 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.200.176
In Reply to: RE: Link found posted by rivervalley817 on November 08, 2021 at 12:14:12
wild hands-waving speculation unfettered with reality. His 2-3 degree temperature rise estimate for a ten year period is not supported by fact.
apparently you picked this article up from a web-site versed in those techniques with a climate denial / anti environmentalist bent along with probably other anti liberal memes ... may I ask which one it was?
Hint: return to the article and look at logo at top left. If that doesn't answer your question, then read the URL. :)
Follow Ups:
'His 2-3 degree temperature rise estimate for a ten year period is not supported by fact'
once again E-Stat, he didn't estimate or predict a 2 > 3 temperature rise over a decade ... as I stated, this NASA climatologist issued a warning that if certain condition are met, other conditions COULD follow
similar to the WARNINGS, not predictions, you received from Mom & Dad in your youth that unprotected sex COULD lead to unwanted pregnancies or STD's or both
now, you may have tested those warnings and remained free of disease and / or without unwanted pregnant women requiring your attention, but I'm sure
you wouldn't fault them for a WARNING based on confirmed science that if the conditions leading to those consequences were in place [ovulation, healthy sperm, a disease] you COULD be dealing with consequences
I think this an entirely apt metaphor
just because those things didn't happen if those conditions weren't met that gave rise to the warning, would you deny the warning was valid and continue to have unprotected sex? I'm thinking probably not ... after 60 days or so you'd breath a sigh of relief your junk didn't change colors while you pissed lava and that one night stand wasn't banging on your door having missed a period
'Hint: return to the article and look at logo at top left. If that doesn't answer your'
well, no it doesn't ... I followed all URL links and none of them lead to Hansen's actual remarks that were made at that 2006 conference as I had requested ... only to where the reporters 'piece' was published ... a search revealed it was reproduced several places though
anyway, as earlier stated it would be to your benefit to be able to tell the differences between warning and prediction since they're very different ... it would also be of utility for you to be able to understand that when words have been substituted with synonyms / antonyms that this can recast their intended meaning out of context either with purpose or otherwise let alone entire dissertations being re-characterized in order to build strawman arguments ... well, obviously you do know that last one
so, good talk ... glad we could come together on this for a teachable moment
once again E-Stat, he didn't estimate or predict a 2 > 3 temperature rise over a decade ...
You must not be reading the same article from 2006 that I am...
"I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most ," Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California's state capital.
If the world continues with a "business as usual" scenario, Hansen said temperatures will rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 7.2 degrees F) and "we will be producing a different planet."
well, no it doesn't ... I followed all URL links and none of them lead to Hansen's actual remarks that were made at that 2006 conference as I had requested
Perhaps then the NBC reporter was making up the quotes. Whatever rationalization you need to avoid reality. This guy is a joke, but he does like getting lots of Ketchup money!
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=b6a8baa3-802a-23ad-4650-cb6a01303a65
You've already demonstrated poor reading comprehension and lack of ability to pay attention. I cannot help you any further.
Have a good day!
no, same article ... he said 'IF'
go back through it and extract those statement where he said 'WHEN'
reproduce them here and we'll discuss ... then you MIGHT have a point
the difference between 'IF' and 'WHEN' are similar to an operand
that's in your wheelhouse isn't it?
except that in linguistics we call those a predicate
my reading comprehension remains comprehensive where yours struggles to make a point by ignoring basic rules of language
so ketchup aside ... should you not be able to show where this climatologist used 'WHEN' instead of 'IF' any other unambiguous statement from him saying, in his own words, what you say he says will sway me to be as skeptical of his work as you are
I do appreciate your stated offer of wanting to be helpful though, it's 'nice', though sadly, in context it seems rather sarcastic unless you meant to be facetious ... look those up to see the difference, you'll prefer one over the other, or should anyway
have a splendiferous day!
we didn't have a...
"very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most"
in 2006 nor is that the case today!
perhaps, but he didn't say that either E-Stat
take all of the personalities involved [you & I included] out of this
then remove the subject & just diagram the sentences
remember doing that in grade school?
or, look at it from the perspective of a coder
in all languages there is a predicate
https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/sentences/what/what-is-a-predicate.html
it's analogous to an operand in math as it serves much the same function
modification changes the meaning of what follows
his comments stated that if [sets the variable] condition X is present it will affect y resulting in Z [and subsets]
he then gave a time frame available to modify condition X based on data trends ... the premise being that X could be modified by human behavior, but setting that aside their model showed that whatever the source of condition X, condition Z should follow ... back in 2006 based on 2005 data
you're welcome to look over the ensuing 15 years of environmental mitigation efforts data plotted against warming trends ... they worked to an extent by slowing the trend ... too little too late and not fast enough IMO ... but that fellow never described all of the variables and some of them have changed ... I'm sure his viewpoint has evolved along with the data
just keep in mind that the 2006 climate change model also predicted more drought, more and stronger hurricanes, ditto for wildfires, highly variable temperatures affecting weather patterns with rising global temperatures on the way to the final tipping point
that's all pretty much in the news so obviously there's evidence supporting that model
OK, I guess I'm done here
thanks for the reply, much appreciated
really good weed!
not only do I live in a 'dry' State I'm not interested in that
my apologies if you found these posts simplistic
I meant them to be overly simplistic so you wouldn't have any comprehension issues
have a good evening
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
