Tim K. wrote:

He was making the same point as I, although in a far less technical way.
 

There is nothing technical in any of your arguments. You are an absolutist. The counterarguments to your idiot claims I have seen thus far, are almost elegant in their simplicity, approaching the level of natural beauty. All you do is claim superior knowledge to everyone in soft science domains (environmentalism, biology, ecology) of which we as a species and a civilization know almost nothing about, in global scale, certainly on cosmic scale.

 

First, you claim that the 2004 Atlantic Hurricane season was not
  

particularly
 

intense, contrary to the evidence :
  

When did I make that claim and in what words exactly?
 

http://www.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1781142081d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=Lhp1d.32273%24uN5.27623%40tornado.tampabay.rr.com

"I claim that only valid estimation is worthy of direct comparison."

Which is complete nonsense, of course.

"You cannot measure weather effects by economic damage!"

In other words, measurements have nothing to do with numbers and estimation.

Wow, you are a genius. Every metric available clearly indicates this year's
Atlantic Hurricane season was extraordinarily intense, yet to continue to
flail about with ridiculous arguments against that clear result.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/figure8.gif

Then you claim that inflation adjusted hurricane damage estimates are not
quantifiable metrics, contrary to the evidence :
  

I'll try to explain it again - if you adjust for nothing more than inflation
you aren't taking the unbelievable increase in real-estate (and thus a far
greater probability of damage) on the beaches into account, and that makes
you guilty of junk metrics.

I wasn't aware that real estate increased. Isn't that why they call it real? It's a metric, one of many, including damage to vegetation, uninsured costs of evacuation, beach erosion (loss of real estate :), etc. I didn't claim it to be an all encompassing super metric, that only exists in your absolutist trivial perspective on reality.

 I do metrics for a living asshole, don't tell
me my business.
 

I rest my case.

 

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/USdmg/

Finally, you claim that extinction is not a process of natural selection
  

and
 

evolution, and that evolution is specific to biological systems.
  

I made no such claim.  This is you spinning what I wrote.
 

It's pretty easy to misconstrue and refute your simplistic arguments

Deal with it, fuckwit.
 

QED.

That is the reason I respond to you, not for your benefit, you seem incurable of your ignorance, but for others who may still be curable.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net