You set up the model based on your suppositions about what a non-greenhouse gas world might look like and publish the results that the model world is different than the real one?! Have computer scientist and statisticians run out of things to do?
So, does this mean I can use loaded dice in Vegas as long as I can run a simulation that says that I would've gotten a seven whether the dice were loaded or not? I would've won either way, right?!
Frankly, this is not reassuring my belief in our impending doom at the hands of AGW.
Calling it AWG (anthropomorphic warming of the globe) means that it is man made. Your thread title does make sense. You are saying man made global warming is man made. I think you mean to say they are claiming global warming is anthropomorphic.
Regular cold weather or Anthropogenic Cold Weather?
I actually prefer the cold, but I'm more interested in the unquestioned support of radical speculation like this. If I can walk into a casino with loaded dice and return a portion of the winnings based on my own speculations, I think I could make some money.
Yes, you are confused and an idiot. I didn't get the abbreviation wrong, BECAUSE I TYPED OUT THE WORDS I MEANT. And yes, AWG is used, Wikipedia is not the end all be all of common uses of a word much less an abbreviation.
From a wiki search on "lucasa's brain" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=lucasa%27s+brain): "There were no results matching the query."
Additionally, I never typed either the word "does" or the word "doesn't" in this thread (I have not edited any posts) which just further reaffirms my theory that you're not very bright.
Lastly, none of this ever addresses the fact that the title to your thread is nonsense. It literally makes no sense. But way to go out of your way to attack the messenger while making yourself out to be an idiot.
Agree? Dissent? It's more like video poker than three card monte? I've got it wrong, they really pulled the 'non-warming data' from the middle ages or the Ice Age so it was more like comparing dice loaded to 1 against dice loaded to 7. I didn't look closely at the data and they also doubled the AGW effect and saw a further doubling suggesting that any amount of AGW doubles the risk.
Instead it's more of a pseudo English/Science lesson about how Anthropomorphic Warming of the Globe being caused by man is a redundancy. The study is stupid.
AWG isn't used. Anywhere. Google, Wikipedia, primary literature... AND IT'S ANTHROPOGENIC YOU MORON. The title post was sarcastic (You can't PROVE anything!), and instead of contributing an intelligent opinion about the article, you masterfully miscorrected me on the title. The intentional, trivial redundancy in the title at that.
Proving you can misuse the tool doesn't convince me you're more intelligent. When you type "AWG" into Wikipedia and get "Anthropomorphic warming of the globe", please post.
I did edit the quote of your post to say DoubleDouche.
What message? You post five sentences of irrelevant jibberish about the title and sum it up with 'the study sucks'? I don't subscribe to AGW. The worst part about it is I don't want to be associated with someone who thinks it's the same thing as AWG or confuses 'caused by man' (anthropogenic) and 'our baby planet having a fever' (anthropomorphic).
I don't expect intelligent banter from someone who can't look past a intentionally contorted internet thread title to a unintentionally contorted research study. You don't know why the study is nonsense. If you did, you certainly felt it was more important to elaborate that the title was nonsense. Maybe I'll come back in a year or so.
Yes, it is used a lot of places. It's called google, use it.
And yeah, all of a sudden since you are forced to finally admit your title is wrong, it's on purpose.
And I did contribute by agreeing with you that the article in question was utter BS. I also noted that your title was wrong. You are the one that started the off topic argument about the merits of my used abbreviation. Talk about trivial.
No, it wasn't a miss-use. It was proof that lack of evidence in Wikipedia doesn't make something not exist. If the premise of your argument is true (Not being in wiki means something doesn't exist), then you have no brain.
Okay, I'm not sure what reward a clever 4 year old would want. gold star? What was your point? That you're a child? Mission accomplished.
Huh? anÃ¢?Â¢throÃ¢?Â¢poÃ¢?Â¢morÃ¢?Â¢phic Ã¢?? Ã¢??Show Spelled[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik] Show IPA Ã¢??adjective 1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity. 2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.
Not to mention you were using anthropomorphic earlier.
I happen to be a scientist. I happen to do test design. But yeah, you go girl.
It wasn't expanded on because instead of discussing it, you chose to attack the other part of my post and me. If you had asked questions about that part I would have responded regarding that part.
And yet you miss the real failure of the study: "...climate change may have almost doubled the risk..." So there's a probability (value unstated) that AGW changed the probability of the wet weather. This phrase must rank pretty high in the most freakingly stupid pseudo-scientific nonsense ever published.
How about this...Buying two sets of numbers on the lotto instead of one set is guaranteed to give you 100% chance of doubling your probability of winning the grand prize. It makes just as much sense and you're still out $2.