What we're being told - is wrong.

[homersapien 11,812]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

Seriously? :-\/>

That's pathetic.

Spoken like a non resident of the area. We don't want hurricanes. Sounds like a couple of nasty storms would be okay with you since it would support your bogus theory. Don't worry we will be okay.

That's absolutely crazy.

Unless you can explain how in hell you deduced that from my post?

[jj3jordan 2,125]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

Seriously? :-\/>

That's pathetic.

Spoken like a non resident of the area. We don't want hurricanes. Sounds like a couple of nasty storms would be okay with you since it would support your bogus theory. Don't worry we will be okay.

That's absolutely crazy. :ucrazy:/> :no:/>

Unless you can explain how in hell you deduced that from my post?

You mean you don't even understand what you wrote yourself? Sorry my simple mind can't explain anything to your superior evolved consciousness.

[AURaptor 1,137]

And one example does not constitute a "vast majority of the scientific community". So, I say your statement is completely bogus (or BS).

( That's from the article , over 35 years old - I posted, so any issues you may have should be with that author, and not so much with me. And past experiences I've had in such 'debates' strongly suggests to me that there's NO number of examples or articles I could dredge up which would satisfy you. You'd come up w/ any array of superficial reasons to ignore it, so I ask... what's the point of wasting my time any further on this matter ? )

A literature review would illustrate to what extent such a theory was being tested by the scientific community which illustrates how seriously it was being considered, thus the relevance.

( Yeah, that's nice. But I didn't ask. That was and continues to be your own sidebar. )

Or to put it another way, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your "facts".

That's clever. But that's exactly what your doing , by ignoring that which you don't like and constructing an entire different argument. Not that literature reviews are inconsequential, but when you completely ignore discussing the points brought up, and instead toss in this entirely separate issue, I find it extremely suspect.

[homersapien 11,812]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

Seriously? :-\/>

That's pathetic.

Spoken like a non resident of the area. We don't want hurricanes. Sounds like a couple of nasty storms would be okay with you since it would support your bogus theory. Don't worry we will be okay.

That's absolutely crazy. :ucrazy:/> :no:/>

Unless you can explain how in hell you deduced that from my post?

You mean you don't even understand what you wrote yourself? Sorry my simple mind can't explain anything to your superior evolved consciousness.

That's a non-answer. If you don't want to participate, just don't respond at all.

But since you apparently need more information, my incredulous response ("really"?) was to the proposition that the lack of a major hurricane in the gulf since Katrina proves anything. It's an absurd conclusion. At least for anyone other than a ADD-afflicted "gamer" (for example). That's why I followed-up with "that's pathetic".

OK, does that make sense?

Now, tell me how you arrived at your interpretation of what my response "sounded like"?

(Oh and btw, last year was the third highest active Atlantic hurricane season on record.)

[homersapien 11,812]

And one example does not constitute a "vast majority of the scientific community". So, I say your statement is completely bogus (or BS).

( That's from the article , over 35 years old - I posted, so any issues you may have should be with that author, and not so much with me. And past experiences I've had in such 'debates' strongly suggests to me that there's NO number of examples or articles I could dredge up which would satisfy you. You'd come up w/ any array of superficial reasons to ignore it, so I ask... what's the point of wasting my time any further on this matter ? )

A literature review would illustrate to what extent such a theory was being tested by the scientific community which illustrates how seriously it was being considered, thus the relevance.

( Yeah, that's nice. But I didn't ask. That was and continues to be your own sidebar. )

Or to put it another way, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your "facts".

That's clever. But that's exactly what your doing , by ignoring that which you don't like and constructing an entire different argument. Not that literature reviews are inconsequential, but when you completely ignore discussing the points brought up, and instead toss in this entirely separate issue, I find it extremely suspect.

No no no.

I'll go through again. Please concentrate:

You made the statement that some sort of global cooling theory was supported by a "vast majority of the scientific community" at the time.

1) Will you at least stipulate to that?

As far as "taking it up with the author of the article you linked, I said earlier I don't currently have the time to access the original article, much less the original piece of research it was based on. (It was based on research wasn't it?) When I get my broadband back I will look into it and tell you what problems I have with it, if any. I promise.

And I am not asking you for a critical amount of facts (articles, papers. lit reviews etc.) that support your statement, I am asking for anything beyond the article you linked that might support your statement regarding the "vast majority of the scientific community" supporting it.

Finally, please don't start making excuses for your inability to back up your statements. Perhaps your "past experience in such debates" is more indicative of you making unsupportable statements than it is of providing adequate support for them. (Like what happens when you make statements of "opinion" rather than assertions of "fact"?)

[AURaptor 1,137]

Finally, please don't start making excuses for your inability to back up your statements

This is precious. You saying this, after ...

I don't currently have the time to access the original article, much less the original piece of research it was based on.

I didn't just link the article, I posted the specific parts of it which clearly stated...

" Meteorologists disagree about the cause and exttent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact over local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country "

[tgr4lfe 220]

The Fujita scale started to be used in 1973. They retroactively applied it reports of tornadoes back to the 1880s.

Whether they know about all the tornadoes from back then is the question. The Midwest and South had much lower populations back then. Not every tornado in the underpopulated areas got recorded. Since many are at night, they aren't seen. Radar and higher population density detects them know.

Actually, NWS radars do not detect tornadoes since tornadoes by definition are violently rotating columns of air in contact with the ground. The last part is key as radars do not see to the ground. Radars only see upper level rotation. These areas have potential to produce funnel clouds and/or tornadoes. When they went back looking at reports they could only base judgements of Fujita scale level based on damage reports. Recently, the Enhanced Fujita Scale has been developed b/c they felt wind speeds were greater than first thought. There are still so many unknowns with tornadoes, how and more importantly when/where they develop. Occurrences of tornadoes and hurricanes have diminished over years. The worse ones are definitely more glamorized in media.

[homersapien 11,812]

Finally, please don't start making excuses for your inability to back up your statements

This is precious. You saying this, after ...

I don't currently have the time to access the original article, much less the original piece of research it was based on.

I didn't just link the article, I posted the specific parts of it which clearly stated...

" Meteorologists disagree about the cause and exttent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact over local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country "

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to look up the original source. I always do that before arguing an article or paper.

A given excerpt from an opinion piece is worthless in terms of demonstrating a scientific consensus. If this were a scientific paper such a statement would require a reference to support it. But that's pretty much true about most of the stuff listed on "realscience". It's their stock in trade.

In fact, I doubt you could get an "almost unanimous" consensus of meteorologists to agree that given a cooling trend actually existed, it would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country". To have an "almost unanimous" consensus on such a complicated question begs credulity right off the bat. (That's one reason I want to read the full article.)

But if you want to insist a special interest, partisan web site trumps the actual scientific establishment, you are free to do so. It doesn't matter to me.

But as long as you make such claims on this forum I will challenge them for what they are.

(And "precious" sounds like something a gay person might say.)

[jj3jordan 2,125]

Finally, please don't start making excuses for your inability to back up your statements

This is precious. You saying this, after ...

I don't currently have the time to access the original article, much less the original piece of research it was based on.

I didn't just link the article, I posted the specific parts of it which clearly stated...

" Meteorologists disagree about the cause and exttent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact over local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country "

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to look up the original source. I always do that before arguing an article or paper.

A given excerpt from an opinion piece is worthless in terms of demonstrating a scientific consensus. If this were a scientific paper such a statement would require a reference to support it. But that's pretty much true about most of the stuff listed on "realscience". It's their stock in trade.

In fact, I doubt you could get an "almost unanimous" consensus of meteorologists to agree that given a cooling trend actually existed, it would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country". To have an "almost unanimous" consensus on such a complicated question begs credulity right off the bat. (That's one reason I want to read the full article.)

But if you want to insist a special interest, partisan web site trumps the actual scientific establishment, you are free to do so. It doesn't matter to me.

But as long as you make such claims on this forum I will challenge them for what they are.

(And "precious" sounds like something a gay person might say.)

Homophobe and moron. Good luck homer you have a tough combination to live with.

[homersapien 11,812]

Finally, please don't start making excuses for your inability to back up your statements

This is precious. You saying this, after ...

I don't currently have the time to access the original article, much less the original piece of research it was based on.

I didn't just link the article, I posted the specific parts of it which clearly stated...

" Meteorologists disagree about the cause and exttent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact over local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country "

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to look up the original source. I always do that before arguing an article or paper.

A given excerpt from an opinion piece is worthless in terms of demonstrating a scientific consensus. If this were a scientific paper such a statement would require a reference to support it. But that's pretty much true about most of the stuff listed on "realscience". It's their stock in trade.

In fact, I doubt you could get an "almost unanimous" consensus of meteorologists to agree that given a cooling trend actually existed, it would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country". To have an "almost unanimous" consensus on such a complicated question begs credulity right off the bat. (That's one reason I want to read the full article.)

But if you want to insist a special interest, partisan web site trumps the actual scientific establishment, you are free to do so. It doesn't matter to me.

But as long as you make such claims on this forum I will challenge them for what they are.

(And "precious" sounds like something a gay person might say.)

Homophobe and moron. Good luck homer you have a tough combination to live with.

Name calling is against the rules. Keep it up and I'll report you.

But speaking of morons, you haven't responded to post #54

[jj3jordan 2,125]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

Seriously? :-\/>

That's pathetic.

Spoken like a non resident of the area. We don't want hurricanes. Sounds like a couple of nasty storms would be okay with you since it would support your bogus theory. Don't worry we will be okay.

That's absolutely crazy. :ucrazy:/> :no:/>

Unless you can explain how in hell you deduced that from my post?

You mean you don't even understand what you wrote yourself? Sorry my simple mind can't explain anything to your superior evolved consciousness.

That's a non-answer. If you don't want to participate, just don't respond at all.

But since you apparently need more information, my incredulous response ("really"?) was to the proposition that the lack of a major hurricane in the gulf since Katrina proves anything. It's an absurd conclusion. At least for anyone other than a ADD-afflicted "gamer" (for example). That's why I followed-up with "that's pathetic".

OK, does that make sense?

Now, tell me how you arrived at your interpretation of what my response "sounded like"?

It's not absurd to conclude that no hurricanes for the last 7 years conflicts with global warming proponents assertion that hurricanes will become more intense and numerous due to global warming. Are you implying that this is not the case?

And congratulations, I did not know that you are a psychiatrist. Thank you, doctor, for your diagnosis. Thanks to Obamacare,

I may be able to obtain treatment.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to look up the original source. I always do that before arguing an article or paper.

And yet, here you are, arguing on the internet with out having bothered to look up anything. Huh.

A given excerpt from an opinion piece is worthless in terms of demonstrating a scientific consensus. If this were a scientific paper such a statement would require a reference to support it. But that's pretty much true about most of the stuff listed on "realscience". It's their stock in trade.

In fact, I doubt you could get an "almost unanimous" consensus of meteorologists to agree that given a cooling trend actually existed, it would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country". To have an "almost unanimous" consensus on such a complicated question begs credulity right off the bat. (That's one reason I want to read the full article.)

I could have posted more articles, but then, that'd be just more stuff you'd have ignored and dismissed, out of hand.

But if you want to insist a special interest, partisan web site trumps the actual scientific establishment, you are free to do so. It doesn't matter to me.

So, Newsweek circa 1975 is " a special interest, partisan " site too ?

But as long as you make such claims on this forum I will challenge them for what they are.

Good for you. At least you've got something to look forward to in your life . Did you make a cape for yourself too ? Maybe with a cool, matching utility belt ?

(And "precious" sounds like something a gay person might say.)

" I'm your huckleberry "

I'm guessing you think THAT was something a gay person might say as well, huh?

[telling tiger 156]

No panhandle hurricanes for the past 7 years indicates the area was fortunate, nothing more , nothing less. It is COMPLETELY ABSURD to assume anything else. Before you start the right wing nut spin, I lost a house in the area during Ivan and I'm not a huge believer in mass theory or hysteria of or against "global warming". I simply think it is a good idea to reduce pollution in ways that it does not economically cripple us.

[homersapien 11,812]

No hurricanes in the panhandle since Katrina 2005. Not exactly ramping up.

Seriously? :-\/>

That's pathetic.

Spoken like a non resident of the area. We don't want hurricanes. Sounds like a couple of nasty storms would be okay with you since it would support your bogus theory. Don't worry we will be okay.

That's absolutely crazy. :ucrazy:/> :no:/>

Unless you can explain how in hell you deduced that from my post?

You mean you don't even understand what you wrote yourself? Sorry my simple mind can't explain anything to your superior evolved consciousness.

That's a non-answer. If you don't want to participate, just don't respond at all.

But since you apparently need more information, my incredulous response ("really"?) was to the proposition that the lack of a major hurricane in the gulf since Katrina proves anything. It's an absurd conclusion. At least for anyone other than a ADD-afflicted "gamer" (for example). That's why I followed-up with "that's pathetic".

OK, does that make sense?

Now, tell me how you arrived at your interpretation of what my response "sounded like"?

It's not absurd to conclude that no hurricanes for the last 7 years conflicts with global warming proponents assertion that hurricanes will become more intense and numerous due to global warming. Are you implying that this is not the case?

And congratulations, I did not know that you are a psychiatrist. Thank you, doctor, for your diagnosis. Thanks to Obamacare,

I may be able to obtain treatment.

Sorry, I guess you missed my addendum: Last year was the third most active Atlantic hurricane season on record.

But even that alone doesn't prove anything. It's just consistent with the predictions.

So no, simply because the Gulf coast hasn't been hit with another big one in (only) 7 years, doesn't prove anything. (And about how often does a Katrina type storm hit the gulf coast you suppose?)

And what about that stuff about how I wanted to see the Gulf coast hit again with a serious hurricane? Where did that come from? It sounds like something a moron might infer.

[homersapien 11,812]

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to look up the original source. I always do that before arguing an article or paper.

1) And yet, here you are, arguing on the internet with out having bothered to look up anything. Huh.

A given excerpt from an opinion piece is worthless in terms of demonstrating a scientific consensus. If this were a scientific paper such a statement would require a reference to support it. But that's pretty much true about most of the stuff listed on "realscience". It's their stock in trade.

In fact, I doubt you could get an "almost unanimous" consensus of meteorologists to agree that given a cooling trend actually existed, it would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country". To have an "almost unanimous" consensus on such a complicated question begs credulity right off the bat. (That's one reason I want to read the full article.)

2) I could have posted more articles, but then, that'd be just more stuff you'd have ignored and dismissed, out of hand.

But if you want to insist a special interest, partisan web site trumps the actual scientific establishment, you are free to do so. It doesn't matter to me.

3) So, Newsweek circa 1975 is " a special interest, partisan " site too ?

But as long as you make such claims on this forum I will challenge them for what they are.

4) Good for you. At least you've got something to look forward to in your life . Did you make a cape for yourself too ? Maybe with a cool, matching utility belt ?

(And "precious" sounds like something a gay person might say.)

" I'm your huckleberry "

I'm guessing you think THAT was something a gay person might say as well, huh?

1) Well Weegle thinks I am a 16 yr-old that uses google instead of thinking, so I guess I can't win.

2) Try me. Don't be such a defeatist.

3) No. Newsweek is a popular current events magazine. Realscience is the faux-scientific special interest front (where you found the Newsweek article)

4) Yeah, it is pretty pitiful all right. It's often beneath my dignity. But someone's got to do it.

[Weegle777 78]

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to look up the original source. I always do that before arguing an article or paper.

1) And yet, here you are, arguing on the internet with out having bothered to look up anything. Huh.

A given excerpt from an opinion piece is worthless in terms of demonstrating a scientific consensus. If this were a scientific paper such a statement would require a reference to support it. But that's pretty much true about most of the stuff listed on "realscience". It's their stock in trade.

In fact, I doubt you could get an "almost unanimous" consensus of meteorologists to agree that given a cooling trend actually existed, it would "reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the country". To have an "almost unanimous" consensus on such a complicated question begs credulity right off the bat. (That's one reason I want to read the full article.)

2) I could have posted more articles, but then, that'd be just more stuff you'd have ignored and dismissed, out of hand.

But if you want to insist a special interest, partisan web site trumps the actual scientific establishment, you are free to do so. It doesn't matter to me.

3) So, Newsweek circa 1975 is " a special interest, partisan " site too ?

But as long as you make such claims on this forum I will challenge them for what they are.

4) Good for you. At least you've got something to look forward to in your life . Did you make a cape for yourself too ? Maybe with a cool, matching utility belt ?

(And "precious" sounds like something a gay person might say.)

" I'm your huckleberry "

I'm guessing you think THAT was something a gay person might say as well, huh?

:roflol:/>

1) Well Weegle thinks I am a 16 yr-old that uses google instead of thinking, so I guess I can't win.

2) Try me. Don't be such a defeatist.

3) No. Newsweek is a popular current events magazine. Realscience is the faux-scientific special interest front (where you found the Newsweek article)

4) Yeah, it is pretty pitiful all right. It's often beneath my dignity. But someone's got to do it. ;)/>

Can't stop talking about me can you. Must have really gotten under your skin in a major way.

[homersapien 11,812]

Can't stop talking about me can you. Must have really gotten under your skin in a major way.

What do you expect from a 16 year old?

[jj3jordan 2,125]

Raptor, give it up. Homer is way above us. He is just too humble to admit that he is smarter than God.

[augolf1716 21,646]

Can't stop talking about me can you. Must have really gotten under your skin in a major way.

What do you expect from a 16 year old?

sorry couldn't resist I can connect everything to songs

And who could you call your friends down in Soho

One or two middle-aged dykes in a Go-Go

And what do you expect from a sixteen year old yo-yo

And hey, hey, hey, oh don't you know

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Thanks for the memories Alice, you old coot !

[AURaptor 1,137]

No. Newsweek is a popular current events magazine. Realscience is the faux-scientific special interest front (where you found the Newsweek article)

How is 'Realscience' even an issue here ? The article is is from NEWSWEEK, 37+ years ago. What the frak difference does it matter who posts the article?

[homersapien 11,812]

Can't stop talking about me can you. Must have really gotten under your skin in a major way.

What do you expect from a 16 year old?

sorry couldn't resist I can connect everything to songs

And who could you call your friends down in Soho

One or two middle-aged dykes in a Go-Go

And what do you expect from a sixteen year old yo-yo

And hey, hey, hey, oh don't you know

Way better!.

So where were you when I needed you? Maybe I should run all my "one-liners" by you before posting.

[homersapien 11,812]

Raptor, give it up. Homer is way above us. He is just too humble to admit that he is smarter than God.

Wow.

I actually had to think about that for a minute. Congratulations.

How can one be "too humble" when they think they are "smarter than God"?

[homersapien 11,812]

No. Newsweek is a popular current events magazine. Realscience is the faux-scientific special interest front (where you found the Newsweek article)

How is 'Realscience' even an issue here ? The article is is from NEWSWEEK, 37+ years ago. What the frak difference does it matter who posts the article?

Well, because "realscience" is a political front that uses articles posted in a (non-scientific) popular magazine which is where you found the link to begin with?

If you still don't get it, that all adds up to a very lightweight case for your original statement (about the majority of scientists...)

Does that help?

[jj3jordan 2,125]

Raptor, give it up. Homer is way above us. He is just too humble to admit that he is smarter than God.

Wow.

I actually had to think about that for a minute. Congratulations.

How can one be "too humble" when they think they are "smarter than God"?

:dunno:/>

Good question wise one.