Skip to content
 
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 New York Times)   When you try to deny climate change but then the hurricane hits   ( nytimes.com) divider line
    More: Florida, Flood, climate change, Global warming, Tropical cyclone, Storm surge, John McCain, Paris climate accord, Weather  
•       •       •

7484 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2018 at 6:32 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-10-11 09:53:46 AM  

ArinTheLost: Thank god someone here can think for themselves instead of making this a partisan issue. Lots of shouting people down here and not much intelligent discourse until I read your post. I have read both sides of this issue recently and there is no hard science (proof) that shows an increase in hurricane activity or strength attributed to global climate change. There are suggestions and computer models and educated guesses galore but nobody actually knows how much impact humans have on the global climate. You cannot deny climate change because climate has and always will change it will never stay the same. In the eternal words of Douglas Adams "Don't Panic".


Yet another attempt to baffle with bullshiat
 
2018-10-11 09:55:13 AM  

ArinTheLost: In the eternal words of Douglas Adams "Don't Panic".


FYI, Douglas Adams was a hard-core environmentalist who not only wrote books about the need to act now in order to save the environment, but also included a variety of things in H2G2 (the source of your quote) mocking people who are willfully ignorant about such things. Please don't use a random quote of his from a work of fiction to justify your ignorance and inaction on a topic that he cared deeply about.
 
2018-10-11 10:01:37 AM  

giantmeteor: We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

Which Koch brother are you?


What's truly hilarious about this is that the Koch brothers actually hired a real scientist back in 2010 to prop up the talking points we keep seeing above.  Richard Muller spent two years and a couple of million dollars looking over all the evidence for climate change and correcting for all the bad data and uncounted error sources that our posters have been talking about this entire thread.

After all that effort, he came back to announce that those terrible, sloppy, data-faking climate scientists were, well, 100% correct about the Earth warming.  After a little while longer he announced they were also 100% correct about it being human-caused.

Meanwhile, the derpsters are busy congratulating themselves on having an intelligent discussion while the rest of us are hysterical.  This thread is the farking poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
2018-10-11 10:04:53 AM  

Gubbo: Yet another attempt to baffle with bullshiat


He is dead on right.....
 
2018-10-11 10:04:56 AM  
Given the choice of believing a NYT columnist or a meteorologist who studies hurricanes with an excellent track record predicting these storms, I'll go with Joe Bastardi over some NYT columnist with a deadline.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/58695-​c​limate-ambulance-chaser-warning-this-w​eek-for-well-telegraphed-natural-patte​rn
 
2018-10-11 10:07:27 AM  

GoldSpider: Sean VasDeferens: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

wut


I think he meant to say "U.S.S.R"
 
2018-10-11 10:08:22 AM  
I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.
 
2018-10-11 10:11:41 AM  

Totally Sharky Complete: When a record cold snap proves global warming is a hoax but reminded by Fark weather and climate are two different things.


Oh look, someone who can't tell the difference between "Hey, it's cold today! Global warming is hoax!" and "Today hundreds of scientists signed a letter of agreement stating that the statistically significant increase in number and intensity of hurricanes is at least partly caused by global warming"

/derp
//poopity scoppity
 
2018-10-11 10:12:15 AM  

gretzkyscores: I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.


Unlike the previous thousands of years, we have the technology to wipe out all life with an afternoon's work.
 
2018-10-11 10:19:29 AM  
It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.
 
2018-10-11 10:20:01 AM  

Momzilla59: Let's save the earth and recycle!
Sounds great until you realize that the recycling companies are mostly in
China which just shut down importing such stuff as a direct result of D2S's tarrifs.
Just hears a story on the radio how some cities are just shuttering their recycling programs - there's nowhere to send the stuff to.
Now you're nodding and asking why there aren't businesses here in the USA doing this? China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment, that's why.
If we tried this here with our regulations we would have to pay the companies to take our stuff.

guestguy: No one saw this coming...NO ONE, I say!

Now we know D2S' Fark handle.


China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment...which is why they have recycling companies..and why they are investing more on renewable energy and mass transit than us..

You make my brain hurt
 
2018-10-11 10:21:52 AM  

StrikitRich: Given the choice of believing a NYT columnist or a meteorologist who studies hurricanes with an excellent track record predicting these storms, I'll go with Joe Bastardi over some NYT columnist with a deadline.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/58695-c​limate-ambulance-chaser-warning-this-w​eek-for-well-telegraphed-natural-patte​rn


Lololol

https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_​J​oe_Bastardi.htm
 
2018-10-11 10:22:33 AM  

gretzkyscores: I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.


What do you think the proponents of renewable energy are doing?
 
2018-10-11 10:23:39 AM  

OldJames: It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.


You...you really think climate scientists draw conclusions based on one data point?
 
2018-10-11 10:25:37 AM  

groppet: Summoner101: bigfatbuddhist: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate.  Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more  uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change.  Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though.  If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Now even some conservatives in the insurance industry are starting to come around to climate change. Must be messing with their bottom line or something.


You should read about the insurance response to Katrina in 2005.  Unless you have enough money to sue them for breach of contract, they are not going to pay for a mass disaster.  It turns out most Americans don't have $150,000 to do that.
Florida is a key GOP state, so I am not too worried.  "The Villages" will be fully insured at no premium cost by Trump and Co.
 
2018-10-11 10:26:34 AM  

Interceptor1: One, nobody wants to do anything about the climate change issue unless they can make money off of it. But even if they really didn't go for the money first, is there really anything we can do about it?

Two, the climate is always changing. Is it changing faster because of man? Who knows? The people in the US are too busy trying to turn a profit off of it.


1) The majority of votes in 2016 were against drumpf.  Careful with your generalizations.

2)  Scientists.
 
2018-10-11 10:34:11 AM  

jso2897: sardonicobserver: Cartoonishly rote petrochemical industry narrative.

This is some sort of parody, right?


https://www.iter.org/
 
2018-10-11 10:36:10 AM  

Natalie Portmanteau: sardonicobserver:

a whole bunch of words

yep. I gets my science from youtube. That's how I found out the earth was flat


Don't laugh - the Flat Earth Society has members all over the world.
 
2018-10-11 10:40:51 AM  

sardonicobserver: Natalie Portmanteau: sardonicobserver:

a whole bunch of words

yep. I gets my science from youtube. That's how I found out the earth was flat

Don't laugh - the Flat Earth Society has members all over the world around the globe.


How are we supposed to take your youtube science 'facts' seriously if you can't even get basic jokes right?
 
2018-10-11 10:49:52 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: OldJames: It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

You...you really think climate scientists draw conclusions based on one data point?


Not climate scientists. The public, and the media. Do you think a climate scientist would point at a hurricane and say "see, climate change". That is what the headline sounds like.
 
2018-10-11 10:56:18 AM  

Gubbo: I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.


I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.
Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.

/too many people, start culling
//what about the storm on Jupiter?
///The periapsis is in January
 
2018-10-11 10:57:13 AM  

sardonicobserver: What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.


JESUS CHRIST. I am SOOOO sick of idiot men who may as well be called Dunning-Kreuger lecturing me about MY farkING FIELD. You do not know what you're talking about, so why don't you just shut up and learn something from someone smarter than you?

Email gate turned up nothing. Yes, one guy had a "trick" to get noise out of the data and yes, it turned out to be a legit thing. I haven't googled "hide the decline" but I can assure you it's BS.

IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MUCH (a) ice melt at the poles, (b) extreme highs, and (c) more tropical storms, ALL OF WHICH ARE PREDICTED BY THE MODELS?!!?

Jesus Christ.

Look, the models are not perfect but they're actually pretty good. Go read "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver (not a climate scientist so maybe you'll believe him?) if you don't believe me.

If you actually want to grow as a person and no long be (so much of) an idiot, here's an actually useful page: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argu​m​ent.php

As much as you tire me out, at the end of the day, your idiot opinion doesn't matter. You got exactly what you want (no meaningful work to reduce emissions in the US) and you're already seeing the effects. If you weren't an idiot, you'd devest of any coastal property and make sure you've got a good water supply by now. And probably try to live close to the amenities you need so you can walk/bike if necessary.
 
2018-10-11 11:03:15 AM  

Sniffers Row: Gubbo: I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.

I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.
Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.

/too many people, start culling
//what about the storm on Jupiter?
///The periapsis is in January


More hugely long posts baffling with bullshiat.

Strange pattern to these...
 
2018-10-11 11:03:45 AM  
This thread turned into a cavalcade of denial derp.
 
2018-10-11 11:03:55 AM  

ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another.  Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time.  There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame.  There has been a warming trend since about 1900.  Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate.  The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions.  The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry.  Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data.  For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate".  If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.  The only ...


Some simpler things are very likely true, like higher temperatures leading to more hurricanes and bigger ones.  Our measurements show that we are about 1 F warmer than a couple of decades ago, and it's unclear how much effect this will have.  It's also unclear how much effect industrial carbon emissions have on global warming - correlation is not causation, and all the logic I've seen is based on estimates of unknown accuracy about CO2 concentrations during climate swings, with no hint of where that CO2 came from.  In particular, does higher temperature increase protozoan and animal activity, thus perturbing the organic carbon cycle, are we talking about limestone in subduction layers causing associated volcanic action to release all that stored up carbonate as CO2 and calcium compounds?  If there is an important effect available by, say, stopping the fires in Brazil that contribute so much CO2, or decreasing our beef consumption to decrease the CO2-laden flatulence that is also a huge contributor, we don't have compelling data because climate science was politicized and corrupted in the 1990's.

What about investing in CO2 scrubbers in power plants (even natural gas fired, not just coal) and using the CO2 to feed adjacent algae ponds?  Without accurate, reliable, scientific information we can't get the incentive to do that kind of research.

For those of you whose ox I gored, please understand that I'm actually trying to throw out ideas.  Here's a bit of humor:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 11:04:12 AM  

OldJames: cameroncrazy1984: OldJames: It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

You...you really think climate scientists draw conclusions based on one data point?

Not climate scientists. The public, and the media. Do you think a climate scientist would point at a hurricane and say "see, climate change". That is what the headline sounds like.


But that's not what the headline said
 
2018-10-11 11:04:55 AM  

Sniffers Row: Gubbo: I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.

I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.
Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.

/too many people, start culling
//what about the storm on Jupiter?
///The periapsis is in January


Uh, no, it's not impossible at all. Maybe learn this thing called "math"
 
2018-10-11 11:06:04 AM  

sardonicobserver: ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another.  Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time.  There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame.  There has been a warming trend since about 1900.  Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate.  The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions.  The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry.  Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data.  For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate".  If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.  The only ...

Some simpler things are very likely true, like higher temperatures leading to more hurricanes and bigger ones.  Our measurements show that we are about 1 F warmer than a couple of decades ago, and it's unclear how much effect this will have.  It's also unclear how much effect industrial carbon emissions have on global warming - correlation is not causation, and all the logic I've seen is based on estimates of unknown accuracy about CO2 concentrations during climate swings, with no hint of where that CO2 came from.  In particular, does higher temperature increase protozoan and animal activity, thus perturbing the organic carbon cycle, are we talking about limestone in subduction layers causing associated volcanic action to release all that stored up carbonate as CO2 and calcium compounds?  If there is an important effect available by, say, stopping the fires in Brazil that contribute so much CO2, or decreasing our beef consumption to decrease the CO2-laden flatulence that is also a huge contributor, we don't have compelling data because climate science was politicized and corrupted in the 1990's.

What about investing in CO2 scrubbers in power plants (even natural gas fired, not just coal) and using the CO2 to feed adjacent algae ponds?  Without accurate, reliable, scientific information we can't get the incentive to do that kind of research.

For those of you whose ox I gored, please understand that I'm actually trying to throw out ideas.  Here's a bit of humor:
[Link][img.fark.net image 850x414]


It's not unclear, you just don't want to accept the research
 
2018-10-11 11:07:13 AM  

Cynicism101: IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MUCH (a) ice melt at the poles, (b) extreme highs, and (c) more tropical storms, ALL OF WHICH ARE PREDICTED BY THE MODELS?!!?


If all the models agreed perfectly, that would be just fine for them as well because it's obviously rigged then.
 
2018-10-11 11:07:17 AM  

Sniffers Row: Gubbo: I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.

I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.
Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.


Really?  It's impossible?  Or are you just completely ignorant of the science?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 11:08:46 AM  

Cynicism101: I am SOOOO sick of idiot men


What makes you think sardonic whatitspants is a man?  We don't claim it...
 
2018-10-11 11:11:47 AM  

Munden: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/yzDjjUAt​3zc]


This is a good look at how the debate here in the US devolved.  This is the same thing that happened to a lot of other subjects starting at the same time.  The talk of reasonable action on climate change ramped up to the insane nuttery you'll see as talking points by the derpers in this thread.  In a decade or so reality will be even more noticable and harder to deny but it will be too late to do much about it and they still will be ranting nutty shiat.  Might be new as their masters may be feeding them a new line but it will still be just as dumb.  Propaganda works.
 
2018-10-11 11:15:31 AM  
It's funny, I don't see any climate change deniers in RL. I only see them on the Internet in forums such as this one. Industries hire PR people whose full-time job is to push the industry's agenda on social media. They write posts that sound intelligent and fact-based, but when you research the stuff they say it's all lies.

Climate change is real. Molecular signatures of the carbon atom prove that the increase of carbon in our atmosphere is from humans burning dead dinosaurs.

It isn't the scientists that are lying about climate change. It's the oil and coal industry and the politicians they bribe that are lying about climate change.
 
2018-10-11 11:15:31 AM  

zeroman987: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate.  Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more  uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Another Red State welfare queen lecturing me about science.

Get a job sir.


Now now Lucky paid $60k in Federal taxes last year!  (Yes I fav. him as that, wish I added the thread ID)
 
2018-10-11 11:18:36 AM  

sardonicobserver: ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another.  Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time.  There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame.  There has been a warming trend since about 1900.  Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate.  The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions.  The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry.  Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data.  For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate".  If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...


Oh jesus... the derp just got turned up to 11
 
2018-10-11 11:19:42 AM  

Cynicism101: IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MUCH (a) ice melt at the poles, (b) extreme highs, and (c) more tropical storms, ALL OF WHICH ARE PREDICTED BY THE MODELS?!!?


I thought the models said that there were going to be fewer hurricanes, but they were going to be higher intensity, due to climate change?  There was something else (ocean currents in the Atlantic) that was suppose to be increasing the number of hurricanes for the next 15 years or something?
 
2018-10-11 11:23:29 AM  

Cynicism101: sardonicobserver: What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

JESUS CHRIST. I am SOOOO sick of idiot men who may as well be called Dunning-Kreuger lecturing me about MY farkING FIELD. You do not know what you're talking about, so why don't you just shut up and learn something from someone smarter than you?

Email gate turned up nothing. Yes, one guy had a "trick" to get noise out of the data and yes, it turned out to be a legit thing. I haven't googled "hide the decline" but I can assure you it's BS.

IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO ...


The US is doing more to reduce greenhouse gases and other manufactured environmental hazards than anyone, and not just CO2.  Our emissions requirements are met by all vehicle manufacturers worldwide, as our our rollover of fluorocarbons to less harmful types (Freon R12 to Freon R134a in small air conditioners, for example).  Our innovations in clean power and industry are available to everyone that is willing to use them.

If you haven't googled "hide the decline" and read the summaries of peer-reviewed papers, you might want to add that to your personal information repertoire.  Truth isn't political, it's truth.  And, if it is your field, you should take advantage of an opportunity to broaden your information base whenever reasonably possible.

The models are what they are.  The problem is the assumptions and data used in the models, and selection and interpretation of results.  For a quick primer on climate model prediction accuracy for the non-climate-scientists, do a web search on "spaghetti models" to show the amazing variety of hurricane path predictions using the same available data.  Even the National Hurricane Center varies the position of a hurricane a few days hence by hundreds of miles with every day or so.  If they can't tell within a thousand miles or so where the epicenter of a storm will be a week from now, how reliable are they expected to be in extrapolating anything a millennia or so?  As far as assumptions, archaic relations between fossil bubbles CO2 percentage and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post.

/It's going to rain next week.
//Probably.
///Somewhere.
 
2018-10-11 11:25:02 AM  
Yes, every hurricane from now until the end of humanity
 
2018-10-11 11:27:01 AM  

giantmeteor: We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

Oh jesus... the derp just got turned up to 11


Again, start here:
https://www.iter.org/
ITER is one artifact of international cooperation in development of a prototype fusion power plant.  You can use this site as a portal to find most or all of the peer-reviewed articles and books on fusion.
 
2018-10-11 11:28:48 AM  

CarnySaur: It's not climate change, it's God punishing women for being uppity.


I thought it was g*d punishing America for putting Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
 
2018-10-11 11:29:38 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate.  Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more  uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA​HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2018-10-11 11:30:46 AM  

sardonicobserver: ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another.  Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time.  There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame.  There has been a warming trend since about 1900.  Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate.  The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions.  The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry.  Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data.  For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate".  If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...


It's hilarious. It would be SO EASY to just accept what people who know more than you know. Instead, you have to create this mythology. And believe it.
 
2018-10-11 11:31:04 AM  

sardonicobserver: We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.


Yes.  The roadmap is a follows:  When fossil fuels run out, we'll panic and start using nuclear fuel rather than spend this time developing renewable sources.
 
2018-10-11 11:33:08 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: sardonicobserver: We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Yes.  The roadmap is a follows:  When fossil fuels run out, we'll panic and start using nuclear fuel rather than spend this time developing renewable sources.


We've already developed renewal resources. Thankfully, even with Drumpf, it's nearly impossible to get a nuclear plant built.
 
2018-10-11 11:34:03 AM  
FTFA:Some folks will say this isn't the moment for politics. But don't we have a responsibility to mitigate the next disaster?

Gee, why does this sound familiar?

/it's almost as if trying to get Republicans to answer for their farkups is met with a universal handwave
 
2018-10-11 11:36:15 AM  

TheBlackrose: FTFA:Some folks will say this isn't the moment for politics. But don't we have a responsibility to mitigate the next disaster?

Gee, why does this sound familiar?

/it's almost as if trying to get Republicans to answer for their farkups is met with a universal handwave


Republicans: "What's the Rush?"

Pretty much the standard reply for anything.
 
2018-10-11 11:43:11 AM  

holdmybones: Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all  understand the difference between weather and climate.  Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?


"It's raining like a motherfarker outside; trees blowing down, four feet of water in the streets."
Er, no it's not. /turns off TV
 
2018-10-11 11:45:07 AM  

giantmeteor: long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...


we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.
 
2018-10-11 11:45:28 AM  

Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another.  Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time.  There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame.  There has been a warming trend since about 1900.  Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat


actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction.  they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down.  a lot.
 
2018-10-11 11:46:50 AM  

Madman drummers bummers: [img.fark.net image 591x332]

Hey look, everybody! A metaphor!


I was thinking a death ray. Maybe we could shoot down the clouds and stop all this rain.
 
Displayed 50 of 326 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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