This is a pretty balanced look at climate change
weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=1
Comments
-
I am against graphs but for climate change memes
-
Classy poast.
-
Free Pub!!! for Bill Mckibben.
-
Good read.
-
GRAA?CuntWaffle said:Good read.
-
Ok. So I'm drunk at 2:20AM and reading Hardcore Husky which is usually a bad combination (or great combo however you wanna look at it), but realized I hadn't actually read this whole article.
And wow. That wasn't even close to a balanced look at climate change. It took the views of one scientist and tried to frame it into a greater understanding of the entire issue.
If you did any research into Richard Lindzen you would find that he did some good work in the beginning of his career but has now been outcast from the scientific community for dishonest and highly speculative views on climate change.
"Dr. Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”"
Lindzen's last bastion of climate change skepticism has to do with the "Iris effect" which he uses to claim that there's really no problem there, when in actuality,
"The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. Other computer analyses foresee a largely neutral effect. The result is a big spread in forecasts of future temperature, one that scientists have not been able to narrow much in 30 years of effort."
" When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal."
Sorry Race, that article was shoddy journalism with a clear slant. Nowhere did the writer challenge Lindzen's highly speculative theory. Lindzen basically says that the rest of the community is engaged in groupthink that comes from a reliance on government grants for research. So in short he's a conspiracy theorist.
That shit wasn't chess, or checkers, not even LIFE. Probably closest to Candyland.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
All those quotes can be found in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all -
Oh yeah, sorry for the TequillaFS length but there were a lot of quotes including one from a UW professor. FREE PUB!!!11!!
-
Somewhat off topic, but at least we can say the Pacific Northwest has the best climate, bar none (save maybe Hawaii) in the US. Maybe a little too much rain, but nice cool nights in the summer. None of that heinous humidity in every state east of the Rockies and stifling heat that just makes you want to kill yourself.
-
East Coast humidity is the worst. August in Vermont vs August in Washington is night and day.oregonblitzkrieg said:Somewhat off topic, but at least we can say the Pacific Northwest has the best climate, bar none (save maybe Hawaii) in the US. Maybe a little too much rain, but nice cool nights in the summer. None of that heinous humidity in every state east of the Rockies and stifling heat that just makes you want to kill yourself.
-
Disagree.CollegeDoog said:Ok. So I'm drunk at 2:20AM and reading Hardcore Husky which is usually a bad combination (or great combo however you wanna look at it), but realized I hadn't actually read this whole article.
And wow. That wasn't even close to a balanced look at climate change. It took the views of one scientist and tried to frame it into a greater understanding of the entire issue.
If you did any research into Richard Lindzen you would find that he did some good work in the beginning of his career but has now been outcast from the scientific community for dishonest and highly speculative views on climate change.
"Dr. Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”"
Lindzen's last bastion of climate change skepticism has to do with the "Iris effect" which he uses to claim that there's really no problem there, when in actuality,
"The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. Other computer analyses foresee a largely neutral effect. The result is a big spread in forecasts of future temperature, one that scientists have not been able to narrow much in 30 years of effort."
" When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal."
Sorry Race, that article was shoddy journalism with a clear slant. Nowhere did the writer challenge Lindzen's highly speculative theory. Lindzen basically says that the rest of the community is engaged in groupthink that comes from a reliance on government grants for research. So in short he's a conspiracy theorist.
That shit wasn't chess, or checkers, not even LIFE. Probably closest to Candyland.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
All those quotes can be found in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all -
Nooregonblitzkrieg said:Somewhat off topic, but at least we can say the Pacific Northwest has the best climate, bar none (save maybe Hawaii) in the US. Maybe a little too much rain, but nice cool nights in the summer. None of that heinous humidity in every state east of the Rockies and stifling heat that just makes you want to kill yourself.
#SoCal -
WhateverCollegeDoog said:Ok. So I'm drunk at 2:20AM and reading Hardcore Husky which is usually a bad combination (or great combo however you wanna look at it), but realized I hadn't actually read this whole article.
And wow. That wasn't even close to a balanced look at climate change. It took the views of one scientist and tried to frame it into a greater understanding of the entire issue.
If you did any research into Richard Lindzen you would find that he did some good work in the beginning of his career but has now been outcast from the scientific community for dishonest and highly speculative views on climate change.
"Dr. Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”"
Lindzen's last bastion of climate change skepticism has to do with the "Iris effect" which he uses to claim that there's really no problem there, when in actuality,
"The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. Other computer analyses foresee a largely neutral effect. The result is a big spread in forecasts of future temperature, one that scientists have not been able to narrow much in 30 years of effort."
" When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal."
Sorry Race, that article was shoddy journalism with a clear slant. Nowhere did the writer challenge Lindzen's highly speculative theory. Lindzen basically says that the rest of the community is engaged in groupthink that comes from a reliance on government grants for research. So in short he's a conspiracy theorist.
That shit wasn't chess, or checkers, not even LIFE. Probably closest to Candyland.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
All those quotes can be found in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all -
I'm for humidity but against the East Coast.
-
Why do you hate San Diego?oregonblitzkrieg said:Somewhat off topic, but at least we can say the Pacific Northwest has the best climate, bar none (save maybe Hawaii) in the US. Maybe a little too much rain, but nice cool nights in the summer. None of that heinous humidity in every state east of the Rockies and stifling heat that just makes you want to kill yourself.
-
RDRYKRoadDawg55 said:
Why do you hate San Diego?oregonblitzkrieg said:Somewhat off topic, but at least we can say the Pacific Northwest has the best climate, bar none (save maybe Hawaii) in the US. Maybe a little too much rain, but nice cool nights in the summer. None of that heinous humidity in every state east of the Rockies and stifling heat that just makes you want to kill yourself.
-
BURN!RaceBannon said:
WhateverCollegeDoog said:Ok. So I'm drunk at 2:20AM and reading Hardcore Husky which is usually a bad combination (or great combo however you wanna look at it), but realized I hadn't actually read this whole article.
And wow. That wasn't even close to a balanced look at climate change. It took the views of one scientist and tried to frame it into a greater understanding of the entire issue.
If you did any research into Richard Lindzen you would find that he did some good work in the beginning of his career but has now been outcast from the scientific community for dishonest and highly speculative views on climate change.
"Dr. Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”"
Lindzen's last bastion of climate change skepticism has to do with the "Iris effect" which he uses to claim that there's really no problem there, when in actuality,
"The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. Other computer analyses foresee a largely neutral effect. The result is a big spread in forecasts of future temperature, one that scientists have not been able to narrow much in 30 years of effort."
" When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal."
Sorry Race, that article was shoddy journalism with a clear slant. Nowhere did the writer challenge Lindzen's highly speculative theory. Lindzen basically says that the rest of the community is engaged in groupthink that comes from a reliance on government grants for research. So in short he's a conspiracy theorist.
That shit wasn't chess, or checkers, not even LIFE. Probably closest to Candyland.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
All those quotes can be found in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all -
Maybe he should have used fake data, piss-poor discredited statistics, and made a fake hockey stick to claim global warming? There is group think in the science community right now on this...you have about 5 guys who get a boatload of govt money and peer review their own papers to drive the discussion, and then they hide all their data so no one can question them.CollegeDoog said:Ok. So I'm drunk at 2:20AM and reading Hardcore Husky which is usually a bad combination (or great combo however you wanna look at it), but realized I hadn't actually read this whole article.
And wow. That wasn't even close to a balanced look at climate change. It took the views of one scientist and tried to frame it into a greater understanding of the entire issue.
If you did any research into Richard Lindzen you would find that he did some good work in the beginning of his career but has now been outcast from the scientific community for dishonest and highly speculative views on climate change.
"Dr. Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”"
Lindzen's last bastion of climate change skepticism has to do with the "Iris effect" which he uses to claim that there's really no problem there, when in actuality,
"The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. Other computer analyses foresee a largely neutral effect. The result is a big spread in forecasts of future temperature, one that scientists have not been able to narrow much in 30 years of effort."
" When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal."
Sorry Race, that article was shoddy journalism with a clear slant. Nowhere did the writer challenge Lindzen's highly speculative theory. Lindzen basically says that the rest of the community is engaged in groupthink that comes from a reliance on government grants for research. So in short he's a conspiracy theorist.
That shit wasn't chess, or checkers, not even LIFE. Probably closest to Candyland.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
All those quotes can be found in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all
It would be comical if it wasn't true... -
My Geology professor back at college told me some shit like 90% of the ice would be melted by 2013, parts of Florida and California would be underwater, and Polar Bears would be gone. He started fucking crying because he said his girls would never get to grow up to see what a glacier looks like. Oil would be gone by 2015 too.
These faggots try to brainwash the shit out of you. Unfortunately back then I was exactly like CollegeDoog and slurped up the liberal agenda semen. -
Sure you bring up all the times your Geology professor was wrong but what about the times he/she/it was right?CuntWaffle said:My Geology professor back at college told me some shit like 90% of the ice would be melted by 2013, parts of Florida and California would be underwater, and Polar Bears would be gone. He started fucking crying because he said his girls would never get to grow up to see what a glacier looks like. Oil would be gone by 2015 too.
These faggots try to brainwash the shit out of you. Unfortunately back then I was exactly like CollegeDoog and slurped up the liberal agenda semen. -
I had a geology prof who fucking nailed how the Cascades were formed.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Sure you bring up all the times your Geology professor was wrong but what about the times he/she/it was right?CuntWaffle said:My Geology professor back at college told me some shit like 90% of the ice would be melted by 2013, parts of Florida and California would be underwater, and Polar Bears would be gone. He started fucking crying because he said his girls would never get to grow up to see what a glacier looks like. Oil would be gone by 2015 too.
These faggots try to brainwash the shit out of you. Unfortunately back then I was exactly like CollegeDoog and slurped up the liberal agenda semen. -
Lol right it's all a big scam to brainwash the masses!!1!1!1!!
-
Not your best effort for a 2000th post.CollegeDoog said:Lol right it's all a big scam to brainwash the masses!!1!1!1!!
Not even close. -
That's what a brainwashed person would sayCollegeDoog said:Lol right it's all a big scam to brainwash the masses!!1!1!1!!
-
Look at it this way.
The people who are skeptic of climate change are essentially the doogs who after 5 years of Sark's record, still held out hope he would be a great coach. They pointed to shit like Don James mediocre first few seasons, or recruiting rankings, even though it was a dishonest comparison.
The HHB's like us are able to look at all the data, the mountain of evidence that Sark was a mediocre coach, by looking at road record, artificial schedule boosts against shitty OOC and the like. It's the same for people who can look at all the data supporting climate change, observe what's happening around them, and accurately assess what's happening.
You fucks are being doogs.
Global Warmoogs. -
Fuck can I get a redo?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Not your best effort for a 2000th post.CollegeDoog said:Lol right it's all a big scam to brainwash the masses!!1!1!1!!
Not even close. -
One of the worst forms of pressing this site has seen.CollegeDoog said:Look at it this way.
The people who are skeptic of climate change are essentially the doogs who after 5 years of Sark's record, still held out hope he would be a great coach. They pointed to shit like Don James mediocre first few seasons, or recruiting rankings, even though it was a dishonest comparison.
The HHB's like us are able to look at all the data, the mountain of evidence that Sark was a mediocre coach, by looking at road record, artificial schedule boosts against shitty OOC and the like. It's the same for people who can look at all the data supporting climate change, observe what's happening around them, and accurately assess what's happening.
You fucks are being doogs.
Global Warmoogs. -
Wait did you seriously mention the hockey stick graph? The same graph, that after several challenges was proved to be statistically correct, and supported by dozens of follow up studies done by peers?HoustonHusky said:
Maybe he should have used fake data, piss-poor discredited statistics, and made a fake hockey stick to claim global warming? There is group think in the science community right now on this...you have about 5 guys who get a boatload of govt money and peer review their own papers to drive the discussion, and then they hide all their data so no one can question them.CollegeDoog said:Ok. So I'm drunk at 2:20AM and reading Hardcore Husky which is usually a bad combination (or great combo however you wanna look at it), but realized I hadn't actually read this whole article.
And wow. That wasn't even close to a balanced look at climate change. It took the views of one scientist and tried to frame it into a greater understanding of the entire issue.
If you did any research into Richard Lindzen you would find that he did some good work in the beginning of his career but has now been outcast from the scientific community for dishonest and highly speculative views on climate change.
"Dr. Lindzen is “feeding upon an audience that wants to hear a certain message, and wants to hear it put forth by people with enough scientific reputation that it can be sustained for a while, even if it’s wrong science,” said Christopher S. Bretherton, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Washington. “I don’t think it’s intellectually honest at all.”"
Lindzen's last bastion of climate change skepticism has to do with the "Iris effect" which he uses to claim that there's really no problem there, when in actuality,
"The most elaborate computer programs have agreed on a broad conclusion: clouds are not likely to change enough to offset the bulk of the human-caused warming. Some of the analyses predict that clouds could actually amplify the warming trend sharply through several mechanisms, including a reduction of some of the low clouds that reflect a lot of sunlight back to space. Other computer analyses foresee a largely neutral effect. The result is a big spread in forecasts of future temperature, one that scientists have not been able to narrow much in 30 years of effort."
" When Dr. Lindzen first published this theory, in 2001, he said it was supported by satellite records over the Pacific Ocean. But other researchers quickly published work saying that the methods he had used to analyze the data were flawed and that his theory made assumptions that were inconsistent with known facts. Using what they considered more realistic assumptions, they said they could not verify his claims.
Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature. Dr. Lindzen published a paper in 2009 offering more support for his case that the earth’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases is low, but once again scientists identified errors, including a failure to account for known inaccuracies in satellite measurements.
Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.”
Last year, he tried offering more evidence for his case, but after reviewers for a prestigious American journal criticized the paper, Dr. Lindzen published it in a little-known Korean journal."
Sorry Race, that article was shoddy journalism with a clear slant. Nowhere did the writer challenge Lindzen's highly speculative theory. Lindzen basically says that the rest of the community is engaged in groupthink that comes from a reliance on government grants for research. So in short he's a conspiracy theorist.
That shit wasn't chess, or checkers, not even LIFE. Probably closest to Candyland.
“Even if there were no political implications, it just seems deeply unprofessional and irresponsible to look at this and say, ‘We’re sure it’s not a problem,’ ” said Kerry A. Emanuel, another M.I.T. scientist. “It’s a special kind of risk, because it’s a risk to the collective civilization.”
All those quotes can be found in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=all
It would be comical if it wasn't true...
It's comical because you think any aspect of what you said is true. -
I'm not a political person at all because it's really fucking boring, but colleges are terrible at pushing their liberal bullshit. I took a gender studies class because it was easy, and this dyke professor said universities are geared towards white males. When someone in the class called her out on her bullshit and brought in an article from Time Magazine saying women were graduating at a much higher rate than men, she said Time Magazine was biased and kept teaching the same bullshit. She was far from the only one pushing this bullshit agenda either, although she was certainly the worst.CuntWaffle said:My Geology professor back at college told me some shit like 90% of the ice would be melted by 2013, parts of Florida and California would be underwater, and Polar Bears would be gone. He started fucking crying because he said his girls would never get to grow up to see what a glacier looks like. Oil would be gone by 2015 too.
These faggots try to brainwash the shit out of you. Unfortunately back then I was exactly like CollegeDoog and slurped up the liberal agenda semen.
-
I know its true. Its more comical you've been brainwashed enough not to question it, even after 15+ years of flat global temperatures against it. Hell...you probably don't even understand the proxy studies they are trying to use.CollegeDoog said:Wait did you seriously mention the hockey stick graph? The same graph, that after several challenges was proved to be statistically correct, and supported by dozens of follow up studies done by peers?
It's comical because you think any aspect of what you said is true.
Don't blame me that Mann and Co are too scared to publish their data sets...every one uncovered so far has been shown to be both fraudulent and piss-poor in statistical analysis. -
Wrong again.HoustonHusky said:
I know its true. Its more comical you've been brainwashed enough not to question it, even after 15+ years of flat global temperatures against it. Hell...you probably don't even understand the proxy studies they are trying to use.CollegeDoog said:Wait did you seriously mention the hockey stick graph? The same graph, that after several challenges was proved to be statistically correct, and supported by dozens of follow up studies done by peers?
It's comical because you think any aspect of what you said is true.
Don't blame me that Mann and Co are too scared to publish their data sets...every one uncovered so far has been shown to be both fraudulent and piss-poor in statistical analysis.
Since Mann and co initially published their findings comparing medieval temperatures today, there have been breakthroughs in other temperature measuring devices such taking ice cores, which confirm the initial findings.
Mann actually released a new research paper that found that the "little ice age" between 1400 and 1700 were caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that are not occurring today.
Dozens of other studies have found that global mean surface temperature has been higher the last few decades than at least the previous four centuries.
And even if the hockey stick was busted, which it isn't, would it matter? The case for AGW came from climate mechanics and not the preceding centuries. They are just there for comparison's sake.
Fucktarded, as always with the skeptics.
![[Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/0207c5b8d9863e3a221f61582bd6bfa3_100.png)
