This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - trogdor
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 89
« on: June 05, 2006, 02:10:05 PM »
It's an overstatement to claim that Holland didn't have a "shred" of evidence for his statement
Really? Why's that?
since somebody as prominent as he is who has probably encountered several hundred top researchers at conferences would have a legitimate read on the sense of the field.
Oh, because he goes to conferences, my mistake.
they're called researchers. i hear he met some of them. conferences are simply a means to an end.
« on: June 05, 2006, 12:53:51 PM »
and the response in turn...
[Response: Gee, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Here's a complete list of topics discussed in World Climate report going back to December: Dialing in your own climate;No News is Bad News;Solar Warming?;Global Warming Not Featured in New Hurricane Study;An Extreme View of Global Warming;Antarctic Ice: The Cold Truth;Ice Storm; A (Mis)informed Public; Hot Tip: Post Misses the Point!; Hansen Revisited; Donald Kennedy: Setting Science Back; Not As Bad As We Thought!; Jumping To Conclusions: Frogs, Global Warming and Nature (Revised) ;Proving Science Bias; Natural Warming Larger Than Thought? -- And how about those ads for "Satanic Gases" and "Crumbling Consensus." Chip, at least I thought you'd have some sense of shame left, even if Michaels doesn't. We at least try to make use of sound scientific arguments in our discussions, even if we only have time to focus on those papers which we feel have done the most damage to the use of sound science in the public forum. On those other hundreds of papers at the tropical meteorology conference, of course we're not going to take them all apart, because most of those people are not trotting their ideas out in front of Congress and spouting off to the newspapers. Some, like Holland, Webster, Emanuel, and Curry have indeed been very public, but their scientific ideas are well and clearly laid out in their publications and while there will no doubt be a lot of continuing back-and-forth on such a difficult subject, we have not seen that any major problems have emerged so far that would call their results into question. With regard to the frogs paper, I won't pass judgement on it, but you'll note that so far we have tended to steer clear of the literature on impacts of global warming, though I think that it will be something we will need to put some effort into eventually. It's an overstatement to claim that Holland didn't have a "shred" of evidence for his statement, since somebody as prominent as he is who has probably encountered several hundred top researchers at conferences would have a legitimate read on the sense of the field. If you're saying there isn't any published systematic poll, yes you're right on that, so far as I know. I'll leave that sort of meta-policy stuff to Pielke Jr.. I'm more interested in whether there's any scientific basis for those saying Holland's and Emanuel's arguments are wrong. Certainly, Holland and company have more science on their side than Max Mayfield. --raypierre]
« on: June 05, 2006, 12:29:18 PM »
« on: June 05, 2006, 10:54:57 AM »
bush = great
= horrible = virtuous = confused = intelligent = god fearing = bigot = nothing = something
i <3 obfuscation
« on: June 05, 2006, 10:01:12 AM »
this is somewhat perplexing....
In his Saturday radio address, Bush cast the amendment as a defense of the stability of society and a strike back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.
"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives," Bush said. "And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts."
just interesting how he contradicts himself.
would be a great sound bite to use against him...
"Bush, confused, or just plain dumb?"
doublethink - controlled insanity
« on: June 05, 2006, 09:49:26 AM »
"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives," Mr. Bush said. "And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts."
war is peace, freedom is slavery
« on: June 01, 2006, 12:26:12 PM »
Umm, it happens a LOT in the "crazy hetero world."
i'm not saying it doesn't happen, however i would be willing to bet that the rate is much higher among homosexuals. there are a lot of single gay guys in their 40s+ who came to self-realization much later than most people do now due to different life circumstances. straight people don't have to deal with this, and the incidence of single males in their 40s is far less. look at statistics ("about 90 percent of baby-boomer men and women either have married or will marry"). marriage claims most of them far earlier than 40. i can (and do) go into nearly any given straight bar in dc and see that the crowd is overwhelmingly young. going into gay bars, the discrepancy is far less.
oh, and "crazy hetero world" is a joke. i'm not hatin, just inverting the historical association of homosexuals with crazy.
« on: June 01, 2006, 09:55:45 AM »
The sad part is even though I can now actually afford enough Heineken to get me smashed, I still prefer and search out PBR on draft.
Iím white trash, what can I say. I canít cook, I canít decorate, Iím a registered republican, I despise Madonna, I dance like Iím having an epileptic seizer, Iíve never watched a whole episode of American Idol, I donít even know what station it comes on, getting dressed up means finding the stuff in the dryer with the least wrinkles, a gourmet meal to me is wood fired pizza and wine from a box in the fridge. My interests are sports, hunting, fishing and cold beer in large quantities. Iím just a big lesbian trapped inside a gay manís body.
regarding age, i wouldn't say i'm that ageist, but i do try to stick within a reasonable age frame because it seems to ensure that i have more in common with a guy. however, i get very disturbed by the number of guys in their 40s+ who go after guys in their 20s. now, i realize this happens in the crazy hetero world too at times, but this seems to be FAR more prominent in the gay world from what i've seen. clearly, it's not just young gay guys demonizing the older ones. it's also older guys fetishizing the youth.
« on: May 31, 2006, 01:07:35 PM »
i have nothing to contribute at this time, but i'm amused. tag
« on: May 31, 2006, 09:50:44 AM »
so i took the implicit association test for sexuality and got results of a slight preference for straight people. this kind of surprised me. while in specific interactions with people (as long as they aren't of a sexual nature), it really doesn't matter to me at all, in general, i feel like i'm more comfortable around gay people. perhaps this could be due to growing up with acute homophobia? or maybe the test just isn't that great of a measurement. what did everyone else get?
Pages:  2 3 4 5 6 ... 89