Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The 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  
•       •       •

7416 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2018 at 6:32 AM (11 days 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 11:47:32 AM  

beverly8: 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.


algore
 
2018-10-11 11:49:44 AM  

sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another.


First sentence demonstrates that you don't understand the significance of rate of change.  Reading anymore of your post would be pointless.
 
2018-10-11 11:50:54 AM  
Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON.  We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs.  You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists.  You've already won.  Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy.  Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won.  All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world.  Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won.  We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.
 
2018-10-11 11:52:18 AM  
fullredneck.comView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 11:52:30 AM  

mrshowrules: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another.

First sentence demonstrates that you don't understand the significance of rate of change.  Reading anymore of your post would be pointless.


Which reminds me...where did he GO?
 
2018-10-11 11:53:06 AM  

sardonicobserver: [Dunning-Kruger derrrrrrrrrrp]


Wow. So sardonic. Much observe.
 
2018-10-11 11:54:57 AM  

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 renewable sources ...


Ok so if you're trolling the boards then, cool. I bit. However, if this actually how you think, then you really do not understand. Here's the rub:

You're not arguing/discussing this topic with me or anyone on this thread. The people that are taking the scientific community at their word are not experts, they have just decided that the current climate data from tons of sources is credible.

For individuals like yourself, you are contradicting the tens of thousands of peer reviewed research on the subject. So you can believe whatever the hell you want but just remember that you aren't arguing with me, your refuting the body of scientific knowledge on the subject. Which is just fine. However, see science works like this, if you contradict data, you need proof of your contradiction.

Just stating what you think or what the TV/Internet told you to think doesn't work. You need data. If you continue to think you are right about this then you fall into one of three categories.

- Intellectually Lazy
- Willfully Ignorant
- Stupid

Choose one.
 
2018-10-11 11:57:44 AM  

SUMMERSN0WS: I don't see any climate change deniers in RL


My parents live in the basement.  Staunch drumpf supporters, and very much climate change deniers.

I know a number of other people very much the same.  I've lived in rural Texas, and my parents do the cultish evangelical church stuff.  Those are two good groups to check if you want to meet such a person IRL.
 
2018-10-11 11:59:21 AM  
My father in law and me last night.
"Climate change is real."
"I believe you, but do we know how much humans are contributing to it?"
"Does it matter if the end result is the catastrophic destruction of our planet and life on it?"

He didn't have an answer for me. At least the guy believes in science though.
 
2018-10-11 11:59:48 AM  
Basically, it's the cities that dress like whores that get all this hurricane damage, so I have no sympathy for them.
 
2018-10-11 12:02:19 PM  

ar393: 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.


same, though both our cars are electric ;)  No 5,000 year road map needed, and wasn't expensive.  I pay less for the payments on my solar than I did for the electric, and it'll be paid off in a few years and be forever free-ish.   So, it's not like economics was a barrier.

The minisplits were certainly more expensive than the alternative, but...again, not a 5,000 year road map.
 
2018-10-11 12:04:34 PM  

Great_Milenko: 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.


if only...
 
2018-10-11 12:05:30 PM  
Nothing quite like fark bait.

Brings out all the idiots...on both sides.
 
2018-10-11 12:06:43 PM  

sardonicobserver: 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.


Hate to post and run, but there's a bunch of misconceptions in here. I'll post links where I can, but this will be more sparsely explained that I usually like.

For this first point, this really isn't true. There has been reductions in the last few years in terms of CO2 emissions because of a price-driven transition to natural gas, but this is a very far cry from doing more than anyone. Just as a random example, Denmark's ongoing efforts to eliminate usage of fossil fuels by 2050.

sardonicobserver: 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.


"Hide the decline" was a misinterpretation of how to create a graph. Truth is indeed not political. Heed those words of wisdom yourself.


sardonicobserver: 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.


Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.
 
2018-10-11 12:08:13 PM  

mrsleep: Nothing quite like fark bait.

Brings out all the idiots...on both sides.


Do tell. How are people insisting we address climate change issues "idiots?"

We'll wait.
 
2018-10-11 12:08:34 PM  
Meh. Just wait until half of Floriduh is under water permanently. Problem solved, one way or another.

Isn't Mar A Lardo really close to the shore? Let it go under.
Yes, I realize this probably puts Miami, at least, under water, too.

It's apparently what Floriduh wants. So let them have it. They vote for assholes who don't give a fark about sea level rise, so ... let's let them have the satisfaction that comes from voting for people who don't give a fark about you doing nothing about a problem that directly affects you. Maybe if it happens enough, they'll stop voting, at least.
 
2018-10-11 12:13:46 PM  

factoryconnection: Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON.  We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs.  You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists.  You've already won.  Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy.  Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won.  All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world.  Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won.  We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.


Here was a Tweet from noted asshole Erick Erickson yesterday...

img.fark.netView Full Size


So maybe they are turning that corner, will set aside their bullshiat talking points will just flatly admit that they don't care. Then we no longer have to get into these exhausting conversations.
 
2018-10-11 12:16:37 PM  

bdub77: My father in law and me last night.
"Climate change is real."
"I believe you, but do we know how much humans are contributing to it?"
"Does it matter if the end result is the catastrophic destruction of our planet and life on it?"

He didn't have an answer for me. At least the guy believes in science though.


Because the evidence of global warming is now overwhelming and undeniably impacting people's lives, "humans aren't at fault" is just the latest point that the goal posts have been shifted to. It's like a six-year-old who's been denying that the DVD player is broken and when presented with the crayon-stuffed DVD player insists it was not their fault and then gives you a link to a website about crayon-stuffed DVD players being used as fusion generators and tells you to "start here".
 
2018-10-11 12:21:11 PM  

Obscure Login: factoryconnection: Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON.  We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs.  You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists.  You've already won.  Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy.  Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won.  All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world.  Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won.  We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

Here was a Tweet from noted asshole Erick Erickson yesterday...

[img.fark.net image 535x220]

So maybe they are turning that corner, will set aside their bullshiat talking points will just flatly admit that they don't care. Then we no longer have to get into these exhausting conversations.

"Erick Woods Erickson is a politically conservative American blogger and radio host. He hosts the radio show Atlanta's Evening News with Erick Erickson, broadcast on 750 WSB, and runs the blog The Resurgent"


Shocking.
 
2018-10-11 12:21:31 PM  

whidbey: beverly8: 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.

algore


dude, its the total truth though.  and, as a person who does  not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,
 
2018-10-11 12:22:50 PM  

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.


That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

World agriculture may be able to feed perhaps a billion people.  World population is now perhaps 7.6 billion people.  Famine and chaos could cause the collapse of civilization worldwide.  This has happened before; example the Greek dark ages from the 12th to 9th centuries BC.  With the collapse of the energy infrastructure, most agriculture will collapse too.

img.fark.netView Full Size

By Bdm25 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.​php?curid=51036438
 
2018-10-11 12:23:13 PM  

beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: 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.

algore

dude, its the total truth though.  and, as a person who does  not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,


Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.
 
2018-10-11 12:26:17 PM  

sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.


Right, it's 3rd world countries' problem, not ours, the biggest polluters.
 
2018-10-11 12:26:33 PM  

Thorazine: For individuals like yourself, you are contradicting the tens of thousands of peer reviewed research on the subject. So you can believe whatever the hell you want but just remember that you aren't arguing with me, your refuting the body of scientific knowledge on the subject. Which is just fine. However, see science works like this, if you contradict data, you need proof of your contradiction.

Just stating what you think or what the TV/Internet told you to think doesn't work. You need data. If you continue to think you are right about this then you fall into one of three categories.

- Intellectually Lazy
- Willfully Ignorant
- Stupid

Choose one.


How about "no blinders, no tunnel vision"?

NOTE:  None of my posts have taken any position such as some have projected in their demonized images of what they perceive as their political opposition.
 
2018-10-11 12:27:16 PM  
Gubbo:

More hugely long posts baffling with bullshiat.

Strange pattern to these...


I'm sorry about your goldfish-like attention span

Could you answer the question without Google?
 
2018-10-11 12:27:52 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.


User name checks out.
 
2018-10-11 12:28:15 PM  

Sniffers Row: Gubbo:

More hugely long posts baffling with bullshiat.

Strange pattern to these...

I'm sorry about your goldfish-like attention span

Could you answer the question without Google?


Why? You couldn't answer it at all
 
2018-10-11 12:31:28 PM  
Then they won't be needing any of that sweet sweet FEMA money.
 
2018-10-11 12:31:35 PM  

whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: 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.

algore

dude, its the total truth though.  and, as a person who does  not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.


i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.
 
2018-10-11 12:32:27 PM  

sardonicobserver: How about "no blinders, no tunnel vision"?


From scientists. Yes. Go on.
 
2018-10-11 12:33:47 PM  
i wonder exactly how dumb a person has to be to mention al gore on a comment stating that climate reports err on the side of caution, and the trend is to state it will be less dire than it wil be?
 
2018-10-11 12:33:54 PM  

beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: 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.

algore

dude, its the total truth though.  and, as a person who does  not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.


And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.
 
2018-10-11 12:36:49 PM  

whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: 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.

algore

dude, its the total truth though.  and, as a person who does  not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.


that he is a hypocrite?  yes, that is my perspective.  why are you swinging on his dick so hard?
 
2018-10-11 12:37:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Sniffers Row: Gubbo:

More hugely long posts baffling with bullshiat.

Strange pattern to these...

I'm sorry about your goldfish-like attention span

Could you answer the question without Google?

Why? You couldn't answer it at all


" ///The periapsis is in January "

I think I did
 
2018-10-11 12:37:45 PM  
*

beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: 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.

algore

dude, its the total truth though.  and, as a person who does  not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite?  yes, that is my perspective.  why are you swinging on his dick so hard?


I'm not 'swinging on anyone's dick,." but it's a litmus test, and you're not passing it.
 
2018-10-11 12:38:16 PM  
Anyone in this post celebrating that this hit Florida is an asshole, and anyone in here claiming the climate has no affect on Hurricanes is an asshole. Is there anyone left who isn't an asshole after those qualifiers?
 
2018-10-11 12:38:34 PM  

sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.


You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.
 
2018-10-11 12:41:21 PM  

whidbey: *beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: 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.

algore

dude, its the total truth though.  and, as a person who does  not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite?  yes, that is my perspective.  why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

I'm not 'swinging on anyone's dick,." but it's a litmus test, and you're not passing it.


ahhahahahahahaaa, man, i wish i was able to put in words exactly how amusing i ind this. not only do you overestimate your intelligence by a longshot, but you also think you have the competency to test people with dumb farking shiat like saying algore?  also, i feel as though you have no idea what a litmus test even is.
 
2018-10-11 12:42:55 PM  
Not going to shiat up the thread with another reply to that. Sorry.
 
2018-10-11 12:43:46 PM  
salutations, random stranger on the internet, i shall now test you and determine your entire personality based on my faulty ass human interpretive bullshiat mind

duh.
 
2018-10-11 12:50:40 PM  

beverly8: salutations, random stranger on the internet, i shall now test you and determine your entire personality based on my faulty ass human interpretive bullshiat mind

duh.


Well you certainly did that for Al Gore so why not
 
2018-10-11 12:50:59 PM  

Sniffers Row: cameroncrazy1984: Sniffers Row: Gubbo:

More hugely long posts baffling with bullshiat.

Strange pattern to these...

I'm sorry about your goldfish-like attention span

Could you answer the question without Google?

Why? You couldn't answer it at all

" ///The periapsis is in January "

I think I did


No I mean the other question
 
2018-10-11 12:51:35 PM  

beverly8: 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.


The scientific term is normalised.
 
2018-10-11 12:52:00 PM  

Sniffers Row: Gubbo:

More hugely long posts baffling with bullshiat.

Strange pattern to these...

I'm sorry about your goldfish-like attention span

Could you answer the question without Google?


What question?
 
2018-10-11 12:52:07 PM  

whidbey: Obscure Login: So maybe they are turning that corner, will set aside their bullshiat talking points will just flatly admit that they don't care. Then we no longer have to get into these exhausting conversations.

"Erick Woods Erickson is a politically conservative American blogger and radio host. He hosts the radio show Atlanta's Evening News with Erick Erickson, broadcast on 750 WSB, and runs the blog The Resurgent"

Shocking.


It would save us all a lot of time arguing pointlessly, that's for certain.  The ruling modus operandi in the United States is "do absolutely nothing other than mind those quarterly earning reports."  All the helpful Farkers in this thread arguing that we're not warming or that humans can't possibly affect climate have the goal of "do absolutely nothing other than  mind those quarterly earning reports."  They're at "mission accomplished: flawless victory" and still wasting their time arguing on here.

So what's the point?  Your arguments will never hold factual water because actual scientists who have encyclopedias worth of knowledge more than we do on the topic have already proven you wrong, but politicians have already made it so it doesn't matter.

Just admit you don't care and move on!  You can gloat about winning in two sentences and maybe a poorly-constructed meme and save yourself 400 words per copypasta.
 
2018-10-11 12:55:10 PM  
It's nice that the first thing you see in this thread is a warning for where the rest of the thread is going with 55 Farkers letting us know what they think of as "Smart".
 
2018-10-11 12:56:06 PM  

ruta: It's nice that the first thing you see in this thread is a warning for where the rest of the thread is going with 55 Farkers letting us know what they think of as "Smart".


I was wondering about that. Is he an IT person with access to 55 computers?
 
2018-10-11 01:00:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: beverly8: salutations, random stranger on the internet, i shall now test you and determine your entire personality based on my faulty ass human interpretive bullshiat mind

duh.

Well you certainly did that for Al Gore so why not


how so?  im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?
 
2018-10-11 01:01:20 PM  

Gubbo: beverly8: 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.

The scientific term is normalised.


well, they have been being normalized downward.
 
2018-10-11 01:02:41 PM  

whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Right, it's 3rd world countries' problem, not ours, the biggest polluters.


Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases.  In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others.  China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?"  Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception."  A news photo on a Chinese news site:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
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