I've been saying for a while that Apple should create something that is the equivalent of Bell Labs to further cutting-edge corporate innovation. While not quite in the same league, it is becoming more and more apparent that environmental sustainability is the area in which Apple has decided to make a significant innovation push.
Well that is how Apple is painting it. However if you know a little bit about the industrial revolution Apple is behaving a lot like the vertically organized business of the late 1800's. Steel producers would for example buy up coal tracts so they have material to feed their furnaces.
I'm reluctant to cheer for Apple here because I'm not convinced that much is changing here. This could be more about preferential costs advantages than anything. Also 36,000 acres is not a great deal of forest area.
A company of Apple's size and resources can make a significant dent in this arena for (relatively) small commitments.
Kudos, Mr. Cook, Ms. Jackson!
Dent? It is just as likely that Apple is already sourcing sustainable materials and most likely from outside the USA. Sure their are the less ethical but sustainability is a big deal in the forest industry.
You really think that implying someone lacks critical thinking (which is what you did) -- when the facts are on his side -- will not invite a "put up or please shut up" type of response? (I did say 'please'). That your original comment -- and the admitted snarkiness -- was not condescending? (I'll leave aside whether that was being jerky or not).
As an aside, the media gets issues related to climate change wrong all the time.
Add: Also, you may wish to look at what the use of 'Um' at the start of a sentence -- which you've done twice in four posts -- implies.
Well, I was using it colloquially with the intention of having a tone of incredulity. When I looked up the definition of "um" I found: "used as an expression of doubt, hesitation, deliberation, interest." Seems to match my intended purpose. Am I missing something?
By the way, @anantksundaram, it turns out that although I was wrong about the IPCC and hurricane frequency, I was right about the overall point, that hurricane sandy should not have been attributed to climate change, given that the IPCC found:
Quote:
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.
It seems that they're just making a temporal correlation between observed hurricane patterns and their global warming predictions. They go on to hypothesize that further anthropogenic global warming will exacerbate the current trend. However, since the climate models have previously been wrong, there doesn't seem to be much credibility for their predictions.
I don't think you are accurately portraying what the science on this says as reflected in the IPCC 2014 report (but that's not the first time I've seen it misinterpreted or misrepresented): the sum total of evidence only says that storms will likely become more intense* (due to ocean warming), but says nothing at all about the frequency of hurricanes (in fact, some research shows that the number could actually decrease).
[SIZE=11px]*And, in the N. Atlantic, start to move further north.[/SIZE]
The problem with that is that they have no idea if the oceans are even warming significantly. There is supposedly a hot spot in the pacific but that can hardly be attributed to global warming. If global warming was real you would expect fairly even warming of the oceans, this isn't happening. Spot warming of the oceans is more likely the result of volcanic activity than global warming theories.
There have been predictions of increasing intensity as well as frequency for years, which were incorrect. Now, in 2014, that they have been proven wrong, they just happen to be predicting what has already been going in the the past 2 years? (Hurricane Sandy occurred in 2012.) What geniuses!
So just to recap: their predictions were wrong, so their next prediction, coincidentally, exactly mirrors what has already happened (decreased frequency, increased intensity, and higher up in the gulf stream).
I'm not trying to be snarky, well, not too much. But it only takes a little critical thinking to see how ridiculous some of these climate forecasters are that predict apocalyptic destruction on a daily basis, despite being so wrong in the past. Meanwhile the environment is being steadily destroyed by habitat destruction, toxic pollution, invasive species, lack of sustainable practices, overfishing, poaching.... All of these seem vastly more important to me than climate theory.
Nicely put. There are far more important and frankly things that should be on a much higher priority level with government.
Um, who says I have a political agenda? (I don't). How did politics get into this? (How is it even relevant?) Really? It's always the climate believers that assume that there's some political agenda, when it usually seems the opposite is true.
Because a big reason the global warming crowd exists is to get people elected to office that have radical views on reality. people with no sense or ability to question what is feed to them are prime targets of the democrats. The whole reason for global warming to be on the front stage is to give the democratic party a boost by scaring people.
How about you post evidence that the IPCC correctly predicted the same hurricane patterns that were demonstrated by hurricane sandy before 2012. Until then I'll maintain my default hypothesis that your politics are getting the better of your critical thinking. (Particularly since even the evidence you presented suggests they don't know what they're talking about, and just "predicted" what has already been occurring.)
For those of us that have been around for awhile we can remember truly hard winters in the northeast and stories about the dust bowl and the log drought in the midwest. The biggest problem I have with the global warming crowd is their seeming denial of the cyclical nature of the climate. by the way I'm not saying that global warming isn't possible, what I'm saying is that we have been feed a load of crap disguised as science.
This is one of the stupidest things thy have ever done; there are professional packaging engineers that should be taking care of this for Apple. Apple needs to focus on getting me my watch on time, not on hugging trees...
You really think that implying someone lacks critical thinking (which is what you did) -- when the facts are on his side -- will not invite a "put up or please shut up" type of response? (I did say 'please'). That your original comment -- and the admitted snarkiness -- was not condescending? (I'll leave aside whether that was being jerky or not).
The problem is the facts aren't on your side, if facts can even take a side. Even with things like hurricanes we really don't have rational data to actually say they are more intense or frequent than in the past. We certainly are far better at monitoring and recording data with respect to hurricanes but the record is arguably incomplete before we developed the technology to monitor the whole planet.
As an aside, the media gets issues related to climate change wrong all the time.
So do scientist? There have been all sorts of questionable claims made by these so called scientist on both sides of the fence. Honestly can you welcome the guy that claimed that a few dead polar bears boring in the water are signs of global warming.
Add: Also, you may wish to look at what the use of 'Um' at the start of a sentence -- which you've done twice in four posts -- implies.
The problem with the global warming crowd is that that past of theories as fact. Worst they pass off climate models as fact. A good scientists does not go about claiming his theories are fact.
The problem with that is that they have no idea if the oceans are even warming significantly. There is supposedly a hot spot in the pacific but that can hardly be attributed to global warming. If global warming was real you would expect fairly even warming of the oceans, this isn't happening. Spot warming of the oceans is more likely the result of volcanic activity than global warming theories.
This is what you have been told on talk radio but it is contrary to scientific evidence. You should spend more time reading factual information and less time on conservative political content.
If you were to read the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia page on global warming, I suspect you would come back say that Wikipedia is a liberal conspiracy, but give it a try anyway. There is a nice chart there plotting the land and ocean temperature increases.
The problem with the global warming crowd is that that past of theories as fact. Worst they pass off climate models as fact. A good scientists does not go about claiming his theories are fact.
This is a relatively minor point, but a HUGE peeve of mine in these type of discussions. Lots of people will pass off any claim in support of the overall global warming theory as 100% factual without any sense of irony whatsoever that a claim like this is inherently unscientific. If you read the studies, the papers are usually appropriately hesitant to make forceful claims, but somehow these studies are then interpreted as incontrovertible evidence. And if you actually look at a lot of these studies, there are so many holes.
Again, I'm not saying the studies are all wrong, but there are some substantial claims being made, and even more substantial political/economic implications that come from these claims, that are based on what seems to be relatively weak evidence.
How many global warming studies are we going to do, how many incandescent bulbs are we going to ban, while we watch thousands of acres of habitat be destroyed on a daily basis? This seems crazy to me!
When is the Sierra Club and their eco-radical allies, going to be held accountable for the massive forest fires that they allowed? The Sierra Club prevented the sustinable harvesting and clearing of underbrush and fallen timber in our national forests that created a tinderbox, leading to infernos. Many so-called environmentalists are in fact pyromaniacs: http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/articles/NowTheyHaveBurnedLosAlamos.html
By the way, @anantksundaram, it turns out that although I was wrong about the IPCC and hurricane frequency, I was right about the overall point, that hurricane sandy should not have been attributed to climate change, given that the IPCC found:
Quote:
It is premature to conclude that human activities--and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming--have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.
It seems that they're just making a temporal correlation between observed hurricane patterns and their global warming predictions. They go on to hypothesize that further anthropogenic global warming will exacerbate the current trend. However, since the climate models have previously been wrong, there doesn't seem to be much credibility for their predictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate
Again with the unnecessary condescension. Why is it you even feel the need to write a post like that? Pretty pathetic.
Oh, I am not being condescending in the least. See your post above, in blue. You make some pretty bombastic statements there.
So let me ask you this. Are you really a climate scientist? What do you know about climate models? Or about how to asses the credibility of their predictions? Or about the atmospheric parameters that drove Sandy when you say "it should not have been attributed to climate change"?
Would you care to explain?
(Incidentally, it's not surprising that SpamSandwich up-voted your post).
Oh, I am not being condescending in the least. See your post above, in blue. You make some pretty bombastic statements there.
So let me ask you this. Are you really a climate scientist? What do you know about climate models? Or about how to asses the credibility of their predictions? Or about the atmospheric parameters that drove Sandy when you say "it should not have been attributed to climate change"?
Would you care to explain?
(Incidentally, it's not surprising that SpamSandwich up-voted your post).
Oh, I am not being condescending in the least. See your post above, in blue. You make some pretty bombastic statements there.
So let me ask you this. Are you really a climate scientist? What do you know about climate models? Or about how to asses the credibility of their predictions? Or about the atmospheric parameters that drove Sandy when you say "it should not have been attributed to climate change"?
Would you care to explain?
(Incidentally, it's not surprising that SpamSandwich up-voted your post).
You're not being condescending? Are you sure about that?
1) I don't see anything bombastic at all about what I said. Care to elaborate? I simply quoted the IPCC, which found that "it is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly green house gas emissions that cause global warming -- have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity." Thus, hurricane sandy cannot be said to have been impacted by "global warming." It's pretty straightforward. Do I need to be a climate scientist to state this simple thing? Really?
2) I don't know where you got the idea that I'm trying to claim I'm a climate scientist. I haven't even hinted that. There's nothing magical about reading scientific papers. They're written in English, not some special climate scientist language. The points I've made speak for themselves and can evaluated individually (case in point, the particular claim I made that turned out to be wrong). That's the point of having a discussion. but for some reason you're brining in politics (twice!) for no reason, which says much more about you and your biases than it does about me. But since you seem to be interested: I don't have a degree in climate science, but I do have some experience reading scientific papers in general, and even studied some climate related issues as an undergraduate. I have a degree in the biological sciences (Neurobiology) and a medical degree. So I've read quite a few scientific papers.
3) As for my last paragraph (that you quoted in blue), I'm merely summarizing what the IPCC seems to be saying, and then coming to a logical conclusion. I invite you to read the IPCC statements for yourself, and correct me if you think I am wrong. Otherwise, what is the point of having a discussion about this?
You're not being condescending? Are you sure about that?
I don't know about you, SS, but I am not here to "make friends." I don't know you, you don't know me, and we may or may not be friends if we met in real life.
I am here to challenge and be challenged. I will (usually) will attack an idea and not the person proposing it. (Although, I will admit to occasionally violating that rule when something really riles me). If someone says something (or endorses someone saying something) I will ask them to back it up. It's up to that person to provide the back up, tell me to get lost, or ignore the question.
When I post something, I try to be factual as much as possible (although I may not always succeed). When I am speculating on something or expressing an opinion (rather than fact), I will preface it with "I think" or "I am guessing that..." or "My judgment is...." etc. If logical or fact-based response contradicts that, I will readily acknowledge that.
As to the question of whether something is condescending, I have no clue how different people pick up a nuance like that in a medium that is anonymous, uses only the typed word, has strangers talking to each other with a lot of variance in knowledge and interest in a particular topic, have different styles of written communication, using a language (English) that also varies so much idiomatically across the countries in which it is spoken/written.
For instance, I find PatchythePirate incredibly condescending (e.g., his first post in responding to me was premised on how I lack critical thinking even though the facts were on my side). It does affect the tone of my response. I am sure he's going to say the same thing about my posts. But that is neither here nor there.
Heck, we're in a public forum. We all should develop a slightly thick skin or we're welcome to whine and act wounded about it. Whatever works for you.
I don't know about you, SS, but I am not here to "make friends." I don't know you, you don't know me, and we may or may not be friends if we met in real life.
I am here to challenge and be challenged. I will (usually) will attack an idea and not the person proposing it. (Although, I will admit to occasionally violating that rule when something really riles me). If someone says something (or endorses someone saying something) I will ask them to back it up. It's up to that person to provide the back up, tell me to get lost, or ignore the question.
When I post something, I try to be factual as much as possible (although I may not always succeed). When I am speculating on something or expressing an opinion (rather than fact), I will preface it with "I think" or "I am guessing that..." or "My judgment is...." etc. If logical or fact-based response contradicts that, I will readily acknowledge that.
As to the question of whether something is condescending, I have no clue how different people pick up a nuance like that in a medium that is anonymous, uses only the typed word, has strangers talking to each other with a lot of variance in knowledge and interest in a particular topic, have different styles of written communication, using a language (English) that also varies so much idiomatically across the countries in which it is spoken/written.
For instance, I find PatchythePirate incredibly condescending (e.g., his first post in responding to me was premised on how I lack critical thinking even though the facts were on my side). It does affect the tone of my response. I am sure he's going to say the same thing about my posts. But that is neither here nor there.
Heck, we're in a public forum. We all should develop a slightly thick skin or we're welcome to whine and act wounded about it. Whatever works for you.
I'm "incredibly condescending"? (I ask incredulously.) Did you not read my response describing (ad nauseam) how being condescending was not my intention, and pointing out that I was speaking in general, not specifically to you? I even apologized for the misunderstanding, even though it really wasn't necessary (because it was a misunderstanding). Yet you continue to hold on to this, and continued to post in a condescending tone, then accuse me of being "incredibly condescending." Do you not find that hypocritical?
I see you've conveniently ignored my other points, despite the fact that you specifically asked me several questions, while accusing me of not being a climate scientist, which I've never claimed to be. I spent some amount of effort replying to that, so a response would be appreciated.
Add/edit: Also, it's not about "making friends," it's about being respectful, which is why I looked up the information relevant to the discussion and posted it, even though it proved I was wrong on that point. For every other point, you haven't presented a counter argument. All you have done is accuse me of being political or of not being a climate scientist. Are you a climate scientist? If not, why are you questioning whether I am one or not? Why waste time trying to attack someone's credibility while ignoring the actual discussion?
You're not being condescending? Are you sure about that?
1) I don't see anything bombastic at all about what I said. Care to elaborate? I simply quoted the IPCC, which found that "it is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly green house gas emissions that cause global warming -- have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity." Thus, hurricane sandy cannot be said to have been impacted by "global warming." It's pretty straightforward. Do I need to be a climate scientist to state this simple thing? Really?
2) I don't know where you got the idea that I'm trying to claim I'm a climate scientist. I haven't even hinted that. There's nothing magical about reading scientific papers. They're written in English, not some special climate scientist language. The points I've made speak for themselves and can evaluated individually (case in point, the particular claim I made that turned out to be wrong). That's the point of having a discussion. but for some reason you're brining in politics (twice!) for no reason, which says much more about you and your biases than it does about me. But since you seem to be interested: I don't have a degree in climate science, but I do have some experience reading scientific papers in general, and even studied some climate related issues as an undergraduate. I have a degree in the biological sciences (Neurobiology) and a medical degree. So I've read quite a few scientific papers.
3) As for my last paragraph (that you quoted in blue), I'm merely summarizing what the IPCC seems to be saying, and then coming to a logical conclusion. I invite you to read the IPCC statements for yourself, and correct me if you think I am wrong. Otherwise, what is the point of having a discussion about this?
Yes, indeed, I am not being condescending. You, otoh, are. With that out of the way....
1) I still have no idea that the IPCC has said anything at all about Sandy. I simply pointed out that the IPCC has said that hurricanes are likely to become more intense, and that they have not said they have or will become more frequent. You made a bombastic statement about IPCC's views being simply the result of a "temporal correlation". That is simply incorrect. If you read the IPCC report (I can give you the specific report and page numbers later, but don't have the time now) -- and tons of other research -- the basis for that argument is rise in sea levels and ocean warming (again, both are facts documented by the IPCC). Some research also links it to loss of arctic ice (the loss itself is well-documented), but the IPCC has not made that connection afaik.
Now, it is important to note that IPCC has well-documented evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise in the N. Atlantic Ocean, so it is perfectly logical and reasonable to make the link to hurricane intensity in the N. Atlantic, no? Or wherever those two phenomena (warming and level rise) have been observed?
2) OK, you're not a climate scientist.
3) Your 'logical conclusion' is based on an incorrect premise that it's all based on a 'temporal correlation.' See Point #1 above.
Comments
I'm reluctant to cheer for Apple here because I'm not convinced that much is changing here. This could be more about preferential costs advantages than anything. Also 36,000 acres is not a great deal of forest area. Dent? It is just as likely that Apple is already sourcing sustainable materials and most likely from outside the USA. Sure their are the less ethical but sustainability is a big deal in the forest industry.
You really think that implying someone lacks critical thinking (which is what you did) -- when the facts are on his side -- will not invite a "put up or please shut up" type of response? (I did say 'please'). That your original comment -- and the admitted snarkiness -- was not condescending? (I'll leave aside whether that was being jerky or not).
As an aside, the media gets issues related to climate change wrong all the time.
Add: Also, you may wish to look at what the use of 'Um' at the start of a sentence -- which you've done twice in four posts -- implies.
Well, I was using it colloquially with the intention of having a tone of incredulity. When I looked up the definition of "um" I found: "used as an expression of doubt, hesitation, deliberation, interest." Seems to match my intended purpose. Am I missing something?
By the way, @anantksundaram, it turns out that although I was wrong about the IPCC and hurricane frequency, I was right about the overall point, that hurricane sandy should not have been attributed to climate change, given that the IPCC found:
It seems that they're just making a temporal correlation between observed hurricane patterns and their global warming predictions. They go on to hypothesize that further anthropogenic global warming will exacerbate the current trend. However, since the climate models have previously been wrong, there doesn't seem to be much credibility for their predictions.
This I agree with 100%, I can't really see these giant solar panel farms doing the environment any good at all.
The problem with that is that they have no idea if the oceans are even warming significantly. There is supposedly a hot spot in the pacific but that can hardly be attributed to global warming. If global warming was real you would expect fairly even warming of the oceans, this isn't happening. Spot warming of the oceans is more likely the result of volcanic activity than global warming theories.
Nicely put. There are far more important and frankly things that should be on a much higher priority level with government.
For those of us that have been around for awhile we can remember truly hard winters in the northeast and stories about the dust bowl and the log drought in the midwest. The biggest problem I have with the global warming crowd is their seeming denial of the cyclical nature of the climate. by the way I'm not saying that global warming isn't possible, what I'm saying is that we have been feed a load of crap disguised as science.
This is the beginning of the ed for this company,
The problem with the global warming crowd is that that past of theories as fact. Worst they pass off climate models as fact. A good scientists does not go about claiming his theories are fact.
The problem with that is that they have no idea if the oceans are even warming significantly. There is supposedly a hot spot in the pacific but that can hardly be attributed to global warming. If global warming was real you would expect fairly even warming of the oceans, this isn't happening. Spot warming of the oceans is more likely the result of volcanic activity than global warming theories.
This is what you have been told on talk radio but it is contrary to scientific evidence. You should spend more time reading factual information and less time on conservative political content.
If you were to read the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia page on global warming, I suspect you would come back say that Wikipedia is a liberal conspiracy, but give it a try anyway. There is a nice chart there plotting the land and ocean temperature increases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
The problem with the global warming crowd is that that past of theories as fact. Worst they pass off climate models as fact. A good scientists does not go about claiming his theories are fact.
This is a relatively minor point, but a HUGE peeve of mine in these type of discussions. Lots of people will pass off any claim in support of the overall global warming theory as 100% factual without any sense of irony whatsoever that a claim like this is inherently unscientific. If you read the studies, the papers are usually appropriately hesitant to make forceful claims, but somehow these studies are then interpreted as incontrovertible evidence. And if you actually look at a lot of these studies, there are so many holes.
Again, I'm not saying the studies are all wrong, but there are some substantial claims being made, and even more substantial political/economic implications that come from these claims, that are based on what seems to be relatively weak evidence.
How many global warming studies are we going to do, how many incandescent bulbs are we going to ban, while we watch thousands of acres of habitat be destroyed on a daily basis? This seems crazy to me!
Groan....
I think I'll turn over the conversation to wizard69 (our resident apolitical atmospheric scientist) and PatchythePirate.
Good luck with each other, guys.
Groan....
I think I'll turn over the conversation to wizard69 (our resident apolitical atmospheric scientist) and PatchythePirate.
Good luck with each other, guys.
Again with the unnecessary condescension. Why is it you even feel the need to write a post like that? Pretty pathetic.
By the way, @anantksundaram, it turns out that although I was wrong about the IPCC and hurricane frequency, I was right about the overall point, that hurricane sandy should not have been attributed to climate change, given that the IPCC found:
It seems that they're just making a temporal correlation between observed hurricane patterns and their global warming predictions. They go on to hypothesize that further anthropogenic global warming will exacerbate the current trend. However, since the climate models have previously been wrong, there doesn't seem to be much credibility for their predictions.
Again with the unnecessary condescension. Why is it you even feel the need to write a post like that? Pretty pathetic.
Oh, I am not being condescending in the least. See your post above, in blue. You make some pretty bombastic statements there.
So let me ask you this. Are you really a climate scientist? What do you know about climate models? Or about how to asses the credibility of their predictions? Or about the atmospheric parameters that drove Sandy when you say "it should not have been attributed to climate change"?
Would you care to explain?
(Incidentally, it's not surprising that SpamSandwich up-voted your post).
There you go again, making friends everywhere.
Oh, I am not being condescending in the least. See your post above, in blue. You make some pretty bombastic statements there.
So let me ask you this. Are you really a climate scientist? What do you know about climate models? Or about how to asses the credibility of their predictions? Or about the atmospheric parameters that drove Sandy when you say "it should not have been attributed to climate change"?
Would you care to explain?
(Incidentally, it's not surprising that SpamSandwich up-voted your post).
You're not being condescending? Are you sure about that?
1) I don't see anything bombastic at all about what I said. Care to elaborate? I simply quoted the IPCC, which found that "it is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly green house gas emissions that cause global warming -- have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity." Thus, hurricane sandy cannot be said to have been impacted by "global warming." It's pretty straightforward. Do I need to be a climate scientist to state this simple thing? Really?
2) I don't know where you got the idea that I'm trying to claim I'm a climate scientist. I haven't even hinted that. There's nothing magical about reading scientific papers. They're written in English, not some special climate scientist language. The points I've made speak for themselves and can evaluated individually (case in point, the particular claim I made that turned out to be wrong). That's the point of having a discussion. but for some reason you're brining in politics (twice!) for no reason, which says much more about you and your biases than it does about me. But since you seem to be interested: I don't have a degree in climate science, but I do have some experience reading scientific papers in general, and even studied some climate related issues as an undergraduate. I have a degree in the biological sciences (Neurobiology) and a medical degree. So I've read quite a few scientific papers.
3) As for my last paragraph (that you quoted in blue), I'm merely summarizing what the IPCC seems to be saying, and then coming to a logical conclusion. I invite you to read the IPCC statements for yourself, and correct me if you think I am wrong. Otherwise, what is the point of having a discussion about this?
There you go again, making friends everywhere.
You're not being condescending? Are you sure about that?
I don't know about you, SS, but I am not here to "make friends." I don't know you, you don't know me, and we may or may not be friends if we met in real life.
I am here to challenge and be challenged. I will (usually) will attack an idea and not the person proposing it. (Although, I will admit to occasionally violating that rule when something really riles me). If someone says something (or endorses someone saying something) I will ask them to back it up. It's up to that person to provide the back up, tell me to get lost, or ignore the question.
When I post something, I try to be factual as much as possible (although I may not always succeed). When I am speculating on something or expressing an opinion (rather than fact), I will preface it with "I think" or "I am guessing that..." or "My judgment is...." etc. If logical or fact-based response contradicts that, I will readily acknowledge that.
As to the question of whether something is condescending, I have no clue how different people pick up a nuance like that in a medium that is anonymous, uses only the typed word, has strangers talking to each other with a lot of variance in knowledge and interest in a particular topic, have different styles of written communication, using a language (English) that also varies so much idiomatically across the countries in which it is spoken/written.
For instance, I find PatchythePirate incredibly condescending (e.g., his first post in responding to me was premised on how I lack critical thinking even though the facts were on my side). It does affect the tone of my response. I am sure he's going to say the same thing about my posts. But that is neither here nor there.
Heck, we're in a public forum. We all should develop a slightly thick skin or we're welcome to whine and act wounded about it. Whatever works for you.
I don't know about you, SS, but I am not here to "make friends." I don't know you, you don't know me, and we may or may not be friends if we met in real life.
I am here to challenge and be challenged. I will (usually) will attack an idea and not the person proposing it. (Although, I will admit to occasionally violating that rule when something really riles me). If someone says something (or endorses someone saying something) I will ask them to back it up. It's up to that person to provide the back up, tell me to get lost, or ignore the question.
When I post something, I try to be factual as much as possible (although I may not always succeed). When I am speculating on something or expressing an opinion (rather than fact), I will preface it with "I think" or "I am guessing that..." or "My judgment is...." etc. If logical or fact-based response contradicts that, I will readily acknowledge that.
As to the question of whether something is condescending, I have no clue how different people pick up a nuance like that in a medium that is anonymous, uses only the typed word, has strangers talking to each other with a lot of variance in knowledge and interest in a particular topic, have different styles of written communication, using a language (English) that also varies so much idiomatically across the countries in which it is spoken/written.
For instance, I find PatchythePirate incredibly condescending (e.g., his first post in responding to me was premised on how I lack critical thinking even though the facts were on my side). It does affect the tone of my response. I am sure he's going to say the same thing about my posts. But that is neither here nor there.
Heck, we're in a public forum. We all should develop a slightly thick skin or we're welcome to whine and act wounded about it. Whatever works for you.
I'm "incredibly condescending"? (I ask incredulously.) Did you not read my response describing (ad nauseam) how being condescending was not my intention, and pointing out that I was speaking in general, not specifically to you? I even apologized for the misunderstanding, even though it really wasn't necessary (because it was a misunderstanding). Yet you continue to hold on to this, and continued to post in a condescending tone, then accuse me of being "incredibly condescending." Do you not find that hypocritical?
I see you've conveniently ignored my other points, despite the fact that you specifically asked me several questions, while accusing me of not being a climate scientist, which I've never claimed to be. I spent some amount of effort replying to that, so a response would be appreciated.
Add/edit: Also, it's not about "making friends," it's about being respectful, which is why I looked up the information relevant to the discussion and posted it, even though it proved I was wrong on that point. For every other point, you haven't presented a counter argument. All you have done is accuse me of being political or of not being a climate scientist. Are you a climate scientist? If not, why are you questioning whether I am one or not? Why waste time trying to attack someone's credibility while ignoring the actual discussion?
You're not being condescending? Are you sure about that?
1) I don't see anything bombastic at all about what I said. Care to elaborate? I simply quoted the IPCC, which found that "it is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly green house gas emissions that cause global warming -- have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity." Thus, hurricane sandy cannot be said to have been impacted by "global warming." It's pretty straightforward. Do I need to be a climate scientist to state this simple thing? Really?
2) I don't know where you got the idea that I'm trying to claim I'm a climate scientist. I haven't even hinted that. There's nothing magical about reading scientific papers. They're written in English, not some special climate scientist language. The points I've made speak for themselves and can evaluated individually (case in point, the particular claim I made that turned out to be wrong). That's the point of having a discussion. but for some reason you're brining in politics (twice!) for no reason, which says much more about you and your biases than it does about me. But since you seem to be interested: I don't have a degree in climate science, but I do have some experience reading scientific papers in general, and even studied some climate related issues as an undergraduate. I have a degree in the biological sciences (Neurobiology) and a medical degree. So I've read quite a few scientific papers.
3) As for my last paragraph (that you quoted in blue), I'm merely summarizing what the IPCC seems to be saying, and then coming to a logical conclusion. I invite you to read the IPCC statements for yourself, and correct me if you think I am wrong. Otherwise, what is the point of having a discussion about this?
Yes, indeed, I am not being condescending. You, otoh, are. With that out of the way....
1) I still have no idea that the IPCC has said anything at all about Sandy. I simply pointed out that the IPCC has said that hurricanes are likely to become more intense, and that they have not said they have or will become more frequent. You made a bombastic statement about IPCC's views being simply the result of a "temporal correlation". That is simply incorrect. If you read the IPCC report (I can give you the specific report and page numbers later, but don't have the time now) -- and tons of other research -- the basis for that argument is rise in sea levels and ocean warming (again, both are facts documented by the IPCC). Some research also links it to loss of arctic ice (the loss itself is well-documented), but the IPCC has not made that connection afaik.
Now, it is important to note that IPCC has well-documented evidence of ocean warming and sea level rise in the N. Atlantic Ocean, so it is perfectly logical and reasonable to make the link to hurricane intensity in the N. Atlantic, no? Or wherever those two phenomena (warming and level rise) have been observed?
2) OK, you're not a climate scientist.
3) Your 'logical conclusion' is based on an incorrect premise that it's all based on a 'temporal correlation.' See Point #1 above.