Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
33,221 - 33,240 of 46,246 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35196
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Tha Professor edited my arguments; what's up with that? Maybe, I don't use insults or defame my political opponents, not used to reason?
Predictive modeling works great when experiments reconcile model forces against real world forces. Where there are no experimental tests, you've only got a theory rendered into algorithm.
Your watch is a good model for measuring time, because it's been experimentally tested. There's no experiments supporting climate predictive modeling.
I edited out everything after your false claim about predictive modelling, since it was obvious you were a liar and I saw no reason to reprint your lies, even while answering them.

I like the new version of your trolling classic, though -

"There's no experiments supporting climate predictive modeling."

Will we be seeing this new bit of disingenuousness in more of your posts, or was it a one-off troll intended only for me?

LOL

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35198
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to send for anything for the Perfesser here - he just dropped a content-free load of NOTHING.
Deny.
Deflect.
Ridicule.
The classic response of the useless "me too" tool.
Ad hom. That's all he's got. Completely unequipped to engage on content of the article.
When you can post or argue something meaningful and show you have knowledge of the subject or the ability to discuss it, we'll see.

If you just keep dropping loads of manure, as you do in the above and several subsequent posts, then no - ridicule is all you'll get.

I love it when Righties, Deniers, and other nuts who stink up this board demand "respect" for posts which simply don't deserve it, or opinions not backed by ANY facts whatsoever.

How is that? Were you given too many meaningless trophies as kids, and think everyone ought to pat you on the back for every little imbecility you utter?

LOL

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35199
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful - your anti-capitalist anti-free-market commie central control-freak ideological skirts are showing. And on a thread that's all about THE SCIENCE!!
No political ideology here, no sir ... pay no attention to the raving commie behind the curtain ...
LOL! Do you READ these posts before you post them, moron?

That was as fine an example of unintentional irony as I've seen on Topix for some time.

"..anti-capitalist anti-free-market commie central control-freak ideological skirts..."

You must've been turning purple while you wrote that one, huh?

ROTFLMAO

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35200
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

Teddy R wrote:
*struggling
That you are, Teddy boy, and that's putting it mildly...LOL

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35202
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Careful - your anti-capitalist anti-free-market commie central control-freak ideological skirts are showing. And on a thread that's all about THE SCIENCE!!
No political ideology here, no sir ... pay no attention to the raving commie behind the curtain ...
No it's very much tied in, if you don't give value to your environment then it is seen as worthless. Just as the Euro's did today issuing a gazillion more carbon trading credits and it dropped the price by 40%. It was the same as printing money, both systems are in a head on clash with each other. If you want Capitalism and the planet to survive then Environment has to be given more value over everything else. If you love the capital system so much then give environment the value of gold and the planet would clean up itself in no time. That's the simple solution.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35203
Apr 17, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe, I don't use insults or defame my political opponents, not used to reason?
Predictive modeling works great when experiments reconcile model forces against real world forces. Where there are no experimental tests, you've only got a theory rendered into algorithm.
Your watch is a good model for measuring time, because it's been experimentally tested. There's no experiments supporting climate predictive modeling.
Political Opponents? No, Brain, we are you scientific opponents first.

The climate models work pretty well. They were tuned to predict past weather, and so work pretty well in the current situation. They tend to UNDERESTIMATE because these times are very different from past warming episodes.

I'm looking for an experiment that shows that you are human, and not just another denierspambot.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35204
Apr 17, 2013
 
LaciMan777 wrote:
There aint no global warming god wont allow it.
God's allowing it. He allows lots of stuff. Like your poor soul living in WV, bless yore heart.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35205
Apr 17, 2013
 
LaciMan777 wrote:
<quoted text>
All you need is the bible the word of god. Amen The earth will be destroyed by fire and not by a global warming.
Global warming is a form of fire, LaciMan.

Bonefied? Yes, my wife gets bonefied at least once a day. Perhaps you meant bona fide.

God allowed three to be killed and a hundred to be injured in Boston. Why? Did you even ask? Why don't you pray for those amputated limbs to grow back, since, "with God, all things are possible". Let's see what happens.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35206
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
If you'd been paying attention, you would know that several explanations have been put forward:
*Aerosols from Chinese pollution.
*Aerosols from volcanic activity.
*Heat entering the deep ocean.
*Climate sensitivity was overestimated.
...
Pretty dumb article to suggest that science is struggling to find an explanation and mention the explanations science has suggested in the fourth paragraph then.
You seem to be confusing "explanations" with "hypotheses," which is what these are more accurately termed.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35207
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can post or argue something meaningful and show you have knowledge of the subject or the ability to discuss it, we'll see.
If you just keep dropping loads of manure, as you do in the above and several subsequent posts, then no - ridicule is all you'll get.
I love it when Righties, Deniers, and other nuts who stink up this board demand "respect" for posts which simply don't deserve it, or opinions not backed by ANY facts whatsoever.
How is that? Were you given too many meaningless trophies as kids, and think everyone ought to pat you on the back for every little imbecility you utter?
LOL
Your argument is with the author of the article and his sources, not me.

And you're still running from it.

Weak, Perfesser.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35208
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Do you READ these posts before you post them, moron?
That was as fine an example of unintentional irony as I've seen on Topix for some time.
"..anti-capitalist anti-free-market commie central control-freak ideological skirts..."
You must've been turning purple while you wrote that one, huh?
ROTFLMAO
Ooooh.

We've turned up another one.

What a surprise.
TrollBot

Mclean, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35209
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>

(Another tediously juvenile and content-free troll snipped)
Troll. Ignore.

"Flagging trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35211
Apr 17, 2013
 
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be confusing "explanations" with "hypotheses," which is what these are more accurately termed.
No, because there is evidence for all of the explanations. They are real, observable phenomena with a known and understood effect on temperatures.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35212
Apr 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The take-home points so far:

*It's a straw-man argument that uncertainty in climate science is increasing. Climate scientists have been banging on about it for years, and saying that over decadal periods, natural variability in climate can be larger than the warming trend.

*It's a straw-man argument that periods of no warming are unexpected: climate scientists have been saying for years that such periods are to be expected.

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/T9BQRV6LMIG...

*It's certainly not true that periods of little warming mean that AGW is not a risk and we don't need to do anything about it: natural variability is caused by effects that will turn around in a few years and cause more warming. For example, if the oceans are cooling the atmosphere now, the heat they are absorbing will warm it later.

*There is not a big divide in climate science between a group which thinks we need to act and a group which thinks we don't: there is a divide between some scientists who think natural variability explains all of the slow atmospheric warming, and a group that think climate sensitivity may have been overestimated a little. Even the latter group think we still need to reduce emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/ma...

*AGW deniers have a history of looking at short term trends are making failed predictions about the long term. They said Arctic sea ice was recovering post 2007, they said sea level rise had stopped in 2006, they said the world was cooling post 1998- all false.

AGW deniers have a history of misrepresenting the science. They don't address what the science says, but their own disingenuous misrepresentations of what the science says. They make bold predictions based on these misrepresentations, but these predictions are always wrong.

Now they are saying that we don't need to act on AGW because temperatures have not risen as much as expected in the last decade, so won't rise as much as expected over the next century.

This prediction will prove to be wrong too.

Given that AGW deniers' predictions have proved to be wrong in the past, but that fact has not dented their denial, record temperatures in the next few years may not either.

But more and more people will come to see that their predictions are based not on the evidence, which they ignore, but on what they want and need to believe is true.
jaxxax

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35213
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

http://youtube.com/watch... Lucky it gets?
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35214
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The models don't predict decadal variation in ocean circulation.
Relevance to what's going to happen in a century, zero.
Got it?
Oh, I've got it.

Nice attempt at deflection from the main point - which is that the actual measurements are now falling outside the low range of the models' long-range predictions even at 90% confidence band.

And this is closer to 2 decades' deviation we're talking about now.

This says there is real reason to believe the models are more unreliable that the AGW True Believers insist.

Over a century's time they'll be sort of correct? <yawn> In the long run, we'll all be dead. Hardly compelling grounds for turning entire societies and cultures upside down ...
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35215
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because there is evidence for all of the explanations. They are real, observable phenomena with a known and understood effect on temperatures.
Which merely makes them sound hypothethese - but they remain for the moment hypotheses nonetheless.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35216
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I've got it.
Nice attempt at deflection from the main point - which is that the actual measurements are now falling outside the low range of the models' long-range predictions even at 90% confidence band.
And this is closer to 2 decades' deviation we're talking about now.
This says there is real reason to believe the models are more unreliable that the AGW True Believers insist.
Over a century's time they'll be sort of correct? <yawn> In the long run, we'll all be dead. Hardly compelling grounds for turning entire societies and cultures upside down ...
No you haven't.

Temperatures are within the range of the models- no reason to doubt the models.

The chance of temperatures being where they are is about the same as throwing a double six in dice. Throw a couple of double sixes in a row and I'll start to believe the dice are bent.

Not impressed by the dangers? Well, fools are hardly ever concerned with risks, especially old fools who can leave other to suffer the consequences of their arrogance.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35217
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Which merely makes them sound hypothethese - but they remain for the moment hypotheses nonetheless.
Er, no pops.

That would make them observations.

Science really isn't your thing.

Tried gardening?

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35219
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument is with the author of the article and his sources, not me.
And you're still running from it.
Weak, Perfesser.
Um, no, that's clearly YOUR loud hoofbeats running away from your own article as fast as you can, I'd say.

LOL! Idiot...:)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Orlando Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,096,635
What life is like for Casey Anthony 45 min Lon Spector 178
CASEY: Does the State Have the Goods to Convict? (Mar '10) 2 hr Doniarrhea 486,250
Who would do a better job? 3 hr Mick 0
Review: Clear Sky Financial LLC 8 hr CIndy Betancourt 7
Word Association 2 (Jul '10) 12 hr White Fire 22,129
Inspiration Lane - Don't Quit (May '09) 14 hr marley 70,436

Search the Orlando Forum:
•••
•••
•••

Orlando Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Orlando People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Orlando News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orlando
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••