Beginning to Unravel

[tvashtarkatena]

The unrequited kind, in this case.

[Fairweather]

Gotta love the irony when the self-professed open-minded use homosexuality as a bludgeon.

 

Kinda makes me wanna go

[tvashtarkatena]

Just an observation. Any value judgement is yours, of course. Hell, I'd be testy about it too, after all these years.

[prole]

...you present nothing that disputes the report in the BBC piece...

 

That was the BBC piece, you halfwit.

[Fairweather]

...you present nothing that disputes the report in the BBC piece...

 

That was the BBC piece, you halfwit.

 

the-report-IN-the-BBC-piece. eg: the Oregon State University study. Are you this dumb in person too?

[tvashtarkatena]

It's the inner, finger pointing librarian. Very J. Edgar-like. Dead giveaway. Repressed gay man fo sho.

[tvashtarkatena]

"But, I'm married! With children!"

 

LOL

[prole]

I presented nothing that wasn't in the BBC piece already. All of the nuance, uncertainty, questions posed by peers in the field (you know, science-stuff), as well as the authors of the reports' own fears of the dangers posed by anthropogenic climate change are all raised right there in the piece. Or were you too busy glorying in your Ah-HA! moment to notice?

[tvashtarkatena]

If a guy can repress his own sexuality, what ideas won't he repress?

 

Of course, this probably has less to do with repressed sexuality than a simple inability to analyze even straightforward prose reasonably. Not to worry, the average American reads at a 6th grade level, so FW's in big, if not good, company.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

 

 

 

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7C to 2.6C (3.1F to 4.7F).

 

That is a much tighter range than the one produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2.0C to 4.5C.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I stated nothing beyond the boundaries of the OSU report--other than supplementing it with Don Easterbrook's peer-reviewed work at WWU. But of course when the topic is your religion I do, admittedly, lack sensitivity.

[Fairweather]

If a guy can repress his own sexuality, what ideas won't he repress?

 

Of course, this probably has less to do with repressed sexuality than a simple inability to analyze even straightforward prose reasonably. Not to worry, the average American reads at a 6th grade level, so FW's in big, if not good, company.

 

 

The fact that you tend to latch onto themes you've recently made note of on the big screen--or after you somehow manage to finish a book--indicates you possess a certain malleability. In a fallacy of the hammer kind of way.

[prole]

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7C to 2.6C (3.1F to 4.7F).

 

Yes, if you think this, this one model (how many models do you think paleo-climatologists, modellers, and other climate scientists work with on a regular basis at any one time, anyway? Want to venture a guess?), whose methodology is anything but settled, written by scientists still warning about the grave dangers of anthropogenic climate change is some kind of a "game-changer", then you are definitely unraveling.

[Fairweather]

The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7C to 2.6C (3.1F to 4.7F).

 

Yes, if you think this, this one model (how many models do you think paleo-climatologists, modellers, and other climate scientists work with on a regular basis at any one time, anyway? Want to venture a guess?), whose methodology is anything but settled, written by scientists still warning about the grave dangers of anthropogenic climate change is some kind of a "game-changer", then you are definitely unraveling.

 

You & yours are the ones who've been saying this is "settled science" for the last two decades. Why the change of heart?

[prole]

It helps if you understand what the "scientific method" actually is. Work on that one for a while. It'll blow your mind. Then move onto "modelling". Get back to us.

[ivan]

You & yours are the ones who've been saying this is "settled science" for the last two decades. Why the change of heart?

i've hardly dedicated my life to studying the issue, but the scientific method i've got a fine enough grasp on - what is your point? there's been no shortage of work on the subject for decades obviously, and the common conclusions is clearly not your cup'o'tea. is it your assertion that the vast majority of scientists who've taken on the subject are wrong, or that the majority of scientists who have are in fact opposed to the theory that humans are causing an unprecedented change in earth's climate, but its somehow the fault of died-in-the-wool-true-believers that we, the sad masses, haven't been properly taught?

 

clearly the world is getting warmer. clearly humans have been dumping co2 and everything else under the sun into the air w/ abandon for 2 centuries. it does seem rather counter-intuitive to think the 2 things are unrelated.

[tvashtarkatena]

It helps if you understand what the "scientific method" actually is. Work on that one for a while. It'll blow your mind. Then move onto "modelling". Get back to us.

 

Yeah, I'd say his training in that department might run a bit shy o' the mark.

[tvashtarkatena]

Throwing the phrase "peer reviewed" around a lot and commenting on citation methodology doesn't cut it, either. Both behaviors support my earlier hypothesis, however.

 

 

[prole]

"settled science" vs. "modelling"

 

It's a toughie.

[tvashtarkatena]

Revision of model = UNRAVELING HOAX.

 

BEYOND BONERDOME

 

[G-spotter]

If my speedometer looks like I'm going "over 100" and I put my glasses on and see I'm doing 105, then that means I'm not speeding at all, RIGHT?

[olyclimber]

[glassgowkiss]

FW and science= oxymoron.

Hard to argue with the fact, that air pollution is harmful, so argument about global warming is just secondary in nature.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1902967/pdf/jcgprac00025-0163.pdf

[Fairweather]

 

Try reinstalling Flash. If you fail at this, try QuickTime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

If my speedometer looks like I'm going "over 100" and I put my glasses on and see I'm doing 105, then that means I'm not speeding at all, RIGHT?

 

OMG, it's bin ten years and the glashurs r almost gone!

[j_b]

I stated nothing beyond the boundaries of the OSU report--other than supplementing it with Don Easterbrook's peer-reviewed work at WWU. But of course when the topic is your religion I do, admittedly, lack sensitivity.

 

Actually, you cited Easterbrook's non-peer reviewed web ramblings about modern climate change and linked to a list of his peer-reviewed publications that have little to do with modern climate change. Easterbrook is/was a decent glacial geologist but his unsubstantiated theories about climate change are far from being well received, which explains why they aren't accepted for publication. You have already been told the above the first time you used this common denialist sleight of hand, so it's not like you don't know about it. Either your memory is poor or you are trying to deceive people. Which is it?