Beginning to Unravel

[olyclimber]

you're a dick

[olyclimber]

tool, shaft, etc

[olyclimber]

who gives a shit about the real conversation, especially when you're losing, right? the "tool" insults really help out your argument. so do these guys!

 

 

[Fairweather]

dEAr poRTEr,

 

I aM reaLlY SorRy i iNSuLteD YoUR rEliGion aNd yOU Got mAD.

 

fW

 

 

[olyclimber]

thanks bro, but i'm not mad. i actually find great joy in pointing out factual error and textbook psychological issues.

so the pleasure is mine.

 

i only hope that you're keeping notes and learning, so you don't make the same mistakes twice. but don't think i won't take great joy the second go around of pointing out how you're wrong.

[olyclimber]

i am curious about your definition of "religion" though. please do educate us. does it involve stating the same tired rhetoric over and over again?

[Fairweather]

name calling (from either side of the equation) is a mask. an attempt to distract from the actual argument.

 

and yes, i'm guilty of bringing it up now, when it just happens that fairweather is the guilty party. but it is true either way.

 

Too bad you don't "bring it up" when your fellow parishioners resort to this tactic. Like, daily.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

Oh yea; almost forgot:

 

[olyclimber]

sorry if i don't, but perhaps it has to do with the "daily" part of the equation. sorry to kiss your ass, but i do respect that you come here with a different opinion. so yeah, i do notice it more when you bring it up. yes i do hold you to a higher standard.

 

it is because my conversation is with you, and not them. i find it more interesting to talk to someone who holds a different opinion than my own.

 

and don't think you're not a member of your own parish. POT KETTLE BLACK LOLOLOLOL

 

 

fyi, for me it is more "science" than "religion". I'm not calling it perfect science, but just that fact that what I think continually is called in the question makes me more of a scientist than a religious person. maybe you don't see it that way, but that is definitely my point of view. until you prove me wrong.

 

 

[sobo]

What is beginning to unravel?

 

You are Kevboning very well.

I love this. It's about time we added a new verb to the English language.

I think the last one to be adopted in mainstream use was "to Google", and that's been a while...

 

Kev.bone [kev-bohn] noun, verb, Kev.boned, Kev.boning, {NE, 2011}

noun

1. to behave in the manner of Kevboning.

That congressman never answers a question directly; he's such a Kevbone.

 

verb

2. to habitually and continuously "answer" any question directed towards oneself with another, unrelated, question to the original enquirer.

rob asked Kevbone a direct question about Ron Paul's position on chemtrails, but he never got a straight answer back; he got Kevboned...

[billcoe]

What is beginning to unravel?

 

You are Kevboning very well.

I love this. It's about time we added a new verb to the English language.

I think the last one to be adopted in mainstream use was "to Google", and that's been a while...

 

Kev.bone [kev-bohn] noun, verb, Kev.boned, Kev.boning, {NE, 2011}

noun

1. to behave in the manner of Kevboning.

 

verb

2. to habitually and continuously "answer" any question directed towards oneself with another, unrelated, question to the original enquirer.

 

LOL, put it in wiki and remember that it started here. Thanks Drew.

[AlpineK]

I'd like to post on this important thread.

 

Did somebody mention gas and science?

 

[video:youtube]

[prole]

This thread is unraveling.

[G-spotter]

Naomi weighs in:

 

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

[AlpineK]

Hmm. Tobacco Industry, Oil Industry, Koch Brothers

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBgO_ZW4K4U

[Fairweather]

...from the FoxNews of the left. A fine contribution there, Feck. But what about the BBC report that calls some of your precious IPCC findings into question? What about the famous "Hockey Stick" graph?

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

 

You are Kevboning very well.

 

Gotta love hearing from the guy who swallowed the hook which told us that all of the glaciers in the lower 48 would be gone in ten years. (Ten years ago.) I guess this is what happens when you let politicians filter science--and call it science.

[prole]

But what about the BBC report that calls some of your precious IPCC findings into question?

 

This one, right? It's worth a repost just to try and decipher what the hell it is exactly you're on about.

 

 

Is it this?

The researchers said people should still expect to see "drastic changes" in climate worldwide, but that the risk was a little less imminent.

 

Or this?

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.

 

The new analysis also reduces the expected rise in average surface temperatures to just over 2C, from 3C.

 

Certainly not this.

The authors stress the results do not mean threat from human-induced climate change should be treated any less seriously...

 

Or this.

Gabriele Hegerl, from the University of Edinburgh, is cautious about the result in her perspective piece published in the same issue of Science.

 

She says that this is just one particular climate model, and "future work with a range of models would serve to strengthen the result".

 

Climatologist Andrey Ganopolski, from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, went further and said that he would not make such a strong conclusion based on this data.

 

"The results of this paper are the result of the analysis of [a] cold climate during the glacial maximum (the most recent ice age)," he told BBC News.

 

"There is evidence the relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is likely to be different [during] very cold periods than warmer."

 

Scientists, he said, would therefore prefer to analyse periods of the Earth's history that are much warmer than now when making their projections about future temperatures.

 

At any rate FW, it's clear (to you at least) that one climate model, reducing projections down one degree, by scientists still stressing the danger of anthropogenic climate change, whose methodology for the study is anything but uncontested within the community is the kind of ammo we need to make sure we keep on trucking.

 

 

[prole]

Almost forgot...

[AlpineK]

Umm Fairweather this is Spray

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=1140

 

Snips

 

There are some unusual aspects about this study which require further investigation before the conclusions of the study can be accepted, as the authors themselves point out.

 

 

In short, we should not over-emphasize the results of Schmittner et al., as the authors themselves warn. Their results are roughly consistent with other estimates of climate sensitivity

 

In fact if Schmittner et al. are totally correct, we may be in for some rapid climate changes in the relatively near future, as we approach the amount of warming that separates a glacial from an interglacial period.

 

Scientists produce papers and submit them for review by other qualified scientists. A review identifies problems, assumptions, and errors in logic.

 

This study produces results falling within the range of other estimates. Sorry no smoking gun. It is the kind of news folks in the oil industry will be quick to advertise and skew.

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

At any rate FW, it's clear (to you at least) that one climate model, reducing projections down one degree, by scientists still stressing the danger of anthropogenic climate change, whose methodology for the study is anything but uncontested within the community is the kind of ammo we need to make sure we keep on trucking.

 

 

Hence, the title of my thread. I'm more interested in BBC's deviation from its own template. But never mind that the one degree to which you allude represents a reduction of over half the previous estimates. Or that you present nothing that disputes the report in the BBC piece. Or that the link you posted is not relevant to the study--given that it continues to assume previous CO2 correlations are correct. Again, if this were not so inconvenient for your worldview, I suspect it would not be so difficult for you to understand.

 

Edited November 27, 2011 by Fairweather

[tvashtarkatena]

You know I genuinely think you've got some intriguing and truly relevant points, FW.

[tvashtarkatena]

[font:Fixedsys](If this guy isn't gay I don't know who is...)[/font]

[Fairweather]

[font:Fixedsys](If this guy isn't gay I don't know who is...)[/font]

 

Of course.

[ivan]

gay or ghey or just gaaaaaaay?