« Previous Having a Heart FAIL | Oddly Specific: But What About The Cold Water? Next »
» 260 Failures in Communication
Leave a Reply
Popular FAIL Videos
-
Recent Failures in Communications
gloworm on Autocowrecks: It’s the M… Deanna on Dating Fails: Yet Another… neoritter on After 12: Partying WIN: Vanqui… neoritter on After 12: Partying WIN: Vanqui… WolfmanXX on Dating Fails: Yet Another… Fajardo100 on Dating Fails: Yet Another… expat47 on FAIL Nation: Literacy FAI… MrP on Poorly Dressed: Assemble, BUT … Deus Ex Finibus on FAIL Nation: Probably Bad News… Some Guy on Music FAILS: Squidward Is the … 
Cheezburger Company Blog
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
You win one internet
guys this is a great idae it would work!!1!
easy, she can try this at home, close all kitchen doors and windows, open the fridge and watch the temperatur rise
so easy to get her laid…
You’d probably have great success.
Troll.
Physics.
What is there to understand? It’s all made up to incrase taxes and make rich government numbnuts richer. You’d have to be a complete idiot to think mankind is behind climate change.
I’d have to disagree, but assuming you’re right… surely if there’s even the smallest chance that we ARE to blame, is it worth gambling the future of the entire planet? Worst case scenario, we were wrong, we’ve got s**tloads of cool tech and no more being held to ransom over oil…
Unless your sarcasm has just gone completely over my head
there should really be some sort of [/sarcasm] option…
I’d have to disagree… if there’s even the slightest chance god is real and you’re going to hell for not believing in him, is it worth gambling your immortal soul?
BTW I’m not promoting religion… I’m pointing out that only a total dumbaxe adjusts world economies based on a “if there’s even the smallest chance” standard.
In a “if there’s even the smallest chance” world, the Hadron Collider would never have been built. We would not now be working on fusion or even nuclear power because their risk is a lot more than “if there’s even the smallest chance”. That standard is a false one that mankind has NEVER followed, and it refutes itself because following it is itself a risky proposition in many cases.
The frigging money fairy doesn’t fly out of Al Gore’s butt giving everyone “cool tech”, people PAY for it with money they would otherwise use on things that are actually useful. In your “worst case”, all the “cool tech” reduces plant food in the atmosphere, GREAT JOB!!!
Just to point out your logical flaw (the last time this topic was debated, you made the same false point): Gambling my immortal soul is something that effects myself and no-one else. Gamblig our planet effects everyone now and in the foreseeable future.
It’s not a flaw, it’s just irrelevant to the point. The point being, as I said, no one sane uses “if there’s even the smallest chance” as a standard.
Except in the case that they can get someone ELSE to pay the bill for their overcautiousness, of course. And now we see the roots of why everything revolves around transfer payments.
I shouldn’t have said “point”, rather “simile”. You should have used an example where everyone is affected by the consequences of an action, not just one person. But hey, I’m sure you did understand what I meant, you just don’t ever admit that you were wrong. Even when it’s not that important.
Btw, there are quite a lot of people who use Pascal’s wager as their personal final argument why they’re religious. Dunno what you’d say, but myself, despite being an atheist, wouldn’t claim that everyone who does that is insane. Therefore, contrary to what you said, there are sane people using “if there’s even the smallest chance” as a standard.
He did use an example of something that affects many people.; in fact, he used two. His examples were the LHC, and nuclear power.
True; the one I referred to wasn’t of the same quality, though.
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER
There was no chance that the LHC would destroy the planet. Only retards in the media with no understanding of the Physics involved hyped up the “End of the World” stuff. There was one “scientist” who proposed it but was ignored by the entire scientific community as his calculations and arguments were flawed, not even using the required amounts of relativity theory to predict the outcomes of the collisions. The LHC doesn’t perform any particle collisions which are not happening naturally in the upper atmosphere of our own planet, all the time.
As for Fission/Fusion Power, that is a calculated risk with backups in place. If something goes wrong it can be contained. Not perfectly but enough to prevent the whole planet from dying.
If the people who say global warming does not exist are wrong then our entire planet will be brought to ruin. If we do something about it now and it turns out that it wasn’t us and that it’s just a natural cycle then we haven’t lost anything (except for keeping Sheiks in power throughout the Middle East). Also, the oil and natural gas will run out. If we haven’t got Fusion Power working by that time then you can kiss spending money on your “useful” things goodbye.
There isn’t a guaranteed chance that an airplane will crash every flight it takes, so whats the point in doing safety checks on it after every flight? I for one wouldn’t feel nervous at all if I knew some company saved some money by not checking the plane before liftoff [/sarcasm].
Logically, you should believe in a God and get to go to heaven, and similarly be prepared if global warming occurs as predicted. The only reason is one sacrifices your morals, the other invests money in something that isn’t as profitable.
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket…
Humans do effect their enviroment, but climate changes regardless of our doing. We are only a modifier to the change. And if thing go wrong, we humans get screwed, but the planet survives regardless. Of course a planet’s regeneration takes a crapton of time.
True, but still doesn’t hurt to stop polluting, and keeping forests. Humans are greedy.
It wouldn’t hurt to do that, but if I did I might become one of those holier-than-thou people who give everyone else disapproving stares every time they forget to recycle.
Holier than thee*
Exactly. I’m not a climate nut – but there is value in conservation. There’s nothing wrong with clearing up our smog and keeping forests alive. We may not be causing global warming, but anyone who’s flown over California knows that what we’re doing isn’t good. If not good for the Earth, it’s not good for us.
PSST… here is a SECRET.
Climate change does not have one, single, solitary thing to do with conservation.
Climate change is about cleaning up CO2. which is also known as PLANT FOOD. You EXHALE it. Smog does not consist of Carbon Dioxide.
You accidentally got the forests right, because they lock carbon, but do you realize that deforestation was completely off the table in the Kyoto negotiations? Because the 3rd world is burning their forests, and we’re more forested then we were when the first European settler landed. It’s all about transfer payments, and it was never about anything else.
you sir… get -1
NH4 is worse than CO2 so we should be targetting that, but no1 wnats to give up their piece of meat
You sir, will give that -1 back because WATER VAPOR absolutely slaughters both.
Not always, clouds reflect a good amount of rays, thus helping to prevent the increase in temperature.
Since when are clouds made of water vapor?
can’t tell if trolling or just incredibly stupid….
@suppenman, Can’t tell if you don’t understand the difference between vapour and liquid, or…
actually I can, you clearly can’t tell the difference between vapour and a liquid.
a tip, if you can see it (i.e. clouds) then it is liquid.
Water vapor forms clouds! Not the other way round!
Water Vapour condenses into liquid (clouds) before reaching the upper atmosphere.
How very ignorant. I bet you’re imagining the farmers in Brazil with beady red eyes and pointed teeth.
The reason some farmers are slashing and burning is because they need to feed themselves and their families. There are measures being taken to teach the farmers better methods to prevent topsoil being washed away and in turn reducing the need to move on to the next section of land.
Firstly, most air conditioners generate heat outside in order to ‘produce’ cold inside. All they do is transfer heat from inside to outside. Their overall impact on global warming is an increase. Letting an air conditioner run outside is dumb. (Other air conditioners use water evaporation, which isn’t much better). So yes, she does not understand anything.
Secondly, global warming is pretty well documented scientifically. I’d invite you to read the relevant literature but, despite your (future) claims, my bet is that you are scientifically illiterate. All you know about global warming is likely from a few libertarian blogs which have an ideological interest in pretending there’s no such thing.
why would evaporative coolers not be much better than a mechanical coolers?
Hmm i wonder what happens to all the water in lakes oceans and streams? ohh right evaoprates, condenses in clouds and rains again on the earth( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle )
No seriously why is putting water in the air a huge issue? It’s not like it is then getting blown into outerspace.
Thanks captain hindsight.
There is no “science” behind anthropogenic climate change, only COMPUTER MODELS of how a small group of scientists FEEL the climate should work. These models are so flawed that they have zero predictive power, and must be extensively massaged every time they run a new simulation. After specific items (google climate hockey stick) are totally debunked, they’re merely tweaked or amazingly enough, simply resubmitted without change.
There is no oversight of the tiny amount of like-minded scientists. There is no meaningful peer-review. They have NEVER pointed out an error in their own work, it falls to critics to do that. They boycott and intimidate scientific journals who publish anything except what they want.
They have fabricated data and lied about doing so in regard to past temperatures because the accurate data shows that what we’re experiencing is nothing special, historically. When compelled to share their base data by the freedom of information act, they destroy that data instead of submit it.
Yeah, I’d trust them. Wouldn’t you? That’s what Tom means by “scientifically literate”. It means “sucker”.
Humans really don’t have that much to do with climate change. The earth goes through Ice ages naturally, we are currently coming out of one, which is why the world is getting warmer. Simple as that.
Though, as someone above mentioned, it still doesn’t hurt to stop screwing up the environment and become less dependent on oil. (which in itself is a good thing because oil is a limited resource and we won’t have it forever)
Meanwhile, it takes more CO2 to make an electric vehicle and run it for 10 years than it takes to make an ordinary vehicle and run it for 10 years.
And the batteries require rare earths, 80% of which are in China. So we trade OPEC as a master for China as a master. That’s a great plan. Let’s do it faster.
And this is only kind of true… It doesn’t help the environment to buy a hybrid and only run it for a few years, but after some time it IS better for the environment.
But what you said about running an ordinary vehicle for 10 years emitting less C02 than an electric vehicle is nowhere near correct. Dumbass
wait wait… both might be right… we need to look at the whole picture.
key question is how energy is generated, and with what fossil fuel you are comparing:
if wind or solar power x diesel new car: electrical car rocks;
if oilshale electricity x diesel new car: diesel pollutes less;
if hydroelectric* x diesel new car: hydroelectric wins;
if atomic** x diesel new car: atomic winds
gasoline cars pollute less and will potentially win in more situations.
BUT…
*consider many square km of flooded areas to generate this power will likely eliminate unknown species of flora and fauna (cure for cancer?)
** consider nuclear waste, Chernobyl, Fukushima…
therefore i am still not convinced that, as we generate power today, electric cars are a good solution – except if they generate their own electrical power.
That’s one of the fundamental questions. Some solutions:
ht tp://www.supersmartgrid.net/
ht tp://www.desertec.org/en/
ht tp://www.alpha-ventus.de/index.php?id=80
ht tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Actually….
www dot theaustralian dot com.au/news/health-science/electric-cars-may-not-be-so-green-after-all-says-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576
Dumbass. Learn to read.
This is why scientific information is so alarmingly one-sided. Someone shows that battery-powered cars don’t actually save Co2 when you consider ALL the factors, and don’t assume the batteries and the grid power don’t come from a unicorn’s butt, and the media yawns.
But, let AlGore proclaim that a severe tornado that happens WHILE THE COUNTRY IS IN THE BOTTOM OF AN OVERALL TREND OF DECLINE of them is the result of AGW, and the papers line up to get the best quote.
You know, outside the USA, people don’t give many rats’ asses about Al Gore and your silly claims that there is no anthropogenic global warming. USA’s dumbass reputation is well deserved.
The Australian, ay? Fairfax media, constant conservative “liberal party” (corporate and market liberation, or neo-liberal, not liberal in the traditional sense) propaganda paper. Its anti-immigrant, anti-conservation / climate change deniers, anti-green party, anti-youth journalism is un-bearable to anyone with a brain. Murdoch owns it too I might add. You just exposed yourself here.
That Myth actually says that if you SCRAP an old car to buy a NEW electric car it puts more C02 into the air – it doesn’t take any more to manufacture.
You MAY be right about batteries, but they can be recycled. Burned gas cannot.
Psst. Recycling is very power-intensive and doesn’t recover as much as you think it does.
You aren’t nearly as smart as you think you are. Willfully blind, and proud of it, it appears. People like you worry me.
So, lets see:
Did you investigate any of the links I posted? Even one?
No?
You don’t have the right to call me “willfully blind”. I’m using sources like the WSJ and the NYT and the “Australian”, not some fringe blog.
If you have some sort of SPECIFIC exception, we can discuss that. But you’re coming off as “You have a different opinion than me and I don’t like it”.
Sorry, sorry. “objection” not “exception”.
Going from past experience with the things you’ve said, I can very well call you willfully blind. I could call you more things, and I have in the past. You REALLY aren’t all that you think you are.
Are you really dismissing the articles on the basis that the person who posted them made your feelings all hurty in the past?
I think we need a separate female version of the scientific method.
ARGH! Sorry to barge in, Avis (couldn’t help but notice), but sadly that… comment… Ryan… made… ticked… me… off.
I’m sick and tired of hearing people who think everything has to be adjusted for females. Really.
I respect and understand the fact that men and women have differences, but people blow them out of proportion.
I also refuse to state my viewpoint on global warming, just so I can state this.
Please, please, please don’t say that. It’s sexist statements like that that make me wonder sometimes.
Ryan, if you wish to get a point across, try not to sound so rude. It puts people off.
Awww, so cute. Resorting to ad feminam in order to feel better about yourself.
No… just simply getting agitated about people who become hostile to get their point across. Or those who state theories in a passive agressive way…….
Oh, did I hurt your feelings TOO? I guess that proves AGW is real!
Thanks for playing.
You call reading an article from “The Australian”, that redneck, tabloid style, Rupert Murdoch owned piece of crap…Investigation? LOL!
Ryan, please die. No, I am not kidding. No, this has nothing to do with global warming. Yes, I really do hope you die. I’m not wasting a lot of energy worrying about whether you die, mind you, but if you died tonight, I’d smile a little bit. Truthfully.
“Ice ages” are times when there are mile thick layers of ice covering most of Scandinavia and Canada and some other countries. If we were coming out of an ice age now we’d be seeing glaciers melt.
We’ve been in a warm period for the last 10000 years. It’s just getting, you know, even warmer. And yes there was a temporary heat period less than a millennia ago, it’s warmer now than it was then.
Actually, by definition, an ice age is any period in which polar ice caps exist. So we’re actually still in an ice age.
“If we were coming out of an ice age now we’d be seeing glaciers melt.” By this definition isn’t the answer yes?
“There is no “science” behind anthropogenic climate change, only COMPUTER MODELS of how a small group of scientists FEEL the climate should work.”
Yeah, I guess if you say that enough it’ll be true. We didn’t go to the moon either, did we Ryan? So here’s what I’d say; there is no “research” behind your statement. You are simply cherry picking and regurgitating sound bytes of the climate change naysayers.
You’re right!
There is absolutely no difference between questioning AGW and questioning the moon landing. Why, I’m surprised you haven’t compared them to flat-earthers yet! Homeopathic remedies anyone?
So do we get to compare you to the Luddites yet, or is only one side allowed to falsely analogize the other with nutballs?
Lot’s of claims, no evidence to back them up, Ryan. On the Internet we call it trolling. I’m really open to your ideas but all I read so far from you were claims, accusations, but no sources nor references.
First, it’s not common for a COMMENT SECTION ON A HUMOR SITE to require documentation.
Second, it’s curious that you are only requiring documentation from one side of the debate. Surely that’s not a tactic on your part?
Thirdly, unlike everyone else on the thread, including you, I *have* provided google terms to highly relevant topics on the subject. Google terms are even better than a link, because if you don’t like a source you can just choose one that you DO trust.
And Fourthly (the moderation filter seems to be eating half my posts), you really need to look up the definition of trolling. If you can find one even moderately authoritatively source that defines trolling as “making claims without providing documentation”, I’ll send three(3) internets straight to your doorstep.
In the meantime, YOU can stop trolling, which MY dictionary defines as posting crap with no actual purpose except to disrupt a conversation.
So what exactly is your actual purpose here?
If you are talking about Science then you have to produce evidence to back up your claims. That is how the Scientific Method works. You also have to alter your views as more evidence is brought in. If you ignore evidence because it doesn’t fit into what you already believe to be true then you might as well see what Jupiter is doing in Capricorn because that will have the same validity as your claims.
Well to be fair, he did provide a source from “The Australian” the biggest troll paper in Aus. Lol!
You’re free to believe what you like or, perhaps, what is more convenient. You can analogize anyway your heart desires.
That criticism goes BOTH ways.
I think we are arguing semantics.
At the end, you should not buy into all of which you read, do your own research and compare data on some level of logical analysis.
I like certain research, but I would not recommend trusting science with a bios. Don’t forget that German scientist under the governmental bios were either forced or chosen to “proof” racial superiority.
(Related to the actual subject) On a another note, Nature has a kind of heat redistributing system; mainly the oceans, which are connected and can be the cause of a small ICE age if enough fresh water is placed in it, it is also the main most source of O2, and for that matter a buffer for the amount of Co2.
Also, wasn’t some of the sappurt for global warming shown as week when a hacker revealed that the communications between scientist showed that they communicated between each other that they would “agree on certain aspects about Global Warming.” (Even though there is more research that can be done.)
The government lies, it’s a fact that is clear if you look at the data and the amount of falsification to the “supported” data.
I believe in a science that is not biased by any influence but the scientific drive to gain knowledge and produce technological break though, some of which are hopefully available for the benefit to humanity.
here’s some proof, I can post links to some of the stuff:
-I don’t care what you call a conspiracy, it is illegal for international government officials to meet up in secrecy simply because it is dangerous, and there are certain times that has happened without mainstream news even mentioning it.
-The free journalism dieing and main stream media is run by the few. I was not a happy camper when the media in the US didn’t do a bit of research and blamed my country for attacking Georgia, which is false. Georgia attacked Russian civilians and created a smoke campaign website, which was where the would media simply eat up every photo-shoped images and bogus info. Russian troops pushed Georgian hostiles to the border. *(9 times out of 10, the corp. news organization don’t care about the truth. And are a joke when it comes to informing the masses about problems.)
-Fluoride in the water supply is a industrial byproduct that is also poisonous. Even if it wasn’t, when was I invaded to push forward for the chemical-ization of our water supply because Some people didn’t brush their teeth? The reasons presented are funny to say the least. Heck not even my dentist thought any of it was true.
-There are a-lot of people who were healed a-lot more effectively, when not using chemo-therapy.
the therapy is called
-There is a “gravitational adjustment” technology that can create a soccer like device. Some thing not only the Russians had studied, but there are scientific journals published in Russia about the research and the prototypes (the research lost funding not to long ago, after a successful prototype, you can make your own conclusions. more importantly the scientist who participated in this are still around.(also note the German “Bell” experiments which were mainly berried under ground at the end of the war, also the Germans had a functioning jet fighter which didn’t do much since it came into play too late int he war…))
You are wrong in just about everything you said here… like EVERYTHING. Not one sentence in your post is remotely accurate AT ALL. Dumbass
You’re so cute about pretending to know the scientific community. *pat pat* Shall I call you Ben Stein?
You don’t understand either! If you truely understand how refrigeration works you will know that the “green house effect” violates the 0th, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Whydon’t you pick-up one of Feyman’s articles on debunking false theories.
This is a win – the scientist who believe in global warming, green house gases and man made climate change are just as stupid as that blond who wants to put AC on highways.
How exactly does the greenhouse effect violate the Laws of Thermodynamics? It doesn’t decrease entropy; it increases it (the Earth is part of a system with the Sun and the rest of the universe, therefore entropy will always increase as some heat escapes into space). Energy is also conserved. So how are the laws being violated?
EddieV has got to be a troll who’s trying to discredit the anti-AGW side, because no one can be that stupid irl.
*looks at the video at the top*
Oh wait. He COULD be that stupid.
The ”anti-AGW side” has next to no support in the scientific community. But keep on holding to straws, USA is funny to laugh at.
Tom,
if it’s true, then why have scientest had to fudge their data. Most recently, the sea level data. Answer: to get grant money.
If this was true, the economic lobbying would be done to PROMOTE climate change measures, not to question them.
The scientific community has LESS bias than the corporations, and they are resoundingly supporting the notion of climate change.
That said, even if climate change WASN’T created by humans, we’d still need to ADJUST to the climate change, because climate is changing and regardless of why we need to adapt to it. The current climate is among the hottest this planet has experienced the last million years, so any hotter will cause massive strains on the human society (which is used to extremely mild weather variations really) and many ecosystems (which is more adaptable) alike.
What a stunning display of ignorance. You can’t possibly know the first thing about government and spout such utter ignorance with a straight face, can you?
In most cases, a climate of more regulation and more laws favors big business, the two primary reasons is that it can lobby for favors more effectively than smaller competitors, and they already have large compliance departments. You think that’s far-fetched? Here’s a real-world example: Google “general electric tax breaks” and read the NYT’s article. Now tell me that the barber shop down the street can avoid 100% of its taxes. Go on.
Repeat after me: “Government IS a special interest.” Repeat it about 100 times, banging your head against the wall if necessary. This isn’t some libertarian propaganda, it’s just pure common sense if you actually think about it.
Now with the above in mind, recant that abjectly stupid assumption that if something’s government-funded, it’s free from influence. The opposite is true, and we don’t have time for your child-like faith in the purity of government money.
Next, do your homework. I told you to google “climate hockey stick” and I really meant it. “hottest this planet has experienced the last million years” was a FRAUD, it was PROVEN to be a FRAUD, and the fact that idiots like YOU still believe it shows why a lie can travel the world while the truth is still lacing its shoes.
Calling others idiots won’t win an argument, so I can’t presume that is your goal. Instead, you must be raging.
I did your search, and came up with this: Kaufman, D.; Schneider, D.; McKay, N.; Ammann, C.; Bradley, R.; Briffa, K.; Miller, G.; Otto-Bliesner, B. et al. (2009). “Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling”. Science (New York, N.Y.) 325 (5945): 1236–1239. The hockey stick findings were somewhat problematic, but data since then has corroborated the general trend.
Sorry, but I have to tell you: No chance. Ryan will not consider any reasonable argument, scientific data or theoretical model that gives evidence for man-made global warming. To him it’s only science when it “proves” that it’s all a hoax. I’ve had this discussion with him before, and he didn’t even alter his talking points in the slightest. Nothing will convince him.
His reaction to your post will be
a) insults and name calling, or
b) ignoring your comment, or
c) not reacting to what you actually said, but steering away the debate.
It’s nice that you won’t let him present his claims unchallenged, but it will not have any effect on Ryan.
You’re referring to a comment behind a subscription wall. Did you even read anything but the abstract?
Do you even know what the “hockey stick” is? Because I’m curious how you un-falsify data.
No, I referred to the behaviour you have shown in this as well as in previous debates on this issue.
You could partly prove me wrong by replying to the comments by Phlogiston (June 20, 2011 at 2:40 pm; June 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm) or Huffno (June 20, 2011 at 8:18 pm; June 20, 2011 at 8:20 pm) – or my own very long comment further below. Depends on your reply, of course.
I hope you die.
^This
Holy crap… I had an idea my comment would generate some responses but the level of feeling on both sides is clear.
I totally agree with the point “if there’s even the slightest chance god is real and you’re going to hell for not believing in him, is it worth gambling your immortal soul?”, I guess I should have thought my argument through before putting it out there
I’d like to state for the record, I’ve done a lot of research on my own time reading various (sometimes scientific, sometimes not) arguments for and against. The conclusion I have come to is that, the carbon dioxide which mankinds’ industries are releasing into the atmosphere, IS having an effect on the global temperature. I understand this is a very heated issue for some, especially those who feel that research data is being massaged and the wool is being pulled over their eyes. I’d urge you though to look beyond your human urge to ‘fight the power’ (whatever you perceive ‘the power’ to be) and do some balanced research of your own. Climate change models have now been updated using the data from 2010 and surprise surprise, the trend is looking more and more likely to be caused by human activity. Sure, the earth has natural periods of coolness and hotness. That doesn’t mean that we aren’t pushing the planet towards an extintion level event (for us at least).
It really annoys me when there’s any lack of transparency or massaging of data by climate change proponents as it only gives the sceptics more ammo. Without meaning to blow my own trumpet, I’m a long way from stupid, I was grammar school educated and don’t just jump at an opinion for no reason, I like to find out as many facts as possible. From what I’ve seen, there’s no doubt in my mind that human-kind is contributing to climate change.
To quote a great man named Obi-Wan Kenobi: “Well done, you’ve taken your first step into a larger world”
As more evidence comes to light we can only hope that even people like Ryan Waxx will accept that Climate Change is real and is a threat. It may not be entirely our fault but it cannot be denied that we are having an effect and that we must work to counter that effect.
Can’t tell if trolling….Or just very stupid
Just stupid
Just stupid. We have to understand her, she’s a woman, and she’s not in her kitchen… It’s really disturbing, I guess.
Or, you know, she’s American. Land of the only school systems that turns kids into idiots while teaching them to be over-confident of their knowledge.
It’s just absolutely fascinating that you can say that when she’s mouthing what she’s been told about global warming at school.
Truly, liberals have no sense of irony.
and conservatives only do things that that they’re rich masters tell them to do.
Seriously? Not only “your” x “you’re”, but now “their” x “they’re” too???
Great! I’m all out of instructions from my overlord and forgot his email address. What was it again?
Oh god, and to think she’s out there trying to breed D: The planet is so doomed.
Yea. Clearly she should just stick to giving head.
Or but sects
I b’lieve you meant butt secks.
Trolling is a art.
Are all Americans this stupid, or just the blonde ones?
Just all “true” Blondes
Not all Americans are this stupid. The smart ones just don’t end up on failblog.
Tellll meeeee howww to makee an avatar! <:(
go to gravatar.com
Change your name to James Cameron.
This is not a misunderstanding of Global Warming (although this is a hoax perpetuated by Al Gore).
This is a misunderstanding of how an air conditioner works. An AC unit does not create cold air. It moves heat from one place to another. In a home, it takes heat out of the house and puts it outside. That is what that big fan and coils are for. Stand next to it and you will feel the heat coming off of it.
So the Valleygirls idea is not so bad? We could conceivably remove the heat from the Earth and send it into Space? Of course the insanity of that is worse than contemplating a Jeb Bush run at the White House.
well seeing as space is mostly massless, that would be one big radiant cooler, trying to work against things like the SUN. Interesting Idea though… use the heat to make microwaves, and then beam those to outer space.
We’d better hurry up since CO2 absorbs heat radiation rather than transmitting it and we have a record amount of CO2 up there and its growing rapidly.
Also probably not a good idea to burn coal to power it.
Funny how on this thread you talk about a Jeb Bush run instead of an Al Gore one.
Ryan. You really have a little something for Al Gore.
He wants the butsects
Not really. He’s a cheap, rhetorically easy symbol to use in place of the faceless, mindless masses that believe his crap and don’t think critically. Actually, there’s a fair amount of AGW proponents who think he’s a terrible spokeperson for their cause, and they’re right.
But he does get people talking about it – like yourself, for instance.
British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher first alerted the world to global warming, not Al Gore, when she gave a speech to the British Royal Society in 1988. I am proud to have had her as my PM. She was the only world leader at the time who was scientifically literate.
Wait… I may be as dumb as this girl… so where does the cold air come from?
the cold air comes from warmer air. You take the heat out of it, use it to heat something else up (e.g. more air or water) blow the cooled air where you want the temperature to go down and send the hot stuff somewhere that you don’t mind is hot.
Oh, and the energy that is used to do all this is dissipated as more heat – so if you compare all the hot and cold stuff you started out with to all the hot and cold stuff you ended up with, you will find the total has more heat than you started out with.
Air conditioners cool specific areas, but at a cost of heating up somewhere else more.
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore
Are we under a bridge? Cause the trolls are out in force today.
And global warming is caused by excessive flatulence from tree-hugging liberals….er, religious nut conservatives…er, which one pisses people off more? It’s them.
flatulence from … cows?
I believe the animals you’re looking for are goats.
scape-goats? win.
shes trying not to laugh the whole time this is definitely fake
No, I think that was the nervous laughter of someone trying to show confidence in her own ideas with a kind of “of course it’s a good idea, silly” chuckle.
The way she said that she had thought about it before sounded genuine. She’s really thought about it before.
She is that stupid.
And she can vote… or will likely be able to vote soon.
Do we really have people that STUPID in this world?
Please someone tell me this is a fake or trolling. She really is a super smart scientist?
Not “this world”. just “that country”.
You mean denmark, right?
Kopenhagen was just the place where all the Americans came to advertise G. W. Solver Airco device, The air conditioner that will heal mother Earth’s fever.
parents! teach your children all you can.
no dont do that, beat them with a stick!
kill her. before its too late.
Actually Al gore was sued multiple times because most of the things he said were false or made up.
And his house eats as much electricity as a Texas.
This is a myth that has been going round for three years now.
It originated from a video made by John Coleman in which Coleman said he was going to take Al Gore to court over his malicious global warming claims. In the same video Coleman made reference to 30,000 scientists who had signed a petition against global warming. Coleman has yet to initiate his action against Gore and the ’30,000 scientists’ claim is another myth. Only Fox News broadcast the story.
See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100729214718AAMg6oH
This gal will only ever be good for one thing. ….After she gets those braces off, anyway.
you kidding me, braces are hot!
They’re piercings for teeth.
dummy
At least she’s smarter than my ex.
She left you . . . that’s totally smart . . .
She is crearly a pipatzou!!!
Yes that’s right! A naughty pipatzou that xysia took her mind away.
I am pretty sure that to mouni ths milaei clearly…
‘Cause I’m a blonde! B-L-O-N-D!
If she’s dumb enough to believe in “global warming”, do you really expect her to understand how air conditioning works?
According to Tom, she’s “scientifically literate”
Doesn’t work that way. You don’t have to be scientifically literate to believe in global warming – you simply have to believe without questioning. Likewise, it’s possible to dismiss global warming while being scientifically literate – you just need to have to be ignorant, or have a strong enough ideological bias to make you ignore the scientific evidence.
Oh, very good! You have the passive-aggressive snotnose schtick down pat. Now if only you applied yourself half as strongly towards questioning your heroes…
Don’t worry… The Flying Spaghetti Monster will protect you, Ryan!
U MAD?
If you don’t even understand what the term “passive-aggressive” means, you probably shouldn’t expect to be taken seriously on more technical topics.
You’re right!
You should look up the term right away.
I know you are, but what am I?
Don’t bother too much with the troll in denial aka most of the USA.
who is this douche?
excellent way to reinforce the dumb blonde stereotype
The Air-Shield code is 1…2…3…4…5
Amazing! That’s the same combination I have on my luggage!
I guess I’ll have to change mine… Oo
I’d totally hit that.
^ This
… with my car.
Who cares about “global warming”; obviously no one understands how air conditioners work. They emit hot air from the side opposite the one which emits the cold air.
Yeah, totally true. Global warming is negligable compared to the functionality of air conditioners.
The great thing about this idea is that air conditioners release cfc’s which are one of the leading causes of global warming. What a re-re
release CFCs? hmm not really any more, and even in the old days, only when not maintained causing leaks.
/sorry i’ll go back to my custom industrial HVAC corner again…
no no, come back! we need you, ‘cos what you said is only true in the Western world. In China, for instance, hundreds of millions of individual AC units are old, badly maintained and leaking Freon gases. When my AC in China stopped working, I looked in the paper and found ads and mobile numbers for a whole bunch of guys whose JOB is going around with a canister of Freon gas, filling up private AC units that leak. These guys only bother to MEND the leak if they reckon it will take less than a year for the whole lot to leak out again. Otherwise they just fill ‘er up and tell you to call them again when it’s all gone.
Sad but acurate. Also, developping countries didn’t stop using CFCs yet, plus the spike in CFCs didn’t even reach the ozone layer yet, so it’s gonna suffer even more damage before it recovers.
Seems like we have a very hard time avoiding to screw up the planet we live on. Darwin award for our whole species if this keeps going.
The real fail here is anyone believing in this whole Climate Change scam.
No.. the real fail is anyone believing in an imaginary being.
Can’t tell if trolling or USA citizen in denial fed by Faux News.
Awesome! Nothing better than a stupid solution to an imaginary problem.
*Not intended to be a factual statement.
What the hell is this woman doing outside of the kitchen not making sandwiches nor bringing beer like she should?
She’s just practising troll science…
problem?
I am pretty sure Al Gore already came up with this idea.
the title should be more like “understanding thermal dynamics fail”
this has nothing to do with the “global warming” scare.
I morally wrong to make fun of a retard
You shouldn’t use the term “retard” as it’s offensive to all the retards on this thread. Also, you shouldn’t wear leotards, and it’s offensive to retard lions.
This is also a failure to understand how air conditioners work by transferring heat, not destroying it, and that they need to be powered by an energy supply system that includes greenhouse-gas-emitting facilities.
The point I am trying to make with the following is this: The “consensus” behind AGW is as false as AGW is. Often, entire societies of scientists have their board adopt positions with with they don’t agree, The AGW scientists have been caught (in the email release scandal) plotting to intimidate science journals not to publish anti-AGW papers and in one case, claiming a successful result from that intimidation.
Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, (American Meteorological Society Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member) writes this: (heavily excerpted, google the whole thing)
The AMS has not held the type of open and honest scientific debates on the AGW hypothesis which they should have… These changes are not associated with CO2 increases. Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology…
Their upper tropospheric water vapor feedback loop is grossly wrong. They assume that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause large upper-tropospheric water vapor increases which are very unrealistic. Most of their model warming follows from these invalid water vapor assumptions. Their handlings of rainfall processes are quite inadequate.
They lack an understanding and treatment of the fundamental role of the deep ocean circulation… They assume the physics of global warming is entirely a product of radiation changes and radiation feedback processes. They neglect variations in global evaporation which is more related to surface wind speed and ocean minus surface and air temperature differences. These are major deficiencies.
It is surprising that GCMs have been able to get away with their unrealistic modeling efforts for so long.
Did you just troll yourself?
No. I was trying not to make a wall of text in one post.
”The “consensus” behind AGW is as false as AGW is.”
You are an idiot. Well, enjoy your flat-earth theories when the rest of the world research with scientific methods.
Ryan’s pretty sensitive about this so you better take it back. If you don’t there’s a good chance he’ll be on here cutting and pasting all night.
God, you idiots are cute.
Don’t post any links except google search terms, and they tell you you’re “trolling” because you aren’t including proof.
DO post links and proof? They insinuate you’re unbalanced for “copying and pasting all night”.
That’s a nice little setup you have there. Gets em coming and going and you never have to actually refute or prove anything.
Breath Ryan.LOL
U mad? The scientists were cleared of any wrongdoing. Keep to trying to quote them out of context, and misunderstanding what they talk about, your misinformed opinions don’t have any influence on how scientific methods are applied.
^
This.
I try not to insult people on a personal level as it usually only leads to the the heels of the donkey being dug in further. Your points however have summed up my thoughts exactly and saved me from a fate of overposting
Just to be clear, Mr Back Sack & Crack Waxx has ended up with his comments in positions (whether intended or not) so it looks as if I’m agreeing with his point of view. I am not.
They were cleared of wrongdoing when they clearly admitted to several things that cannot be explained away, and the committee that cleared them did not address those points.
For example, no one addressed the “we’ll boycott you if you publish anything that disagrees with us” part. There is no condition whatsoever under which an honest committee could just blow that off without even addressing it, and that’s exactly what they did.
You think the writers of those emails were… lying when they admitted to doing that? How gullible are you?
How about reading what they were actually talking about in the e-mails, without misunderstanding words on purpose and taking it all out of context to make it seem like refering to totally unrelated conspiracies?
You’re deep in conspiracy theories and denial.
and your “what one nut job thinks doesn’t invalidate what hundreds of others have shown” line shows just how ignorant you truly are. There is a VERY small circle of people who are actually allowed to see the data, and an even smaller one who do the publishing and reviewing.
That “one nut job” happens to have his name plastered all over most of the U.N. presentations that the media rely on when doing their reporting.
Of course, if you actually KNEW anything about the scandal, you’d know that.
Do you have any proof for your “There is a VERY small circle of people who are actually allowed to see the data”-claim?
Do you have any proof for your “There is no meaningful peer-review”-claim?
Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia: “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”
Does that help?
How about: Do you remember when the IPCC 2007 report warned that most the great Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035?
Please explain to me how a FUNCTIONAL peer-review process allows a gaffe of that sheer magnitude. Remember, that one made it to the final report. It wasn’t checked at ALL.
THAT is it? That’s all you got? One guy allegedly saying something, one potentially false estimation in a report? Plus the one “scandal” you referred to earlier?
Even if that was enough (it isn’t) to claim that “there is no meaningful peer-review” – remember, we’re talking about thousands of different studies, done by thousands of scientists over the last 30 years – , you still failed to elaborate how all these scientist that work in fields that are directly or indirectly relevant to the study of climate change and the man-made share of it are only a “very small circle of people” and how who “allows” and limits access to data.
Btw, if your part of your claim is that mistakes, false estimations or data interpretation that was later proven to have been wrong devalidates the overall findings – you’re wrong. That only shows a huge lack of understanding on your part of how any scientific process (maybe except in mathematics) actually works. In short: Especially for a complex system such as the global climate it is to be expected that theories have to be altered. That’s how things are in science.
If you want to see some of the problems with the supposed “clearing” of the AGW scientists, read this obvious propaganda piece by the wall street journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html
Now of course I don’t expect YOU to change your mind, but someone else who isn’t stuck on stupid might wonder why this is the first time they heard of little details like, oh, the panel lying about the neutrality of the board members.
The “out of context” charge makes sense in the context of the “hide the decline” email, but NOT for most of the other emails, and even the “hide the decline” part is iffy, because its own author contends that he doesn’t know what he meant when he said it.
A snippet:
“But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor (one that published an article they didn’t like),”"
Clearly out of context. Surely nothing that a review committee needs to address, right?
mdw19 versus reality:
mdw19: (they weren’t trying to intimidate anyone they were hacked and their messages taken out of context)
Reality: But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that “I’ll be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: “I think we should stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Yep, clearly taken out of context and clearly not trying to intimidate anyone.
Reality: 1
mdw19: 0
And if this is the first time you’re hearing about this? Consider what ELSE you haven’t been told.
If it isn’t the first time you’ve read those quotes? Honesty FAIL.
Wow, u rly mad. Take a deep breath.
How did she not kill herself getting this far. They should add a stupid button along with the thumbs because I don’t know whether to like it as an epic fail or to dislike it because one person can actually be that stupid.
I find that it helps to think of the meter as being an “interesting” meter. If the post is interesting, it doesn’t matter that the subject is a moron, it’s still fascinating to watch.
Besides, this is failblog. A fail is a win, here.
Yeah, dude, you’re totally winning in this arguement about global warming!
Blonde, female, thinks Anthropogenic Global Warming is real — “three strikes; you’re out”.
(For that last one: Search terms “Solar cycle 25″ “maunder minimum”. Follow with “discount cold-weather gear”.)
Nice conspiracy theories totally irrelevant to actual scientific methods. But please keep ridicule yourself using pseudo-science and conspiracy websites.
I would work. Because science.
Can someone write what the girls said please? I’m not english and i don’t understand all the words when someone talks.. Thank you!
stupid blond
She should be blowing on people.
How is she not dead already? I figure she spends too much time on her back or on her hands and knees to do much of anything dangerous. She looks hot so she gets a pass for being an idiot.
Thermodynamics fail. Is there any science education in the US?
Once when I was in the science and research building at university in the room housing all the cold drink machines, someone walked in and said “Why is it always so hot in here?” I had to explain to her that that was the heat *not* in the drink she was about to purchase.
They specifically covered this in *my* science class. I can’t speak for the rest of the country.
Actually a first law of thermodynamics fail (and maybe a dash of second), not a global warming fail. Failblog fail. Again.
we need a hair dryer size of africa
Silly women.
and maybe we could solve world hunger if we made a giant pizza!
Global warming is BS.
CO2 is linear diatomic, therefore it would reflect heat away as well.
sorry, I meant triatomic.
Lol. Too late.
brain cells, not strong with this one
Clearly A. doesn’t understand the concept of the conservation of energy, B. has never been on the ‘other’ side of the air conditioner that dissipates the heat, and C. is a complete idiot.
God dammit this is why us blondes have a bad rep!
She’s smarter than any scientist that advocates man-made global warming.
She is smarter than 98%+ of scientists knowing what they talk about.
Let me guess : you are a USA citizen.
That chick is so stupid .. outdoor air conditioners LOL.
Anyone with half a brain can figure out that outdoor refrigerators would be much more effective!!
Don’t know if trolling … or just American.
Valley girl she’s a Valley girl
Ok fine fo sur fo sur
The usual depressingly stupid global warming argument…..
I wish people in the comments could at least TRY and sound more intelligent than the girl in the video.
Amazing how many here are always so sure that global warming is a myth created for whatever sinister cause. I’m just hoping the majority of you deniers are Americans. The world can deal with you guys being VERY late to the party (would be better if it was different, though), as long as Europe, China, India and so on take the necessary steps. The USA will have to follow at some point in time – and the rest of us will then already have the technologies for the next industrial revolution. Thanks in advance for your money, Americans! And sorry that we, not you, have the jobs.
Wasn’t there a time when Americans were proud of being the leaders to and beyond new frontiers? From tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis to tempi passati! Sad.
The world can deal with you guys being VERY late to the party (would be better if it was different, though), as long as Europe, China, India and so on take the necessary steps.
Psst. Whatever liberal news organizations you’re using as a news feed, they aren’t telling you anything about Chinese emissions(now larger than the U.S., the status of Chinese compliance(zero), or what they’re using as their main source of power (coal), or what controls are on those Chinese power plants (little to none). But if you want to continue to reside in a fantasy world, go ahead and don’t seek out news on your own.
F*rst of all, I would really appreciate if you could stop your constant use of condescending “Psst”s. Secondly, it would also be nice if you could stop your allegations that I am just brainwashed (my paraphrasing) by the liberal media. Did you really already forget that I am not an American and that in itself proves that you cannot have any idea how I am getting my informations? Or do you know anything about the German newsmedia? Yes? No? I’m guilty of assuming that you don’t know anything at all about our newspapers, TV programmes and so on. Prove me wrong or stop claiming things you don’t have any clue about.
To the content of what you then said: If you carefully re-read my comment you will probably notice that I did not say how China is perfect at protecting the enviroment or anything remotely similar. I merely said that the world can deal with America continuing to pollute the planet as if it’s a necessary part of the American way as long as China and others take the necessary steps. That’s an “if”. You could have replied that what I said is not true since the second largest polluter of this planet (number one per capita, closely followed by Australia) is the US; and this means even if all others would reduce all harmful emissions to zero mankind would still have problems with the US emissions alone.
But of course you didn’t. Instead you correctly pointed out the massive pollution China produces. This sounds as if you see a problem in what they’re doing? If so: Why?
Anyway, even the developing nation China with their huge problems in various areas is increasingly aware of the many and severe problems caused by their pollution and general enviromentally unfriendly actions. Estimations I read some time ago conclude that 4-5% of China’s annual growth of about 9% is actually non-growth, because it is “bought” on the expense of future generations that will have to spend insane amounts of money to repair or just contain the damage already done. Therefore China does aim to pollute less, it’s what they want to do. For example, not long ago the Chinese government admitted that their giant dam has very negative consequences for the enviroment – and I guess you know how happy especially “communist” regimes are to admit any wrongdoing… Also, since not long ago China is the worldwide number one in either solar cell or wind turbine production (I don’t remember which one it was). They’re also working hard on becoming one of the main producers of high-speed trains that are better for the enviroment than planes. So, in essence, yes, China is a huge part of the global problem, just like the US is. But at least the Chinese increasingly accept that fact and they’re slowly beginning to work on changing that. Keep in mind that it is much harder for a developing nation such as China to do so, compared to the US or Europe! But still: Too little? Definitely! Better than what people like you are propagating? No doubt.
My last point, hoping that you read this comment and reply to it: I would like you to elaborate precisely on the goals the worldwide – shall we say “conspiracy”? – of scientists and liberal media you apparently diagnose are trying to reach. Please don’t use the simplistic “they want power and control”, but be precise: What exactly do they want? Why do they want it? When they finally have “the power”, what are they gonna do with it? What’s their plan? What’s their motivation and what are their goals?
I’m sure you realize how serious allegations of the magnitude you’re presenting are. Thousands of scientists from all around the world spitting in the face of basic scientific standards, procedures and ethics for decades? Thousands of journalists from all around the world laughing at the fundamentel standards of journalism? Okay, the latter is easier to believe than the former, but still your claims are exceptional. So please be precise, I’m ready to read as much as you write on this serious issue.
Yep, Statian denial of anthropogenic global warming is very funny, most of it is just plain silly, but some are actually trying to sound smart and you need to read scientific research papers to know what they are making up / misrepresenting to claim ”it’s a hoax!”.
I am NOT kidding, I started to cry!!
Then I remembered, she’s a blode american, then I was like “My cat is slightly grey!”
Wow, what can I say – this is what teaching to the test will get you. She has absolutely no critical thinking skills whatsoever! Wouldn’t want to have to pay her electric bill. DUH!
This is why we need some kind of annual natural selection day. A day where we can remove warning labels off of everything and let nauture sort us out.
every second I watched this, brain cells commited suicide.
Stop watching it before you end up like her!
From what i’ve read of the data regarding climate change, it’s fairly clear that we ARE in a natural upsweep of temperatures. We did not CAUSE this climate change to happen.
However, we ARE a catalyst to what is taking place, the temperature would be rising regardless of what we do but we are just making it worse.
When the climate changes naturally without unnatural influence, it goes at a rate which is supposed to allow species time to adapt to what is happening. Of course not ALL species can adapt, but that’s a discussion for somewhere else.
But when you factor in our influence, it is going faster than intended. This effect may or may not be minute compared to the natural change, but regardless the long term effects could be disastrous.
I don’t have a degree in any fields of science regarding climate change, so i may be wrong, but this is just my interpretation of what i’ve read.
Biodiversity-wise, the main problem with current anthropogenic global warming is we make climate heat too fast for adaptation without a mass extinction event. This is need to be put in the perspective of the already ongoing extinctions because we already damage and fragment many rich ecosystems, leaving less and less room for adaptation of most species.
Isn’t this the same girl from the “i have one regular and an indian friend”-video?
Obviously fake and bad acted. r u all blind?!
GENIUS! Why didn’t I think of that!!
This is why we don’t allow teenagers to vote, or do anything else for that matter.
My god… even god would piss on such an idea
no wonder she is on failblog. it takes someone at LEAST as dumb as her to even THINK global warming is real. the truth of the matter is we are going back into an ice age. we are in an eternal climate loop so long as the earth exists. there was an ice age 120000 years ago. there was an ice age 30000 years ago. and there will be one soon.
Can’t tell if trolling or just watches Faux News.
You are LOL.
makes sense to me.
thx, masturbated
$20 says this chick is from Cali
2 fails here: girl knows nothing about how this is “supposed” to work, and global warming is a bunch of crap anyway. Simple explanation of how it’s false: those gasses they say causes it, co2 and methane are heavier than oxygen and nitrogen and DO NOT RISE. So why do they say it’s damaging the atmosphere when it can’t get there in the first place?
you have all failed. lol
Candidate for troll physics award. Except she’s serieus!