Author Topic: Global Warming Fail  (Read 26806 times)

StickStickly

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1276
  • Team Huge Aryan Bastard
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #100 on: January 03, 2011, 01:09:40 PM »
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/las-vegas-snow-strip-cove_n_151951.html




LAS VEGAS SNOW: Strip Covered In Snow last night



Here let me have a swing at it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GLOBAL "WARMING" HAHAHAHAHAH STUPID LIBERAL BLEEDING HEART HIPPIES. ALL PROPAGANDA. JUST ANOTHER AL GORE HIPPY STINK LIBERAL CONSPIRACY. HOW CAN IT BE GLOBAL WARMING IF ITS SNOWING IN VEGAS.......... owww my head hurts now... i think i feel dumber already. Must be hard to be the coach or any of these conservative fools.

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #101 on: January 04, 2011, 04:19:41 AM »
Here's a reality check for you, even with all these volcanos that were erupting blowing co2 into the atmosphere, it was still nowhere near the levels we have today, THE HIGHEST IN RECORDED HISTORY, this shows it from 400 000 years ago.

Your argument is invalid, hope this helps. Now go pat yourself on the back for nothing again, douchebag.

 ::)

You're a simpleton.

Can you find one peer review publication that clearly demonstrates that atmospheric CO2 causes the temperature anomaly rather than the temperature anomaly causing increased C02? Knock yourself out.
 


 

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #102 on: January 04, 2011, 04:32:09 AM »
Nah temperature doesn't lead CO2

Thanks for trying




Post a peer-review link, not junk science.



You can't.



Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #103 on: January 04, 2011, 04:56:21 AM »
Post a peer-review link that shows me that temperature leads co2.  ::)


First the bolded part: theres no assuming, you look at the evidence and take the most logical explanation, IT IS TRUE FFS.



:-\   you speak as though AGW is a mathematical thereom. Empirical facts about empirical reality cannot be proven absolutely. The burden of proof, therefore, rests with you my kashka bademjan eating friend.

ps When you're done with your Masters of Youtube -> http://climateaudit.org/

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #104 on: January 04, 2011, 05:34:40 AM »
I am just a 21 year old kid who tried to learn about global warming, first I was fooled by "Lord" Monckton, when I saw the lies he fed me I decided to read and learn a lot more, the things I've read leads me to believe that global warming is real. The deniers etc have lied and misinformed me more than anything. I am very interested in reading skeptical opinion so if you would get off your high horse (i.e simpleton blabla) and show me what specifically on that site I should read.

When you get older you will see the ridiculousnous of the global warming scare mongers.   


Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #105 on: January 04, 2011, 05:42:24 AM »
I am just a 21 year old kid who tried to learn about global warming, first I was fooled by "Lord" Monckton, when I saw the lies he fed me I decided to read and learn a lot more, the things I've read leads me to believe that global warming is real. The deniers etc have lied and misinformed me more than anything. I am very interested in reading skeptical opinion so if you would get off your high horse (i.e simpleton blabla) and show me what specifically on that site I should read.

Lord whoever has nothing to do with the science.

I would suggest reading the entire site, since you said you want to learn more. If you're really interested then you will quickly discover that these predictive models all hang on very tenuous assumptions. It is all too easy to tweek different parameters, cherry pick data sets in order to achieve a desired outcome (which means those consistent with Mann's original hockey stick model). People such as the guy at climate audit spend much of their time doing such reanalysis, which at the end of the day evaluates the robustness of those predicted outcomes.

(ii) More generally, for context. Climate science/ IPCC has long been politicised. Re: "scientific consensus". There is this thing called "grantsmenship". Academic research is all about publishing in recognised journals to attain status, which requires research, which requires money, which requires track record (publications). Mostly it is governments that provide such funding. A grant proposal is written in a manner that best attracts funding. One is compelled to write a grant which suits a political agenda, and in the climate sciences it is, currently, a very fierce agenda. An academic would not expect much in the way of funds to conduct any 'skeptical' research and to that end is it suprising that most scientists have reached a consensus?  ::)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #106 on: January 04, 2011, 05:43:46 AM »
It has nothng to do with the climate.  It has everything to do with $ $ $ $.  

They are using the "climate" as the foil to get useful idiots, fools, naive college students, suckers, and do-gooders to do their bidding.  

Look at the people behind these "movements".   Corrupt money-changers and greedy pigs like Al Gore, Franklin Raines, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Soros, etc.    

The Showstoppa

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26879
  • Call the vet, cause these pythons are sick!
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #107 on: January 04, 2011, 05:43:51 AM »
Lord whoever has nothing to do with the science.

I would suggest reading the entire site, since you said you want to learn more. If you're really interested then you will quickly discover that these predictive models all hang on very tenuous assumptions. It is all too easy to tweek different parameters, cherry pick data sets in order to achieve a desired outcome (which means those consistent with Mann's original hockey stick model). People such as the guy at climate audit spend much of their time doing such reanalysis, which at the end of the day evaluates the robustness of those predicted outcomes.

(ii) More generally, for context. Climate science/ IPCC has long been politicised. Re: "scientific consensus". There is this thing called "grantsmenship". Academic research is all about publishing in recognised journals to attain status, which requires research, which requires money, which requires track record (publications). Mostly it is governments that provide such funding. A grant proposal is written in a manner that best attracts funding. One is compelled to write a grant which suits a political agenda, and in the climate sciences it is, currently, a very fierce agenda. An academic would not expect much in the way of funds to conduct any 'skeptical' research and to that end is it suprising that most scientists have reached a consensus?  ::)



Well put and spot on.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #108 on: January 04, 2011, 05:57:28 AM »
As opposed to the deniers who have absolutely no interest in oil,gas and coal industries right?  ::) ??? :-\

 ::)  ::)


We need and gas to live, windmills and solar panels are still a joke. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #109 on: January 04, 2011, 02:12:51 PM »
Marketing 'Climate Change'
American Thinker ^ | January 04, 2011 | Steve McCann





A good indicator that a movement ostensibly based on so-called scientific facts has run out of steam is when that crusade must openly resort to crass marketing techniques to sell a flawed product.  As with so many iconic beliefs of the left, it is not the message that is flawed, but the messaging.


Der Spiegel, the paragon of leftist thinking in Germany, just published a lengthy article, entitled "Green Groups try to Sex Up Climate Change," chronicling the movement's efforts to recapture the public's attention, which has severely waned over the past two years. 

Editors at major German newspapers are openly stating that global warming is a "loser" in media terms.  The New York Times quoted one science filmmaker as calling climate research "bo-ho-ho-ring" and "quite possibly, THE most boring subject the science world has ever had to present to the public."



Surveys have shown that in the Netherlands, once the hotbed of global warming hysteria, only one in three Dutch people is concerned about climate change.  The number is half that in the United States.


The loss of credibility is attributed to two factors: 1) the mistakes made public around a year ago on the U.N.'s 2007 climate report and

2) the "Climategate" scandal involving e-mails from the researchers at the University of East Anglia.  Per Der Spiegel, "[t]his leaked correspondence revealed trench warfare that caused scientists to withhold some data and defend their results at all costs."


As the primary media strategy up to that time was centered on the credibility of the scientists involved, the PR damage was significant, and it caused the public to begin seriously questioning the validity of the movement.



So now the environmental activists, not willing to give up on an enormous source of money from government grants and extortion, have come up with a myriad of approaches to try to make the climate change argument attractive.  Some ideas are:


1.Greater emphasis on emotional messaging using animals such as polar bears and whales and people suffering the results of weather catastrophes.  An old but tried-and-true PR strategy that has lost its luster, but it is very difficult to give up.

2.Another old but successful tactic: sex sells.  At a recent Global Media Forum working group on climate change, the motto was "Climate change is sexy."  However, there is some argument that the attention would be on the shapely figure of an attractive female researcher standing in front of a glacier rather than on the message.

3.Climate activists have begun funneling millions of dollars into training programs for so-called environmental journalists to encourage even more advocacy journalism.  Apparently all the rest of us were foolish to believe there was nearly nothing but advocacy journalism in the mainstream media throughout the world.

4.Climate change discussion must become less abstract and come down to the level of the average person.  In other words, make it relevant in the day-to-day life of the individual by simplification and promotion along with easily understood solutions.  Whether these are genuine solutions is immaterial as long as they are presented with all the fanfare of being so.

5.Stop being so vocal and causing a commotion about climate change.  Instead, emphasize restraint and the ability to quietly and respectfully listen to opposing views.  A bit of acting talent may be required, but that should not be a problem when reading from a fictional script.

6.The movement needs a new "Messiah."  Al Gore has become yesterday's newspaper in the bottom of the birdcage, so someone has to be found who can arouse the masses -- per Andreas Ernst from Kassel University, "[j]ust as Martin Luther King Jr. awakened the civil rights movement."  Comparing every political crusade to the civil rights movement has become transparent and threadbare, but this is apparently a strategy from which the left cannot emancipate itself.

7.Lastly, climate researchers have started setting up new organizations that will communicate climate data better.  Coordination of messaging will be the order of the day.  The accuracy of the messaging has not been discussed.


So there you have it: soon we who are agnostics when it comes to the religion of global warming (now renamed "climate change") will be subjected to the best marketing strategy the human mind can devise.  As Europe shivers in the coldest winter in over 125 years and we see the wealth of the country squandered in foolish regulations and laws ostensibly geared to save the earth, we can be comforted in knowing the best and brightest are on the job to save the planet from itself.  We were foolish enough to believe that only God could do that.


Trojan Muscle

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #110 on: January 04, 2011, 03:42:13 PM »

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #111 on: January 04, 2011, 04:00:39 PM »
Lord whoever has nothing to do with the science.

I would suggest reading the entire site, since you said you want to learn more. If you're really interested then you will quickly discover that these predictive models all hang on very tenuous assumptions. It is all too easy to tweek different parameters, cherry pick data sets in order to achieve a desired outcome (which means those consistent with Mann's original hockey stick model). People such as the guy at climate audit spend much of their time doing such reanalysis, which at the end of the day evaluates the robustness of those predicted outcomes.

(ii) More generally, for context. Climate science/ IPCC has long been politicised. Re: "scientific consensus". There is this thing called "grantsmenship". Academic research is all about publishing in recognised journals to attain status, which requires research, which requires money, which requires track record (publications). Mostly it is governments that provide such funding. A grant proposal is written in a manner that best attracts funding. One is compelled to write a grant which suits a political agenda, and in the climate sciences it is, currently, a very fierce agenda. An academic would not expect much in the way of funds to conduct any 'skeptical' research and to that end is it suprising that most scientists have reached a consensus?  ::)

your an idiot with no education in climate sceince.  :)

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #112 on: January 04, 2011, 04:02:00 PM »
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.







Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618
ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change



Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (.

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

1.↵ A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times A1 (19 June 2003).
2.↵ S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2(1), 3 (2003).
3.↵ See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4.↵ J. J. McCarthy, Ed. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5.↵ National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6.↵ American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7.↵ American Geophysical Union, Eos 84(51), 574 (2003).
8.↵ See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9.↵ The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put “climate change” in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, “Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong,” presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

Rami

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8120
  • One Hundred Percent
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #113 on: January 04, 2011, 04:03:05 PM »
no dude your side has had its say , now its time to burn the rain forest

yes, oxygen is a myth!  ::)

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #114 on: January 04, 2011, 04:03:18 PM »

Necrosis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 9899
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #115 on: January 04, 2011, 04:25:14 PM »
to who ever claimed that no one funds the skeptical side wrt to research you are in fact a moron. that is the holy grail of research, to disprove a prevailing theoy.My comp is fucked so i can barely type so ill leave it at that for now.

thelamefalsehood

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • I love lamp
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #116 on: January 04, 2011, 04:54:28 PM »
your an idiot with no education in climate sceince.  :)


You have proven yourself to be as close as humanly possible to being a retard without being assigned to an institution. I would just post on boards you are well versed on, like.......

haider

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11978
  • Team Batman Squats
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #117 on: January 04, 2011, 05:08:29 PM »
to who ever claimed that no one funds the skeptical side wrt to research you are in fact a moron. that is the holy grail of research, to disprove a prevailing theoy.My comp is fucked so i can barely type so ill leave it at that for now.
u sound like a fucking retard. fix your broken computer bitch.
follow the arrows

tbombz

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19350
  • Psalms 150
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #118 on: January 04, 2011, 06:45:00 PM »
u sound like a fucking retard. fix your broken computer bitch.
;D


when necrosis posts its going to be bad news bears for all these ignorant fools.. dude is wicked smart

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #119 on: January 04, 2011, 06:47:38 PM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 40063
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #120 on: January 04, 2011, 07:05:04 PM »
Coldest temperatures in Cuba in over half a century  


http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2011/01/11010...
<snip>


Cuba continues to experience its coldest temperatures in over half a century, according to meteorologists.

Temperatures in some areas on the island have fallen to a minimum of 1.9 degrees Celsius, or 35 Fahrenheit, with December thought to have been the coldest month on record since 1951.
----------------
 

Harry Spotter

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 230
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #121 on: January 04, 2011, 10:23:35 PM »
to who ever claimed that no one funds the skeptical side wrt to research you are in fact a moron. that is the holy grail of research, to disprove a prevailing theoy.My comp is fucked so i can barely type so ill leave it at that for now.

STFU kid.  If you seriously believe this drivel then, clearly, you are on the outside.

;D

when necrosis posts its going to be bad news bears for all these ignorant fools.. dude is wicked smart

Based on the above gem (and the obvious inability of this idiot 'necrosis' to determine that I was referring to AGW skepticism) we're all shaking in our boots.  ::)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/
"A fourth problem with determining whether AGW theory is true or not is closely related to a similar problem medical research has — the source of funding. This has got to be one of the least appreciated sources of bias in global warming research. In pharmaceutical research, experimentally demonstrating the efficacy of some new drug might be influenced by the fact that the money for the research came from the company that developed the drug in the first place. This is partly why double-blind studies involving many participants (we have only one: Earth) were developed.

But in global warming research, there is a popular misconception that oil industry-funded climate research actually exists, and has skewed the science. I can’t think of a single scientific study that has been funded by an oil or coal company.

But what DOES exist is a large organization that has a virtual monopoly on global warming research in the U.S., and that has a vested interest in AGW theory being true: the U.S. Government. The idea that government-funded climate research is unbiased is laughable. The push for ever increasing levels of government regulation and legislation, the desire of government managers to grow their programs, the dependence of congressional funding of a problem on the existence of a “problem” to begin with, and the U.N.’s desire to find reasons to move toward global governance, all lead to inherent bias in climate research.

At least with medical research, there will always be funding because disease will always exist. But human-caused warming could end up to be little more than a false alarm…as well as a black eye for the climate research community. And lest we forget, possibly the biggest funding-related source of bias in climate research is that research community of scientists. Everyone knows that if the AGW “problem” is no longer a problem, their source of research funding will disappear."

Jadeveon Clowney

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5936
  • The life is like a case of chocolate bonbon.
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #122 on: January 05, 2011, 12:03:52 AM »
Who cares? Does anybody think we're going to be able to stop a Chinese or Indian from getting electricity?  We'll figure something out if the icecaps melt. 

Firemuscle

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5453
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #123 on: January 05, 2011, 12:08:34 AM »
Who cares? Does anybody think we're going to be able to stop a Chinese or Indian from getting electricity?  We'll figure something out if the icecaps melt. 

 Kay-Secki.

 Sheebal Nome.

CalvinH

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22014
  • Spastic Tarted Cvunt
Re: Global Warming Fail
« Reply #124 on: January 05, 2011, 07:20:23 AM »