Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    I dispute it - at least in its current form.
    As you see Anthem, I was responding to Uncle Buck.

    To respond to DK: There has been so much excitement about this that shoddy work has reached the spotlight; I agree with you on that. But shoddy work reaches publication in every field, review does not end with the peer review process, and over time consensus is formed. While media excitement and environmentalist mania have led to the over-exposure of specific works that didn't deserve the attention, the body of data that is building is leading to a consensus of man-made global climate change. Anthem, I find your statement about global warming losing ground in the community hard to believe based on my readings and observations, could you please provide some data? Did I miss it earlier? Obviously, I haven't posted anything, and we're all busy, but if you could that would be very helpful.

    And I want to re-emphasize didn't say anything about whether the global warming literature was correct in its current form. I'm just saying the scientists who developed these theories underwent a process that assures they for the most part don't have to cover their rear like Uncle Buck suggested, despite much of the ridiculousness surrounding global warming hype. The only people who do need to cover their *** are those who continue to deny plainly obvious truths based entirely on ideology and blind stubborness.
    Last edited by bulldog; 01-14-2008, 04:38 PM.
    2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

    Comment


    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

      Originally posted by bulldog View Post
      And I want to re-emphasize didn't say anything about whether the global warming literature was correct in its current form. I'm just saying the scientists who developed these theories underwent a process that assures they for the most part don't have to cover their rear like Uncle Buck suggested, despite much of the ridiculousness surrounding global warming hype.
      This is exactly, precisely, 100% wrong.

      Global Warming scientists specifically have NOT been held up to the same standards of examination and peer review as scientists in other fields.

      Their articles do NOT receive the same scrutiny as those in other fields.

      Their theories are NOT forced to stand up under the microscope like theories in other fields.

      It's junk science. I am firmly convinced that in the decades to come we will look back at this era of global warming "science" and consider it an embarrassment to the scientific community.

      One thing that's clear from the accuracy of the data, models, and published articles: Nobody has a clue what's going on with global climate. That includes the scientists involved, politicians, and me. If the scientists were held up to some standards instead of being given a blank check, maybe they would actually come up with some answers instead of developing a model that attributes 80% of the strength of a hurricane to SST's rather than the 10% it should - and then finding that model almost universally accepted by Global Warming propagandists. Or someone developing a model that's universally accepted internationally - only to find that the parameters of the model made it obviously false, both mathematically and logically. You would not have models theorizing greater temperature increases at both poles, then find the temperature is only increasing at one, and even then not as much as at mid-latitudes. You would not have articles published that completely ignore well known weather patterns such as El Nino, La Nina or multidecadal polar and tropical cycles and instead attribute any weather variation to their pet, woefully unsupported theories.

      I have complete contempt for the scientific community when it comes to global warming. It isn't science. It's garbage.

      The only thing we know is that temps have been increasing over the past 10-30 years in the Northen hemisphere. Based on the "science" we don't know how or why this is happening. We don't know if it's Human-induced or simply another natural warm period such as we've seen at least twice in the past 2000 years. We know that CO2 levels are rising - but if you lend any credence to the models which attribute global warming to elevated greenhouse gas levels, then those levels are not the cause, because the patterns predicted by the models haven't happened.

      I do know it's unusual in this day and age for a field to have pretty much every article and study be wrong, at least in part. But Global Warming Science is special. They're allowed to make up numbers that have no basis in reality, plug them into a model and publish it - as science.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

        Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post

        I do know it's unusual in this day and age for a field to have pretty much every article and study be wrong, at least in part. But Global Warming Science is special. They're allowed to make up numbers that have no basis in reality, plug them into a model and publish it - as science.
        These are really, really strong statements. I work in the healthcare and biomedical research field, and I find our results are often overplayed and overhyped while shoddy work temporarily gains traction over more reasonable results. However, over time, significant results are made despite this. Your characterization of the "global warming" field is so strong, and so out of line with the opinions of thousands of people who do this for a living, but you seem knowledgable, so at this point I would ask you to please state how you know this (if I missed it, I'm sorry, its a long thread, just point me to the page). I agree with your general characterization that fearmongering and publication of pop/junk science will often lead to misperceptions and failures in the process, but your statements are just so ridiculously strong.
        2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

        Comment


        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

          Originally posted by bulldog View Post
          These are really, really strong statements. I work in the healthcare and biomedical research field, and I find our results are often overplayed and overhyped while shoddy work temporarily gains traction over more reasonable results. However, over time, significant results are made despite this. Your characterization of the "global warming" field is so strong, and so out of line with the opinions of thousands of people who do this for a living, but you seem knowledgable, so at this point I would ask you to please state how you know this (if I missed it, I'm sorry, its a long thread, just point me to the page). I agree with your general characterization that fearmongering and publication of pop/junk science will often lead to misperceptions and failures in the process, but your statements are just so ridiculously strong.
          That's nice - I work in an environmental science field and when the global warming hype first started I took a look at a bunch of the datasets and articles about it. If I ever thought of using the kind of crap they publish to evaluate a proposed facility site I'd be laughed out of wherever it is I'm at.

          I have 36 posts in this thread alone and have posted on this topic in numerous other threads. You can start with this post:

          http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...444#post444444

          For each of those examples I've either read the article on it or laughed at the selective math and faulty datasets. I wish I'd kept a list of the articles when I started for discussions like this but I haven't. The Mann "this has never happened before" (oops) and hurricane myths are, respectively, the most aggregious and recent examples, but by no means the only ones. And the true killer is that the warming that IS going on (and there is warming) does not fit any pattern that can be attributed to elevated greenhouse gas levels.

          EDIT: Make that egregious - teach me to post late at night and not re-read for errors

          At this point IMO the most likely explanation is a natural cycle but I have zero proof for that - just that nobody has come up with anything approaching another reason for it. I believe that we are most likely at the start of a period similar to what became both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods - a period of rapid temperature increase (at least in the N Hemisphere - we know little about the South) followed by stabilization at this elevated level for a period ranging from about 150 to 300 years, when they'll drop again. But let me stress that I don't know this - it's just that nothing else that's been proposed has held up.

          Global Warming Science is quite simply pathetic - they are allowed to use any assumption they like to develop a model, however distant it is from the truth and it gets not just published - but receives enormous play worldwide. There was a news show a few months ago that used the Tsunami in Indonesia in a trailer for a show about Global Warming.

          Generally models aren't allowed as science (in the hard sciences) - except for global warming. Then models become research even though they in no way shape or form follow the scientific method, even when done well. And for Global Warming it doesn't matter how poorly they're done - they still find their way into print.

          Or maybe they are - maybe the FDA doesn't require animal and then human tests with actual empirical results. Maybe the medical research community can simply publish models and get drugs approved.

          Of course as I've also often stated I'm all for cleaner air and if it takes global warming for us to get there, I can live with it. But if there IS something more serious going on I sure wish the scientific community would apply the same rigor they do to other fields so we can actually find out something useful instead of publishing this useless crap which helps nobody and may seriously harm us.
          Last edited by DisplacedKnick; 01-16-2008, 09:08 AM.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment


          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

            Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
            Or maybe they are - maybe the FDA doesn't require animal and then human tests with actual empirical results. Maybe the medical research community can simply publish models and get drugs approved.

            You're right, of course; we use animal models all the time, but results must eventually be validated in humans before widespread use, which is a reason so many promising drugs go gown the tube: they worked in models but not in real life. So I get your point. Obviously, global warming doesn't have the luxury of testing their hypotheses in a real environment.

            I guess, for the purposes of this thread, I'll bow to your experience, as I'm obviously not qualified to discuss this with you further.

            However, I am not yet willing to concede the point. You must admit, that despite your arguments, which I'm sure hold water and seem reasonable, the preponderence of people in your field would disagree with these extremely strong claims. I am not critiscizing you, as you mentioned it would be simply be impossible to go through all the literature and poke holes in it in a way we laypeople could understand. However, obviously, for every paper you disagree with there were at least several people who thought the methodology was sound, so I'm afraid I can't accept your ideas as blanket truth.

            And the debate, I'm sure, is far from settled. While scientists and politicians in many nations have made up their mind that global warming is real, there are many who disagree and over the course of the next years we'll see it play out. Obviously, I hope you're right. On the other hand, one must bear in the mind risk-reward when weighing options concerning warming: if the literature is wrong, the consequences of taking actions are comparatively mild (limiting growth in the most prosperous nation in the world). If the literature is right, the consequences are disasterous.

            Finally, you have to at least admit this: in the United States, China, and India, policy-makers are making decisions concerning the environment and global warming not based on scientific evidence of any type but on ideology and a "development and growth at any cost" agenda. And as I mentioned in response to Uncle Buck earlier, these are the people who must truly try to cover their ***.
            2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

            Comment


            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

              Originally posted by bulldog View Post
              And the debate, I'm sure, is far from settled. While scientists and politicians in many nations have made up their mind that global warming is real, there are many who disagree and over the course of the next years we'll see it play out. Obviously, I hope you're right. On the other hand, one must bear in the mind risk-reward when weighing options concerning warming: if the literature is wrong, the consequences of taking actions are comparatively mild (limiting growth in the most prosperous nation in the world). If the literature is right, the consequences are disasterous.
              Um, no. Did you read the UN report? Even with their screwy models and secret Michael-Mann-altered data, their worst-case scenario was a 2-degree rise in temperature over the 50-100 years, resulting in a sea level change measured in inches (I forget the exact measurement, but it's not much).

              That's not a disaster. It's an inconvenience. Yeah, there's damage to waterfront property. But it's not a civilization-ending problem.

              Finally, you have to at least admit this: in the United States, China, and India, policy-makers are making decisions concerning the environment and global warming not based on scientific evidence of any type but on ideology and a "development and growth at any cost" agenda.
              And you must admit that there are plenty of people on the other side of the fence with a "we must stop growth at any cost" agenda. Global warming is just their newest drum to beat.

              EDIT: Oh, and look at the forward to the UN Report. The draft was written by scientists, but it wasn't alarmist enough, so it was scrapped and re-written by politicians to give it the right tone.
              Last edited by Anthem; 01-19-2008, 12:13 AM.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post

                That's not a disaster. It's an inconvenience. Yeah, there's damage to waterfront property. But it's not a civilization-ending problem.
                It also predicted a rise in temperatures in Europe that was enough to push average summer temperatures to those seen during the summer 2003 heat wave, when many, many people died. The water rise was the most significant aspect of accepted models revised, but it hardly wiped the slate clean. Did you read the report, or are you getting your information from Sean Hannity? (as a side note, I must admit, I did not read the report but learned about it second hand from the Times, BBC, etc. For now, I'm going to believe those news sources over you, but if you really want to pick apart the report and show me I'm wrong, I'd love to listen).

                As for the politicians rewriting it, no doubt, and I've agreed that, like many aspects of popular science and medicine, global warming is overhyped by media and politicians. I just disagree on how overhyped.
                Last edited by bulldog; 01-19-2008, 08:44 PM.
                2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                Comment


                • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                  Originally posted by bulldog View Post
                  Did you read the report, or are you getting your information from Sean Hannity?
                  I don't think I've read/watched/heard Sean Hannity in my entire life.

                  My former life was producing Analysis and Model Reports for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If any of our models looked like the IPCC report, we'd have been shut down. To be honest, I only skimmed the report... it made me want to pull out a red pen and go nuts. You can find it here:

                  http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

                  It also predicted a rise in temperatures in Europe that was enough to push average summer temperatures to those seen during the summer 2003 heat wave, when many, many people died.
                  Yeah, I've never understood that, actually. How do 35,000 people die of heat with a high of 100 degrees? Do people just not know to drink water when it gets that hot? I'm not trying to pull a Fred Herring, here. I honestly don't understand the concept. So I'm basically ignoring this piece unless you can explain it to me. I've played full-court basketball on blacktop in 118 heat. Given, that was in Vegas so the humidity was low, but still the temperature on the court was probably 130. So people dying at 100 makes me think there's another problem besides the heat. Health care? No air conditioning? Lack of water? Stupidity? I'm too ignorant to know.

                  The water rise was the most significant aspect of accepted models revised, but it hardly wiped the slate clean.
                  Sea level has been rising for the past century and a half... far before CO2 became a problem. A quick google shows this, for example: (last paragraph)

                  http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-2/p24.html

                  Anyway, back to the IPCC report, most of the water rise wasn't due to melting, anyway. It was due to decreasing density due to thermal expansion. The relevant bits are on page 3 of topic 3. Their absolute worst-case scenario is 23.22 inches over the next 100 years. Their best-case scenario is 7 inches. Look it up for yourself.

                  I personally think it will be better than their best-case scenario, because of problems both with the models and with the data.
                  Last edited by Anthem; 01-19-2008, 10:57 PM. Reason: Fixed a typo, a link, and some formatting.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                    Originally posted by bulldog View Post
                    It also predicted a rise in temperatures in Europe that was enough to push average summer temperatures to those seen during the summer 2003 heat wave, when many, many people died.
                    Actually, no - at least not for most of the models. The models predicted increased winter temperatures with little change in summer temperatures and also that temperatures would increase by the most in the upper latitudes, less in the lower latitudes and even that little not to be seen for some time.

                    Of course since the models have almost invariably been wrong - and not just a little wrong - the predicted changes haven't happened. Then again, all the models have been trying to anticipate a CO2/greenhouse gas initiated temperature increase and so far the evidence doesn't show the patterns they expected - if greenhouse gases were the cause.

                    Now I'm not sure exactly which UN report's being discussed but I'm sure they talked about predicted future occurances based on models and I'm reasonably certain, based on past performance, that those will be wrong. Of course maybe they'll figure it out eventually but as of about a year ago they hadn't - quite frankly I've quit paying quite as much attention in the past year. They don't seem to be worth bothering with.

                    I do still check out reports on what HAS happened - such as the record polar ice cap melt from last summer. Interestingly, even those reports credit little of the melt to global warming - much more to anomalies in the polar highs and lows, ocean currents and wind patterns. Of course maybe they'll discover that those changes were caused by global warming but then I've never argued against global warming - just against the strength of the theory that it's greenhouse gas induced. In fact, the lack of cloudiness in the N Arctic last summer which was a major factor in the icemelt is actually a good argument against the greenhouse gas theory.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                      Comment


                      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                        Originally posted by Cobol Sam View Post
                        Not sure I follow you.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                          Eh, I was writing this when PacersDigest crashed yesterday, now I've kind of lost interest and time. But I'll leave it up even though its a rough draft, I haven't had a chance to respond to Anthem's post, and it doesn't say exactly what I want it to say. Oh well. I'm busy this week, but I'd love to return to the discussion sometime later.

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          Actually, no - at least not for most of the models...
                          OK, so at first I was willing to bow to your obvious expertise. But now that you've started minimizing what the reports actually predict and say, I'm starting to think that you might actually be misinformed/wrong.

                          For example, the UK Telegraph directly contradicts you:
                          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nclimate10.xml
                          Originally posted by telegraph
                          Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C.
                          Fox News reports that the American National Academy of Sciences decided that much of what was predicted by Mann et al. in the early 90's is standing up to empirical observation.

                          Originally posted by Fox News
                          The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member.
                          The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.
                          http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html



                          Now, at this point I kind of am not sure that I trust you any more (you should have quit while you were ahead ), but I am getting my facts from secondary sources, so I'm willing to listen if you want to start actually quoting and analyzing the primary literature. I have an academic account and can access any journals you wish to present. You obviously don't have to do this because its a huge investment in time, but I'm unconvinced.

                          Also, I know its fashionable to critiscize the UN because they're an easy target. But c'mon, the US government, the National Academy of Sciences, the governmental and scientific arms of the European Union, most major American academic centers: they've all reached a consensus on climate change thats drastically different than your opinions. I'm appealing to authority here, I feel like the onus is on you to make a stronger case than I've seen before I find it convincing.

                          Originally posted by anthem
                          Yeah, I've never understood that, actually. How do 35,000 people die of heat with a high of 100 degrees? Do people just not know to drink water when it gets that hot? I'm not trying to pull a Fred Herring, here. I honestly don't understand the concept. So I'm basically ignoring this piece unless you can explain it to me. I've played full-court basketball on blacktop in 118 heat. Given, that was in Vegas so the humidity was low, but still the temperature on the court was probably 130. So people dying at 100 makes me think there's another problem besides the heat. Health care? No air conditioning? Lack of water? Stupidity? I'm too ignorant to know.
                          Seniors and infants. Both have difficulty regulating body temperature and water intake.
                          Last edited by bulldog; 01-21-2008, 10:47 AM.
                          2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                          Comment


                          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                            I could use some global warming right now...

                            -Bball
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              I could use some global warming right now...

                              -Bball
                              What about the playoff games today?
                              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                              Comment


                              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                                The two days of snow in Charlotte last week convinced me there was no global warming.....(Its only the fourth time in 8 years here that I have seen snow on the ground here.....)

                                I'm kidding of course. But I subscribe to alot of the thoughts that DK's presented, I just have no background whatsoever in the environment.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X