Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

    The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.
  • GAT_00: The last time there was a global month of below average temperatures was February 1985. Everyone born after that month has never experienced a month of below average global temperatures.

    The odds of that happening, no matter how you define it, while assuming that there has been no increase from the 20th century temperature average, are so far beyond possible that absurd doesn't even begin to describe someone claiming it. There is no legitimate evidence that the planet is not warming. 332 months in a row of above average temperatures? It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


    LIBERAL LIES! MOAR OIL!
  • I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

    Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

    In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

    In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.
  • I'm sorry, but the graph I have right here from the FundedByExxon Institute that I got from Michelle Malkin's site show that it was chilly in my neighborhood yesterday, therefore all the fat cat climate scientists have to give up their Bentleys and Lambos and parade in front of the Fox News headquarters wearing polar bear outfits and carrying signs admitting it was all a big moneymaking super scam.
  • Yes, global warming is real, but when I open my window, it's cold outside.

    How about you stop using facts and science to justify things and just use some common sense?
  • It's clear that what we need right now is more piracy.
  • GAT_00: I've figured out how to show just how impossible this is if the planet was not warming, using the most egregious Denier assumptions I can think of. First, let's assume that the temperatures of one month have no connection to the next. That makes probability calculation easy. Second, let's assume that there is a 99% chance of a 0.01 degree increase, 98% of a 0.02, 97% of a 0.03 degree increase and so on, for easy calculation. Third, let's ignore every single month of actual data, and assume that the average global temperature for each month was 0.01 degrees above the 20th century mean. That means the probability of 332 months in a row of temperatures 0.01 degrees above average is simply 0.99 raised to the 332 power. That calculation is something below 0.05, or less than a 5% chance of happening. In other words, it is statistically significant.

    Under the most bullshiat, fact ignoring scenario I can think of, the chance of 332 months in a row above normal temperatures is STILL beyond a statistical expectation for the null hypothesis of no temperature change to be true. The actual data would make any statistical result even more unlikely.

    In other words, there is not a single scenario possible where the null hypothesis of no temperature increase versus the 20th century is possible to be not rejected. There is absolutely zero chance this is a random event and is in my mind unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

    In other words, there is no chance Deniers are right.


    I'm not a Global warming denier, but I can tell you what they'll focus on, which you accurately included in your post:

    unequivocal proof that global temperatures have increased above the 20th century mean.

    We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."

    At some point, I'm sure, someone will bring up that the world was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs were around.
  • Lsherm:

    We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."
    ...


    Well, polar ice has been keeping records for a lot longer.

    Global temperatures fluctuate. Anthropomorphic influence on the greenhouse effect? You betcha, but not as bad as volcanic influence in the past.

    Are we gonna see a future where the temperatures are higher? Yup.

    Is there anything we can do about it? Depends what your metrics for "do" and "about it" are.

    Are we gonna need a farkload more seawalls in 100 years? Indubitably.

    But maybe in 100 years the girlscouts can build a seawall in a weekend.
  • Asa Phelps: But maybe in 100 years the girlscouts can build a seawall in a weekend.


    Girl Scout Mech builders!
  • The future is uncertain and the end is always near.
  • Could be worse, we could be going into an ice age.
  • Science is a liberal conspiracy.
  • Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!
  • How much global warming does it take to screw in a incandescent light bulb?

    none because they were both made up things XDD
  • pay raise... can't get one ..
  • Lsherm: We've been keeping records for about 120 years, so they'll just dismiss it by speculating that this has happened before but we don't have an accurate record of it, especially since we're looking at 332 months of increased temperature "on record."
    ...

    Have you ever seen Jesus wearing a warm coat while riding a dinosaur? Case closed. amirite?
  • ijit: Dem libruls is controllin' all de meedya an' spreadin' dar lies ta trick all us common folk dat knows better!! Welp, I's taint fallin' fer it!!


    We need somebody who can stand up to the experts!
  • It should be freezing here in Nevada. It's not.
  • GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.


    Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.
  • MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

    Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


    No, you moron, the skeptical position is the one that accepts the damn evidence. The position you are describing is a subset of Deniers.
  • MrEricSir: GAT_00: It is utterly impossible for that to happen if global temperatures were not increasing.

    Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


    It doesn't matter. Either way, changing our behavior will make it better.

    If man-made global warming is a hoax, we clean up the planet.

    If man-made global warming is real, we clean up the planet.

    We win either way.

    Unless you are a friend of Dick Cheney. Then your net worth might drop from 900 million to 887 million. And that would be bad.
  • Arguing about global warming/cooling it doesn't change it and humans in general are egotistical to believe we have that much impact on our environment.

    We get 1/1,000,000 of the suns energy. Say that fluctuates to a miniscule degree. OMG, GLOBAL WARMING! ITS ALL OUR FAULT!

    /i can't wait until this world burns...
  • MrEricSir: Nobody in their right mind would argue otherwise. The skeptical question is whether we humans had anything to do with the rise in temperatures, or whether it was strictly an act of nature.


    a) The only thing that significantly affects temperature is the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases in particular.

    b) Greenhouse gases have been going steadily up since the industrial revolution
  • Load 25 of 395 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.