iNow Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 iNow asked "I've not heard this before. Do you have a reputable source that I could read more about it?" That came from a New Scientist article about 2 to 4 years ago. Can't give you the exact reference apart from that, but I can explain the mechanism. Was it this one, perhaps? Because, it doesn't negate my points, nor does it show how yours are particularly relevant to the current warming trend. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8388 But Delta formed north of the usual hurricane zone as an “extratropical” storm, with a cooler core and a different circulation pattern than tropical storms which form over warm water. <...> Storms that form over warm waters often lose their tropical characters as they move over cooler water. Extratropical storms rarely move south and become tropical like Delta, except late in the hurricane season. We've been down this path before, but I will soften my approach. I really can't take you seriously if you don't provide a reference and also if you don't show how your comments are applicable to the discussion at hand. iNow also said "We may not be having a greater frequency of hurricanes overall, but the intensity of those we do have has increased." As I understand it, looking at hurricanes over the past 100 years, this difference is still not statistically significant. Your own personal assertions mean nothing to me. I don't care if you personally consider it significant or not. We know it's happening. We know the intensity is increasing, and we also know why. Weather based disasters have been with us for the life of the planet, and identifying any such as being due to AGW is pretty much impossible. What makes you say this? I can EASILY show otherwise. Can you support your comments with anything more than rhetoric? Or, perhaps more apropos... will you? As I have already pointed out, weather based disasters were common and nasty in the Little Ice Age. I suspect that such are actually less frequent today, though I don't have the numbers to prove that. However, even if you did have the numbers to demonstrate a delta in frequency, you don't have the numbers to demonstrate the current frequency is not the result of human action. I'm pretty sure you've repeatedly said that you don't deny that humans are impacting the climate. So, this leaves me to ask, what exactly is your point? You repeatedly appear to be arguing against positions nobody here has espoused. "For example, we KNOW that food and water resources are being dramatically impacted... And yes, it's based on science, not pessimism." Almost every year for the past 50 years, global food production has increased. On this basis, the so-called negative effect of AGW is not a dramatic impact when we look at it globally. Not at all. No sir. On that basis, we've had improvements in technology. However, those improvements in technology have no bearing on what crops the current climate can support, where agriculture can be currently supported, nor where fresh water is available. You're arguing that technology has improved in the last 50 years in an attempt to disprove my comment that climate change has, in fact, impacted food and water availability in the present. To borrow from the physics world where morons try to demonstrate the falsehoods of relativity, why are you mixing frames? What we get instead, is local events which are blamed on AGW. I can tell that your problem is with the blame, and not with the science. With that said, your posts here on climate issues unecessarily obfuscate the situation, and it just causes me a visceral sickness when I see you doing it. I know you're well read, and I know your understanding of the situation is better than many others. What I don't understand is why you repeatedly make and continue with such smoke screens in every climate science thread where you participate. "Sorry mate, but that's just a stupid comment." Unless this statement is backed up with a proper argument, your statement is the stupid one. Nuh uhh... you're a poopy head. Come on. You were arguing that we can only treat the symptoms, not the causes, and I called you out on it. If you want to display a "proper argument," then I suggest you try supporting the quote to which I was responding: Hurricane defenses are needed. Not global warming defenses.
SkepticLance Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 To Rev I did not say you were wrong about the permafrost melt causing methane emission. It is the quantification of this in terms of warming that is uncertain, along with the result of positive versus negative feed-backs. There are lots of both kinds possible. Ultimately, which dominates will be discovered in the real world, rather than in this kind of debate. For example : Warmer times lead to some areas drying, releasing dust. Extra dust in the air changes the albedo of the planet, reflecting more heat, and is a cooling effect. Extra dust also ends up in the ocean, putting iron into the surface waters, stimulating phytoplankton growth. This has various effects, from absorbing CO2 to releasing chemicals to stimulate low cloud formation, as I referred to earlier. Both are cooling effects. There are probably dozens of possible positive and negative feed-back mechanisms proposed, and I certainly am not up on all of them. We have no way of knowing which of the natural feed-backs will dominate at any stage in warming. The only guide is history. The last interglacila ended up at 2 Celsius warmer than the present and then went into a cooling phase. Perhaps that was a potent negative feed-back kicking in. I do not claim to know the answers, and I have been arguing throughout telling everyone that those who think they do, are just kidding themselves. The amount of doubt and uncertainty is massive. Rev said "We aren't talking about the LIA, though. It's about as relevant to the present day as my first girlfriend is to my marriage." This statement could not be more wrong!! If we cannot look at climate history and learn from it, we might as well give up. What happened in the Little Ice Age is very relevent. To iNow I considered replying to your post, but decided not to. You are doing a 'Reaper' on me and descending to insults and sarcasm. It is best not to reply to such, for fear of a flame war. Please desist.
iNow Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 To iNow I considered replying to your post, but decided not to. You are doing a 'Reaper' on me and descending to insults and sarcasm. It is best not to reply to such, for fear of a flame war. Please desist. I accept your concession.
SkepticLance Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Not a concession, iNow. However, you may remember what happened several times recently when reaper entered a debate and applied sarcasm and insults. Twice the thread deteriorated so quickly into a flame war that the moderator had to close the thread. Rather than get into another such acrimonious exchange, I would prefer not respond to any post that involves insults and sarcasm.
Rev Blair Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 If we cannot look at climate history and learn from it, we might as well give up. What happened in the Little Ice Age is very relevent. Hey, Mrs. Rev has a smile on her face, and at least part of that has to do with what I learned when I was a lad. It still doesn't replace what I know now though...not all of that smile is because I learned how to use my seven inch tongue, after all. It's not that there's no important data in paleo climatology. There is. That was then and this is now though. The circumstances are different, the situation is different, and the data is different. You've chosen the Little Ice Age though. It and the MWP are canards that generally come out when the denier side is losing. Prove that the MWP and LIA were both significant and global. Show that their effects were both relevant and beneficiary/detrimental on populations in areas that are densely populated today (no, I don't give a rat's ass about Hern the Hunted, or even Lief Erikson). Show that the effects of either are connected to today's warming. You refer to yourself as a skeptic, Lance. A skeptic reserves judgement and demands more information. You aren't doing that though. If you were being honestly skeptical, you would be giving greater weight to the greater weight of scientific evidence. Instead you are wavering between denying that weight of evidence on very unscientific grounds and then allowing the very same evidence without agreeing with the conclusions that evidence leads the experts to. It reminds me a lot of the Rolling Stones playing the el Macambo just before Keith got busted for smack. Muddy Waters went up on stage with them and said, "Everything gonna be alright," then Mick started hopping around like a chicken and stole yet another royalty cheque from poor old Muddy. Anyway, I'm going to bed. You can pick up the analogy where you want.
SkepticLance Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 To Rev. There is clear evidence that the Little Ice Age was a reality here in New Zealand. The terminal morraine for the Franz Josef Glacier was dated at 1750 AD, and it has been in retreat every since. For those who do not know, the year 1750 was towards the end of the Little Ice Age. The LIA was definitely a reality in much of the northern hemisphere, including Greenland, Britain and North America. Those who claim it was a local phenomenon are right. It was local all over the world. I chose the LIA as an example of how weather based disasters are NOT dependent on AGW. In that I am totally correct. Indeed, colder conditions are conducive to more storms in temperate to Arctic regions. Even today, the worst storms on the globe are in Antarctica, though Siberia gives it a run for its money. Rev, if you want to argue that only a world under AGW can deliver storms, then you are totally wrong. New Scientist 16 July 2005 page 50 has an article describes a scene in Alaska dated 1879 at a Fjord now called Glacier Bay. A chart 100 years earlier (about 1779) showed no bay. Just glaciers. Alaska was warming since the LIA. New Scientist 27 August 2005 page 25 has an article about glacial melting. It includes a graph of average glacier length over 300 years. From about 1850 - the official end of the LIA, all the glaciers were in retreat. This includes glaciers from all over the world, including such places as the Andes and the Himalayas. Face it, Rev, the LIA was global. How significant was it? Very! The melting of glaciers before the year 1900 was very substantial. In the Alaska example above, well before 1900 it had been enough to create a bay where none existed before. The only reason I raised the LIA was to counter a claim that weather disasters were due to AGW. In fact, as I pointed out, weather disasters have always happened. History is full of accounts of such. Just think of the Spanish Armada - essentially destroyed by storms. While it has become politically correct to ascribe disasters to AGW, it is simply not justifiable scientifically to do so. We cannot judge a storm to be due to AGW. Storms have always happened, and always will.
D H Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 We cannot judge a storm to be due to AGW. Storms have always happened, and always will. If a river floods, do we say rivers always flood and do nothing, or do something, such as build a dam, dredge the river, or enhance the river's system natural ability to hold water upstream of a flooded city? In this regard, it is irrelevant whether the flooding is our fault. We do something about it. The analogy to AGW is obvious here. If the world is warming, and if the damage to humanity is to be as bad as predicted, we need to do something about it. In this regard, whether it is our fault is irrelevant. If agricultural engineers and hydrologists determine that the river flooding is our fault, do we point fingers at the Grand Canyon and say that this is proof that river flooding is not our fault? We know we are the cause of many river flooding events. The straightening of rivers, the removal of natural buffer areas, and our farming practices do send water gushing downstream at very high flow rates. We have created the circumstances that directly result in flooding. The Grand Canyon is irrelevant. Analogously, just because the climate has shifted naturally many times without our help, and several of those shifts are bigger than the predicted AGW changes does not mean the current warming is not our fault.
swansont Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 This is not a convincing argument. The time factor may, or may not be relevent, or accurate. Or it may be a function of temperature increase. Or some other variable. The point is that runaway warming did not happen, and thus is unlikely to happen in our near future. The time factor is relevant when we're discussing humans, since 1000 years is a long time in our reckoning. This isn't "You will be able to move back into your home because the flood waters will eventually recede" because of a storm — that's a few days or weeks. This is "50 generations from now the temperatures might drop." Big difference. And the circumstances are not the same. Whatever mechanism capped the temperature rise included a set amount of CO2 cycling between the atmosphere and ocean, and possibly terrestrial locations. We've broken that by dumping a whole bunch of extra CO2 into the atmosphere, some of which gets dissolved in the ocean. Looking at what happened historically is of limited value under that circumstance — you can't naively use the past as a predictor of the future and conclude that things will happen the same way. "Sorry mate, but that's just a stupid comment." Unless this statement is backed up with a proper argument, your statement is the stupid one. If you're going to respond to things like this, don't cut off the sentence that explains why the person thought the argument was stupid.
Rev Blair Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 There is clear evidence that the Little Ice Age was a reality here in New Zealand. The terminal morraine for the Franz Josef Glacier was dated at 1750 AD, and it has been in retreat every since. For those who do not know, the year 1750 was towards the end of the Little Ice Age. The LIA was definitely a reality in much of the northern hemisphere, including Greenland, Britain and North America. Those who claim it was a local phenomenon are right. It was local all over the world. The scientific jury is still out on that. Whether the LIA was global or not though, its occurrence does not negate the science showing what's happening today. When I leave this house at 8:00, I have a choice of four different ways to go to get to my destination. Rev, if you want to argue that only a world under AGW can deliver storms, then you are totally wrong. Can you show me where I made that claim? Can you show me where any well informed scientist or lay person has made that claim? Your introduction of the LIA into the conversation is a strawman, and that strawman only works if you can show where I, or anybody else, have claimed that there was no warming or cooling in the past. While I question the LIA and the MWP because there is doubt about them in the scientific community, I certainly don't claim that there haven't been global climate changes in the past.
iNow Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 If you're going to respond to things like this, don't cut off the sentence that explains why the person thought the argument was stupid. I completed all of my edits before Lance's post was submitted, but I think it's possible he was in the process of replying while those edits were being made. So, to be fair to him, I don't think he intentionally truncated my words.
swansont Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 (edited) I completed all of my edits before Lance's post was submitted, but I think it's possible he was in the process of replying while those edits were being made. So, to be fair to him, I don't think he intentionally truncated my words. If that is indeed the case then the post would then be justified. So I conditionally apologize and retract that admonishment. Edited June 27, 2008 by swansont
SkepticLance Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Rev If you are happy to accept that storms and bad weather in general is a normal part of the Earth's variability, and there is no clear evidence of current storms being caused by AGW, then we have no argument here.
iNow Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Rev If you are happy to accept that storms and bad weather in general is a normal part of the Earth's variability, and there is no clear evidence of current storms being caused by AGW, then we have no argument here. How can you possibly suggest what I bolded above? The evidence is plain. We know what causes the storms, we know what feeds their intensity, and we know how human impacts on climate are exaggerating those effects directly.
SkepticLance Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 To swansont. I am happy to accept your apology. I have to admit I am somewhat baffled. I do not know what I am supposed to have done????
Mr Skeptic Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Well, no specific storms can be blamed on global climate change. And, let's face it, that is what would be the tendency for a certain group of people.
SkepticLance Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 To iNow Re storms and global warming. There are two categories of storm. 1. Tropical hurricanes. Since these are, to a large extent, driven by warm ocean water, then in theory global warming will increase the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. The problem is that, though there was such an increase in 2005, overall there is no statistically significant increase to date. That does not prove yea or nay. But to say that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming is to ignore the proper scientific data. We simply do not know. 2. Temperate to Arctic storms. The theory in this case is reversed. Since such storms are driven by temperature differentials, and since global warming actually reduces such differentials, then - purely in theory - global warming should reduce the frequency/intensity of such storms. Again, there is too little empirical data to confirm or dispute the theory. Pretty much the same thing can be said about floods and droughts. You can always find somewhere that has more floods or more droughts than the previous decade or three. And so, if you are cherry picking data, you can argue that one or the other or both are increasing. The total data does not justify this conclusion, unless you treat global warming dogma as some kind of pseudo-religion. Let's face it. Your belief in harmful weather changes from global warming stems from the dubious conclusions of a few computer modellers. And until these are confirmed empirically, they are just so much political hot air.
iNow Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 But to say that hurricanes have increased as a result of global warming is to ignore the proper scientific data. We simply do not know. I didn't say that, though, so I guess I'm still good. I said their intensity has increased, and consequently the frequency of higher intensity storms... not the overall frequency. 2. Temperate to Arctic storms. The theory in this case is reversed. Since such storms are driven by temperature differentials, and since global warming actually reduces such differentials, then - purely in theory - global warming should reduce the frequency/intensity of such storms. Again, there is too little empirical data to confirm or dispute the theory. Are you suggesting that we're not even capable of simply counting storms? You can always find somewhere that has more floods or more droughts than the previous decade or three. Okay. I agree. You know what we can ALSO do? We can use our knowledge about global climate to learn more about WHY those areas are hit with these events. Kinda interesting, isn't it? We see a question and we go answer it. It's amazing stuff, really. And so, if you are cherry picking data, you can argue that one or the other or both are increasing. I haven't seen anyone here cherry picking data. Please be specific and show what has prompted you to allude to cherry picking of data, and which poster here has done so. Be specific. I am asking a where question here. The total data does not justify this conclusion, unless you treat global warming dogma as some kind of pseudo-religion. What conclusion, exactly? You've lost me, and then you went on to make fun of a side which (I can only presume) negates your approach. "Global warming dogma?" "Pseudo-religion?" Let's stick to the facts, shall we? I'm not sure if you get Dragnet down in NZ, but you ought to watch it sometime. Let's face it. Your belief in harmful weather changes from global warming stems from the dubious conclusions of a few computer modellers. It's not about belief. It's not about dubious computer modelling. Stop with the handwaving, will ye? Further, since we KNOW these "harmful weather" events are occurring, what precisely do you propose is causing them if not climate change? How about you offer up an alternative if the rest of us have just "bought into the dogma?" I really get tired of your politicking the science. If you have an assertion to make, then support it. Otherwise, you're just a misinformed preacher waving his hands about in an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the reality of the situation to a set of readers who are not listening to your personal and unsubstantiated conjectures. You may as well be talking about unicorns. Can you at least TRY to do better? Show us, don't just tell us.
SkepticLance Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 iNow said "since we KNOW these "harmful weather" events are occurring, what precisely do you propose is causing them if not climate change?" As I have said before, harmful weather events have always happened. You do not need AGW to explain them. I could ask you about the periodic severe cold snaps that cross the USA. They have always happened, of course. And in spite of global warming, they still happen. Clearly nothing to do with AGW. And neither, as far as we know based on empirical data, have other harmful weather events.
iNow Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 As I have said before, harmful weather events have always happened. You do not need AGW to explain them. I'm not asking you to explain why they happen. I am asking you to explain the increase in their intensity. I could ask you about the periodic severe cold snaps that cross the USA. They have always happened, of course. And in spite of global warming, they still happen. Clearly nothing to do with AGW. Nobody here is arguing that they never happened, or wouldn't without human induced global climate change. If I'm not mistaken, this has repeatedly been pointed out to you, including by swansont. Quit arguing against points that nobody has made, stick to the topic, and quit waving hands / putting up smoke screens / obfuscating already. This is the same damned thing you've done in every other climate thread, and it's representative of either your academic dishonesty or your personal ignorance on the topic, neither of which bode very well for you or your points.
SkepticLance Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 iNow Time to quit those ad hom attacks. They do not make you look good. Here is an interesting reference. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6M-4CRY726-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bc9d4265760edfe3ff666fc46dff9a11 I quote : "Considered over the last ca. 2000 years, it would appear that winter storminess and climate-driven coastal erosion was at a minimum during the Medieval Warm Period. By contrast, the time interval from ca. AD 1420 until present has been associated with sustained winter storminess across the North Atlantic that has resulted in accelerated coastal erosion and sand drift." In other words, contrary to your assertions, storms were worse during the colder climatic period, and less during the warmer period - which is exactly what I have been telling you. The reverse may be true for hurricanes, but that still has not been proved, in spite of 2005 being a bad year.
iNow Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 (edited) So, you're now arguing that cooling is what is causing the increasing intensity of storms in the present? Well, there's an interesting assertion. Any data to support that cooling is what's causing the increase in storm intensity we are currently experiencing? I thought things were getting warmer. Also, I clearly showed with my posts where I was challenging your ideas themselves, and expressed where I thought you were wrong. You accused me of ad hom, however, I was not attacking you personally as my sole approach to countering any of the points you made. Had I done that, THEN you would be correct in suggesting I committed an ad hominem fallacy. Since I did not do that, you are wrong again. I was just making an an observation about you and your style here in these threads AFTER I had finished expressing my disagreement with your assertions. Edited June 28, 2008 by iNow
SkepticLance Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 iNow previously said "quit waving hands / putting up smoke screens / obfuscating already. This is the same damned thing you've done in every other climate thread, and it's representative of either your academic dishonesty or your personal ignorance" And in his latest post, iNow said "You accused me of ad hom, however, I was not attacking you personally" I am sorry, iNow. But if you tell someone he is either academically dishonest or personally ignorant, that is an insult, and thus an ad hom attack. As I have asked before, please stop it. This should be an amicable discussion. In a less insulting vein, iNow just said : "you're now arguing that cooling is what is causing the increasing intensity of storms in the present? " I must admit to feeling very frustrated. Maybe my own ability to explain is at fault? How is it that someone (iNow) can misunderstand so much? I have seen no evidence that storms, apart from the 2005 hurricanes, are increasing in intensity, and I have certainly not made that claim. As I said earlier, there are two kinds of storms. The tropical hurricanes, and the temperate to Arctic storms, which is what I was talking about in my last post. Restricting my discussion to the second type of storm - that in temperate to Arctic climes - we have a relationship which my last reference makes clear. When southern Greenland is cold, we get worse North Atlantic storms. This is a result of the temperature differentials I mentioned before. This situation is greater when world climate is colder. Thus more and worse storms during the Little Ice Age. Are the storms of this type less intense or less common today? That would be a logical deduction. However, I am not making that claim just now, since I do not have the empirical data. iNow, do you not understand how high temperature differentials increase wind speed, and therefore storms?? I can explain it again.
iNow Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 (edited) iNow previously said "quit waving hands / putting up smoke screens / obfuscating already. This is the same damned thing you've done in every other climate thread, and it's representative of either your academic dishonesty or your personal ignorance"... ...on the topic. And in his latest post, iNow said "You accused me of ad hom, however, I was not attacking you personally" ... ...as my sole approach to countering any of the points you made. Perhaps you DID intentionally truncate my comments the last time, and it quite appears that I should not have bothered defending you when swansont admonished your actions, as you've clearly just done it again... TWICE, in fact. I have seen no evidence that storms, apart from the 2005 hurricanes, are increasing in intensity Okay, launch these links, read, and then your comment above will no longer be valid or necessary. It's simple. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/August/20060816100146lcnirellep0.96719.html http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109701&org=GEO&from=news http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0629.html http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/2005.36_comment.pdf http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/hurricane/HurricaneViewer.shtml http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/4/111816/4408 (<-- and I already provided this one, so you've just proven that you're not reading the information provided in the thread) This is a result of the temperature differentials I mentioned before. This situation is greater when world climate is colder. Thus more and worse storms during the Little Ice Age. Yes, you've said that, however, storms in the present are of greater intensity. So, your discussion of past storms and cooler climates impacting them is not really relevant, now is it? iNow, do you not understand how high temperature differentials increase wind speed, and therefore storms?? I can explain it again. Gee golly, professor, that'd be super nifty, but I was hoping you could instead address the issues raised above instead of again changing the topic or discussing irrelevancies. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html Many factors influence tropical cyclone behavior, but three factors must be present for them to intensify: warm ocean temperatures (hurricanes can occur when surface ocean temperatures exceed about 79 degrees Fahrenheit (26 degrees Celsius)), low vertical wind shear (i.e., no strong change in wind speed or direction between two different altitudes), and high humidity. (3,4,5) As warm, moist air rises, it lowers air pressure at sea level and draws surrounding air inward and upward in a rotating pattern. As the water vapor-laden air spirals in and rises to higher altitudes, it cools and releases heat as it condenses to rain. This cycle of evaporation and condensation brings the ocean’s heat energy into the vortex, powering the storm. <...> The world’s oceans have absorbed about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher temperatures not only in surface waters (e.g., depths of less than 100 feet) but also down to substantial depths, with the most severe warming occurring in the first 1,500 feet below the surface. (8,9) As this warming occurs, the oceans expand and raise sea level. This expansion, combined with the inflow of water from melting land ice, has raised global sea level more than one inch over the last decade. (10) In addition, observations of atmospheric humidity over the oceans show that water vapor content has increased four percent since 1970; because warm air holds more water vapor than cold air, these findings correlate with an increase in air temperature. (11,12) <...> A 2005 study published in the journal Nature examined the duration and maximum wind speeds of each tropical cyclone that formed over the last 30 years and found that their destructive power has increased around 70 percent in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. (13,14) Another 2005 study, published in the journal Science, revealed that the percentage of hurricanes classified as Category 4 or 5 (based on satellite data) has increased over the same period. (15) The findings from both studies correlate with the rise in sea surface temperatures in regions where tropical cyclones typically originate. As you can see, there is a trend here. It is more than just an anomoly during 2005 as you appear to be suggesting. Edited June 28, 2008 by iNow Added data at closing
SkepticLance Posted June 28, 2008 Posted June 28, 2008 iNow I am resisting the temptation to indulge in a little ad hom of my own. However, I will not call you an idiot. Here are my lines, punishing myself for my own negative thoughts. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. I will not call iNow an idiot. Deep sigh. Trying to be a good contributor and refrain from ad hom attacks through writing lines on the blackboard is so tiring! Anyway, back to the patient explanation. iNow. I have said how many times???? that there are two kinds of storm. 1. Tropical hurricanes. 2. Temperate to Arctic storms. All my recent posts have been talking about the latter. So what do you do in argument????? You post a whole bunch of references about those damn hurricanes!!! iNow. Please read this carefully. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT HURRICANES. Do you now understand?????
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now