Water Dog wrote:I didn't make any attempt to deceive or misrepresent anything.
Waterdog: It's obvious that someone did attempt to mislead by leaving off the last sentence. All we're looking for is your source. Perhaps you can look in your browsing history, find it, and post it here. Thank you, in advance.
I included his source in my previous repost of his partial quote of the abstract. Check that link. He c/p all but the last sentence of the abstract.
Morley wrote:Waterdog: It's obvious that someone did attempt to mislead by leaving off the last sentence. All we're looking for is your source. Perhaps you can look in your browsing history, find it, and post it here. Thank you, in advance.
I included his source in my previous repost of his partial quote of the abstract. Check that link. He c/p all but the last sentence of the abstract.
He says he got the excerpted quote from somewhere else.
Water Dog wrote:Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere.
Waterdog, I googled it but couldn't find the shortened and last-sentence-bold version, myself. The link should be in your browsing history from yesterday.
Which would be the more rational reaction to the IPCC report?
1. Spend pages discussing the contrarian views of Water Dog and his favorite outlier scientist on this question?
2. Assume that this extremely mainstream and hugely consensus based report is more or less along the right lines, which it almost certainly is, and discuss the politics of getting government to move in a direction that might actually start doing something other than ignoring the urgent issues raised.
Gosh, that's a really difficult one to answer ...
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Water Dog wrote:Morning, boys. Ok, here we go. Rep, I didn't intentionally omit anything. I didn't omit anything at all, I pasted it as I found it quoted elsewhere.
Of course! How can you say things like "All I can do is look at their arguments and make a determination for myself. Lindzen's arguments appear highly credible."? You are not interested in looking at the arguments because you do not read the research studies directly.
Water Dog wrote:I didn't read every word, but I scanned though the article reasonably well.
The entire article or just the abstract?
Water Dog wrote:The article completely supports my point. All the doom is based on computer models. Models which remain untested, the excuse for which is a huge time lag. And that isn't to say this isn't the truth of the situation.
Read
The factors that led to a mass extinction at the end of the Permian Period remind us very much of today, says Prof. Wolfgang Kießling. 'There is much evidence of severe global warming, ocean acidification and a lack of oxygen. What separates us from the events of the past is the extent of these phenomena. For example, today's increase in temperature is significantly lower than 250 million years ago'.
However, the warning signs that Wolfgang Kießling's team found towards the end of the Permian Period can already be seen today. 'The increased rate of extinction in all habitats we are currently observing is attributable to the direct influence of humans, such as destruction of habitat, over-fishing and pollution. However, the dwarfing of animal species in the oceans in particular can be quite clearly attributed to climate change. We should take these signs very seriously.'
The work was carried out by the TERSANE research unit, which is based at FAU (FOR 2332). In this interdisciplinary project, eight working groups investigated under which conditions natural greenhouse gas emissions can reach catastrophic levels and how they are connected to crises in biodiversity.
Morley wrote:Seems pretty simple to me. Everyone wants to know that we're all working in good faith, as you eloquently put it.
So, in your view, accusing someone of lying is an act of good faith? Somehow this level of scrutiny doesn't apply to takedowns of supreme court nominees. I want to run with this for a while. Let's say I was the one who quoted the abstract that way. How is this relevant? How does this affect my point, that models are untested, that agw proponents assert a substantial time delay between emissions and warming? We're off on this tangent because RI made a thing out of something that's not a thing. Because he went out of his way to misrepresent the point I was trying to get across.