The Bush Administration's War on Science... AGAIN

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: I wonder if his dad was also a weatherman in the Army.

What next Moonies? "Your mom" jokes?

Then again, maybe you think that kind of thing is funny. I did when I was in 6th grade too.

M: The moron sticks to his story. I have never affirmed or denied your point. I only pointed out that it has nothing to do with anything about this thread.

The moron keeps pretending that my point has nothing to do with anything in this thread.

M: Stupidly you see only a limited repertoire of possibilities. I think anybody can see your a fool without necessarily supporting me.

Yet a fool makes a fool of you. One can only conclude that makes you a greater fool than me.

 

[fskimospy]

Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

 

[Moonbeam]

And another pokes his head in and doesn't bring anything to the table.

TLC: I have not diverted this thread. In fact, I mentioned that the topic title was misleading in my initial post...and it is. There is no Bush admin war on science. That claim is nothing more than pure BDS rhetoric, as I already proved when I linked to the bill that Bush recently signed to increase science funding. So even if the ridiculously hyperbolic thread title had the least bit of merit, I already put the kibosh on that claim.

M: I promised to help you think but we're making little progress I fear. You have taken to repeating bad thinking over and over again. You put the Kibosh on nothing, I'm afraid. The fact that the Bush admin increased science spending mean nothing in the war on science if they suppress scientific data, even an increase in data produced, and do so because they have the capacity to do so and the will. The congress can increase money to fight crime but if the executive doesn't spend it there will be no change. What better way to pretend you're pro science than to budget more money and then quietly repress more results. For you putting the kibosh on something is equivalent to highlighting the stupidity of your own thinking.

TLC: The issue is whether or not this information about the spread of disease vectors was being censored. I claimed it was not being censored, that it was being removed because at this point in time and considering our knowledge of GW mechanisms, it CANNOT be anything but speculation and opinion.

And it's swung not swang. 😉

M: Exactly, and that's why you're so fucked up, scientific speculation based on scientists opinion in light of their best understanding, not fucked up TLC opinion. You claimed that censorship was not censorship because your faulty logical skills allow you to do so. We have been over this blindness now countless times. The uncertainty about global warming has nothing to do with the areas above that I pointed to that were removed. These were all scientific subjects in their own right and are scientifically factual, to the best of our understanding, independent of global warming. They were to be presented to show how seriously we need to take the matter of global warming regardless of how little we understand because science says it's happening. You are dangerously stupid if you can't see this.

And I see you declined to take me up on my offer to challenge the science behind each. Here they are again:

Direct effects of heat,

Health effects related to extreme weather events.

Air pollution-related health effects.

Allergic diseases,

Water- and food-borne infectious diseases,

Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases,

Food and water scarcity, at least for some populations,

Mental health problems, and

Long-term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects.

TLC: Considering our consistent failure to properly model GW there's no possible way anyone can make a valid forecast of how diseases might propagate years down the road.

M: What a buffoon you are. They are not trying to forecast anything you frightened little rabbit. They are trying to predict the consequences if the forecast happens so as to prepare for it if it does and in the best way they can based on the science the have from all the related fields the CDC employs. They do not do predictions on climate change. They are responding to the scientific opinion that it is in fact happening.

TLC: Now, I put out a challenge for someone in here to prove me wrong. I'm still waiting. If you want to call that challenge a troll and pretend that accusation has any truth to it, help yourself. But frankly you look like a complete idiot and you've done nothing to prove that current science can model GW properly in order to use it as a forecasting tool in the process.

M: Why don't you start your own thread or that that to one of the myriad threads that already exist on that topic? It has nothing to do with any thing here.

TLC: So thanks for playing. You swang. You missed.

Next.

As you requested.

At what age did you figure out that you could achieve Pyhrric victory by being a stupid asshole longer than the next guy and so deeply humiliate others by dragging them down, necessarily, to your shit level in order to maintain the discussion? That only works with folk that have personal pride. Myself, I have no objection at all to being fool enough to extend this worthless discussion with a worthless shit like you. Why would I worry about the condemnation of others when I do it so well on my own. You won't find any mud too deep for me.

So on we go as long as you wish or until the mods mercifully euthanize you and the thread.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Taejin
lol TLC is the biggest troll..

My father told me when he was growing up in Korea, he would kill mice by waiting quietly outside the exit of their 'home' and whacking them on the head with a stick each time they poked their head out. He said that mice were so stupid, they would continue poking their head out and getting hit on the head until they finally died.

Reminds me of what is happening to TLC, except he can't actually die, and so instead of the end to the humiliation and shame, it just continues as long as he opens his poor, misinformed, twisted mouth.

A troll is someone who comes in here and does nothing but spew personal attacks, just like you've done. You haven't addressed a single issue in the subject of this thread. Instead you just make some vapid accusations using anecdotes about your personal life that I don't give two flying fucks about.

If you want to knock down my claims, then produce evidence that our current knowledge of GW mechanisms can be used to make valid predictions about future climate change. If that's the case, it should be easy for any of you cocksure dimwits to do if I'm so misinformed and twisted about it.

C'mon. Feel free to prove me wrong. Prove you're in here for a reason other than just licking moon rocks.

There's nothing else to really add to the argument. Moonbeam is right, you are a troll. I figured since after getting yourself so thoroughly whipped that you have no idea whether you've lost or won, we needed a little more public reinforcement of how much of an idiot you really are.

Feel better now?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

Hehe, everything I wrote in the post after yours I did so not seeing yours. I hope it explains it. As I said, I know him better than he does. He has a need to expose himself as an asshole and thrash around like a fool because it's how he feels. It's as close as he can come to feeling. I'm just like him but without the denial so the need with me is an option. D)

He does the same to others though, others with personal pride, and drags them down in the slime, so I decided to probe him a bit to see what we could learn from his asshole.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: What a buffoon you are. They are not trying to forecast anything you frightened little rabbit. They are trying to predict the consequences if the forecast happens so as to prepare for it if it does and in the best way they can based on the science the have from all the related fields the CDC employs. They do not do predictions on climate change. They are responding to the scientific opinion that it is in fact happening.

Man you are you a daft dipshit.

You claim they are not trying to forecast anything then immediately follow it up with "if the forecast happens."

What fucking forecast? According to you no forecast is required.

Sheesh, you're argument is so lame and pathetic you can't even keep your story straight.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

Great. I'm already dealing with dumb and then dumber shows up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Taejin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Taejin
lol TLC is the biggest troll..

My father told me when he was growing up in Korea, he would kill mice by waiting quietly outside the exit of their 'home' and whacking them on the head with a stick each time they poked their head out. He said that mice were so stupid, they would continue poking their head out and getting hit on the head until they finally died.

Reminds me of what is happening to TLC, except he can't actually die, and so instead of the end to the humiliation and shame, it just continues as long as he opens his poor, misinformed, twisted mouth.

A troll is someone who comes in here and does nothing but spew personal attacks, just like you've done. You haven't addressed a single issue in the subject of this thread. Instead you just make some vapid accusations using anecdotes about your personal life that I don't give two flying fucks about.

If you want to knock down my claims, then produce evidence that our current knowledge of GW mechanisms can be used to make valid predictions about future climate change. If that's the case, it should be easy for any of you cocksure dimwits to do if I'm so misinformed and twisted about it.

C'mon. Feel free to prove me wrong. Prove you're in here for a reason other than just licking moon rocks.

There's nothing else to really add to the argument. Moonbeam is right, you are a troll. I figured since after getting yourself so thoroughly whipped that you have no idea whether you've lost or won, we needed a little more public reinforcement of how much of an idiot you really are.

Feel better now?

iow, you got nuthin.

Thought so.

Drive through.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

Great. I'm already dealing with dumb and then dumber shows up.

Haha, have you EVER won an argument on these boards? Every time I see you post something you get the crap kicked out of you.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

Great. I'm already dealing with dumb and then dumber shows up.

Haha, have you EVER won an argument on these boards? Every time I see you post something you get the crap kicked out of you.

Anybody still trying to defend this administration's policies can't be too bright. :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

Great. I'm already dealing with dumb and then dumber shows up.

Haha, have you EVER won an argument on these boards? Every time I see you post something you get the crap kicked out of you.

Riiiight. I forgot. It's all about winning and losing for you in here. You're in here to put the smack down on people, or something like that, aren't you? Isn't that what you claimed not long ago?

Besides that, you're delusional if you think your partisan opinion means squat in here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

Great. I'm already dealing with dumb and then dumber shows up.

Haha, have you EVER won an argument on these boards? Every time I see you post something you get the crap kicked out of you.

Anybody still trying to defend this administration's policies can't be too bright. :laugh:

Anyone who thinks this is about defending admin policies isn't very bright in the first place.

But that's the simplistic way you and so many others view this world. I don't give a crap if Hillary, Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden was in office and this happened. I'd still be of the same opinion. But morons like you can't recognize that.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Moonie, just so you know TLC will never stop... he lives for this.

You've already completely owned him, and so I really don't see what else you're going to get out of this thread other then a lot of wasted time and energy.

Great. I'm already dealing with dumb and then dumber shows up.

Haha, have you EVER won an argument on these boards? Every time I see you post something you get the crap kicked out of you.

Anybody still trying to defend this administration's policies can't be too bright. :laugh:

Anyone who thinks this is about defending admin policies isn't very bright in the first place.

But that's the simplistic way you and so many others view this world. I don't give a crap if Hillary, Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden was in office and this happened. I'd still be of the same opinion. But morons like you can't recognize that.

<yawn>

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: What a buffoon you are. They are not trying to forecast anything you frightened little rabbit. They are trying to predict the consequences if the forecast happens so as to prepare for it if it does and in the best way they can based on the science the have from all the related fields the CDC employs. They do not do predictions on climate change. They are responding to the scientific opinion that it is in fact happening.

Man you are you a daft dipshit.

You claim they are not trying to forecast anything then immediately follow it up with "if the forecast happens."

What fucking forecast? According to you no forecast is required.

Sheesh, you're argument is so lame and pathetic you can't even keep your story straight.

Yes, I know what I said. I chose those works carefully so that you would know, but naturally only if you had a capacity to think, that it is not the job of the CDC to forecast GW but to forecast the health risks to our best scientific knowledge as GW advances if it does. As I pointed out previously in the material that was redacted the forecast that GW is real has been accepted:

"Scientific evidence supports the view that the earth's climate is changing. A broad array of organizations (federal, state, local, multilateral, faith-based, private and nongovernmental) is working to address climate change. Despite this extensive activity, the public health effects of climate change remain largely unaddressed. CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern.

Climate Change is a Public Health Concern"

Based on the forecast that it is real they have 'forecasted' some of the health risks. You are just so silly.

But surely you want to start a more important argument with by claiming swang IS a word, no. I mean, surely you couldn't have been wrong about that could you? Good heavens, it would make you look so stupid.

The rooster swang his wang from side to side

as he strutted about

bang bang bang went his brain as it flew about...

Thinking now I'm really using my head.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Can you possibly be even more stupid? I didn't think so but you surpassed my expectations completely. Congrats.

The CDC doesn't forecast health risks in a vacuum. They have to know the parameters first, and that includes the specific conditions of climate. In order to know how global warming will affect diseases in the future it is mandatory that they be able to actually predict the future of global warming first. If they don't have that baseline then they cannot know the parameters required to make their forecast.

We do not have that baseline yet. When we do I look forward to the CDC presenting their information. Until then it's garbage science.

On to your next idiocy.

So you don't like the word "swang?" Do you really want to play the pedantic pud game on an internet forum?

Since you apparently do you should know that swang is the simple past tense of the irregular verb "swing." While it's considered an archaic form it is still perfectly acceptable because it does appear quite often in both printed and spoken forms to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...nglish_irregular_verbs

But no doubt you knew that already, being the brilliant condescending little twit that you are.

:roll:

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't believe I've ever run across a dumber group of people than the BDS crew that infests this forum.

Yes, science uses facts to make predictions. That works fine when we have those facts.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS ON GW TO MAKE ANY DECENTLY VALID PREDICTIONS YET.

How hard is it for you idiots to comprehend that? We have facts on bird flu. We know how it spreads and how to fight it properly. We have facts on AIDS. We do not have nearly enough facts on GW to use to make predictions that withstand scrutiny at this point so it would be moronic to try to speculate on its affects on something like disease down the road. Doing so would only serve to fuel hysteria.

Sheesh, what a bunch of knee-jerkish tools in here.

WRONG. I worked in the Pharm. industry and no they did not know that 100%. In fact they have seen it mutate already. As such one place I worked at was running drugs that would fight certain strains and mutations and MIGHT show up in humans. They are not 100% sure, let alone have all teh "facts". In fact they were basing it off of predictions that MIGHT happen.

Now stop posting unless you want to show how dumb you are. Go back to Faux and get some more quotes.

Jesus what an ignorant statement. Many diseases mutate. AIDS does too. That is taken into account and can still allow us to make decent predictions about what will happen with the spread of bird flu and other deadly diseaes. Our knowledge doesn't have to be 100% either, so please stop with that srawman. We have ENOUGH information to make valid predictions in the case of bird flu and prepared for scenarios. We don't yet have enough information to make valid predictions about the effects of global warming. If we did then the models of GW wouldn't continue to fail year after year after year.

Now go back to HuffPo and see if someone else can tell you what your next response tactic will be.

:roll:

You are a brilliant scientist. Back up your f@cking claims that we don't have enough evidence. Science is about best evidence and a real scientist made some best available science predictions. Show me where you are other than an opinionated, anti-science, imbecile who is doing anything but regurgitating the stupidity of other anti-science fools.

You are stuffed full of opinions, poor ones, and that is all.

If we had enough evidence the models wouldn't continually fail, time after time.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.

What's the problem with the models?

When the authors analyzed the IPCC computer model runs, they found that, on average, the models simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade from 1953 to 2006. The fastest rate of September retreat in any individual model simulation was 5.4 percent per decade. September marks the yearly minimum of sea ice in the Arctic. But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953 to 2006 period.

They can't even properly model the past. How the HELL are they supposed to model the future?

Now take your lame accusations, Moonboy, and shove them up your...

To TLC
You miss the significance of the inaccuracies of global warming modeling you used as your examples. They show that the modeling under-estimates the effects.
Now just what does a single one of your posts have to do with the TOPIC 😛olitical appointees editing scientific presentations so as not to embarrass a political agenda?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't believe I've ever run across a dumber group of people than the BDS crew that infests this forum.

Yes, science uses facts to make predictions. That works fine when we have those facts.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS ON GW TO MAKE ANY DECENTLY VALID PREDICTIONS YET.

How hard is it for you idiots to comprehend that? We have facts on bird flu. We know how it spreads and how to fight it properly. We have facts on AIDS. We do not have nearly enough facts on GW to use to make predictions that withstand scrutiny at this point so it would be moronic to try to speculate on its affects on something like disease down the road. Doing so would only serve to fuel hysteria.

Sheesh, what a bunch of knee-jerkish tools in here.

WRONG. I worked in the Pharm. industry and no they did not know that 100%. In fact they have seen it mutate already. As such one place I worked at was running drugs that would fight certain strains and mutations and MIGHT show up in humans. They are not 100% sure, let alone have all teh "facts". In fact they were basing it off of predictions that MIGHT happen.

Now stop posting unless you want to show how dumb you are. Go back to Faux and get some more quotes.

Jesus what an ignorant statement. Many diseases mutate. AIDS does too. That is taken into account and can still allow us to make decent predictions about what will happen with the spread of bird flu and other deadly diseaes. Our knowledge doesn't have to be 100% either, so please stop with that srawman. We have ENOUGH information to make valid predictions in the case of bird flu and prepared for scenarios. We don't yet have enough information to make valid predictions about the effects of global warming. If we did then the models of GW wouldn't continue to fail year after year after year.

Now go back to HuffPo and see if someone else can tell you what your next response tactic will be.

:roll:

You are a brilliant scientist. Back up your f@cking claims that we don't have enough evidence. Science is about best evidence and a real scientist made some best available science predictions. Show me where you are other than an opinionated, anti-science, imbecile who is doing anything but regurgitating the stupidity of other anti-science fools.

You are stuffed full of opinions, poor ones, and that is all.

If we had enough evidence the models wouldn't continually fail, time after time.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.

What's the problem with the models?

When the authors analyzed the IPCC computer model runs, they found that, on average, the models simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade from 1953 to 2006. The fastest rate of September retreat in any individual model simulation was 5.4 percent per decade. September marks the yearly minimum of sea ice in the Arctic. But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953 to 2006 period.

They can't even properly model the past. How the HELL are they supposed to model the future?

Now take your lame accusations, Moonboy, and shove them up your...

To TLC
You miss the significance of the inaccuracies of global warming modeling you used as your examples. They show that the modeling under-estimates the effects.
Now just what does a single one of your posts have to do with the TOPIC 😛olitical appointees editing scientific presentations so as not to embarrass a political agenda?

To WHAMPOM

You seem to assume that I'm some sort of GW denier. I'm not. I fully recognize that GW is happening. I also recognize that we don't really understand why it's happening. So whether it's being overestimated or underestimated is not really the issue, at least to me. The issue is the fact that it's not yet being correctly estimated because, overestimated or underestimated, it shows we don't have a handle on it yet. Bad estimates do not make for good science.

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: The CDC doesn't forecast health risks in a vacuum. They have to know the parameters first, and that includes the specific conditions of climate. In order to know how global warming will affect diseases in the future it is mandatory that they be able to actually predict the future of global warming first. If they don't have that baseline then they cannot know the parameters required to make their forecast.

M: We have been over this countless times. The forecasts for health risks are made not on anything to do with GW but on the knowledge and science we have about each risk. You don't need any particular understanding of GW to understand how those risks change if there is climate change. You don't have to know if global warming is going to occur or not, when, how much, or where. All you have to do is understand how the particular risk will be affected if climate changes. All that is required is change. The risks are looked at if it gets hotter or colder, no matter. They are looked at if it's wetter or drier. They are looked at if storms become stronger than they are now. Scientists ask themselves what climate change can bring and then predict what those changes imply over a broad subject range. You know this but you fuck around because you're an asshole.

TLC: We do not have that baseline yet. When we do I look forward to the CDC presenting their information. Until then it's garbage science.

M: Yes we do. The base line is a change in climate.

On to your next idiocy.

I recommend you get on to your next idiocy. You have been the same idiot since the beginning of the thread.

TLC: So you don't like the word "swang?" Do you really want to play the pedantic pud game on an internet forum?

M: Of course I do. Why should you monopolize being a prick.

TLC: Since you apparently do you should know that swang is the simple past tense of the irregular verb "swing." While it's considered an archaic form it is still perfectly acceptable because it does appear quite often in both printed and spoken forms to this day.

Yes, I know. It's quite commonly used by Neanderthal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...nglish_irregular_verbs

But no doubt you knew that already, being the brilliant condescending little twit that you are.

:roll:[/quote]

M: And you, no doubt, just found it out. What you euphemistically call archaic I'd call obsolete.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't believe I've ever run across a dumber group of people than the BDS crew that infests this forum.

Yes, science uses facts to make predictions. That works fine when we have those facts.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FACTS ON GW TO MAKE ANY DECENTLY VALID PREDICTIONS YET.

How hard is it for you idiots to comprehend that? We have facts on bird flu. We know how it spreads and how to fight it properly. We have facts on AIDS. We do not have nearly enough facts on GW to use to make predictions that withstand scrutiny at this point so it would be moronic to try to speculate on its affects on something like disease down the road. Doing so would only serve to fuel hysteria.

Sheesh, what a bunch of knee-jerkish tools in here.

WRONG. I worked in the Pharm. industry and no they did not know that 100%. In fact they have seen it mutate already. As such one place I worked at was running drugs that would fight certain strains and mutations and MIGHT show up in humans. They are not 100% sure, let alone have all teh "facts". In fact they were basing it off of predictions that MIGHT happen.

Now stop posting unless you want to show how dumb you are. Go back to Faux and get some more quotes.

Jesus what an ignorant statement. Many diseases mutate. AIDS does too. That is taken into account and can still allow us to make decent predictions about what will happen with the spread of bird flu and other deadly diseaes. Our knowledge doesn't have to be 100% either, so please stop with that srawman. We have ENOUGH information to make valid predictions in the case of bird flu and prepared for scenarios. We don't yet have enough information to make valid predictions about the effects of global warming. If we did then the models of GW wouldn't continue to fail year after year after year.

Now go back to HuffPo and see if someone else can tell you what your next response tactic will be.

:roll:

You are a brilliant scientist. Back up your f@cking claims that we don't have enough evidence. Science is about best evidence and a real scientist made some best available science predictions. Show me where you are other than an opinionated, anti-science, imbecile who is doing anything but regurgitating the stupidity of other anti-science fools.

You are stuffed full of opinions, poor ones, and that is all.

If we had enough evidence the models wouldn't continually fail, time after time.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) found that satellite and other observations show the Arctic ice cover is retreating more rapidly than estimated by any of the eighteen computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its 2007 assessments.

What's the problem with the models?

When the authors analyzed the IPCC computer model runs, they found that, on average, the models simulated a loss in September ice cover of 2.5 percent per decade from 1953 to 2006. The fastest rate of September retreat in any individual model simulation was 5.4 percent per decade. September marks the yearly minimum of sea ice in the Arctic. But newly available data sets, blending early aircraft and ship reports with more recent satellite measurements, show that the September ice actually declined at a rate of about 7.8 percent per decade during the 1953 to 2006 period.

They can't even properly model the past. How the HELL are they supposed to model the future?

Now take your lame accusations, Moonboy, and shove them up your...

To TLC
You miss the significance of the inaccuracies of global warming modeling you used as your examples. They show that the modeling under-estimates the effects.
Now just what does a single one of your posts have to do with the TOPIC 😛olitical appointees editing scientific presentations so as not to embarrass a political agenda?

To WHAMPOM

You seem to assume that I'm some sort of GW denier. I'm not. I fully recognize that GW is happening. I also recognize that we don't really understand why it's happening. So whether it's being overestimated or underestimated is not really the issue, at least to me. The issue is the fact that it's not yet being correctly estimated because, overestimated or underestimated, it shows we don't have a handle on it yet. Bad estimates do not make for good science.

This is only your opinion, and one that is not correct. Good science can make bad estimates because the best science we have may be imperfect. The CDC, like you, has concluded that global warming is happening. If we overestimate or underestimate global warming we will over or underestimate the risk but we have to estimate the risk the best we can because it is the duty and mission of the CDC to anticipate and prepare. We can prepare only to the best of our knowledge but we can't ignore the risk when we know that change is coming but not when where or how much.

The risk will be estimated based on the fact of change, not the precision with which that change is know. And that is good science. Your notion that's bad science is simply stupid.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: The CDC doesn't forecast health risks in a vacuum. They have to know the parameters first, and that includes the specific conditions of climate. In order to know how global warming will affect diseases in the future it is mandatory that they be able to actually predict the future of global warming first. If they don't have that baseline then they cannot know the parameters required to make their forecast.

M: We have been over this countless times. The forecasts for health risks are made not on anything to do with GW but on the knowledge and science we have about each risk. You don't need any particular understanding of GW to understand how those risks change if there is climate change. You don't have to know if global warming is going to occur or not, when, how much, or where. All you have to do is understand how the particular risk will be affected if climate changes. All that is required is change. The risks are looked at if it gets hotter or colder, no matter. They are looked at if it's wetter or drier. They are looked at if storms become stronger than they are now. Scientists ask themselves what climate change can bring and then predict what those changes imply over a broad subject range. You know this but you fuck around because you're an asshole.

TLC: We do not have that baseline yet. When we do I look forward to the CDC presenting their information. Until then it's garbage science.

M: Yes we do. The base line is a change in climate.

On to your next idiocy.

I recommend you get on to your next idiocy. You have been the same idiot since the beginning of the thread.

TLC: So you don't like the word "swang?" Do you really want to play the pedantic pud game on an internet forum?

M: Of course I do. Why should you monopolize being a prick.

TLC: Since you apparently do you should know that swang is the simple past tense of the irregular verb "swing." While it's considered an archaic form it is still perfectly acceptable because it does appear quite often in both printed and spoken forms to this day.

Yes, I know. It's quite commonly used by Neanderthal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...nglish_irregular_verbs

But no doubt you knew that already, being the brilliant condescending little twit that you are.

:roll:

M: And you, no doubt, just found it out. What you euphemistically call archaic I'd call obsolete.

My major in college was English, Moonie. I've faced far tougher editors than you over the last 20 years too since I write for a living, and I make a very good living doing it.

If you want to pick on someone about English, you picked on the wrong guy. Stick with what you know. So far it's been shown that English and global warming are two subjects you should avoid.

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: My major in college was English, Moonie. I've faced far tougher editors than you over the last 20 years too since I write for a living, and I make a very good living doing it.

If you want to pick on someone about English, you picked on the wrong guy. Stick with what you know. So far it's been shown that English and gloabl warming are two subjects you should avoid.

Hehe, we are not talking about global warming.

One think I was sure of, or should I say, of which I am sure, is that you didn't major in science or logic. But if we're to issue warnings than let me warn you I majored it the psychology of assholes.

Wow, you majored in English but I'm the one who is pedantic. But I will avoid gloabl warming because I don't know what it is. Has it something to do with glowable warming? We can't talk about that because all the predictions are bad.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: My major in college was English, Moonie. I've faced far tougher editors than you over the last 20 years too since I write for a living, and I make a very good living doing it.

If you want to pick on someone about English, you picked on the wrong guy. Stick with what you know. So far it's been shown that English and gloabl warming are two subjects you should avoid.

Hehe, we are not talking about global warming.

One think I was sure of, or should I say, of which I am sure, is that you didn't major in science or logic. But if we're to issue warnings than let me warn you I majored it the psychology of assholes.

Wow, you majored in English but I'm the one who is pedantic. But I will avoid gloabl warming because I don't know what it is. Has it something to do with glowable warming? We can't talk about that because all the predictions are bad.

We still are talking about global warming, Moonie. Why I bet your red face is contributing a bit to it at this very moment. Besides, if we remove the subject of global warming from this thread it would be meaningless since the entire issue is predicated on GW in the first place.

Also, it's interesting that you majored in the psychology of assholes. An acquaintence of mine is a psych professor. He's a gay man, though he publicly denied it for years, that went into the field of psychology to try to understand why he was gay. So it makes perfect sense to me why you studied the psychology of assholes.

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: We still are talking about global warming, Moonie.

M: You are talking about it. The thread is about the deletion of data from the CDC by the OMB regarding the looming health risks their scientists projected will come as a result of climate change.

TLC: Why I bet your red face is contributing a bit to it at this very moment.

M: I bet you wish a worthless idiot like yourself COULD make my face red. As a nobody that would give you great pleasure. Negative attention for the sick is preferable to none at all. No, I'm not red in the face one bit. I'm here to reveal to any who happen by what a titanic asshole you are. I'm hear to show people that you will make the most colossal ass of yourself rather than admit you are wrong, don't have the slightest capacity to reason and know nothing about science at all. I am quite content to let you flap your ass in the wind for everybody to see. It's great you have no personal pride and care not how low you sink. People should know there are those who live in a mental sewer and should simply be ignored because no matter how much anybody flays their ass they have more and more. You show so very clearly what it means to be in brain dead denial.

TLC: Besides, if we remove the subject of global warming from this thread it would be meaningless since the entire issue is predicated on GW in the first place.

M: No, as you well know the thread is about why the science on health risks that will ensue as climate changes goes forward was deleted from the CDC

TLC: Also, it's interesting that you majored in the psychology of assholes. An acquaintence of mine is a psych professor. He's a gay man, though he publicly denied it for years, that went into the field of psychology to try to understand why he was gay. So it makes perfect sense to me why you studied the psychology of assholes.

M: Why, I don't care if or why you're gay. And it's spelled acquaintance.

But are we making progress? I'm getting a feeling from the changes in subject and the dodging of my points that you'd like to talk about anything other than the fact that global warming science and health risk sciences are completely different things and are connected here only because science foresees some sort of global weather change coming and for which we need to anticipate and prepare as is the job of the CBC, that excellent group that is chock full of real scientists practicing real science.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: You are talking about it. The thread is about the deletion of data from the CDC by the OMB regarding the looming health risks their scientists projected will come as a result of climate change.

Yep, and that climate change is commonly referred to as global warming, so you are talking about it too. You're trying your damndest to pretend you're not, but you are anyway. It's obvious that you can't possibly avoid it considering the subject.

M: I bet you wish a worthless idiot like yourself COULD make my face red. As a nobody that would give you great pleasure. Negative attention for the sick is preferable to none at all. No, I'm not red in the face one bit. I'm here to reveal to any who happen by what a titanic asshole you are. I'm hear to show people that you will make the most colossal ass of yourself rather than admit you are wrong, don't have the slightest capacity to reason and know nothing about science at all. I am quite content to let you flap your ass in the wind for everybody to see. It's great you have no personal pride and care not how low you sink. People should know there are those who live in a mental sewer and should simply be ignored because no matter how much anybody flays their ass they have more and more. You show so very clearly what it means to be in brain dead denial.

Why thank you. I have been flapping an ass in the wind for everyone to see - you. Might I add that you're a wonderful ass-flapper too.

You're attempt at trying to manufacture some character profile of me doesn't come anywhere near the truth either. Maybe you thought studying psychology could give you that insight? Sorry, it didn't. You should ask for your money back because you, son, got ripped off. Or maybe they tried to teach you those skills and you simply never caught on? Who knows. Either way, you fail.

M: No, as you well know the thread is about why the science on health risks that will ensue as climate changes goes forward was deleted from the CDC

Very good. Very good, Moonie. Why yes, it IS about that - 'Why it got deleted.' It got deleted because the entire premise was based on knowing the future of GW (or climate change if you want to pretend this is not about GW....shhhh, I won't tell), an issue for which we can't properly predict the future at this point in time.

M: Why, I don't care if or why you're gay. And it's spelled acquaintance.

Glad to know that you have the skills to use a spell-checker. Personally, I don't bother with one, and it shows.

But are we making progress? I'm getting a feeling from the changes in subject and the dodging of my points that you'd like to talk about anything other than the fact that global warming science and health risk sciences are completely different things and are connected here only because science foresees some sort of global weather change coming and for which we need to anticipate and prepare as is the job of the CBC, that excellent group that is chock full of real scientists practicing real science.

Yes, we are making progress. It seems it's finally sinking through that thick skull of yours that this is essentially about global warming. You're coming closer and closer to admitting it too so I'm expecting a breakthrough any time now. Don't worry, once you make a full admission the healing will begin and you'll be able to finally move on with your life.

 

[Moonbeam]

See, you can't follow the most elementary levels of logical reasoning.

A subject that is about the science of what disease risks will occur if global climate change or global warming, if you wish, occurs is not about the science that predicts global warming, which you rave about as being imprecise. It is about the science related to those risks. In short, studying the science of global warming is about studying the climate. To study the risks of a hotter climate, generally speaking, throughout the world requires the science of medicine, biology, and statistics. No precision in the science of global warming is required. No premise as to whether the climate will change or won't is needed, nor by how much or where. One first uses biology and medicine to determining the facts about health risks that increase as temperatures rise right now say in heat waves or in hot summer parts of the country and then you apply statistics to them. In this way you know what will happen when temperatures rise. Once you have the statistics it makes no difference whether it is hot or not. You will know the risk today and you will know it tomorrow no matter what the temperature will be. You will have a predictive tool statistically valid regardless of the accuracy of any temperature prediction. You will know to what extent to anticipate an increase in heal related disease as the temperature rises. An intelligent public preparedness for future change in temperature is dependent of such science and that's why the CDC collects such data. Concealing the risks of changing climate is not good public policy.

So since you make the case that data that was deleted should have been deleted because of the imprecision of global warming science you bring global warming into a discussion where it does not apply.

Because the CBC has accepted global warming as a fact, that fact is merely the impetus for the study of the health risks. The impetus has nothing more to do with the analysis than providing the motivation to analyze the risk. The impetus and the analysis are unrelated in any other way. The imprecision in the science of global warming has no effect on the analysis because the sciences related to risk are independent of it. It was this independent data that was deleted by a political wing of the Bush administration raising questions as to why. That is the subject, not the imprecision in the science of global warming.