Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2013 - 07:51pm PT
|
Hey Sketch - Not taking questions.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2013 - 08:09pm PT
|
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2013 - 08:29pm PT
|
Yeah,Yeah,it is YOUR toilet,all about you.
You are RIGHT,your RIGHT,You are always RIGHT.
So tell us tough guy ,How do you do this standing up?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2013 - 08:44pm PT
|
so. you're the one on the left?
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2013 - 08:53pm PT
|
there's NO sailor
The guy who usually dressed up as an army man originally took the costume of a sailor. He's dressed like that on the cover of their "In the Navy" album. Classic stuff. Hilariously, the US Navy even used a video of them singing that tune for a recruiting video. How could they not know?
Here it is
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2013 - 08:54pm PT
|
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2013 - 09:14pm PT
|
Huge Respect for Lemoore NAS SAR.
Thanks for your service.
ed:nice ones, tea.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 01:20am PT
|
My god Chief, you have them all swimming in your toilet, even Ed now. Good job of diminishing the opposition.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 29, 2013 - 01:24am PT
|
With all your supposedly superior intelligence, you have been all corralled and have been controlled.
Looks like The Chief is so invested in his ideology that the truth couldn't cut through his closed mind if it were an atomic chainsaw.
It's like the reality of day can't be believed by the undead. But sure as the sun will rise, day will come.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 08:21am PT
|
Same goes for you,whatever you are.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 08:39am PT
|
This thread is dead to me. The idiots have taken over.
And by idiots, I mean The Chief, Rick Sumner, and Sketch(whoever he is). You all are idiots. Completely and utterly.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 29, 2013 - 11:15am PT
|
And you expect us that do not believe in your coy CAGW ideology to turn around and succumb to it?
 The Chief
Hey The Chief, what makes you believe that your ideology is correct and the ideology supported by 97+% of the scientific community is wrong?
Why is it that what you read is not propaganda, while you believe the the publications of the IPCC is propaganda? How can you tell what's right and what's wrong?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
|
The level one criteria "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause
of recent global warming" seems to be the only group that clearly agrees with the introductory sentence I quoted. Those papers account for less than 2% of all opinion papers. A fairly small group. Among them are several authors who have public rejected Cook's assessment of their papers.
Interesting, can you show me those authors and their papers and explain why Cook's assessment were wrong?
edit: quoted the whole interesting part in sketch post because I expect some backpedaling.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 02:05pm PT
|
Raymond, the methods and claims of Poptech's "investigation," which Sketch cites above, fall apart pretty quickly when examined. The Richard Tol fiasco could be a whole episode (and has made many blog posts) in itself, culminating in an unsuccessful effort by Tol to compose his gripes into a publishable response letter.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 02:10pm PT
|
Please, show me the authors and papers. I am not really interesting in reading a long blog post and checking the details of the abstracts to disprove your claim. You made a claim and should be the one backing it up.
I have already done that for some of the papers and I believe that your claim are wrong.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 03:00pm PT
|
Really?
What's so difficult about
"Is this an accurate representation of your paper?"
"No."
Lets make this slow because it involves details and I know that you don't like details. You wrote:
The level one criteria "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause
of recent global warming" seems to be the only group that clearly agrees with the introductory sentence I quoted. Those papers account for less than 2% of all opinion papers. A fairly small group. Among them are several authors who have public rejected Cook's assessment of their papers.
(my emphasis)
My understanding of your claim were that there were authors that had their papers rated in level 1 that have public rejected that assessment. Did I misunderstand what you meant with that? If not please, point me to those public rejections. I cant find them in your link.
I where also interesting in doing my own assessment of those abstract and I also wanted your opinion about the assessments. The reason for that is that I don't really care if someone writes on a blog that his abstract where incorrectly assessed if it clearly wasn't.
Am I clear enough?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
|
You first paper is clearly a level 1 paper if you read the abstract. The author neither seems to disagree with the assessment in the blog post and he is also using 70% that is not in agreement with the abstract.
I don't care about the level 2 papers because those where not included in your claim. Yes, I know those stupid details. It is much easier to just make up things.
So now it looks like you lied (using your way to use that word).
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 03:39pm PT
|
Because too much focus, media, and discussion are wasted on denial of climate change reality, we are losing a chance to have an intelligent discussion of what policy changes are needed. Those policy changes are happening anyway, and are being implemented without enough thought.
Examples:
--California energy storage requirments that exclude hydro pumping.
--Cap & trade type restrictions don't work nearly as well as carbon taxes.
The denialists have found political success with their disproven nonscience, and this has sidetracked useful public debate. They have attempted at times to discuss cost/benefits, but never got far with that argument because they never attempt to calculate it themselves, only dismiss other people's calculations. ( A similar argument that was used in the past against policy on smoking, mercury in coal exhaust, seat belts, car exhaust, diesel exhaust, sewage dumping, etc.) Just because you can't accurately calculate costs/benefits, that does not negate a policy change. Vague costs/benfits numbers do not mean we should hide our heads in the sand. We already have an energy policy that does this, by failing to account for 90% of the external costs of fossil fuel use. Inaccurate costs/benefits already applies to our existing policy.
What was the cost/benefit calculation to rebuild New York shores after Hurricane Sandy? (Answer: it was never done)
Even Heartland posts:
"The Social Cost of Carbon: Garbage In, Garbage Out
http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/02/the-social-cost-of-carbon-garbage-in-gar
Reason magazine science correspondent and Liberation Biology author Ronald Bailey discusses Robert Pindyck’s working paper on the social cost of carbon. Bailey concludes Pindyck makes a “devastating argument that recent estimates of the SCC amount to garbage.” However, Bailey also says this does not mean Pindyck rules out the threat of catastrophic climate change. Bailey says Pindyck favors a carbon tax “roughly equal to the social costs of carbon concocted by the Working Group” as it "would help establish that there is a social cost of carbon, and that social cost must be internalized in the prices consumers and firms pay."
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
|
That the sun result in less than 50% of the warming and
"These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century"
Why don't you just admit that you were wrong?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!