Global Warming... fact, fiction, or a little of both?

But this statement: Is no different than the conclusions of the latest studies, so he is just reiterating current information here -- this statement isn't politicising the data. If this growing trend makes people see it then some good will come of it.Still not politicising the specific events ... ah but then: Then we get your quote. So he was asked for a political comment tied to the current storms. Just because he is a little outspoken doesn't make this the big bad guy you portrayed.Of course he is also british, where open ridicule of our president is rather the rule than the exception ... tie that all together and it's not much of a case, imho.Again it seems to be more the journalism than the scientists that are making these stories.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*23*2005 06:07 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Holmes, do you feel that your position is so weak that you have to resort to creationist tactics to support it? So you wish to imply that Sir John Lawton is not a scientist, that his statements do not reflect what he thinks or that his statements are inconsistent with the views of the majority of scientists in the field.Your source refers to "other leading scientists" having a view on the cause of increased frequency of severe hurricanes being something other than global warming. But you fail to mention:

quote:

---

at least one prominent study suggests that hurricanes have become significantly stronger in the past few decades during the same period that global average temperatures have increased.

---

and this is further detailed in the linked article:

quote:

---

In August, MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel reported in the journal Nature that major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent since the 1970s. During that period, global average temperatures have risen by about one degree Fahrenheit along with increases in the level of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from industry smokestacks, traffic exhaust and other sources.

---

Why cherry pick your source to give the impression that the opposing view is anomolous and your view is suported by the majority of authority?

quote:

---

Hey but don't let science get in the way of using something scary to support a political position.
  —Holmes

---

This appears to be the pattern of the Bush administration.

No. He may be a scientist. I am totally unaware what his actual field of study is, and all I do know about him is that he is in charge of an environmental gov't program. His statements are inconsistent with the views of scientists in the field. I'm sorry why would I have to mention that, when it has been discussed within this thread already? And in fact I did mention it in passing when discussing how the article was laid out.Do you know what the people who wrote that study said about making the connections Lawton did? I do, it's upthread. Uh, I did deal with it. But perhaps it was not in this thread. I had another post on the exact same article in the Rita thread. It was after I did that one, when I realized it was probably more fitting for this topic and did a short version here.In any case, I linked to the article so you could read the whole thing. Did you notice the problems mentioned regarding the study at the bottom? By which you mean you have not read this thread, nor any of the studies/data linked to within this thread in order to "cherry pick" your own quotes to support your own position. If you had read so far, even those scientists providing "smoking gun" models for GW have downplayed the connection Lawton was attempting to make.Oh, yeah, but for anyone not willing to read the thread with regard to the science, here is a brand new article on what hurricane experts are saying.Here is a statement from a scientist that would be most proactive on the GW issue... So even as they do support the connection to storm strength being increased, they STILL would NEVER point to a weather event and blame warming. One might add that that would be especially true for Gulf region hurricanes as if you read upthread studies show the smallest increase in strength is found within the Gulf.And what else might experts in the field say about these storms?... Awwwwwwwwwwwww. But wait, they even mention that study, which has already been discussed, and you decided to cherry pick! What do the authors of that say? Oh, that's gotta hurt.Now the question is raised... as the evidence is in... why do YOU feel so weak about YOUR position that you have to resort to creationist tactics to support it?(AbE: I just looked up what kind of scientist Sir Lawton is, he is a zoologist with emphasis in population diversity... primarily birds. Is there a reason I should be believing him over climatologists?)This message has been edited by holmes, 09-24-2005 05:36 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No its not. We just went over that study and it does not say that, especially when we are discussing Gulf region storms, which is specifically what Lawton was discussing. I just replied to wj regarding this whole matter in greater detail, referencing this CNN article on the actual science. I will quote again, what the author of that study just said about what his actual results mean, despite the fact that I explained it to you earlier... I'm still trying to figure out how you people keep hanging on to your position, despite the fact that this has already been analyzed. Can the author's own words make you understand? The above, does not equal this... If he was a religious figure stating "If it makes godless heathen in the US realize they've got a moral problem and need to clean house, some good will come of the situation", I am sure you would not have passed it off so lightly.He is using a tragedy which is not directly relatable to data... and I have now proven this... and not part of some real "trend", in order to support his political position by creating a guilt by association and ad hominem argument.Really this apologist thing is starting to eat into me. You really couldn't get much more blatant than this. Big bad guy I portrayed? Was that my aim? Or was it the graphic misuse of science as part of a trend in misuse of science within the media? I don't care about Lawton, and I'll forget his name within a week.But as it turns out, yes he was mistating facts and using it to construct a political argument, well before being asked.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No it wasn't. It was a political comment, not a science one. He was deriding the politicians. First of all if a scientist is giving an assessment of the situation it should contain facts and not merely hyperbolic language. Second why don't you look up his journal articles? Oh wait, that's right, because you are a true believer.Now if this were an evovcreo thread and someone said "Dr Hovind is a doctor and a scientist so he must know" and I asked for where his facts were, you probably wouldn't have given me this garbage. If some ID theorists said "Dr X says it is obvious biology cannot explain all biological traits as they are too complex", and I asked for some facts you likely would not have given me this garbage.And if I then revealed to those others that these Drs had nothing to do with the field they were making comments about,(say geologists or mathematicians speaking about cell biology), why I'm sure you'd laugh like crazy at their expense.Well here is a bio for Sir John Lawton... Are you laughing? Maybe YOU should look up his journal articles.Oh yeah, and just to continue rubbing the point in, here is a new article from CNN on the experts standing against such connections. I detail it in my response to wj on the same topic so I won't do it again here. Suffice it to say the leading CLIMATOLOGY experts, even those who support GW concerns, refute the connection.This is your time, if indeed you do use science to build your views about the world, to admit you have made a grave error and apologize.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

So what? Holmes, what are you talking about? Did you understand my original claim? Apparently not. Whether it was a political or scientific claim has no bearing on the point I was making. Are you really this desperate to disagree with me? I certainly wouldn't have done your homework for you. And I certainly wouldn't have used a newspaper's science journalism as indicative of any sort of scientific consensus, or even an accurate portrayal of any person's scientific views. At an ecologist so influential in his field that he receieved a knighthood? I don't exactly consider ecology "nothing to do with the field he was making comments about." And that's what it's all about for you, isn't it? Feeding your obsession with arguing with me. Hell, even when I agreed with you, many posts back in this thread, you argued with me about it.You're unbelieveable, Holmes. Your behavior in almost every thread towards me and towards others is abominable. You're obsessed with arguing with me; so much so that no matter what I post you mischaracterize it in order to have something to argue with.I don't know what your problem is. What grave error? In recognizing how science is reported in newspapers? If you're under the impression that I've advanced the position that global warming is making hurricaines worse, you're deluded. If you believe that a science article in a newspaper is an acccurate way to learn about a scientists views, or that its a proper venue for the dissemination of scientific facts, you're an idiot. And if you believe that I'm ever going to respond to any of your posts again, or have any dealings with you whatsoever until your behavior in these matters substantially improves, you can go fuck yourself.

You said, or at the very least directly insinuated, that the article fabricate the amount of expert scientists opposed to Lawton's conjecture. You also insinuated that Lawton had done work in the field he was discussing, and that I had somehow not done my homework in this area.As I mentioned in the beginning, I DO have scientific experience in this field, and that those I knew at the time had problems with this theory. Within this thread I asked for and have looked through, publicly analyzed the best of the current data. I don't know where you were, but I'm not sure what homework you needed to do for me as I stated in the post and restated to you, what the actual consensus was.I just posted a link to the state of consensus. They do not agree with Lawton. Ecology has absolutely nothing to do with geology, meteorology, climatology. One can merge those with ecology to form some new field, but he was not doing that. He had absolutely no work within the scientific field which researches hurricanes and how they form. Those that opposed him, did.Whether he gets a knighthood in ecology is even more bizarre to try and hang a hat on. That is basic creo antiscience tactics you would rightly deride anywhere else. ????? You replied to my general posts.Your first one I really didn't argue much with you except to point out that you were making generalized statements and I was looking for hard data to deal with. Some of your statements were inaccurate and as later data came out were shown to be inaccurate. But I did not go back to mention this or whatever, I let you leave the thread on your own.This second reply you made was insinuating completely incorrect things. What else am I supposed to do? And you didn't even have the cojones to admit you were mistaken. You suggested that opposition to Lawton's statement was essentially nil (just a couple guys with initials after their name), and that Lawton had published material in this field. It turns out that the opposition was numerous and had published material in this field and that Lawton was just a guy with a bunch of initials after his name.That looks like a grave error to me. If you are about to claim that the above is a misrepresentation of what you were insinuating in your replies, you would be a liar. Interestinly enough, that was the point I was trying to make within the post you were replying to and lamenting that reality. Thus I am most certainly not an idiot. All this because you can't admit that your ideas could be wrong, or that you made a mistake. This is one of your largest stumbling blocks. Too bad because you are rather intelligent.Just because someone disagrees with you or does a good job decimating your position, does not mean they hate you or are abusing you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You gave me a CNN article. Whoopy-doo. Of course it does. Ecology is the study of how populations affect and are affected by their environment, and as such, draws from the fields of geology, meteorology, climatology, biochemistry, genetics, sociology, and other disciplines. He's not the only scientist in a relevant field advancing the idea; just the other day I heard a radio program that featered a pair of scientists who put forth their evidence that global climate change was responsible for a significant increase in the severity of hurricanes throughout the world. Let me see if I can find something about them:Yeah, here we go. The guests were Dr. Anthony Busalacchi, director of the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center at the University of Maryland, and Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. Pubmed doesn't really seem to do climateology papers so I don't know where to find their research. But their contention on the show was similar to that of Lawton's; global climate change has increased the severity of storms dramatically within the last 30 years, a change not consistent with any known multi-decadal cycles. So, for instance, having a Nobel prize in a field is not indiative of expertise in it? Sure, it's an argument from authority. I employed it in response to your argument that Lawton was not an authority.If you didn't want to play "argument from authority", then why did you start the game? Wrong again, Holmes. This is what I was talking about: You're absolutely unbelievable, Holmes. I make an empty gesture of agreement and acknowledgement of your personal story, a gesture of accepting your perspective on the debate, and you're still arguing with me. You're disgusting. There's no possibiliy of debate with you, only relentless contrarianism. I could assert that the sky was blue and you'd challenge me to prove that the sky was always blue, and never was any other color, even at night. I could assert that most x were y, and you'd prove that one x wasn't y and think you'd done something. No, I asserted that his opposition was inflated by the journalist, a common practice in science journalism. Wouldn't it be rather incoherent of me to assert that there was no meaningful opposition to his statements, given that you've presented direct evidence of that opposition? Wouldn't I have to be the biggest fucking idiot in town to assert such a thing?This is your problem, Holmes. My positions are usually fairly reasonable, and so in order for you to satisfy your need for contrarianism, you have to misstate my position, inflate it, so that you have something to argue against. And yet, you presented an article from CNN as a refutation. I make mistakes almost all the time. One of the largest is continuing to debate with you on any issue. Rest assured that my future posts to you will not be debate; they will be a catalogue of your disingenuous and disgusting behavior, specifically the repeated, systematic distortions of my arguments to you in our previous debates.At such time as you're able to grapple with my arguments, and god forbid, even agree with me on a subject, instead of inventing positions and ascribing them to me, we'll be able to debate. But until you recitfy your behavior debate with you will not be possible.I highly doubt that you could accurately describe any of my positions on literally any issue except in the most general of terms, i.e. "crash is an evolutionist and an atheist." There's absolutely no way, judging from your behavior, that you would be able to accurately get more specific than that.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-24-2005 01:53 PM

Did that article have any bearing on the state of consensus or not? If so, what did it mean regarding Lawton's statement. Maybe I should have been more clear, while ecology may draw upon or use information from other fields as they impact biological systems, it has no bearing on those other fields. That is to say an ecologist is unlikely to put out a research article detailing how salinity and temperatures affect ocean and atmospheric currents.Are you seriously going to claim that a zoologist with an emphasis in population dynamics is a proper representative for the state of knowledge in the field of meteorology/climatology, and can speak knowledgeably on the dynamic systems they research?You asked me to look at his papers. How about you pull up one of his which would indicate he has a familiarity with the specific arena we are discussing. Ahem... as I said, earlier in the thread we went over that paper. Indeed the link I just gave you had one of the coauthors explicitly denying a GW connection to these cases. While their research... if one assumes absolutely no deficiencies... suggests that there was a worldwide increase in storm severity (though no increase in max storm severity, which was interesting) one of their explicit findings is that the smallest increase was in the Gulf region, and as was noted most believe that region is undergoing a natural cycle BACK toward instability.You did understand regional variance when it came to potential ice ages. Why are you not understanding that here? The Gulf region is barely if at all being effected by temp rises, even if GW is going on, and a natural regional instability is the most likely culprit in what we are seeing in storm activity. ? He is not an authority in climatology. You have a problem crash. I don't know what it is but you need to control it. What you saw as contrarian arguing was a simple joke. haha. And not even at your expense.My statement in response to your saying a had a good reason to be cynical, was a joke on the concept of any reason being "good" that could make one cynical. It would likely be painful and so not good. I expected a shared laugh from that, and nothing more.I might also note that in the other thread, on racism, I started in your corner on almost everything. All I did was suggest the statement against Reps was not going to be helpful as it wasn't accurate, and Gene had a point on bias within our solutions to racism. That's hardly contrarian. You went on full attack for some reason. Are you kidding me? Here is a link to your reply #87. In that you will find the following... and Although in between these statements you have a neutral description of how journalism downplays the majority and plays up the dissent, with those two statements (especially the last one) there is no way that your reply can be read in a way to say Lawton was the mistaken party and the "other leading scientists" were the consensus.I don't think you are stupid, but I think you are making some grave errors based on emotions. Ad hoc reasoning is pretty fatal. If you have a way to explain how that post of yours does not say what it pretty clearly states, I'll be surprised. That would almost be an interesting point, with the exception that it does not change how they lead on the topic in the first place. Indeed even the beginning of this follow up article had the emotional "must be something going on" hook before moving into the science.To be frank I used info in the first article to refute lawton's position. The point was how they sold it. Although you always repeat this charge, I don't remember you ever actually showing these claims to be true. If anything, there has been repeated mistatements of what I am saying from your side, and I do show where the mistake was. So if you could show me, that would be great. You could start with post #87 and explain what you actually meant, and how your words matched your intention.The hardest thing to do before real learning begins, is to admit that you are wrong. Until that time ad hoc arguments will be one of your biggest assets (you'll need them to avoid head on attacks) and your biggest failures.You keep saying that I have some obsession with you and am trying to be contrarian. In fact I have agreed with you in part on many things. You seem to fall apart emotionally whenever I do disagree and present evidence you can't refute.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, but I am going to claim that an ecologist recognized as a national authority on the subject is probably going to be familiar with the current state of research in climatology. Pull up from where? I have no source of climatological research. Which paper was that, exactly? Like I said I wasn't able to find their paper; I don't have any sources for climatological articles. Like I said, that's what they said on the radio program. If they misrepresented the results of their research then that's on them. Look, if you say so. I'd agree but you'll simply, incongruously, argue with my agreement again. There's really no winning with you. Ah, yes. The old "I was only kidding" routine. Your last refuge when your infuriating behavior is made apparent.Holmes, I'm not the one with the problem. I simply don't give a damn about you; why would I have a problem? I've agreed with you, in the past - been swayed by your arguments. When was the last time that you can say the same about me? Nonsense, Holmes. That's bullshit. Maybe that's how you remember it, but your first post in the thread was a ridiculous mistatement of my position - as always. And it went downhill from there. You know, unless you're a speaker of English. And the very next post, where I clarified that I wasn't saying that Lawton was right or wrong, should have closed the issue.But it never does, for you. Nine out of ten of my posts to you are me correcting your misstatement of my positions. But no matter how clear I try to make it, you jump to the wrong conclusion. It's not even a misinterpretation - you literally ignore my statements except the ones that you can appear to pervert into the most extreme, most ridiculous position possible.It's no surprise that you understood "your rebuttal of his position falls flat" to mean "I agree with your opponent." To your mind there's no distinction between a recognition that a rebuttal was not successful and advocacy of the opposite postition. The proof is in the pudding, Holmes. The proof is that every time we discuss, our posts get longer and longer because not only do I have to advance new evidence, I have to correct how you've characterized my position and defend myself against the slanderous, decietful tactic you employ of ascribing to me these ridiculous strawmen. And I have, on many occasions. When was the last time you did? I hope you can see the irony of a statement that says "You keep saying I'm contrarian, but I'm not!" Holmes, the only evidence you present that I don't do my best to refute is the mountains of "evidence" you often present that have nothing to do with the discussion. When it comes to actual evidence against my positions you're rarely able to summon any. Did you ever even give me a real example of anti-white discrimination due to affirmative action in the other thread? How many times did I have to ask for it?

Would you agree that there are "climate loonies in the States" or not? Then demonstrate that he specifically refered to Katrina and/or Rita rather than the general hurricane climate with more intense storms (as the recent studies have shown)Before being asked the specific question to relate it to Bush and those storms. You are comparing a statement that is actually based on evidence to one based on pure faith. Of course if they could show an actual correlation between immoral behavior and the increase in storm strength then they might actually have a point. However there is no smoking gun there.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

But he's not, and he just proved so. Is this not true? ? How does this make sense. I did not start by challenging you to pull up his research, you suggested I should have done it (the implication being he had some). But it didn't take me more than 10 seconds to find out that he has no papers on that subject at all. And what's more, we already had papers discussed upthread. How disengenuous do you want to get with this? There are only two major papers in recent months on the specifics of global temp and power of storms, at least there are only two major papers being discussed here. Upthread we have a discussion on the first paper, with links to what they said about the implications of their research.In addition to that, I supplied a link directly to you where those authors (after Lawton's comments) have come out firmly clarifying what their research could and could not say about storms going on right now, specifically Kat and Rita.No one misrepresented themselves, though I have no way of knowing how that radio program chose to display the results. That does not get you off the hook when we have had its results discussed here and have had their own words stating what it means.The second paper, by E-somethingorother (Emannuel?), had some problems based on the method of estimate, and in either case was about worldwide and not regional phenomena. Thus regional conclusions become more important when discussing Kat and Rita. The majority, including the authors of the other study, agree that Gulf area storms are likely to be showing little or no effects.This really is not that difficult to understand. It was a joke. I now wholly regret having made it. What's amazing is that I even tacked on a follow up sentence to try and place the "good" in context, to show that it was a joke. I suppose this is where refusing to use smileys gets me in trouble.Your telling me that it wasn't has no effect, but to continue to delude yourself, and give you reasons for remaining angry. If that is what you want, so be it. Hmmmmmm... the last time? Well my guess would be either your statement about how media can manipulate stories, or more importantly your OP on the racist. I thought you had a very solid position on the failure of that kid to realize he was a racist, as well as a trend for people to argue racism away.You'd be surprised how many times I agree with you. I mean I guess you'd really be surprised given your low opinion of me. But this, and facts and logic, are not a game of tit for tat acknowledgements to me. There is no reciprocity in acceptance of what is knowledge. Just because you agree with me in one case puts no onus on me to accept something else from you. I will openly discuss where and why I think you may be wrong.The fact that I go to all the trouble to try and communicate says something. I think you are smart. You are just a bit stubborn and protective/defensive of your ignorance on certain topics, as well as your mistakes. I should have been more clear, I was in your corner regarding the OP. That is why I did not say anything until later, when you began making mistakes in your follow up.
If you look at my post regarding what you said in your OP, I was negative only about your inaccurate depiction of Reps as a whole as that would needlessly alienate potential allies.I agree the majority of the post was negative toward later arguments you had made regarding AA, but that was another subject entirely. I guess I concentrate my arguments on the problem areas, as I don't feel I need to say as much when I agree.You are picking and choosing what to concentrate on in order to build a picture of how I relate to you, and it is feeding a vicious circle. Relax. With the exception of when you suggested my denial of employment was not much of a burden, and that I had some special priviledges that kept me above suffering that minorities go through, I have not been angry at all.Maybe a bit confused and frustrated, but not angry. Your very next post did not say that at all. Look it up yourself.You are claiming I have misrepresented your position but if that it so, then you ought to realize it was a very honest mistake from what you wrote. Again I ask you what I was supposed to take away from post #87? Did that not clearly suggest that Lawton was right and the others were convenient fictions? Yes or no? And if not, please indicate what wording was supposed to suggest otherwise.Given that, what could the next reply (#89) mean? It says nothing about Lawton possibly being wrong, and explicitly tells me if I want his facts I should look up his articles. Given that that was your response to my saying actual research stood against him, and that if you have his data which counters it could you supply it, your follow up continues to project a proLawton stance.That you say anything different later, may possibly be a clarification, but in all honesty it looks like an ad hoc position switch. I'll accept your statement that your position was what you say it is now, if that is want you insist, but then you have to give me that that what you said originally (first two posts) was worded horribly and my mistake honest and not simply twisting your argument. Actually this is not true. My argument was that you engage in ad hoc rationalizing and position changes (patchwork quilt logic). That you argue I have mischaracterized your initial position and go to lengths to argue another position would be consistent with that charge.What I said is that I don't remember you ever drawing a connection between what you originally said and your follow up position. If I had mischaracterized your first position then it would have been easy to show where I made a mistake using your original wording. This post is a good example. You have pointed to a later post to say I should have seen what your actual position was, but did not deal with my comments on your initial post.I've been in this field a while and what you are doing appears to be ad hoc reasoning, which may feel good at the time, but is ultimately self-defeating.Next time I "mischaracterize", simply show me what words you used and how they should have been understood. In the last week I admitted I was wrong twice at EvC... or was it in the last two weeks? I have not done so for you, because I have yet to see any solid evidence and logic against a position from you.Intriguingly enough, if you had followed this thread at the very least you would have seen that I was given evidence which appears acceptable to tie GHGs to certain levels of global temp change. I still have to see more on the data used for forcings prior to 1970s, but that is not wholly necessary to accept that finally an accurate model has been built which allows for a scientific conclusion regarding a connection.Thus that is a position change by me on this topic from a poster. Of course the data also has some interesting implications for GW theory in general as well as environmental initiatives regarding GW. So it was a mixed bag given the number of subissues within the overall issue. I certainly do see the irony. But I also see the utility of using that as a defense. I pointed out why I should not be seen as contrarian. That was more important than my simply claiming I wasn't. Yes I did. I not only gave you an account of what happened to me, but I also gave you a rather detailed account of not only anti-white, but even anti-black discrimination using the very AA initiatives designed in your own assessment to help blacks.In turn you seem to keep ignoring that I have given you these examples, and perhaps summarily dismiss one of them as impossible. I cannot force you to accept them, but I have given you them.If you are asking for a research paper on those examples I have none. But then again, you have given nothing in the way of listing pertinent examples, much less research, to show how "whites" as a group have priviledges.Lets end this topic here, as I don't want to get into that debate here and am only clarifying that I have given you evidence and received none. If you want to debate the evidence, wait until phat reopens the thread or start a new one.This topic is GW. The current subthread was on the state of knowledge regarding connections between GW and events like Kat and Rita. I believe at this point I have provided sufficient evidence that such connections are contrary to scientific findings, and thus such commentary is hyperbolic and enviro prosyletization. Do you agree or disagree?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's an interesting question. My short answer would be yes, but my long answer would be if you mean only as Lawton suggested it then no. This thread's premise is that there are "loonies" (people ignoring science to promote political agendas regarding climate) on both sides.Lawton was as egregious an offender in that regard as the very people he was purportedly blasting. Of course it goes further. While his target was politicians, his commentary had the side effect of undermining actual science by depicting it as something it is not and saying something which it is not. First, you continue to misstate facts, and this will be the end of this if you continue. Recent studies DO NOT SHOW that intense storms are increasing in the way Lawton was suggesting, within that region. I am once again flustered that a person who was urging the idea of regional effects so strongly that ice ages could occur, will dismiss the regional assessments made by those doing these studies. The effects have been minimal in the gulf, and the greater explanation (and I have shown this at this point) is attributed to a return to natural conditions within that region.Second, I cannot believe you are arguing that he was not talking about Kat and Rita. The timing should have been enough, but let's look at the wording from the article I linked to... Well actually this goes back to my first point. Growing ferocity hitting the US? What did the data say about that region? Now does he say Kat and Rita? No. But when you make a statement during this very moment, to capitalize on the storms, and refer to "these kinds" which means storms like Kat and Rita... what else are people to take from it?If you are suggesting that Lawton meant "these kinds of storms, but not really those particular storms, and really nothing in the Gulf region that would hit the US for the forseeable future" then I think you are kidding yourself, especially in light of his follow up statements. But if you want to believe it you can.The more important point would be his antiscience commentary. No, both are made based on faith. I have already made that quite clear. Science does not back his commentary. One of the authors of the study linking temps to hurricane strength (and assuming it was accurate, which is not a given) has said the real answer to such a question is "I don't know" and even backed what Landsea estimated, which is that we may not see real effects up to 100 years from now.Temps to strength, yes. GW to strength, not sure but not likely for a long time. GW to gulf area hurricanes, highly unlikely.Lawton's comments were faith based. See those storms, follow my advice or you are loonies who are going to suffer the consequences of your error.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

My point is that Lawton refering to loonies is not in itself unwarranted, whether he sees himself as one or not. That makes his statement and mine in Message 91 similar. Consider this one:"If this makes the climate loonies on both sides in the States realize we've got a problem, some good will come out of a truly awful situation." I won't belabor this. You haven't. The statements by Lawton are different from those of the fundies (like faith) that attribute the specific storms to immoral behavior across the US in general.There is an observed pattern of stroms hitting the US being of larger size, not just this year but the last couple of years, and pointing to this pattern is very different from pointing to specific storms.The studies show a pattern of increased strength in storms. I don't see how you can say you have refuted this point when all you have done is question it's specific relationship to GW with some good questions, but no definitive answer. The storm pattern is still there.You claimed Lawton was making specific use of Kat and Rita, and the evidence shows that those statements were only made after a specific political based question from the interviewer asking him to tie Kat and Rita to Botch administration policy.If you don't make room for that distinction then what point are you making? That you are OC about your opinions as Crashfrog maintains?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

How is that better? Realize what the above says. If this makes the extreme elements of thos who think we have a problem and those who think we don't have a problem realize we have a problem, some good will come from this awful situation????First of all the only saving grace would be if the "problem" he were discussing was the problem of poor science, otherwise as shown above he is saying that it makes both extremes reach his extreme conclusion.Second, that saving grace would still not help him as it is using an unconnected tragedy in order to advance a position. Whether people knew about GW or not (even if true), or were better at doing science or not, nothing was going to stop that tragedy and none of our efforts are likely to stop anything for some time to come. This is very simple. Here are the components... Fine, a religious zealot does not have to point to a single storm and has equal access to the same pattern for use in proselytizing. For sake of argument we can remove the point of whether Lawton pointed to these two in specific. I did not claim to have refuted the pattern of increased storm strength. You are mischaracterizing my position. Lawton's claim was that the increase was LIKELY DUE to GW. It wasn't just me, it was the authors of the study linking temp and hurricane strength itself which put limits on what one can say (even about the pattern) of storms and their relation to GW. That is especially true with the storms hitting the US as most attribute it to natural cycles within the gulf, as yet unaffected by GW.Thus, in real science there is no connecting Kat and Rita to GW, or the pattern of storms within the Gulf hitting the US to GW. The last article I gave you even discussed how this year's activity is not without precedent in history, but well outside any GW effects.And that means that for Lawton to make such a connection, to say that GW is a likely cause, even to the pattern, rather than the specific storms, is not science, it is faith.You can argue that even in the face of a lack of evidence maybe we should plan as if there is a connection so that we can avoid potential problems, but that does not allow one to reverse the scientific method and say though we don't know and can't say we know, it's okay to say we know.You said "no definitive answer". That would hold for him as well. There is a pattern, most climatologists attribute it to natural cycle within the gulf. Any statements linking it to something else are equal, whether it be to GW, God, or second hand smoke. I'm sorry what? In my last post I just showed you that his timing and his wording directly suggested Kat and Rita before asked, regardless if he did not specifically mentioned them by name. Remember? These storms hitting the US? You did not deal with my points and have now reasserted your original position. Wtf? I honestly do not understand what you mean by this. Which distinction and what point did you think I was making? Restate it more clearly.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)