We need more Names

Undertoad · 09-14-2018, 09:19 AM

It hits as Cat 1. Well, this won't affect NOAA's math.

But this doesn't actually prove anything, and is now a retarded game of appealing to everyone's observational bias, as is pretty much the entire debate.

In this case, I sided with NOAA and the IPCC and y'all took issue with them. It's all good, I've taken issue with them before. But is that not science denial, when we do that?

Happy Monkey · 09-14-2018, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

In this case, I sided with NOAA and the IPCC and y'all took issue with them.

Who's "y'all" here? gvidas asked whether the category of the storm was referenced in the paper, and I answered that it was. None of the other posts after yours referenced it at all.

09-14-2018, 09:19 AM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It hits as Cat 1. Well, this won't affect NOAA's math. But this doesn't actually prove anything, and is now a retarded game of appealing to everyone's observational bias, as is pretty much the entire debate. In this case, I sided with NOAA and the IPCC and y'all took issue with them. It's all good, I've taken issue with them before. But is that not science denial, when we do that?

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