"Deconstruction Of The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Hypothesis"

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

no, he probably gave it to 3 or 4 people around him, plus aggravated 100 people with asthma, and gave headaches and migraines to thousands more - but, that's ok. HE was fine.

There is absolutely no evidence to prove that not having lung cancer gives lung cancer to other people.

What are you, some kind of lung cancer alarmist?

1st stage of deniers - it doesn't hurt anyone, that's a myth, absolutely no evidence

2nd stage of deniers - it actually helps people, it's soothing

3rd stage - ok, it hurts, but it's more dangerous to drive a car for goshsakes

Final gambit - since you don't have cancer, you have no right to talk about it or be worried about it


seriously, man, how many pullups did you even do today?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rehmwa

***

Quote

no, he probably gave it to 3 or 4 people around him, plus aggravated 100 people with asthma, and gave headaches and migraines to thousands more - but, that's ok. HE was fine.

There is absolutely no evidence to prove that not having lung cancer gives lung cancer to other people.

What are you, some kind of lung cancer alarmist?

1st stage of deniers - it doesn't hurt anyone, that's a myth, absolutely no evidence

2nd stage of deniers - it actually helps people, it's soothing

3rd stage - ok, it hurts, but it's more dangerous to drive a car for goshsakes

Final gambit - since you don't have cancer, you have no right to talk about it or be worried about it


seriously, man, how many pullups did you even do today?

pfff

Do you even lift bro?

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

no, he probably gave it to 3 or 4 people around him, plus aggravated 100 people with asthma, and gave headaches and migraines to thousands more - but, that's ok. HE was fine.

There is absolutely no evidence to prove that not having lung cancer gives lung cancer to other people.

What are you, some kind of lung cancer alarmist?

1st stage of deniers - it doesn't hurt anyone, that's a myth, absolutely no evidence

2nd stage of deniers - it actually helps people, it's soothing

3rd stage - ok, it hurts, but it's more dangerous to drive a car for goshsakes

Final gambit - since you don't have cancer, you have no right to talk about it or be worried about it


seriously, man, how many pullups did you even do today?

pfff

Do you even lift bro?

of course, how else will I get my license to purchase guns, and cars.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

rehmwa

*********

Quote

no, he probably gave it to 3 or 4 people around him, plus aggravated 100 people with asthma, and gave headaches and migraines to thousands more - but, that's ok. HE was fine.

There is absolutely no evidence to prove that not having lung cancer gives lung cancer to other people.

What are you, some kind of lung cancer alarmist?

1st stage of deniers - it doesn't hurt anyone, that's a myth, absolutely no evidence

2nd stage of deniers - it actually helps people, it's soothing

3rd stage - ok, it hurts, but it's more dangerous to drive a car for goshsakes

Final gambit - since you don't have cancer, you have no right to talk about it or be worried about it


seriously, man, how many pullups did you even do today?

pfff

Do you even lift bro?

of course, how else will I get my license to purchase guns, and cars.

You are an animal, so it is your right to get guns and drive cigarettes, while smoking cars, just like every other animal.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

rushmc

I gotta hit the road and thank you btw for the reply
Much of which I have issue with but do not have time right now but for this

Quote

If CO2 levels increase AND EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME global temperatures will increase.

We do not yet know WHAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS as of right now

This site points this out time and time again

And we also know that when it comes to climate NOTHING EVER STAYS THE SAME!!!

Indeed

Atacama Desert, Driest Place on Earth, Blooms With Millions of Pink Flowers

[brenthutch 444]

Amazon

***I gotta hit the road and thank you btw for the reply
Much of which I have issue with but do not have time right now but for this

Quote

If CO2 levels increase AND EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME global temperatures will increase.

We do not yet know WHAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS as of right now

This site points this out time and time again

And we also know that when it comes to climate NOTHING EVER STAYS THE SAME!!!

Indeed

Atacama Desert, Driest Place on Earth, Blooms With Millions of Pink Flowers


Oh the horror.

[Coreeece 2]

brenthutch

******I gotta hit the road and thank you btw for the reply
Much of which I have issue with but do not have time right now but for this

Quote

If CO2 levels increase AND EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME global temperatures will increase.

We do not yet know WHAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS as of right now

This site points this out time and time again

And we also know that when it comes to climate NOTHING EVER STAYS THE SAME!!!

Indeed

Atacama Desert, Driest Place on Earth, Blooms With Millions of Pink Flowers


Oh the horror.

I find the story refreshing - It's a nice break from the typical Type I alarmists that tend to suffer from hallucinations of post apocalyptic flooding where people struggle to survive in +165°F temps.*

*That's 165°F "wet bulb" temp - because normal people words aren't alarming enough!

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Amazon 7]

Coreeece

*********I gotta hit the road and thank you btw for the reply
Much of which I have issue with but do not have time right now but for this

Quote

If CO2 levels increase AND EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME global temperatures will increase.

We do not yet know WHAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS as of right now

This site points this out time and time again

And we also know that when it comes to climate NOTHING EVER STAYS THE SAME!!!

Indeed

Atacama Desert, Driest Place on Earth, Blooms With Millions of Pink Flowers


Oh the horror.

I find the story refreshing - It's a nice break from the typical Type I alarmists that tend to suffer from hallucinations of post apocalyptic flooding where people struggle to survive in +165°F temps.*

*That's 165°F "wet bulb" temp - because normal people words aren't alarming enough!

I find it "interesting" that you and the other "Christian" "Conservative" FAN BOYS who fail to see that when climate change is right in front of you .......you can't see the desert for the pretty flowers.

Some places will be winners in a warmer world with weather patterns disrupted from what they have been... from the normal that our civilization was built on... a stable pattern.

Other places on the planet with billions of people will be losers... especially those in areas that are ill equipped to adapt to a new normal. They are the new HAVE NOT's

Think that might cause any changes in how they feel about the HAVES???? Starving people have changed the world before as they were forced to migrate from where things had been normal.... when famine... starvation.. then war became the new norm for them.

Just what is it you Conservatives are trying to CONSERVE again????

[billvon 3,114]

>*That's 165°F "wet bulb" temp - because normal people words aren't alarming enough!

No, it's 95F wet bulb temperatures. (Ignorance can indeed be alarming!)

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>*That's 165°F "wet bulb" temp - because normal people words aren't alarming enough!

No, it's 95F wet bulb temperatures. (Ignorance can indeed be alarming!)

But all that matters is the 165°F+ equivalent because it's scarier! Which is why you were touting the heat index in the other thread - Type I alarmist 101

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,114]

>But all that matters is the 165°F+ equivalent

Oh, so now it's not a wet bulb temperature of 165F - it's a 165F EQUIVALENT! Is that some kind of right wing math?

>because it's scarier!

I think the only person you are succeeding at scaring is yourself.

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>But all that matters is the 165°F+ equivalent

Oh, so now it's not a wet bulb temperature of 165F - it's a 165F EQUIVALENT! Is that some kind of right wing math?

>because it's scarier!

I think the only person you are succeeding at scaring is yourself.

Figures - you'd rather waste time nitpicking some minor detail while completely ignoring my post addressing your 165°F+ propaganda in the "Immediate issues" thread.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4766139;search_string=%20temps%20might%20occur%20several%20times%20during%20%2030%20year%20cycle%20%20end%20century;#4766139

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,114]

> nitpicking some minor detail

Like the difference between 95F and 165F? Yes, a tiny minor detail.

"You said that my taxes would be $95,000 and that's what I paid - but I just got a letter from the IRS that said they were $165,000 and that I owe $70,000! What the hell? What am I paying you for anyway?"

"Well, if you'd rather waste time nitpicking some minor detail while overlooking the fact that I did your taxes for you . . ."

Wet bulb temperatures above 95F are fatal if they persist for any amount of time. Worldwide temperatures have been creeping towards that number for decades - and now they are sometimes exceeded. As a result, we'll see more heat waves on average, and more people will die as a result.

165F is a heat INDEX that is a measure of the relative danger of that combination of dew point and actual temperature. And if you think it's just a made up scary number you are welcome to try it for yourself:

http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/heatindex.shtml

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

> nitpicking some minor detail

Like the difference between 95F and 165F? Yes, a tiny minor detail.

Yes, the wet bulb temp of 95°F feels like 165°F - so not much difference given the context of the study we were talking about.

billvon

Wet bulb temperatures above 95F are fatal if they persist for any amount of time.

The models you were referring to said that these fatal temps might occur several times in a 30 year cycle closer to the end of this century. So as of now, all you're really saying is that the middle eastern desert is really hot in the summer - you're a genius.

billvon

http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/heatindex.shtml

Thanks!

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,114]

>So as of now, all you're really saying is that the middle eastern desert is really
>hot in the summer

Yes, it's really hot. And it's going to get hotter; in fact, hot enough to become fatal.

>you're a genius.

It's not my study. Again you're getting tripped up by your incorrect assumptions.

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>So as of now, all you're really saying is that the middle eastern desert is really
>hot in the summer

Yes, it's really hot. And it's going to get hotter; in fact, hot enough to become fatal.

Oh, so sometime in the future - I thought you meant immediately when you said "Immediate issues with AGW"

billvon

>you're a genius.

It's not my study. Again you're getting tripped up by your incorrect assumptions.

Oh, I know it's not your study. The study said that we might have fatal temps in the hottest parts of the world several times near the end of the century, but the alarmist in you said "immediately!"

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 3,114]

>Oh, so sometime in the future - I thought you meant immediately when you said
>"Immediate issues with AGW"

Immediate with respect to AGW. In other words, a direct effect, not one that is two degrees removed (like hot -> drought -> famine -> starvation.)

(Note that "immediate family" does not mean "family that comes right away when you call them.")

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Oh, so sometime in the future - I thought you meant immediately when you said
>"Immediate issues with AGW"

Immediate with respect to AGW. In other words, a direct effect, not one that is two degrees removed (like hot -> drought -> famine -> starvation.)

(Note that "immediate family" does not mean "family that comes right away when you call them.")

Are you saying that the two are mutually exclusive?

. . . And if I said I have immediate issues with coreese, what is it you think I would be meaning.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Coreeece 2]

billvon

>Oh, so sometime in the future - I thought you meant immediately when you said
>"Immediate issues with AGW"

Immediate with respect to AGW. In other words, a direct effect

But in your own words you described how that direct effect is an immediate issue, as in right now:

billvon

Wet bulb temperatures above 95F (35C) are fatal if they persist for any amount of time. Worldwide temperatures have been creeping towards that number for decades - and now they are sometimes exceeded.

Note how your words differ from the words of the actual study:

what the actual authors of the study

Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31C. Any exceedence of 35C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7C, calling the habitability of some regions into question.

My problem isn't necessarily with the studies - and I think the models are interesting. What bothers me the most is how people then take these studies and misrepresent the data.

It's no different than the recent study about how processed red meat can increase your risk for cancer - then you have media outlets saying that eating red meat is just as bad as smoking!

It's no different than the new thread about how atheists are more altruistic than the religious according to some study - but the study didn't even say anything about atheists.

...and these people are supposed to be the intelligent ones - pro science - the free thinkers. They just take some study, twist it to appeal to their own bias, stamp it with the illusion of science and just pass it out - free thinking for all!

Well, I guess you get what you pay for. . .

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[turtlespeed 226]

Coreeece

***>Oh, so sometime in the future - I thought you meant immediately when you said
>"Immediate issues with AGW"

Immediate with respect to AGW. In other words, a direct effect

But in your own words you described how that direct effect is an immediate issue, as in right now:

billvon

Wet bulb temperatures above 95F (35C) are fatal if they persist for any amount of time. Worldwide temperatures have been creeping towards that number for decades - and now they are sometimes exceeded.

Note how your words differ from the words of the actual study:

what the actual authors of the study

Peak heat stress, quantified by the wet-bulb temperature TW, is surprisingly similar across diverse climates today. TW never exceeds 31C. Any exceedence of 35C for extended periods should induce hyperthermia in humans and other mammals, as dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible. While this never happens now, it would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about 7C, calling the habitability of some regions into question.

My problem isn't necessarily with the studies - and I think the models are interesting. What bothers me the most is how people then take these studies and misrepresent the data.

It's no different than the recent study about how processed red meat can increase your risk for cancer - then you have media outlets saying that eating red meat is just as bad as smoking!

It's no different than the new thread about how atheists are more altruistic than the religious according to some study - but the study didn't even say anything about atheists.

...and these people are supposed to be the intelligent ones - pro science - the free thinkers. They just take some study, twist it to appeal to their own bias, stamp it with the illusion of science and just pass it out - free thinking for all!

Well, I guess you get what you pay for. . .

Yes, you either get A
Artists or deniers.

No middle ground, right?

Me, I don't fit into either category, I'm a questioner.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Yeah, good point. Except, none of your points are valid, or actually relate to the studies you pretend to reference.

So yeah, um, whatever?

- Dan G

[Coreeece 2]

DanG

Yeah, good point. Except, none of your points are valid, or actually relate to the studies you pretend to reference.

So yeah, um, whatever?

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to refute them, let alone articulate a rebuttal.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jclalor 12]

You should really try using a different source, you might acually look like you were truly interested in the subject.

[winsor 236]

jclalor

You should really try using a different source, you might acually look like you were truly interested in the subject.

Agreed.

Someone once gave me a copy of some tabloid paper (I think it was the Star) when I was hospitalized, and I flipped through it out of boredom.

There was a sensationalized story of a two headed baby, and I recognized it as being the same case reported in the New York Times a few days earlier as a badly malformed set of Siamese twins.

If I was to make mention of this incident, I would likely refer to the Times account rather than the Star.

If you come across something in whatthefuckgiveswiththat.com, you would be well served to cross reference the account to the reputable source before posting. Correct data from a suspect source do not hold much sway.


BSBD,

Winsor

[rushmc 23]

jclalor

You should really try using a different source, you might acually look like you were truly interested in the subject.

Translation

You have not really looked at it because it challenges your religion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln