Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > General comments on Bloggingheads.tv
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

General comments on Bloggingheads.tv Post comments about our website here.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #21  
Old 02-10-2012, 02:29 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: holy cannoli

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Wow, what a coup! You caught me editing my comment!

And another edit (since I don't have to get to the theatre yet)

Here's the post by Jeff. He made no point and he certainly didn't address yours. He was just making one of his typically abstruse (look it up) and meaningless points.



And here is how you pretend that you are making another point. Pathetic. (gee I hope I haven't used pathetic too often in this thread!)
OMG bathatalice, your pride in ignorance is mind numbing. You seem to think that if you don't understand something, it's nothing. You can edit all you want, my question to you regarding the edit, was if you thought it made your assertion that I didn't understand Jeff's input more coherent by including him in the misunderstanding.
My additional point was regarding your quest for supporting evidence coming from sources that claim "balance", but since that was the whole post, I was confused as to how you determined that I, or Jeff for that matter, didn't understand his conclusion. This claim seemed, and still seems, totally nuts.
Jeff's point was that the author of your op-ed was confusing theory with hypothesis. I would be happy to cut and paste the definitions of the terms for you, in case you are late for a performance.

Here's the quote from the article again:

Quote:
To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2. Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool. When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming. Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history. Skeptics call this their “plug variable.”
It just pains you that some one you think is an idiot can so readily shoot holes in your conspiracy theory editorials. But, like a true conspiracy theorist, you deny it happened.
What has badhatalice taught us in this thread so far?:
*Science is religion
*Engineers are scientists
*Engineering involves the same discipline as science
*Theories are the same as hypotheses
*Global dimming is a theory, not a hypothesis
*"plug variables" in climate models are theories unsupported by research
*if someone makes a point not directly related to her links, then it's not a point.

That's all I have time for, maybe others can add to the list?
__________________
"God is a metaphor for that which trancends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that." J. Campbell
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.