:

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 09:41:16 PM
1 votes:
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 09:34:54 PM
1 votes:
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 09:32:51 PM
1 votes:
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 09:28:41 PM
1 votes:

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 09:25:40 PM
1 votes:
ohboyherewego.jpeg?
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report