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

  • #91
    Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
    Well I think life begins at the time of conception, so I don't want to take the chance of this being true. I'd rather take the safe road, so we need to stop all abortions right now.

    Let's take the safe approach, afterall we are talking about human life right now, not 30 or 40 years from now. Abortion is immediate

    very strange argument. are you obsessed over the abortion issue?

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

      Originally posted by Kestas View Post
      well, why does your statement contradicts with all I know about this subject? maybe I'll have to read more, ... (but what?)

      in Europe there have been huge floods and droughts every single year recently. for example central Europe has been flooded due to extreme rains for two summers in a row in 2004 and 2005 if I remember correctly. in Lithuania, where I live, weather has been dryer than normal for at least five years now - therefore the regime of the rivers and lakes has been falling. I don't know, this looks to me exactly like what was predicted by those analysing climate change.
      You might want to check the predictions more closely.

      The main model of climate change has the polar regions as giant refrigerators that help cool the Earth. Global warming will start there and be most severe while there will be very little change in the tropics.

      In essence, the temps between the poles and the tropics will become more similar.

      So what happens then? Cold and warm fronts are less severe - cold fronts coming south are less cold while warm fronts coming north encounter warmer air - less temperature differential equals less severe weather. Fewer severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, etc.

      Fewer hurricanes due to less tropical lows - and what hurricanes you have will probably be about the same in strength to now.

      Some flooding as areas that haven't gotten much rain historically get more water but other than the coasts that won't amount to much. Fewer droughts since the Earth will be wetter overally. We might see the Saharan encroachment end - and maybe even recede.

      Of course the Global Warming hysterics will look at every weather front and scream that it's because of global warming. We just had a snowstorm in Montana. I'm sure they'll say that was due to Global Warming too.
      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

        Originally posted by Kestas View Post
        ok, I'm just an observer, so I can't check your numbers, obviously. and if they're correct, then I believe, there should be a logical explanation that you're not aware off.
        overall I would be surprised if American press (that I presume you read the most) would write anything good about Kyoto as your governament is so against it. well, let's say I'm sceptical about your arguments. They do not change my opinion.
        My argument's not based on the US - it's based on what's being said in Europe and Asia. Do you not know what the ICCF IS?

        The harsh reality of an economic plunge with little to show for it has caused some key European political leaders to do an about-face on Kyoto. The UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair, a previous Kyoto die-hard, has had to deal first-hand with the economic sacrifices of Kyoto round one. And while the UK is one of only two European nations that so far are meeting the Kyoto targets, Blair's new enough-is-enough stance is telling. "I'm changing my thinking about this... No country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem," he told government and private-sector leaders at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York last September. "I don't think people are going to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto."

        Similarly, Italy's Defense Minister Antonio Martino recently had harsh words for the EU's stubborn pursuit: "That the EU would still insist on implementing the protocol must be seen as an institutional form of collective self-flagellation. Kyoto will severely penalize the European economy without bringing any real progress toward the noble aims proclaimed by the EU."
        The "logical explanation" is that countries aren't going to harm their economies in the name of emissions control. Bush was smart enough to know that before signing the treaty. The countries that did sign it either weren't that smart or didn't care.
        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

          Originally posted by Kestas View Post
          very strange argument. are you obsessed over the abortion issue?
          Yes it is a strange argument, I was trying to pmake a point and I don't know if I succeeded. But no I'm not obsessed with the abortion issue. Why do you ask?

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            Yes it is a strange argument, I was trying to pmake a point and I don't know if I succeeded. But no I'm not obsessed with the abortion issue. Why do you ask?
            nevermind, that was a stupid question from me
            I read this board very rarely and I think I still saw you (?) mentioning abortion as one of the reasons why you vote for the republicans, so when i saw abortion being mentioned here too, the question just came out automatically. btw, I always hated the way Bush won the ellections on the abortion and religion issues alike. that was cheep, imho

            sorry for OT. anyways, I can understand why America did not sign the Kyoto protocol, but I still do not aprove this.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Well I think life begins at the time of conception, so I don't want to take the chance of this being true. I'd rather take the safe road, so we need to stop all abortions right now.

              Let's take the safe approach, afterall we are talking about human life right now, not 30 or 40 years from now. Abortion is immediate
              I think this is a poor illustration, no offense UB..

              First off to "me" this is another reason why christians shouldn't get into politics.

              Life begins at conception a commonly held view but verses like Lev 17:11 and Deut 12:23 do not support this view.

              For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

              Deut 12:23
              But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.

              Now when does a human have blood???

              Development of the Embryo
              The next stage in development is the embryo, which develops under the lining of the uterus on one side. This stage is characterized by the formation of most internal organs and external body structures. Organ formation begins about 3 weeks after fertilization, when the embryo is first recognizable as having a human shape. Shortly thereafter, the area that will become the brain and spinal cord (neural tube) begins to develop. The heart and major blood vessels begin to develop by about day 16 or 17. The heart begins to pump fluid through blood vessels by day 20, and the first red blood cells appear the next day. Blood vessels continue to develop in the embryo and placenta.
              http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch257/ch257c.html


              Believe me UB I am not trying to pick on you. IT just happens that you illustrate my point more often than anybody else. I am agianst abortion by the way.

              Now lets get back to global warming.. You assume UB that global warming has a linear relationship but could it have a exponential realationship.

              What I mean is we assume that so much CO2 is going to have so much affect but this is up for debate. If it has a linear relationship to it then you are right..We do have alot of time. If it has a exponential relationship then you are wrong and the effects of global warming could jump within a very short time. I am not arguing for either stance I simply want to point out that the analogy is misleading.

              Is pollution bad and what will be the affects? A good question that still needs to be answered but as micro organisms have taught me once they reach a threshhold they can quickly consume your butt.








              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                I've noticed a gradual change in the weather lately. It seems the humidity has lowered and the temps are lower. Especially at night. Also, and more alarmingly, the sun is appearing less and less each day!! The foliage appears to be dying.

                We must do something and quickly or else I'm afraid it's just going to get cooler and then colder and the grass and leaves will all turn brown and it will only be daylight for short periods!

                Government MUST do something about this!!! We must enlist all the children in school to get behind this movement now.

                What? This is the change of seasons and not some global, manmade change? You mean I based my fears off of a window that was just too small for an accurate read of the trend in the bigger picture? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

                -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


                • #98
                  Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                  Here is an example of how scientist still don't know what the contributions of global warming are.
                  Farting lakes anyone?
                  http://www.iab.uaf.edu/news/newsreleases.php?newsrel=37

                  Water studied a unique type of permafrost in Siberia, called yedoma, which contains an estimated 500 gigatons of carbon, largely in the form of ancient dead plant material. “This material has been locked up in permafrost since the end of the last ice age,” Walter said. “Now it is being released into the bottom of lakes, providing microbes a banquet from which they burp out methane as a byproduct of decomposition.”

                  “Permafrost models predict significant thaw of permafrost during this century, which means that yedoma permafrost is like a time bomb waiting to go off - as it continues to thaw, tens of thousands of teragrams of methane can be released to the atmosphere enhancing climate warming,” Walters said. “This newly recognized source of methane is so far not included in climate models.”

                  Now I don't believe its a time bomb just yet but it just illustrates my point that melting ice is not the only thing to look at. In that monster of a report I posted early they look at a much broader spectrum than just greenland and antartica.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                    You might want to check the predictions more closely.

                    The main model of climate change has the polar regions as giant refrigerators that help cool the Earth. Global warming will start there and be most severe while there will be very little change in the tropics.

                    In essence, the temps between the poles and the tropics will become more similar.

                    So what happens then? Cold and warm fronts are less severe - cold fronts coming south are less cold while warm fronts coming north encounter warmer air - less temperature differential equals less severe weather. Fewer severe thunderstorms, tornadoes, etc.

                    Fewer hurricanes due to less tropical lows - and what hurricanes you have will probably be about the same in strength to now.

                    Some flooding as areas that haven't gotten much rain historically get more water but other than the coasts that won't amount to much. Fewer droughts since the Earth will be wetter overally. We might see the Saharan encroachment end - and maybe even recede.

                    Of course the Global Warming hysterics will look at every weather front and scream that it's because of global warming. We just had a snowstorm in Montana. I'm sure they'll say that was due to Global Warming too.

                    I want to respond to this because you make it sound so simple when in theory it is not. Fluid and Dynamics are a mother to predict and study. I think your basing your criticism off of one model that is not all inclusive.

                    I found an overview for anyone that has more interest in this and the outcome supports more severe hurricanes as a rise in CO2. It also gives a rebuttal to criticism. One of the labs is from Princeton and its pretty hard to get into Princeton on a "hoax".

                    This is just part of it but for the full version,,,
                    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html


                    The most recent and comprehensive study by Knutson and Tuleya, published in Journal of Climate in September 2004 (download paper), confirms the general conclusions of previous studies but makes them more robust by using future climate projections from nine different global climate models and four different versions of the GFDL hurricane model. The GFDL hurricane model used for the study is an enhanced resolution version of the model used to predict hurricanes operationally at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction. According to this latest study, an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded) leads to roughly a one-half category increase in potential hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale and an 18% increase in precipitation near the hurricane core. A 1%/yr CO2 increase is an idealized scenario of future climate forcing. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is considerable uncertainty in projections of future radiative forcing of earth's climate. A criticism of our paper by Michaels et al. was recently published in the Journal of Climate. Our response is available here.

                    An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

                    Now you can argue models models models and I have already stated my opinion on that but I think it is wise to look at all conditions and not just a few.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                      Originally posted by Gamble View Post
                      I want to respond to this because you make it sound so simple when in theory it is not. Fluid and Dynamics are a mother to predict and study. I think your basing your criticism off of one model that is not all inclusive.

                      I found an overview for anyone that has more interest in this and the outcome supports more severe hurricanes as a rise in CO2. It also gives a rebuttal to criticism. One of the labs is from Princeton and its pretty hard to get into Princeton on a "hoax".

                      This is just part of it but for the full version,,,
                      http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html


                      The most recent and comprehensive study by Knutson and Tuleya, published in Journal of Climate in September 2004 (download paper), confirms the general conclusions of previous studies but makes them more robust by using future climate projections from nine different global climate models and four different versions of the GFDL hurricane model. The GFDL hurricane model used for the study is an enhanced resolution version of the model used to predict hurricanes operationally at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction. According to this latest study, an 80 year build-up of atmospheric CO2 at 1%/yr (compounded) leads to roughly a one-half category increase in potential hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale and an 18% increase in precipitation near the hurricane core. A 1%/yr CO2 increase is an idealized scenario of future climate forcing. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is considerable uncertainty in projections of future radiative forcing of earth's climate. A criticism of our paper by Michaels et al. was recently published in the Journal of Climate. Our response is available here.

                      An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.

                      Now you can argue models models models and I have already stated my opinion on that but I think it is wise to look at all conditions and not just a few.
                      So they've created yet another model?

                      How, uh, special. There are about 5 different models used to predict hurricanes - the GDFL's just one - the UK model is another, there's a ships model and one or two others. Been nice if they'd used all of them - that's what NOAA does and when the models converge they consider intensity, speed and track forecasts to increase in confidence. So yes, it WOULD be nice if they'd looked at all conditions.

                      I'd go ahead and research this a little bit but it's a model and based on the performance of previous climate models I don't think I'll bother.
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                        DK you make me laugh sometimes. NOw I am not trying to knock on you or anything but I just don't see how you are qualified to discredit reports.

                        You haven't had the training or the equipment in my opinion to be able to judge these models.

                        As I said before models are how modern science is done, like it or not.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                          Originally posted by Gamble View Post
                          DK you make me laugh sometimes. NOw I am not trying to knock on you or anything but I just don't see how you are qualified to discredit reports.

                          You haven't had the training or the equipment in my opinion to be able to judge these models.

                          As I said before models are how modern science is done, like it or not.
                          You don't need training so that when a field has demonstrated a complete inability to develop accurate models you can look at yet another model someone has invented and say, "Ho-hum - another model."

                          When climatologists demonstrate the ability to create accurate global models, I might actually care when they come up with another model.

                          When a shipbuilder's last five ships have sunk, I'm not about to buy his next one. And I don't know squat about building ships.

                          Why don't you pass along your review of my academic record BTW - please include a review of the papers I've published, conference presentations, newspaper articles, etc.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                            I will not argue with you anymore. I simply want to point out that one model of global refrigerators doesn't disprove everyones predictions. If your predictions comes true I will be a happy man and if they don't I will still be a happy man, just on a boat with a fishing pole.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                              Originally posted by Bball View Post
                              I've noticed a gradual change in the weather lately. It seems the humidity has lowered and the temps are lower. Especially at night. Also, and more alarmingly, the sun is appearing less and less each day!! The foliage appears to be dying.

                              We must do something and quickly or else I'm afraid it's just going to get cooler and then colder and the grass and leaves will all turn brown and it will only be daylight for short periods!

                              Government MUST do something about this!!! We must enlist all the children in school to get behind this movement now.

                              What? This is the change of seasons and not some global, manmade change? You mean I based my fears off of a window that was just too small for an accurate read of the trend in the bigger picture? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

                              -BBall
                              Now that was funny

                              Comment


                              • Re: Where are all the global warming fueled hurricanes

                                Originally posted by Gamble View Post
                                I will not argue with you anymore. I simply want to point out that one model of global refrigerators doesn't disprove everyones predictions. If your predictions comes true I will be a happy man and if they don't I will still be a happy man, just on a boat with a fishing pole.
                                What predictions were those? I've consistently said that I don't think we know what's going on and that science just doesn't know enough about global climate to be able to tell us much.

                                Hard to come up with a prediction based on that.
                                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X