Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Parados -- I skip over all Bernie/Massa's posts. Maybe, he bores himself so much that he does the same. THe result is he can not be certain what you answered or didn't.

0 Replies

A link to the National Acadamy of Sciences report that Bernard only cited part of
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/15.html

For some reason Bernard left out this part....

Quote:

Because climate is uncontrollable (albeit influenceable by humans), the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. They also are the appropriate high-end tool for forecasting hypothetical climates in the years and centuries ahead.

And this part..

Quote:

Formulating, constructing, and using such models and analyzing, assessing, and interpreting their answers make climate system models large and expensive enterprises. For this reason, they are often associated, at least in part, with national laboratories. The rapid increase over recent decades in available computational speed and power offers opportunities for more elaborate, more realistic models, but requires regular upgrading of the basic computers to avoid obsolescence.

This was written a couple of computer generations ago in 2000. That should answer Bernard's computer question.

It also includes the answer to Bernard's question of whether models include the planetary circluation.

Quote:

The current norm for a climate system model is to include a full suite of physical representations for air, water, land, and ice with a geographic resolution scale of typically about 250 km. Model solutions match the primary planetary-scale circulation, seasonal variability, and temperature structures with qualitative validity

0 Replies

Oh, please, Mr. Parados, do not be a fraud!! Your answers are non-responsive. You have avoided( because you could not answer them?) eighty percent of my questions. And you are supposed to be informed about Global Warming?

How ludicrous.

You evidently skipped over the post I wrote when one of the groups which was engaged in helping to make 40( count them, fortynew scenarios). You have not given any scenarios, as I requested.(.why? are they too ridiculous?) You have not given any temperature ranges predicted for the future( Why, are they indefensible?) YOu have not shown that any entires into the computer models which will affect the prediction are hard and fast or indeed can be hard and fast--E>G> Population forecasts.

AND, MOST DAMNING OF ALL- YOU ONLY DRIBBLE OUT A FEW REFERENCES.

NOW, LISTEN UP---

National Academy of Science- Y O U R R E F E R E N C E.

0 Replies

Digest this from the report, MR. Parados:

Because climate is uncontrollable (albeit influenceable by humans), the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. They also are the appropriate high-end tool for forecasting hypothetical climates in the years and centuries ahead. However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature.

Nostradamus also complained that his crystals balls were murky!!!

0 Replies

Chew on this from the Academy of Sciences Report, Mr. Parados--

Applications of climate models to past climate states encompass "snapshots" during particular millennia, but they do not yet provide for continuous evolution over longer intervals (transitions between ice ages).

THEY DO NOT YET PROVIDE FOR CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION OVER LONGER INTERVALS.

Why Not, Mr. Parados--Do the Global Warming Hysterics believe with the fundamentalists that the world started in 4000BC?

LOL

0 Replies

Thanks for playing Bernard,

Have a nice day.

I will no longer respond to you until you live up to this statement.

BernardR wrote:

After you reply to Mr. Samuelson's article, Mr. Parados, I will reply to yours.

I can wait for your answer and, of course, replicate it the Samuelson post if you need me to do so.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2177808#2177808

You say nothing about you have to agree with my response. You merely said I needed to respond. I responded twice to Samuelson. As MM pointed out on another thread, you are completely without honor. You refuse to live up to your statements. You consistently make errors of fact that appear to be intentional. This thread will stand as it is. Anyone can go back and read the spew you have distributed here and the responses to you that you ignore. Others can judge you for what you are.

Goodbye and good riddance. Enjoy your life of misery.

0 Replies

Since Mr. Parados is ignorant of many of the "findings" of the Global Warming Hysterics, he missed this comment FROM HIS OWN LINK, regarding the measurements made by the measurement of proxy data.

The data become relatively sparse prior to 1600, and are subject to uncertainties related to spatial completeness and interpretation making the results somewhat equivocal, e.g., less than 90% confidence. Achieving greater certainty as to the magnitude of climate variations before that time will require more extensive data and analysis.

First of all, the world did not begin in 1600.

The data "subject to uncertainties" related to spatial completeness and intepretation MAKING THE RESULTS SOMEWHAT EQUIVOCAL.

What the report does not say is that the proxy data ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES GIVEN THE LACK OF LARGE SPATIAL SCALE COHERENCE IN THE DATA>

See Barnett Et. Al-"Detection and attribution of recent climate change---AMA

www.http://ams.allenpress.com

If you were a serious Debater, Mr.Parados, or even someone that really studied Scientific Articles, you would have at least REVIEWED THE MANY LINKS I GAVE ABOUT THE SUBJECT.

You have not, and you have skipped over 80% of my questions and comments which were REFERENCED TO SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES.

I am beginning to think that your research is very superficial and perhaps fraudulent!!!

0 Replies

Try to fold this into your analysis_ Mr. Parados

from your LINK

However, there are large uncertainties in underlying assumptions about population growth, economic development, life style choices, technological change, and energy alternatives, so that it is useful to examine scenarios developed from multiple perspectives in considering strategies for dealing with climate change.
end of quote

WHAT YOU APPARENTLY REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND, MR. PARADOS THAT

ASSUMPTIONS

ASSUMPTIONS

ASSUMPTIONS

about population growth, economic development, life style choices, technological change, and energy alternatives ARE IDIOTIC UNLESS

There are scenarios which take into account what happens when the POPULATION GROWTH ASSUMPTION FOR THE YEAR 2020 AND THEN THE YEAR 2030 AND THEN THE YEAR 2040 AND THEN THE YEAR 2050

DO INDEED CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY SIGNIFICANTLY SIGNIFICANTLY...even though the other for factors listed above, Economic devevelopment, life style choices, technological change and energy alternatives ARE HELD CONSTANT.

Of course, there CAN BE AND PROBABLY WILL BE a range of changes in those other four areas listed in your link.

HOW MANY, TELL ME, HOW MANY ASSUMPTIONS MUST BE FED INTO THE COMPUTER MODELS TO OBTAIN PREDICTIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING INASMUCH AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY ONE OR ALL FIVE OF THE FACTORS ABOVE CAN CHANGE BEYOND THAT PREDICTED BY THE COMPUTER MODELS.

You are the environmental expert, Mr. Parados. You answer that question!

You won't. I think you may have soiled the diaper visible in your avatar when you read that question!!

0 Replies

Now, I know you are frightened. Please replicate for me the post where you showed that you responded to Samuelson's POST. You did not. I repeat- YOU DID NOT. YOU SKIPPED OVER SECTIONS YOU COULD NOT ANSWER.

In the meantime, I will continue to show that you are ignorant of the issues in the Global Warming dispute USING YOUR OWN LINK>

I await your answer with relation to Samuelson. Then I will show you that you did not respond.

PS. I made a copy of your incomplete responses to Samuelson thus far!!!

0 Replies

Try to add THIS to your understanding, Mr. Parados.

From your own link:

Climate projections will always be far from perfect. Confidence limits and probabilistic information, with their basis, should always be considered as an integral part of the information that climate scientists provide to policy and decision makers. Without them, the IPCC SPM could give an impression that the science of global warming is "settled," even though many uncertainties still remain. The emission scenarios used by the IPCC provide a good example. Human decisions will almost certainly alter emissions over the next century.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO READ, MR.PARADOS

FROM YOUR OWN LINK

Human decisions will almost certainly alter emissions over the next century.

FROM YOUR O W N L I N K.

And what does Dr. Lomborg say about the altering of emissions over the next century

.P. 322-323

Previously referenced:

quote

"We should not spend VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY to cut a TINY SLICE of the global temperature increase shown this constitutes a poor use of resources...we should focus more of out efforts in investing in research and development of solar power, fusion and other likely power sources of the future"

IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR TO ME THAT THE LEFT WING ALONG WITH THE IRRATIONALLY EXTREME FRING OF THE ENVIRONMENTALIST MOVEMENT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT GRADUAL AND WELL PLANNED TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO

AS DR,LOMBORG SAYS---CUT A TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERAURE INCREASE

0 Replies

You are requested to do the following --Mr. Parados

1. Go back to the Eight Questions that I posed for you and answer them. The questions you do not answer will remain as testimony that you are, in fact, ignorant about Global Warming. I will examine all of your posts carefully, compare them to my questions AGAIN, and will then state that my questions and statements , being unanswered do indeed STAND and THUS DEFINE THE GLOBAL WARMING QUESTION.

2. Post your ALLEGED answer to the Samuelson Column. If you give a NEW ANSWER, I will examine it, but if your alleged ANSWER is one given before this post, I hold that you HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO SAMUELSON AND WILL REPLICATE YOUR ORIGINAL ANSWERS AND SHOW HOW YOU HAVE NOT, I REPEAT, NOT RESPONDED.

3. Respond to the posts I made----8/5/2006- today- QUOTING FROM THE LINK YOU REFERENCED SHOWING THAT YOU ARE QUITE IGNORANT OF THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

0 Replies

Your parsing of "reply" to mean respond to every single point is rather Clintonesque Bernard. You might want to look up the word "reply".
You really shouldn't use 2 syllable words if you don't know the meaning.

You are not a man of honor. We answered the honor part already. Now we seem to be working on whether you are even an adult.

0 Replies

Parados wrote:

Your parsing of "reply" to mean respond to every single point is rather Clintonesque Bernard. You might want to look up the word "reply".
You really shouldn't use 2 syllable words if you don't know the meaning.

You are not a man of honor. We answered the honor part already. Now we seem to be working on whether you are even an adult.

*************************************************************

Really????

Honor????

I slapped you in the face rhetorically sixty or seventy times and you barely grunted and you speak about honor.

YOU, PARADOS, REPRESENTED THAT YOU WERE THE AUTHORITY ON GLOBAL WARMING. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.

When you were wetting you diaper( as in your avatar), I was parachuting down into Viet Nam!!!!

0 Replies

Wow, Bernie parachuted into Nam! I wager that was a hellava dream.

0 Replies

I need no one to recite my past history of my service to my country except myself, Mr. Advocate. I am sure you could not or even WOULD NOT have lasted two days in the training at Fort Bragg and especially in combat.

Only people who do not understand what some have done for their country would make a comment like you have, Advocate.

When you earn your commendations, please make sure you let me know!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Parados wrote:

Your parsing of "reply" to mean respond to every single point is rather Clintonesque Bernard. You might want to look up the word "reply".
You really shouldn't use 2 syllable words if you don't know the meaning.

You are not a man of honor. We answered the honor part already. Now we seem to be working on whether you are even an adult.

*************************************************************

Really????

Honor????

I slapped you in the face rhetorically sixty or seventy times and you barely grunted and you speak about honor.

Well, that's actually your problem now isn't it? And Parados is too civil and kind in his description of your intellectual prowess and ethical merits. Actually, they are non-existent. Your posts indicate that you do not know how to think nor act like a normal human being. Your posts are so adolescent and childish, so crudely insulting and crying out for attention and the acceptance of others that I wonder, really wonder if you are posting from an orphanage or a mental institution. Your posts are indicative of perhaps the most obnoxious, reprehensible, and unwarranted egotistical human being whose path I have crossed. I find you completely and utterly without any redeeming social value except as an example for young children not to emulate if they ever wish to travel in polite society or have even a single friend in this world. Your posts are usually so bad and over the top that even your fellow travelers on the right wing of the political spectrum avoid you like the plague. Were you a shoe, your sole would be smeared with smelly dog excrement.

I speak only for myself here, but I believe that once again, you should be banished from this website as a disruptive influence. And banished for good this time. You have returned to this website repeatedly upon previous banishments and against its written policies. So it is clear that you have no regard for observing the rules of this website and revel in ignoring them. Most recently you have returned under yet another moniker after I exposed you and ran you off the site. Upon your most recent return, you have posted more times in the last three months than I have posted in nearly three years. In this time, you have done an exceptional job of ruining the political threads on this site with your plethora of obnoxious, meaningless and mean-spirited posts; so numerous, tedious, humorless, and repetitive that in literal fact you have posted the exact same posts not only on the same thread repeatedly but in others as well. You are so clueless and eager to prove your manhood that you have even posted your offal on the wrong threads and sanctimoniously demanded replies from people who never even engaged you on a thread.

Personally, I have felt sorry for you from the minute your posts appeared on Abuzz in the Spring of 2001 and you started babbling obsessively about Bill Clinton's penis. Generally, I have engaged with you in a friendly effort to guide you to some sort of lucidity and perhaps sanity. But no more. Akin to the pearls mentioned in Matthew 7:6, you have squandered the coins of kindness I placed in the palm of your hand.

Now, please, either kill yourself and make the world a better place or remove yourself from this site and at least allow A2K to return to the better place it was before you infected it.

YOU, PARADOS, REPRESENTED THAT YOU WERE THE AUTHORITY ON GLOBAL WARMING. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.

When you were wetting you diaper( as in your avatar), I was parachuting down into Viet Nam!!!!

0 Replies

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Well, that's actually your problem now isn't it? And Parados is too civil and kind in his description of your intellectual prowess and ethical merits. Actually, they are non-existent. Your posts indicate that you do not know how to think nor act like a normal human being. Your posts are so adolescent and childish, so crudely insulting and crying out for attention and the acceptance of others that I wonder, really wonder if you are posting from an orphanage or a mental institution. Your posts are indicative of perhaps the most obnoxious, reprehensible, and unwarranted egotistical human being whose path I have crossed. I find you completely and utterly without any redeeming social value except as an example for young children not to emulate if they ever wish to travel in polite society or have even a single friend in this world. Your posts are usually so bad and over the top that even your fellow travelers on the right wing of the political spectrum avoid you like the plague. Were you a shoe, your sole would be smeared with smelly dog excrement.

I speak only for myself here, but I believe that once again, you should be banished from this website as a disruptive influence. And banished for good this time. You have returned to this website repeatedly upon previous banishments and against its written policies. So it is clear that you have no regard for observing the rules of this website and revel in ignoring them. Most recently you have returned under yet another moniker after I exposed you and ran you off the site. Upon your most recent return, you have posted more times in the last three months than I have posted in nearly three years. In this time, you have done an exceptional job of ruining the political threads on this site with your plethora of obnoxious, meaningless and mean-spirited posts; so numerous, tedious, humorless, and repetitive that in literal fact you have posted the exact same posts not only on the same thread repeatedly but in others as well. You are so clueless and eager to prove your manhood that you have even posted your offal on the wrong threads and sanctimoniously demanded replies from people who never even engaged you on a thread.

Personally, I have felt sorry for you from the minute your posts appeared on Abuzz in the Spring of 2001 and you started babbling obsessively about Bill Clinton's penis. Generally, I have engaged with you in a friendly effort to guide you to some sort of lucidity and perhaps sanity. But no more. Akin to the pearls mentioned in Matthew 7:6, you have squandered the coins of kindness I placed in the palm of your hand.

Now, please, either kill yourself and make the world a better place or remove yourself from this site and at least allow A2K to return to the better place it was before you infected it.

end of quote--

GEE, I DON'T THINK MR. KUVASZ LIKES ME!!!!

I WONDER WHY?

I REALLY DON'T THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING HE WROTE.

I THINK HE IS REALLY UPSET SINCE I PUNCTURED THE GLOBAL WARMING BALLOON.

But, please, Mr.Kuvasz, not "If you were a shoe you would be smeared with smelly dog excrement"

Isn't that against the TOS?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

I speak only for myself here, but I believe that once again, you should be banished from this website as a disruptive influence. And banished for good this time. You have returned to this website repeatedly upon previous banishments and against its written policies. So it is clear that you have no regard for observing the rules of this website and revel in ignoring them. Most recently you have returned under yet another moniker after I exposed you and ran you off the site. Upon your most recent return, you have posted more times in the last three months than I have posted in nearly three years. In this time, you have done an exceptional job of ruining the political threads on this site with your plethora of obnoxious, meaningless and mean-spirited posts; so numerous, tedious, humorless, and repetitive that in literal fact you have posted the exact same posts not only on the same thread repeatedly but in others as well. You are so clueless and eager to prove your manhood that you have even posted your offal on the wrong threads and sanctimoniously demanded replies from people who never even engaged you on a thread.

Personally, I have felt sorry for you from the minute your posts appeared on Abuzz in the Spring of 2001 and you started babbling obsessively about Bill Clinton's penis. Generally, I have engaged with you in a friendly effort to guide you to some sort of lucidity and perhaps sanity. But no more. Akin to the pearls mentioned in Matthew 7:6, you have squandered the coins of kindness I placed in the palm of your hand.

Now, please, either kill yourself and make the world a better place or remove yourself from this site and at least allow A2K to return to the better place it was before you infected it.

kuvasz, you are surely a true liberal. You wish to squash anybody's opinion that differs from yours. The only crime Bernard commits here that I can see is he presents his opinion in a bit of a pompous manner. However, he presents evidence, which is unusual for many posters here, plus he rarely if ever descends to the gutter like some people here. Plus I don't think he has ever suggested anyone go kill themselves, as you have just done.

Liberals are so typical. They love freedom of speech until its not their speech. Kuvasz, you would have done well under Stalin. You would simply ban your opponents from having a voice, and you would send them to re-education camps in Siberia, to work at hard labor, and to learn the party line.

You have accused Bernard of posting obnoxious, meaningless and mean-spirited posts; that are also numerous, tedious, humorless, and repetitive. I think Bernard hardly ranks among the most obnoxious, meaningless, or meanspirited. I think suggesting someone go kill themselves is fairly meanspirited, kuvasz, which you are guilty of. Numerous posts should not be a crime. Tedious probably means he presents evidence, which is fairly refreshing. And I have seen some truly tedious postings here by many, that are really tedious rather than presenting evidence, in other words, pointless reasoning. And seeing some of the humor here, I would rather have none than some I've seen.

If anyone needs to be banned, I would suggest kuvasz should be for telling someone to go kill himself.

0 Replies

okie,

Perhaps you didn't realize it but A2K isn't the government. It is a private enterprise. Are you advocating the private enterprises should be forced to serve everyone? You signed a contract when you created your name on this website. Failure to live up to that contract by repeated postings (spam) or harrassment of other members is reason for banishment.

Bernard treads the line on both counts and has repeatedly crossed over it.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know