PeterMP

Kemp was an elite rim protector and elite finisher. He might be one of the best finishers in the history of the NBA, and he played on a team without a real center for most of his career (anybody remember Jim Mcilvaine?) and that ran a lot. The style that they played maximized his skills. Every season he played, he had more turnovers than he had assists. Griffin is a better shooter, a better passer, and a better dribbler (more assists than turnover every that he has played and assists/TO his year was over 2.). In 1996/1997, by counting stats Barkley was still an elite NBA player. If you throw out people that played under 200 minutes, he was 6th in PER. A head of Stockton, Sabonis, Pippen, Hardway, Webber, Hakeem, Payton, Mourning, Ewing. He's the 4th forward below HIll, Malone, and Chris Gatling. Hill and Malone were first team all NBA forwards. Chris Gatling didn't make any of the teams (played in 47 games and only started 1). Despite that people like Vin Baker and Anthony Mason made 3rd team NBA before him and that's because even though he could put up points and grab rebounds, he over all stunk as a player. Mason that year averaged 16.2 and 11.4 Baker averaged 21 and 10.3. Do you really want to argue that Mason and Baker are clearly better than Duncan and Griffin (3rd team forwards this year)? Last year Griffin was arguably the 3rd best forward in the league behind Lebron and Durant (was he better than Love?). He wasn't even the best player on his team.

How much are they going to get out of Kyrie? (Clearly, Lebron can't guard Curry for long periods of time.)

I'm surprised that people are so down on Pau. He's a 45+% shooter outside of the post. That's better than Marc, Randolph, and Griffin. And that's without somebody that regularly collapses defenses. Put him on a team with a low post presence (Randolph) or a guard (CP3) that can reliably collapse defenses, and I'd expect the number to be even better. He isn't the defensive player is brother is, but he's become a legitimate stretch 5 that can still score in the post.

Eh, I'd tell you I think Pau, this year, was better than Marc. He's still clearly the better shooter, and I think he's even stretched his range more this than in the past. If I was rating only the Gasols, I'd put Pau first. Not by a lot and last year would have been different, but this year, Pau was the better player.

If Griffin plays like he did in the playoffs this year going forward, he'll clearly surpass the the Gasols, but over the course of his career, I don't think there's enough evidence to say that Griffin is clearly better than the Gasols.

1. Griffin is a better player than Shawn Kemp. He's a more diverse player. 2. 1996 Shawn Kemp was a better player than 1996 Charles Barkley. Barkley didn't even bother to play defense after the 2nd year in Phoenix. And probably better than 1996 Patrick Ewing. Peak Barkley was a lot better than peak Kemp, but Houston Rockets Barkley is not HOF player. I also don't think Griffin is one of the top 7 player in the league right now. Is Griffin really better than either of the Gasol's?

Certainly, you have to look at pre and post-cap. Pre-cap there is no doubt that the top teams were deeper and better. You couldn't afford to have Magic, Kareem, and Worthy on a team today with the Lakers bench. After Magic, Kareem, and Worthy, there would essentially be no money left over for much of a bench. But that cuts both ways in the context of the conversation. If you look at the top of the teams that Lebron has played with, they might compare (but I don't really believe that because even late career Kareem was better than Bosh, and prime Worthy was better than Wade when he played with Lebron), but 4-8 don't. In terms of bigs, I think the lack of quality low post play has more to do with changes in the rules than anything the AAU has done. With the 3 pt. line and the rules regarding traveling, walking, double dribbling, and charges it is just much more of a perimeter game. Today Malone wouldn't be nearly as effective player he was the way he played. He'd be under pressure to become a 3 pt. shot and become a stretch 4. **EDIT** The other thing you have to take into account is the ability of players coming back from injuries. Look at Derrick Rose, as much as he's fallen off from when he was healthy, 30 years ago, he's a non-factor as an NBA player after his injuries. Realistically, he's still one of the better players for the Bulls, but 30 years ago, he's probably not even playing.. As much as Lebron has lost a rival, it isn't more than the impact of Bernard King's injuries in terms of the competition with Bird's Celtic and the bad boy Pistons. If you put modern medicine in that era, Benard King remains much for of an effective player and increases the competition of the era. One last thing, in this post, Steve is grouping players together that weren't really relevant together. Shaq entered the league in 1992. Mark Price is good in 1992 and 1993, but then in 1994 he gets injured, only plays in 48 games and is never the same again. The next year he plays in 7 games (with the Bullets). He goes on an plays some more full seasons after that, but he's not nearly the player he was and by 1998, he's out of the league. In 20 years, I could say look how deep the East is. The Heat, with Wade and Bosh for most of the season didn't even make the playoffs. Both are HOF players and multi-championships, and they weren't good enough to even make the play offs. In 20 years, somebody might buy that argument (and if Whiteside continues to put up numbers the argument even sounds better). Today though nobody is buying that argument because we all know that Wade is a shadow of the player he was at his peak, and the Wade playing for the Heat now isn't a HOF caliber player.

From top to bottom, the NBA is almost certainly better today. Just really simply, they are pulling players from a larger population (i.e. essentially the whole world). The global expansion of the NBA has almost certainly made its basketball better too. Now, the East today might not be as strong as the East then. But top to bottom, it is almost certainly better. On another note, it is going to be big for the Heat to win tonight and have the off time before the finals.

I'm generally a Lebron supporter, but there have been a lot of teams that made it to the championship that wouldn't have been there without their star. Jordanless Bulls aren't winning championships. With respect to the Cavs vs. the GS, the Cavs are going to have to be very effecient. No, low percentage plays early in the shot clock. At some level, a violation is going to be better for them than a low percentage play.

None of us know if these guys are good leaders or not. We've got no clue how these guys are in the locker room, watching film, or with their teammates. (on a different topic, the Sixers aren't necessarily going to be defined by this pick or this draft. Their best offensive player may not even be on the team yet. They still have 3 1st round picks from other teams floating around out there. Lakers next year top 3 protected Heat top 10 protected Thunder top 10 protected. Plus they got a guy they drafted last year still playing in Europe. If there is a dynamic 1,2, or 3 in the draft next year, it isn't unconceivable that even if they are much better next year and have a corresponding worse draft pick that they would have the assets to move up and get that player (especially if they think the Noel and Embid aren't gelling and it makes sense to move one of them). It might also make sense next year, depending on what all picks they get next year to trade back an extra year and acquire even more assets for them (I'd not judge the combination of the #3 pick this year-Embiid, and Noel too quickly. If all 3 are healthy and the #3 pick this year doesn't seem complete over whelmed by the NBA, I'd probably look to add only one more first round draft pick next year too. Theyve avoided a Wizards situation where there is clear hole in the team because of a missed draft pick (Jan Vesely), and the resources aren't available to really fill it. Missing on a single first round pick in this rebuild isn't going to have the long end negative affects it has on other teams rebuilding, like it has on the Wizards.

First, they aren't claiming it is the cause. They are claiming it is a possible contributing factor. Second, they aren't claiming an affect difference 2 decades. It has been completely clear that over shorter periods of times volcanoes can have an effect. And they aren't claiming that the smaller cool more than larger. Just that a lot of smaller ones can have an effect. O fer 3. I hope you're not batting in the top of the order.

I'll take that as a no you don't have any evidence that at a global level the activity of known volcanoes has not changed over the course of any 2 decades. You claimed things weren't consistent, but have no actual evidence that they aren't. Why aren't you asking why they had to lower the temperatures? Doesn't it seem fishy? (I'm good with 0.114/decade starting in the 1980s.) Where is the skepticism? **EDIT** This is actually good because it bring them pretty much in line with the other satellite data set. It eliminates one of the issues out there.

Changes in my green house gas being vented from non-human causes appear to be minimal with respect to the rate of change that it is being produced by human related activities and that coincides with measured increases in the atmosphere. Other than the very rare super eruption sort of thing that we would have noticed and affects the climate for decades and even centuries, on a global/total population level at a time scale measured in decades, it seems to me that they are known for being consistent. Do you have any evidence that they aren't? I'll even take data based on 2 decades. For any pair of decades (e.g. the 70s and 80s vs. the 90s and 00s) is there any evidence that globally there was a difference in volcanic activity of the ones we know about?

I wasn't talking about melting. I was talking about stability. A (constant) heat source might make things melt, but it doesn't necessarily make things unstable. If I put something hot in an area that's cold/freezing over time, it is possible and even likely, over time, I will reach a stable situation. Yes, the things near the heat will melt and then things will refreeze as they travel further out so there is melting, but that doesn't necessarily imply instability. There is no reason to believe these geothermal vents are new, why are we seeing instability now? Everybody knew there were volcanoes in the area. Nobody believed that they weren't contributing to (some) melting. The key component of the research here is that they with the water could contribute to instability in a manner not expected. But the root cause of the instability is something else- climate change There's no evidence that any of those things have changed in significant/rapid manner where they are a major contributor to current climate change. Can I give you an exact number? No. But there is very little out there anybody can give you an exact number on and that doesn't prevent us from acting in a large number of circumstances. There is an abundant amount of evidence that the long term temperature trend (e.g. ~1940-present) is caused by various things, including CO2, that are the result of human activity. And the idea that CO2 is a green house gas is old and well tested. Are you really going down that hole? I think it is more likely that climate is currently affecting the things you've listed, then the other way around (based on the available evidence). http://www.zdnet.com/article/climate-change-is-linked-to-tectonic-plate-movement/ (plate tectonics tends to be slow. Current climate change has been pretty fast. The idea that there would be plate tectonic changes that have (significantly) affected climate in this manner without us detecting it seems unlikely.)

Can you give me an example of somebody using the term "climate change" currently (as in the current climate change) to mean something other than what I'm talking about? I know in the past, there have been other mechanisms of climate change, but I don't see people using "climate change" with respect to the current situation as a "catch all". It means the current warming we are seeing. Just to be clear, people doing the work are saying that the undersea geothermal activity are potentially a component, but climate change is a big issue too. Do you really want to go from there to what is causing the climate change?

From your 2nd link: "West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers. However, the timing of this retreat is still in question, Schroeder said — it could take hundreds of years, or thousands. It's important to understand which, given that mel****er from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contributes directly to sea level rise." Even the scientists doing the work you are citing are saying climate change is the significant factor.

It is actually morning now. The older temperatures had to be "cooled" because they were collected at noon. I don't honestly know. I don't think there was a single reason. Though I think some of it may have been minimize shade vs. sun affects over time as the environment around the thermometers change, which is something else that the deniers had made a big stink over. If the thermometer is in the shade, and then somebody cuts down the tree, then that's less of an issue if you are taking temperature readings in the morning than at noon. I believe part of it was out of concerns like that. We've created a knowable problem now, but they did some work before the transition to see the difference between noon and morning and make the adjustments that will minimize siting issues in the future that are harder to control/track. Also a lot of it is done by volunteers. Maybe it was just more convenient for people. I've never seen anybody claim it was for nefarious reasons. We now have like 6 "global surface temperature data sets" where people are collecting raw data and analyzing it differently to determine a "global surface temperature", they are all run by different groups/countries (some cases the government like NOAA and NASA do one, but also academics/non-profits do some (e.g. the BEST data set)), and they all agree within error of the measurements. And they all essentially agree with the satellite data (given the known issue of El Nino's affecting troposphere temperatures more than surface temperatures). I'm still waiting for the skeptic to take the data and put together something that doesn't show warming.

First, they have "changed" the data multiple time and the changes to the data are reported, including the programs to changes the data can be freely downloaded. The data is changed for different reason. The biggest issue with looking at the raw data is that temperatures used to be collected at noon, and now they are collected in the morning. And of course the raw data is still freely available. The whole "conspiracy" component of what you posted is laughable And of course, this is all described in the peer reviewed literature too, including a comparison of the earlier version (v1) and the latest version (v2): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-0248.1 "National-scale temperature trends in version 2 are comparable to those in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network whereas version 1 exhibits less warming as a result of historical changes in observing practices." I mean its so awful, they've actually put it in the ABSTRACT of the paper on their data set and not just for Maine, but for the whole country. But nobody thought that they'd keep the old data and compare them? I'm guessing they thought that nobody would so stupid to think there was a giant conspiracy over some thing that was freely and clearly in the public domain. (of course, you can still download the raw data as well as the programs used to create the "changed" data for v1 or v2 or just read the paper they wrote comparing them where they stated that v2 shows more warming than v1 and explains why.) So yes the NOAA has changed the data in a continual effort to create a better representation of the global climate where they go out of their way to tell us what the changes were, what affects the changes had as compared to the old methods and why they were made as well as giving access to the underlying data and the programs used to change the data. It is a real scandal.

No and I think that should be clear from the number of posts I've written on sea level in the past. However, it not being flat doesn't mean that changes in currents wouldn't cancel out over space and time with respect to sea level changes. Any more than knowing the number of models in the bottom 5% tells me if the bottom 1 is an outlier.

5% are in the lower 5%. That doesn't tell me where the next lowest is though still. In any data set, there is a lowest and a bottom 5%. There isn't an outlier in every data set. The bottom one or bottom 5% aren't necessarily outliers. Can you explain how changing currents would cause lower sea levels in one area without their being an equal increase in sea levels somewhere else?

It shows the high, the low, the 95-5% range for the models, and then various temperature data sets. To know if the low is an outlier, you have to know where the next lowest one is. I don't. We can measure sea levels globally (i.e. at every point) today using satellites.

1. I don't know why you'd say it was a clear outlier based on what I posted. I don't know where the next coolest model is in the data to start talking about it being an outlier. Do you? 2. As I've already addressed several times in this thread, there are plenty of people that are concerned about the future if things continue as is that readily reject the upper ends of the models. 2. Would you rather I discuss something that we can measure in a more exact manner, like sea level changes where the models are generally under estimating the effects (e.g. sea levels have generally risen faster than the models say they should indicating that the models actually under estimate the potential consequences of climate change)?

The satellites aren't measuring surface temperatures. They measure troposphere temperatures. El Nino's affect tropospheric temperatures more than they do surface temperatures. The warmest years based on the satellites are still (strong) El Nino years. This year is at best a weak El Nino year and last year didn't even have that. And it isn't like the UAH is that far off. The UAH has last year as the 3rd warmest year on record behind 2 strong El Nino years (1998 and 2010). http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2014/december2014/dec2014GTR.pdf Given the known effect on El Nino's on the troposphere this isn't surprising. The RSS is diverging more than the UAH for reasons that aren't clear, but even there last year was 6th (where 3 of the years a head of it were strong El Nino years). Last year wasn't an exception in terms of the divergence between the USH and RSS. This is something people have been commenting on for several years: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/

This simply isn't true. I've already posted images of real temperature vs. models in this thread for you before because you made the same claim. http://es.redskins.com/topic/380491-i-want-to-sue-the-republican-party-for-willful-denial-of-scientific-evidence-about-climate-change/?p=10160221 Most models are running higher than the actual temperature, but there are models out there that are actually running UNDER current temperature. Since you seemed to have not internalized it before: I'll post it for you again. See the gray line at the bottom (CIMP5 min-max), that's the warming predicted by the model predicting the least warming. There are models out there that are significantly over predicting temperature, but there are models that are significant predictors of temperature.

Nothing, but just because many of the models are wrong doesn't mean that climate change isn't an issue that we shouldn't do something about. If the ETC is 2 degress C (which is what he generally seems to believe is a reasonable lower limit): 1 Many of the models are wrong. 2. The IPCC is still "right" (an ETC of 2 degrees C is still well with in the range of what the IPCC is and has been predicting). 3. There are going to still be serious consequences. **EDIT** Just as an example: Here's work by somebody that puts climate sensitivity as 1.1 http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf So that's even lower, and he's to the point that he's saying that essentially all of the models are wrong and is at the bottom of what the IPCC is predicting now (and lower than what they were predicting). That's lower than the author of the Max Planck work is saying. He thinks CO2 has less of an effect than most climate scientists, but he also says: "I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years." If his estimate is correct, "it means that the climate is less sensitive to [carbon dioxide] than currently thought, which gives some breathing room," said Mr. Schwartz, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry and has been at the Brookhaven Lab for about three decades. "But a lower sensitivity does not solve the long-term problem that would result from continued buildup of [carbon dioxide]." http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html There are a good number of climate scientists that think the number is going to be lower than suggested by most climate models, but they still think we should be doing something.