Squrlz4Ever

Registered bored user

You lookin' at me?

squrlz4ever wrote:
I watched a slightly longer video (here) and it appears the sea lion knew it was a girl he was grabbing. He'd been interacting with the family for several minutes and at least once before bobbed up out of the water at the same girl, attempting what looks like a playful nip at her face (if a nip by a sea lion can be described as playful).

No one will ever know the animal's motivation. But it looked to me as if he pulled the girl into the water out of a sense of mischief not malice.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats At the time of this comment, your post here has a rating of -89 (that's negative 89). Clearly, most IABers felt this was misguided dreck, published out of political rather than scientific motivations.
squrlz4ever wrote:
AgamemnonTheGreat Hey, ATG. As a software developer, I thought I'd try to explain why your account hasn't been deleted so that you don't think you're being ignored or slighted.

Deleting accounts from a website or database that has bulletin boards or comments like IAB is problematic because of what's known as referential integrity. In a nutshell, if you were to simply delete an account outright--just wipe the account off the platform--the database would crash because all of the comments tied to that account would no longer have a parent--that is, a unique ID to tie the comment back to. The situation becomes even more complex because comments that respond to your comments would also fail in a waterfall of referential integrity errors.

The only way to delete the account without blowing up the database is to swap in a placeholder account (which then replaces corresponding comment text with the words "Account Deleted"). This work would have to be done as part of an automated nightly process (say, at 2 AM) that would force the website to be taken offline briefly, with some kind of a "Website down for maintenance" message to the users. The possibility of generating new kinds of errors in the course of swapping in placeholder accounts is high, and would require a fair amount of code to gracefully handle a recovery of the database.

As I hope you can now see, deleting accounts that have created data in a larger system is non-trivial and entails a significant amount of coding. And even when done correctly, the practice disrupts the user experience because users will see comments responding to deleted comments and will no longer be able to follow the thread of those conversations.

For these reasons, many websites similar to IAB do not permit users to delete their accounts. It is by no means a policy unique to IAB.

How to get around this then? If you do indeed want to terminate your account, I'd suggest doing the following.

  • Replace all user information on the account with generic, dummy data, including a dummy email address such as johnsmith(at)somewhere.com.
  • Change the password to something entirely random and lengthy, such as 23hfi&SAq29&bYtwLn792a.
  • Destroy your record of the password.

This will prevent you or anyone else from using the account again and will prevent anyone from associating the account with you. If you want to be extra fastidious, you might make your last comment with the account an explanation of why you are terminating the account, be it an issue of website content, policy, direction, or what-have-you.

Hope this helps.
squrlz4ever wrote:
I'm sure most of the coverage of Richard M. Nixon was negative, too, in the final fucked-up days of his presidency. So unfair!
squrlz4ever wrote:
Gerry1of1 The Scrotum in Chief. Sounds about right.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats You wrote: "TheNedMan? Your quotation edits for content, that's just shit on a stick, and typical of the LIES spread by the MSM."

Bullfeathers. The quote thenedman provided is word-for-word what Trump said. Verbatim.

Trump's preceding sentence references the media: "Look at the way I've been treated--especially by the media." He's including the media with those whom he says have treated him unfairly, not restricting the comment to the media.

The speech at the Coast Guard Academy was a self-pity party that Trump threw in his own honor.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats The fact that you clearly have no understanding of how CO2 sources and sinks or the Milankovitch Cycles figure into AGW theory tells me you know less than a junior high school or high school student who's paid attention in his or her Earth Sciences classes. You may dislike that fact, but there it is.

I'd say something similar if someone on here claimed that all gases are weightless (junior high chemistry anyone?) or had no understanding of the role of checks and balances in U.S. government (high school civics, please?).
squrlz4ever wrote:
bliznik Bingo! Thanks for bringing some clarity to this thread. I wish I'd read this comment of yours earlier.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats That's a clever attempt at changing my question.

I did not ask: Have you ever read a pro-AGW book? I asked: Have you ever read a book by a climate scientist?

Clearly, from what you've stated already, you haven't. That's a pity. Books are the best way, by far, to get a basic understanding of the subject, particularly if they're written by someone qualified to explain the subject from a scientific perspective. The subject is too complex to be done justice in any 200- or 300-word article or blog post.

Aside from their brevity, the other problem with articles on the web is that many of them are written by non-scientists who are promoting a partisan agenda.

According to my Goodreads account, I have read (and also reviewed, by the way) 11 books on climate change, starting with Michael Mann's The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars in 2012. Below is the full list, in the order I read them (first to last).

Note: This list does not include books I've read that address climate change peripherally, such as books on paleontology, geology, or evolution.

Mann, Michael. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia UP. 2012.

Pearce, Fred. With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change. Beacon. 2007.

Alley, Richard B. The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future. Princeton UP. 2002.

Hanson, James. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. Bloomsbury USA. 2009.

Eggleton, Tony. A Short Introduction to Climate Change. Cambridge UP. 2012.

Ruddiman, William F. Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate. Princeton UP. 2010.

Dressler, Andrew E. Introduction to Modern Climate Change. Cambridge UP. 2011.

Pilkey, Orrin H. et al. Global Climate Change: A Primer. Duke UP. 2011.

Walker, Garbrielle and David A. King. The Hot Topic: What We Can Do About Global Warming. Harcourt. 2008.

Mann, Michael. The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy. Columbia UP. 2016.

Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. Bloomsbury USA. 2006.

If I were to recommend one single title to anyone new to the subject, I'd suggest Mann's The Madhouse Effect. It does a superb job of laying out the science and then explaining how that science has been swept up in a maelstrom of political dirty tricks funded by the fossil fuel industry.

In terms of anti-AGW books, no, I can't say I've read one, and I probably should--not that there are many to choose from. Few anti-AGW books have been written by climate scientists. Roy Spencer has written one book that I have a modicum of interest in: The Great Global Warming Blunder. I'll add that to my Goodreads To-Read list and let you know what I think of it, if you're curious.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats The Milankovitch Cycles (variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession) brought us out of the last ice age. And do you know what timeframes apply when you're talking about those cycles? Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years.

The MCs are clearly not responsible for the rapid runup of the Earth's temperature in the past 100 years because the rate of rise has been two to three orders of magniture faster. Crediting them for the recent warming is akin to having a Formula One race car blow your doors off in a blur at 200 MPH and suggesting that it was, in fact, a child on a tricycle that just went by. The disparity in rates is that dramatic.

Beyond the rate disparity, most experts on the MCs at NASA believe that the MCs have been having a very slight cooling effect, not a warming effect, for the past 100 years.

Bottom line: Recent global warming cannot be attributed to the natural mechanisms that ended the Great Ice Age.

Hope this helps.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats What on Earth are you talking about? All I've seen in your posts in this thread are comments like "Eat shit" or whining about our last dust-up, a topic you introduced, not me.

You have an AGW question for me? Please ask it. And while you're at it, you can answer the question I asked you two days ago that you've ignored: If the Earth's warming of the past 100 years is all natural, or mostly natural, as you wrote in your introduction to this very post, what's the mechanism?
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats Absolute bullshit. In my first comment in this thread, I asked you to justify your AGW denial position with a simple, all-important question: If you think all or most of the Earth's warming of the past 100 years is naturally caused, as you stated in your introduction to this post, what's the mechanism?

I asked you that question over two days ago. It was an obvious and direct question addressing what you, yourself, wrote to introduce this post. You haven't even attempted a response.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats I thought not.

So here's the situation: You've never read a single book written by a climate scientist and have instead read only highly-partisan, right-wing blogs by AGW deniers. In spite of this, you think you understand global warming well enough to explain it to others.

If this isn't the Dunning-Kruger effect, I don't know what is.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats What lie? Got caught by whom? Ignore what subject? You're on a rant and, frankly, inhabiting your own special reality, you whiny little knucklehead.

Make sure you take a screenshot of this comment too for your growing library of evidence of horrible squirrel crimes. ~rolls eyes~

*Click HERE for special 5cats sound effect.*
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats No, it's not. It's bullshit politics masquerading as science. You wouldn't know science if it stepped up to you and whacked you over the head.

Serious question: Have you ever read a single book written by a climate scientist?
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats You wrote: "No one is saying 'warming' is not happening. That's a false accusation Alarmists love to repeat."

"False accusation"? Bullfeathers. As you well know, the Internet is awash in global warming denial stories like the following:

This is precisely the kind of non-scientific propaganda that you base your opinions on and that you regularly submit to IAB.
squrlz4ever wrote:
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats You're the one on the psych meds, Pentapuss, not me.

If you can't understand how natural CO2 sources and sinks are part of AGW theory, I can't help you. That said, you might want to consider some Earth Sciences classes at a local community college if you really want to develop a basic understanding of the subject.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats Stop what? You're the one who races to the sewer with your foul mouth in practically every thread. And you're the one who keeps insisting on revisiting our last dust-up. Why you keep forcing me to reiterate my opinion that, based on your "catgirl" fetish, you should never have been working in a children's daycare center, I have no idea.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats You knucklehead. You've been whining and whining about this "crime" now for months. If you're convinced a crime has been committed, why haven't you contacted the RCMP? I've told you that more times than I can count.

I never told anyone to file false police reports about you. How could I? I don't know your name, let alone where you live. I did once wistfully exclaim that "someone should contact the RCMP" about you because I found it alarming that a man with pedophilic yearnings, as evidenced by your "catgirl" fetish, was working with small children in a daycare center.

Since then, if I am to believe your statements, you've said you no longer work with small children. To which I say, Thank God.

It amazes me that you insist on dredging up this last conflict of ours time and time again. I can only think it's some perverse urge towards self-exposure.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats Honestly? Any junior high school student who's paid reasonable attention in his or her Earth Sciences class has a better understanding of global warming than you do. That's not an attempt at an insult. It's a sincere appraisal.
squrlz4ever wrote:
5cats ~facepaw~ The scientists who developed AGW theory are the very ones who have made the best studies of natural carbon dioxide sources and sinks. Ergo, you aren't just wrong, you are so wrong as to have entered the realm of the silly.
squrlz4ever wrote:
holygod Thanks for the support. In truth, it's been a long time since I've been upset by anything 5cats has said. I've risen to kind of a Bhudda-inspired acceptance of him. Life entails inescapable suffering and on IAB, that suffering takes the form of 5cats. He may be a knucklehead, but he's our knucklehead.
squrlz4ever wrote:
insaneai LOL! I'm an ankle-humper, what can I say?