Scientific silencers on the left are trying to shut down climate skepticism

[osan]

The science is actually solid that yes, the atmospheric CO2 has risen in proportion to fossil fuel usage over the past 100+ years. It's obvious if you consider fossil fuels trapped CO2 from millions of years ago and we're releasing them rapidly. Of course models change as technology increases, sure it's a complex problem, however the predominant peer reviewed science shows man made issues with causing global warming.

Then please explain the unaltered thermodynamic state of the planet.

[smokemonsc]

So Houston's flood, Detroit's flood 2 years ago, Arizona's flood last year, Sandy, were all normal?

So Sandy and Katrina were totally normal and nobody should be surprised, right?

California's drought is totally normal and nobody should expect otherwise, right?

Yes to all the above.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/c...ve-lasted-more

Above link is just one example of how, if you go back far enough there are ample examples of floods hurricanes, droughts, etc happening at higher and lower rates.

PRB - I do agree with you that we should focus on what the facts show us. I think there is a lot of value in trying to predict weather and climate. However the examples you gave above are two examples of weather (hurricanes and floods) and one example of climate which has been proven to not be unique to our time period. Bottom line is we need more data.....lots more.

Another problem is using statistics to prove a point with a sample set that is incredibly small. There is no accurate way to determine how many hurricanes, floods, etc occurred prior to ~1900, especially in the world's oceans. We're talking about using a sample set of 100....that's not randomly chosen, from a population of millions (or billions) of years...the margin of error for such a calculation, even for a confidence level of 90% would be ridiculous (talking about +-40% MOE or worse) and worthless.

[PRB]

Yes to all the above.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/c...ve-lasted-more

Above link is just one example of how, if you go back far enough there are ample examples of floods hurricanes, droughts, etc happening at higher and lower rates.

PRB - I do agree with you that we should focus on what the facts show us. I think there is a lot of value in trying to predict weather and climate. However the examples you gave above are two examples of weather (hurricanes and floods) and one example of climate which has been proven to not be unique to our time period. Bottom line is we need more data.....lots more.

Another problem is using statistics to prove a point with a sample set that is incredibly small. There is no accurate way to determine how many hurricanes, floods, etc occurred prior to ~1900, especially in the world's oceans. We're talking about using a sample set of 100....that's not randomly chosen, from a population of millions (or billions) of years...the margin of error for such a calculation, even for a confidence level of 90% would be ridiculous (talking about +-40% MOE or worse) and worthless.

So Sandy and Katrina victims deserved it, because it's all normal and expected.

[Madison320]

So Sandy and Katrina victims deserved it, because it's all normal and expected.

????

I see why you have that red dot.

One of the biggest problems with natural disasters is when the government forces insurance companies to cover people in high risk areas. There'd be a lot less people living in high risk areas if the govt didn't subsidize it.

[PRB]

????

I see why you have that red dot.

One of the biggest problems with natural disasters is when the government forces insurance companies to cover people in high risk areas. There'd be a lot less people living in high risk areas if the govt didn't subsidize it.

how is that not saying the deserved it?

how exactly were those places 'high risk'? according to whom?

[smokemonsc]

That's what you took from my post? Really? lol. My post only proves that droughts are a part of Californian history. Any emotional baggage you attach to that in an attempt to distract from the facts are nothing more than nonsense.

[FindLiberty]

Milo said it appears to be crap because of the way he has witnessed them
fudging reports by rewording to paint fearful future or throwing out othr
reports because they indicated there is no problem at all.

I think man-made climate change is a farce, because Milo said so.

[PRB]

That's what you took from my post? Really? lol. My post only proves that droughts are a part of Californian history.

How predictable are they? Are you saying anybody who lives in CA consents to expensive water, like Flynt or Detroit?

Any emotional baggage you attach to that in an attempt to distract from the facts are nothing more than nonsense.

No emotions here, just getting the facts straight to see if you'll back out by emotion.

[PRB]

Milo said it appears to be crap because of the way he has witnessed them
fudging reports by rewording to paint fearful future or throwing out othr
reports because they indicated there is no problem at all.

I think man-made climate change is a farce, because Milo said so.

I don't trust a homosexual attention whore for scientific knowledge.

[Dr.3D]

So Sandy and Katrina victims deserved it, because it's all normal and expected.

Anybody who lives on the coast should expect the hurricanes that happen. It's part of living on the coast and it's normal. It's been happening for as long as people have been living on the coast.

[smokemonsc]

How predictable are they? Are you saying anybody who lives in CA consents to expensive water, like Flynt or Detroit?



No emotions here, just getting the facts straight to see if you'll back out by emotion.

Lol, still waiting for you to disprove the facts I presented. Keep on keepin on!

They may not consent to it, but guess what....doesn't $#@!ing matter. Water is more expensive there. Deal with it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Climatologists, meteorologists, economists, eh. They all have about the same luck in predicting the future.

[PRB]

Anybody who lives on the coast should expect the hurricanes that happen. It's part of living on the coast and it's normal. It's been happening for as long as people have been living on the coast.

Therefore f them if they're not prepared, right?

[PRB]

Climatologists, meteorologists, economists, eh. They all have about the same luck in predicting the future.

Wrong, Austrian economists are never wrong.

[PRB]

They may not consent to it, but guess what....doesn't $#@!ing matter.

Consent doesn't matter? We got a fascist here?

[Dr.3D]

Therefore f them if they're not prepared, right?

That's right, if they didn't have insurance, it's their fault. It's the high price one pays when living on the coast.

[PRB]

That's right, if they didn't have insurance, it's their fault. It's the high price one pays when living on the coast.

what about Houston, Arizona and Detroit?

Were they caught off guard? or should've seen it coming?

[Dr.3D]

what about Houston, Arizona and Detroit?

Were they caught off guard? or should've seen it coming?

Can't fool me there, none of those cities are on the coast.

[PRB]

Can't fool me there, none of those cities are on the coast.

My point exactly, so why did they flood? Was it predictable? Should they have been prepared?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My point exactly, so why did they flood? Was it predictable? Should they have been prepared?

The deadliest floods in world history occurred before 1980-2016, which is the pivotal time period cited by many for marked temperature increases. Many of these floods were hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution. More people generally died in these earlier floods than die today.

Did anybody actually die in the Detroit floods? Was it tens of thousands, like the numbers from hundreds of years ago? Is your idea of preparation to prevent every ill effect from every calamity and mishap?

[PRB]

The deadliest floods in world history occurred before 1980-2016, which is the pivotal time period cited by many for marked temperature increases.

You don't need anybody dead to be inconvenienced.

Many of these floods were hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution. More people generally died in these earlier floods than die today.

How many floods do you want at your house? I promise nobody will die. I doubt you'd be happy to pay another penny of taxes in your modern life, yet you bring up how much worse life was in the past as if death is the only thing you worry about.

Did anybody actually die in the Detroit floods? Was it tens of thousands, like the numbers from hundreds of years ago? Is your idea of preparation to prevent every ill effect from every calamity and mishap?

Pretty sure zero died.

My idea is to prevent property damage, waste, or excuses for government to intervene.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My idea is to prevent property damage, waste, or excuses for government to intervene.

Your idea?! What idea? You once said you would build your house on a river in anticipation of that river drying up in 25 years.

how exactly were those places 'high risk'? according to whom?

I would like you to run an experiment so that you--PRB--are the "whom" able to assess risk.

Go to your kitchen. Get a soup bowl and place it in the sink. Run some water in the bowl. Record your findings.

Dump the water from the bowl. Turn the bowl upside down in the sink. Run the faucet again. Record your findings.

Report what you found in your next post.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How many floods do you want at your house?

I don't want any, which is why I made it a point to buy on high ground.

You don't need anybody dead to be inconvenienced....

...as if death is the only thing you worry about.

That's the difference between me and a progressive like you. Progressives think that they can control every mishap and life event, much of it through government. They want to control everything that makes their life "inconvenienced." The real kicker is that they don't even want to take responsibility to do this. They think someone else should do this. They have no common sense, and think they can build their house on a river because global warming will cause the river to dry up in 25 years. If that does not happen and their house floods, then it's always the fault of someone else. Those people bearing blame should be punished, according to people like you who don't want to take responsibility.

[PRB]

I don't want any, which is why I made it a point to buy on high ground.

So anybody who can't afford to live on high ground should prepare for floods, right?

That's the difference between me and a progressive like you.

I'm not a progressive.

Progressives think that they can control every mishap and life event, much of it through government. They want to control everything that makes their life "inconvenienced."

I don't think I can control anything, but I like to know things that are predictable, just like you'd avoid buying houses unless it's on high ground.

The real kicker is that they don't even want to take responsibility to do this. They think someone else should do this. They have no common sense, and think they can build their house on a river because global warming will cause the river to dry up in 25 years.

If it's true, would you let that opporutnity and land go to waste?

If that does not happen and their house floods, then it's always the fault of someone else. Those people bearing blame should be punished, according to people like you who don't want to take responsibility.

Yeah, so Houston, Detroit and Arizona all deserved their flood, their own fault. They should know it was coming.

[PRB]

Your idea?! What idea? You once said you would build your house on a river in anticipation of that river drying up in 25 years.






I would like you to run an experiment so that you--PRB--are the "whom" able to assess risk.

Go to your kitchen. Get a soup bowl and place it in the sink. Run some water in the bowl. Record your findings.

Dump the water from the bowl. Turn the bowl upside down in the sink. Run the faucet again. Record your findings.

Report what you found in your next post.

• "Taxation is wrong? The sooner you stop your baloney, the sooner the negs stop."

[PRB]

Your idea?! What idea? You once said you would build your house on a river in anticipation of that river drying up in 25 years.

No, I said I'd build a house IF it was drying up and expected to last for 25 years.

As for "What idea" it was in response to you asking "Is your idea of preparation to prevent every ill effect from every calamity and mishap?"

I would like you to run an experiment so that you--PRB--are the "whom" able to assess risk.

Go to your kitchen. Get a soup bowl and place it in the sink. Run some water in the bowl. Record your findings.

Dump the water from the bowl. Turn the bowl upside down in the sink. Run the faucet again. Record your findings.

Report what you found in your next post.

what am I reporting? where the water went? or how far it splashed?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So anybody who can't afford to live on high ground should prepare for floods, right?

I don't generally find elevation to be an income issue, but why are you asking me this?

... but I like to know things that are predictable...

No, I said I'd build a house IF it was drying up and expected to last for 25 years.

This is my point. You want to predict something (1st sentence), but then exercise absolutely no common sense (2nd sentence). You then expect your lack of common sense to be the problem of someone else.

[PRB]

I don't generally find elevation to be an income issue, but why are you asking me this?

I believe people who don't prepare for what they know are dipshits and deserve to lose, I wonder if you're willing to say the same.

However, I don't fault people who DON'T OR CAN'T know it. So again, were people in Detroit, Houston and Arizona fair game when they were flooded? or was it completely surprise that nobody would have seen?

This is my point. You want to predict something (1st sentence), but then exercise absolutely no common sense (2nd sentence).

False. I want to predict something SO I can make the decision what to do AND I can laugh at the people who don't.

Are you saying common sense says nothing dries and stays for 25 years?

You then expect your lack of common sense to be the problem of someone else.

Nope. But I would expect my lack of certain knowledge the fault of somebody else, or I'd partially blame people who deny certain facts, misleading peopel to act differently, to be somewhat responsible.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Nope. But I would expect my lack of certain knowledge the fault of somebody else, or....

Good to know. At least you admit you don't take personal responsibility. I will give you a plus rep for that.





























Ah, just kidding about the plus rep. But at least I won't neg rep you!

[PRB]

Good to know. Confirms what I said about you not taking personal responsibility.

so everything I don't know or was told untrue is my fault?