World class pedantic dickweedery



  • This actually gives me more hope that the result of all of these conferences will be a big goose egg, policy wise:

    @Myles Allen said:

    Why I think we're wasting billions on global warming, by top British climate scientist


    For instance, if you suppose that the annual UN climate talks will save us, forget it. I met a delegate at the last talks in Doha in December who told me he had just watched a two-hour debate that culminated in placing square brackets around a semi-colon.

    But you have to respect the devotion to dickweedery (and, I guess, bottomless expense accounts) that can produce a two hour debate about brackets around a semi-colon.



  •  They're just like programmers!



  • globalwarming.go:14307 syntax error: unexpected semicolon or newline, expecting ]





  • You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.



  •  I don't feel like starting a new thread, and this one's the one I'm reading. So here you go. Enjoy my pain:

    Bug report: the background image in the title bar randomly disapears

    Code written in: 2008

    Code updated in: 2009

    CSS of titlebar contains:  url(images\1px_background.jpg);

    The quality of the rest of the page isn't any better-- and it contains subqueries.



  • You have to feel a bit bad for the people who earnestly believe in global warming--who think the Earth is in peril--and who have pinned their hopes on these fuck-ups. I mean, that has to be a blow, to see the people you've trusted to solve the problem acting like this.

    What's the saying? "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people in charge start acting like it's a crisis." Either the bureaucrats and politicians working on climate change don't believe it's really a problem, or they are negligent on a scale that will make them the greatest mass murderers in history.

    I hold out naive hope that the fallout of this whole scam might change some hearts and minds. Maybe people will see that politicians and bureaucrats fabricate and exaggerate problems like global warming to push their own agendas. Maybe people will realize that when there really is a problem to be solved, the UN isn't some effective mechanism for doing it, but instead a bureaucracy so inept that it makes the US Congress look nimble and decisive.





  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You have to feel a bit bad for the people who earnestly believe in global warming--who think the Earth is in peril--and who have pinned their hopes on these fuck-ups. I mean, that has to be a blow, to see the people you've trusted to solve the problem acting like this.

    What's the saying? "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people in charge start acting like it's a crisis." Either the bureaucrats and politicians working on climate change don't believe it's really a problem, or they are negligent on a scale that will make them the greatest mass murderers in history.

    I hold out naive hope that the fallout of this whole scam might change some hearts and minds. Maybe people will see that politicians and bureaucrats fabricate and exaggerate problems like global warming to push their own agendas. Maybe people will realize that when there really is a problem to be solved, the UN isn't some effective mechanism for doing it, but instead a bureaucracy so inept that it makes the US Congress look nimble and decisive.

    It's more that this is a long-term problem and we humans are not really equipped to deal with long-term problems. It's not made easier by the fact that, for this problem to be actually solved, nearly every country in the world would need to work together and actually stick to the rules. Fat chance of that happening - the concept behind that is called the "Tragedy of the commons".

    And the earth is not in peril. It might just not be the cozy place it currently is.



  • @Rhywden said:

    It's more that this is a long-term problem and we humans are not really equipped to deal with long-term problems.

    That explains why they're wasting billions of dollars arguing over whether to put brackets around a semi-colon--it's not that they're corrupt, power-seeking, evil pieces of shit who, in a decent world, would be knelt down in the streets and have a bullet put through the backs of their heads--no, it's because humans can't solve long-term problems.

    @Rhywden said:

    It's not made easier by the fact that, for this problem to be actually solved, nearly every country in the world would need to work together and actually stick to the rules.

    Humans have worked together to solve problems before. Just not problems that don't exist whose solutions involve stealing trillions from citizens and giving it to a self-selected elite who wield political power.

    @Rhywden said:

    And the earth is not in peril. It might just not be the cozy place it currently is.

    The climate of the Earth has always been unstable. It wasn't cozy 10k years ago and it probably won't be cozy in another 10k. We'll find a way to live. Or we won't. Either way, it's not our problem and there's nothing we can do about it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Rhywden said:
    It's more that this is a long-term problem and we humans are not really equipped to deal with long-term problems.

    That explains why they're wasting billions of dollars arguing over whether to put brackets around a semi-colon--it's not that they're corrupt, power-seeking, evil pieces of shit who, in a decent world, would be knelt down in the streets and have a bullet put through the backs of their heads--no, it's because humans can't solve long-term problems.

    That doesn't make any sense - in a decent world, they would have been aborted pre-birth.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    That explains why they're wasting billions of dollars arguing over whether to put brackets around a semi-colon--it's not that they're corrupt, power-seeking, evil pieces of shit who, in a decent world, would be knelt down in the streets and have a bullet put through the backs of their heads--no, it's because humans can't solve long-term problems.

    Hyperbole much? For that semi-colon thing we only have this argument of a reporter for the Daily Mail. Which is called the "Daily Fail" by a lot of people for a reason.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Humans have worked together to solve problems before. Just not problems that don't exist whose solutions involve stealing trillions from citizens and giving it to a self-selected elite who wield political power.
    We have just your opinion that this problem does not exist. There are quite a lot of scientists who disagree with you. What's your credentials in that area? My university background includes enough Physics lectures and seminars to have at least a grasp of the concepts involved. And I find it quite astounding to believe that we can't have an influence on Earth's climate. One only needs to have a look at what the Romans did to the Mediterranean.

    And that was a pre-industrial society with a comparably low head count.



    And, no, we have "not worked together to solve problems" before. At least not the big power blocks. Or do you see China and US do something about North Korea in tandem? Do you see Russia and the US/Europe do something about Syria together? And those are comparably easy problems.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    The climate of the Earth has always been unstable. It wasn't cozy 10k years ago and it probably won't be cozy in another 10k. We'll find a way to live. Or we won't. Either way, it's not our problem and there's nothing we can do about it.
    So, if we can't do anything about it, why are you whining in the first place? It's pretty hypocritical to be a defeatist and then complain about issues you won't attack because of your defeatist attitude. Can't have the cake and eat it, too



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    or they [politicians] are negligent on a scale that will make them the greatest mass murderers in history
     

    Do I really need to read the other option, or can I go with the default assumptions for those people?



  • @Rhywden said:

    Hyperbole much?

    No.

    @Rhywden said:

    For that semi-colon thing we only have this argument of a reporter for the Daily Mail. Which is called the "Daily Fail" by a lot of people for a reason.

    You're right, I'm ignoring the loads of tangible progress that has been made towards the pretend goal of reducing carbon emissions.

    @Rhywden said:

    y university background includes enough Physics lectures and seminars to have at least a grasp of the concepts involved. And I find it quite astounding to believe that we can't have an influence on Earth's climate.

    i must have missed the lecture where they said the scientific method was based on the half-cocked beliefs of some random jackass on the Internet. Hypothesis that can't be falsified and tested through experimentation? Don't need 'em, we've got some guy who feels that things must be a certain way!

    Seriously, though, you bring shame on yourself and your family. I can't tell you how often I encounter this bullshit--people who, when presented with a scientific question, resort to "I feel it must be this way" and then immediately jump into the fallacy appealing to authority. It's sickening and disheartening.

    @Rhywden said:

    And, no, we have "not worked together to solve problems" before.

    Of course we have, unless you're falsely assuming every single nation must assent to get anything done. Which would be stupid, but not surprising.

    @Rhywden said:

    Or do you see China and US do something about North Korea in tandem? Do you see Russia and the US/Europe do something about Syria together?

    Well, they have been working together a long time on those "problems". But China doesn't want NK to go away, they just want to keep them as a useful thorn in the West's paw. Same for Russia and Syria.

    @Rhywden said:

    So, if we can't do anything about it, why are you whining in the first place?

    Wait, what? I'm complaining because it's a made-up problem pushed by opportunistic, power-seeking tumors. I'm complaining because the climate's going to change no matter what and at this point in time it's a waste of precious resources to fuck around with something nobody understands.

    @Rhywden said:

    It's pretty hypocritical to be a defeatist and then complain about issues you won't attack because of your defeatist attitude.

    I don't even understand what you're trying to say here..



  • @Mcoder said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    or they [politicians] are negligent on a scale that will make them the greatest mass murderers in history
     

    Do I really need to read the other option, or can I go with the default assumptions for those people?

    Great news: it can be both! Yes, the problem can be made-up and the people in charge can also handle the issue so poorly you'd almost think they were trying to murder us all!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    i must have missed the lecture where they said the scientific method was based on the half-cocked beliefs of some random jackass on the Internet. Hypothesis that can't be falsified and tested through experimentation?

    Erm, you're talking about several thousand scientists here.

    And you just showed that you don't actually understand the scientific method - it doesn't call for human-made experiments anywhere. It calls for observations. Unless, of course, you also want to call in question fields like Astronomy (have fun doing experiments upon stars!) or Geology (how's that earthquake machine coming along?).

    Until you show yourself to be able to understand that distinction, it's quite useless to further discuss any other points regarding this matter with you. Because it shows a deeply flawed view of what science is.





  • @Rhywden said:

    Erm, you're talking about several thousand scientists here.

    You're right. I should have said "I must have missed the lecture where they said the scientific method was based on the half-cocked beliefs of thousands of random jackass scientists."

    @Rhywden said:

    And you just showed that you don't actually understand the scientific method - it doesn't call for human-made experiments anywhere. It calls for observations. Unless, of course, you also want to call in question fields like Astronomy (have fun doing experiments upon stars!) or Geology (how's that earthquake machine coming along?).

    You are a fucking scientifically-illiterate idiot. This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen, straight up.

    @Rhywden said:

    Until you show yourself to be able to understand that distinction, it's quite useless to further discuss any other points regarding this matter with you. Because it shows a deeply flawed view of what science is.

    I'm just going to leave you a link to the Wikipedia article on the scientific method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Please read it, and then you can come back and apologize for being wrong.



  • @da Doctah said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    "Don't quote me regulations. I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in... We kept it grey!"
     

    Make up your mind which version of English you're using.  "Grey" is a "colour"; "gray" is a "color".

    Both "gray" and "grey" are valid in both British and American English. Also, you just ruined a perfectly good joke.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Fat chance of that happening - the concept behind that is called the "Tragedy of the commons".
    No it isn't. You've misunderstood the meaning of that phrase. There is no actual tragedy involved. As Hardin himself quoted: " We may well call it "the tragedy of the commons," using the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it (7): "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." " Here.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Humans have worked together to solve problems before. Just not problems that don't exist whose solutions involve stealing trillions from citizens and giving it to a self-selected elite who wield political power.

    That's not really what it's all about. I'm surprised you're not more in favour, because the actual effects of the current proposals will be crushing the poor/developing nations so as to ensure continued western economic supremacy.

    @Rhywden said:

    There are quite a lot of scientists who disagree with you.
    I think you'll find there are very few scientists who actually believe or espouse the crisis-alarmism. Those who do are largely not reputable or respectable.


    And please, please, don't bring up the 97% bullshit. You appear to have a functioning brain, so you ought to be well aware what bullshit that meme is.



  • @da Doctah said:

    "Grey" is a "colour"; "gray" is a "color".
    In proper English, horses are gray, other things are grey. If you're going to pedant, at least get it right.



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    I'm surprised you're not more in favour, because the actual effects of the current proposals will be crushing the poor/developing nations so as to ensure continued western economic supremacy.

    I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but when I say something like "Kill all the poor people and make jackets from their pelts!" I'm joking. Besides, I mostly rag on Europeans. And while Europe is poor, it's hardly developing.. quite the opposite, from the looks of it.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @TDWTF123 said:
    I'm surprised you're not more in favour, because the actual effects of the current proposals will be crushing the poor/developing nations so as to ensure continued western economic supremacy.

    I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but when I say something like "Kill all the poor people and make jackets from their pelts!" I'm joking.

    The weird part is that you're completely oblivious to others doing the same. It may come as a shock to you, but when I say something like 'Morbs must like this because it involves killing poor dark-skinned kids', I'm joking, and what I really mean is 'this is fucking evil, because only someone who actually believed the things Morbs jokes about could think it was good'.


    It's quite funny how oblivious you are to your own brand of humour.



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    Is that you, MPS?



  • @TDWTF123 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @TDWTF123 said:
    I'm surprised you're not more in favour, because the actual effects of the current proposals will be crushing the poor/developing nations so as to ensure continued western economic supremacy.

    I know this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but when I say something like "Kill all the poor people and make jackets from their pelts!" I'm joking.

    The weird part is that you're completely oblivious to others doing the same. It may come as a shock to you, but when I say something like 'Morbs must like this because it involves killing poor dark-skinned kids', I'm joking, and what I really mean is 'this is fucking evil, because only someone who actually believed the things Morbs jokes about could think it was good'.


    It's quite funny how oblivious you are to your own brand of humour.

    The really hilarious part is when I say something like "You don't get that I'm joking", I'm actually joking, because I know that you get that I'm joking, and it's only if you didn't get that I was joking that you would respond seriously.



  • @Ben L. said:

    @TDWTF123 said:
    Is that you, MPS?

    We don't say that name around here.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Ben L. said:
    @TDWTF123 said:
    Is that you, MPS?

    We don't say that name around here.

    MPS

    Also, MPC





  • @Ben L. said:

    globalwarming.go:14307 syntax error: unexpected semicolon or newline, expecting ]

    So that's what's causing global warming: a go program consuming too much memory/cpu.


    Honestly, my opinion on whether global warming (really climate change, although i call it climate destabilization) is natural is that it doesn't fucking matter. It's messing up our quality of life. Fix it.

    If a meteor was about to impact the Earth, I bet we'd spend the rest of our human time debating on whether or not it exists, and arguing that we shouldn't tamper in "the natural cycle of extinction events", instead of sending Bruce Willis into space to nuke it or something.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    Honestly, my opinion on whether global warming (really climate change, although i call it climate destabilization) is natural is that it doesn't fucking matter. It's messing up our quality of life.

    Not mine.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @MiffTheFox said:
    Honestly, my opinion on whether global warming (really climate change, although i call it climate destabilization) is natural is that it doesn't fucking matter. It's messing up our quality of life.

    Not mine.

     

    You live in the Pacific Northwet under a bridge or something.  It's always rainy there, and makes it hard to keep your weed lit.

    I can see it now.

     

    [SCENE: EXTERIOR, UNDER I-5 BRIDGE IN A SUBURBAN AREA OF KING COUNTY, WA]

    Blakey sighed and searched his pockets.  "Damn," he thought to himself.  "Only got enough to get the bus to get to the day shelter tomorrow.  Can't go to Starbucks and recharge today."

    As he settled down onto his bed made of discarded towels from the adjacent Holiday Inn Express, he had a twinge of regret.  Did his career in web 'analytics' really have to end like this?  He had once had it all; money, fame, power, [wo]men...  but something had driven him mad.  The devil's plant, marijuana.

    Turning on his PS Vita that the pawnshops wouldn't take because it didn't have a serial number, he connected to the Holiday Inn Express' Wi-Fi connection and fired up the web browser to check tomorrow's forecast.  Still rainy, just like the rest of the winter had been in Seattle.   He didn't know it at the time, but the median temperature in King County had increased by up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit since the beginning of the 19th century thanks to global warning.

    He sighed again, and pulled a damp baggie full of a green leafy substance from his pocket.  It smelled vaguely of mildew, but he decided he had to try and make it last anyhow.  Taking out an equally damp packet of rolling papers from the tattered remains of a Furry Connection North jacket, he tried to roll a joint with shaking fingers.  The first one fell apart in his hands, scattering marijuana flakes over his pants.  Fighting back tears, he took out another pinch of the precious green flakes, and slowly rolled, managing to keep it together this time.

    Thanks to the rain, lighting the joint was nearly impossible.  When he finally did get it lit, he inhaled and closed his eyes, returning to a more peaceful time in his life, before the one-two punch of marijuana and global warming relegated him to the outskirts of human society.

    A tear ran down his face as he sat holding the feebly-burning joint.  He knew that if he had done something - anything - about global warming, he could be smoking marijuana inside right now, around tolerated ones, instead of alone, under a bridge.

    His body was found four days later, slumped over against the base of the bridge.  When the police officers searched his Vita, all they found were the words "I'm sorry."  The cause of death was listed as "unknown", but in reality it was personal regret, caused by global warming.

    [END OF ACT]



  • @drurowin said:

    [END OF ACT]

    I hereby declare this playwright week on The Daily WTF.


    This is a step up from that markov week we had that one time.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    Honestly, my opinion on whether global warming (really climate change, although i call it climate destabilization) is natural is that it doesn't fucking matter. It's messing up our quality of life.

    Bullshit. Even the climate alarmists admit there's been no climate change thus far.

    @MiffTheFox said:

    Fix it.

    "I don't care that nobody understands it, can't predict it reliably and we're not even sure it's happening! JUST DO SOMETHING!" That's the kind of knee-jerk, hysterical attitude that always fucks us over.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Bullshit. Even the climate alarmists admit there's been no climate change thus far.
     

    Pray tell, what is your source for this? The IPCC Fourth Annual Report is the current authoritative source for climate "alarmist" claims, and they have the modern temperature anomaly at around +0.5 degrees Celcius. That's not a lot, but it is climate change.

    As for the original topic - even if you accept the story at face value, just look at (for example) the United States' Second Amendment: the text as passed by Congress doesn't exactly match the text passed by the States, and the comma that was dropped in the version the states received has been a source of all manner of squabbling.

    And that's after they spent four months fighting over the text of the amendment!



  • @Tacroy said:

    The IPCC Fourth Annual Report is the current authoritative source for climate "alarmist" claims, and they have the modern temperature anomaly at around +0.5 degrees Celcius. That's not a lot, but it is climate change.

    That's change since 1900. Miff is claiming this is hurting him right now, which is just hysterical nonsense.

    @Tacroy said:

    As for the original topic - even if you accept the story at face value, just look at (for example) the United States' Second Amendment: the text as passed by Congress doesn't exactly match the text passed by the States, and the comma that was dropped in the version the states received has been a source of all manner of squabbling.

    And that's after they spent four months fighting over the text of the amendment!

    So a meaningless punctuation difference in the 2nd Amendment justifies wasting billions of dollars on bureaucratic, climate change flim-flamery. Gotcha.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    If a meteor was about to impact the Earth, I bet we'd spend the rest of our human time debating on whether or not it exists, and arguing that we shouldn't tamper in "the natural cycle of extinction events", instead of sending Bruce Willis into space to nuke it or something.

    This is an awfully retarded metaphor, and I think you know it. A better one might be: Some guy says a meteor is going to impact the Earth. You ask for proof, but he says it's all based on computer models only he has access to. You ask for access to these models, but are refused. If someone happens to get a hold of these models, they are accused of "hacking."

    Now, apparently for your tiny, malfunctioning lizard brain this is enough evidence to run around screaming and insisting that we need to fuck up everyone's lives to protect us from this meteor that nobody can see. On the other hand, the rational adults know a con when they see one.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I can't tell you how often I encounter this bullshit--people who, when presented with a scientific question, resort to "I feel it must be this way" and then immediately jump into the fallacy appealing to authority.

    Appeals to authority don't constitute a fallacy if the authority in question actually has verifiable credentials in the subject under discussion. On global warming, the consensus opinion of the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists is a perfectly reasonable authority to appeal to.

    Of course on TDWTF Forums the only approved authorities are all scary clowns (e.g. Reagan, Monckton, Carlin, Murdoch) which is pretty much what you're expect from a bunch of trolls trying to outdo each other at cynical posturing. Discussing global warming here only wastes our time and annoys the pig.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Appeals to authority don't constitute a fallacy if the authority in question actually has verifiable credentials in the subject under discussion.

    No, it's still a fallacy. Your argument should be based on evidence and reproducible results, not an appeal to authority.

    @flabdablet said:

    On global warming, the consensus opinion of the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists is a perfectly reasonable authority to appeal to.

    And 99% of holistic healers believe crystals prevent cancer. Look, an appeal to bullshit authority is still an appeal to bullshit authority with no evidence to back it up. Are you really so brain-dead you can't understand this very basic concept?

    @flabdablet said:

    Discussing global warming here only wastes our time and annoys the pig.

    Discussing anything of import with retarded, ignorant, inbred pieces of shit like you is a waste of time.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Your argument should be based on evidence and reproducible results, not an appeal to authority.

    Why? Point any of the resident trolls here to evidence and reproducible results and you summarily ignore them in favour of your own prejudices.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    99% of holistic healers believe crystals prevent cancer. Look, an appeal to bullshit authority is still an appeal to bullshit authority with no evidence to back it up.

    Drawing a false equivalence between bullshit fake medicine and genuine climate science is exactly the kind of bad-faith non-argument I've come to expect here.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Discussing anything of import with retarded, ignorant, inbred pieces of shit like you is a waste of time.

    And since your time is allegedly worth many, many times as much as mine: I win!



  • @flabdablet said:

    climate science
     

     They're just throwing science at the wall and seeing what sticks.  Climate science isn't.  There's no definite statistical link between climate change and human activity.  Anthrogenic global warming is a fad theory for insane cultists.

     

    (tl;dr: fuck you)

     



  • @flabdablet said:

    Why?

    You really don't understand why a scientific argument should be supported with evidence and reproducible results?

    @flabdablet said:

    Point any of the resident trolls here to evidence and reproducible results and you summarily ignore them in favour of your own prejudices.

    "Trolls" my ass. You're just raggin' it because they aren't buying your bullshit. Seriously, you haven't even posted anything near a coherent argument.

    @flabdablet said:

    Drawing a false equivalence between bullshit fake medicine and genuine climate science is exactly the kind of bad-faith non-argument I've come to expect here.

    Once again: no evidence. Why are crystals bullshit and why is climate science "genuine"? I dunno, I guess some guys in white lab coats said it and that's all flabdablet's tiny, easily-frightened primate brain needs!

    Seriously: you are bringing shame on yourself and your family here. You sound like one of any number of pseudo-science crackpots from history.

    @flabdablet said:

    And since your time is allegedly worth many, many times as much as mine: I win!

    Dammit, tricked again!



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    "I don't care that nobody understands it, can't predict it reliably and we're not even sure it's happening! JUST DO SOMETHING!" That's the kind of knee-jerk, hysterical attitude that always fucks us over.

    We have to blow up the sun! It's the only way to stop global warming!



  • @drurowin said:

    There's no definite statistical link between climate change and human activity.

    I'm sure there's some impact humans have on the climate, but I also know that nobody has been able to show what it is, nor have they been able to quantify the costs (or benefits) of any changes the climate may undergo.

    Instead we get hysterical nonsense like "OMG, is global warming causing tornadoes/hurricanes??" No, that's not likely. In fact, all evidence seems to indicate global warming would cause fewer tornadoes. Still, we're living in times of historically low tornado and hurricane activity, but people are such hysterical little douchebags they have to get all wee-wee'd up over each hurricane, as if they're something we can pass a law against. Then add in the fact that global atmospheric temperatures have been stable for the last 15 years, and it doesn't bode well for the argument that CO2 is killing the planet.

    Or insane shit like "Climate change is causing earthquakes/meteors!"

    And of course there's the fact that in the last 13 years humanity has released stunning amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, but we're experiencing bitterly cold winters.

    At the end of the day, global warming is a power grab for political groups; a money grab for many of the whorishly corrupt, so-called "climate scientists"; a way for people with low self-esteem like flabdablet to feel smarter or "more social conscious" than the masses; and a great way for disgraced former Vice Presidents to sell DVDs so they can continue their carbon-spewing lifestyles.

    It's also an excuse for white people to go to that old standby of the "white man's burden", telling the poor brown people of the world that, trust us, it truly is better work a 15 hour shift (with one bathroom break) making iPhones than it is to own one. No, no, trust us, we wouldn't want your charming, naive, parochial innocence tainted by the hobgoblin of consumerism; that particular curse must stay solely with the white man.

    You know, one day, the poor people of the world are going to flip the fuck out and kill us all, and we'll deserve it. Between our sickening condescension in withholding technologies like GMOs, or our desire to keep their economies in the dark ages by depriving them of cheap energy, we've earned every bit of the coming backlash.



  • @Quinnum said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    "I don't care that nobody understands it, can't predict it reliably and we're not even sure it's happening! JUST DO SOMETHING!" That's the kind of knee-jerk, hysterical attitude that always fucks us over.

    We have to blow up the sun! It's the only way to stop global warming!

    Who hasn't dreamed of blowing up the sun? From my first sunburn, I hoped we'd one day have the technology--and, more importantly, the requisite will--to terminate Sol. Now maybe this "global warming" ruse will provide the perfect cover for my scheme.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And of course there's the fact that in the last 13 years humanity has released stunning amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, but we're experiencing bitterly cold winters.
    Evidence, is it not, for the need to rename the phrases "global cooling" and "global warming" with "climate change" is it not? Saves having to change the science every decade or so.



  • @PJH said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    And of course there's the fact that in the last 13 years humanity has released stunning amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, but we're experiencing bitterly cold winters.
    Evidence, is it not, for the need to rename the phrases "global cooling" and "global warming" with "climate change" is it not? Saves having to change the science every decade or so.

    The problem as I've been experiencing it is summers are getting hotter and hotter while winters are getting colder and colder. Huntsville got more snow in 2011 then all of the 00's combined, in a town where the typical Winter snowfall is none. This is only about 8 months after we got super-hot temperatures producing a F5 tornado that wrecked half the state. And this isn't a wimpy state like Rhode Island either.

    The problem as I see it is each progressive summer and winter becomes the hottest/coldest on record. That's why median/average doesn't work for comparing temperature trends, because it's trending to become more unstable as opposed to just "hotter" or "colder".



  • @drurowin said:

    Climate science isn't.  There's no definite statistical link between climate change and human activity.

    Interesting claim.

    Here is how the link works, step by step:

    1. There is a well measured, statistically significant historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature.
    2. At short wavelengths, atmospheric CO2 is transparent. At long wavelengths, it isn't. This has been known since the late 18th century, and confirmed by easily reproducible experiment.
    3. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 acts somewhat similarly to the glass in a greenhouse: it lets short-wavelength solar radiation in, but impedes long-wavelength thermal radiation on the way out. The net effect is to retain heat in the atmosphere and at the surface.
    4. Therefore, the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature is causal: adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is a forcing that raises mean global surface temperature.
    5. Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has de-sequestered enough fossil carbon to double the observed atmospheric CO2 concentration.
    6. The observed increases in CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature are consistent with the physics of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect.
    7. Therefore, there is an unambiguous link between human industrial activity and the measured increases in both atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

    I would be interested to know which part(s) of the above argument you think are unsound, and the evidence upon which you base that opinion.



  • @MiffTheFox said:

    Huntsville got more snow in 2011 then all of the 00's combined, in a town where the typical Winter snowfall is none.

    And you realize about 400 years ago the snowfall was probably much higher than it is now, right? And without the convenient excuse of human CO2 activity to pin it on. The truth is, climates aren't stable. At least, not to the degree that we've incorrectly come to expect since the Enlightenment. The tend to vary radically, and our understanding of why is extremely limited. We're basically in the Dark Ages of climate science and a lot of people are selling snake oil. We know so little that to take any decisive action would be reckless in the extreme.

    @MiffTheFox said:

    The problem as I see it is each progressive summer and winter becomes the hottest/coldest on record.

    Records have only been kept accurately for about 70 years.

    @MiffTheFox said:

    That's why median/average doesn't work for comparing temperature trends, because it's trending to become more unstable as opposed to just "hotter" or "colder".

    But it's not. Some regions are experiencing unusually hot summers, but many areas are not. What's more, you're assuming that hot summers are unusual for your area, but you're basing this on a history that's too short to be useful.

    Also, you're kind of shooting all over the place here. You seem to conflate popular notions that "global warming" means colder winters and bigger storms with the truth, which is that global warming should give us warmer winters and fewer storms. (There are alarmists who think CO2 is causing warmer summers, colder winters and less stable weather, but they have even less evidence to support their claims than the people who say things are just going to get hotter and hotter until the ice caps melt.)



  • @flabdablet said:

    There is a well measured, statistically significant historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature.

    Oh, yes, I forgot all of those hyper-accurate, globally distributed temperature-recording stations that have been with us since the time of Christ.

    @flabdablet said:

    Therefore, atmospheric CO2 acts somewhat similarly to the glass in a greenhouse: it lets short-wavelength solar radiation in, but impedes long-wavelength thermal radiation on the way out. The net effect is to retain heat in the atmosphere and at the surface.

    Of course, the problem is actually quantifying that to any degree of accuracy on a global scale with literally millions of other variables that need to be accounted for.

    @flabdablet said:

    Therefore, the correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature is causal: adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is a forcing that raises mean global surface temperature.

    There's no way you can claim a historial correlation between CO2 and temperatures with a straight face. It's some of the weakest scientific evidence I've ever seen. What's more, as I said above, it doesn't matter that CO2 impacts temperature, it matters how much, which has not been shown.

    @flabdablet said:

    Since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has de-sequestered enough fossil carbon to double the observed atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Bullshit. Most atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources.

    @flabdablet said:

    The observed increases in CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperature are consistent with the physics of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect.

    Yeah, the numbers have been massaged to the point that they kinda-sorta line up. Except every single prediction they make about the future since the early 90s has been wrong.

    @flabdablet said:

    Therefore, there is an unambiguous link between human industrial activity and the measured increases in both atmospheric CO2 concentration and mean global surface temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

    1. There is a well-measured, statistically significant historical correlation between ice cream consumption and mean global surface temperature.
    2. We know people eat ice cream primarily when it is hot out.
    3. Therefore, ice cream is causing global warming.

    This is how stupid you sound. The really terrifying thing is, it would seem you have no scientific training whatsoever. You're barely able to coherently regurgitate the talking points you've memorized. It's really sad, yet somewhat adorable at the same time.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You have to feel a bit bad for the people who earnestly believe in global warming--who think the Earth is in peril--and who have pinned their hopes on these fuck-ups.

    You can't deny climate change is happening. It's 14 Celsius outside while only 6 months ago it was 20 degrees lower. Imagine what 25 years will bring.

    I like to think of myself as the porn star of logical fallacio.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.