• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simple Question About AGW

mhaze said:
Sea level rise is somewhere between 1.3 and 3.0 mm per year, depending on which studies you reference.

Please reconcile the reality of miniscule sea level change (undisputed) with your comments.
Click to expand...

Further Note:

The burden of proof for fantastic claims is on the party making fantastic claims, most would agree.
 
Fordama said:
"Every" is definitely not true. In fact, I would be interested to see if there were any scientific reports of this. It appears to me that you confuse what is reported in the mass media as scientific predictions.

Could you please point out some actual scientific studies whose findings linked the hurricanes that year directly to global warming?

Fordama
Click to expand...

Jeez....I forgot all about this.

No, I can't and I don't need to.

Perception IS reality...it does not matter that some pointyhead someplace did NOT say that, what matters is that they permit this to become the public perception and that is that global temps have anything at all to do with hurricanes and that now that runaway global warming is upon us, we can expect more "record" hurricane seasons like 2005...like the one in 2006. And again in 2007.

Tokie
 
Phaedrus74 said:
Can't argue for everybody, and I do get the increasing feeling that AGW is turning into something of a cult, but...

I live in the Netherlands, and if the prediction regarding sea-level rise and increased precipitation are even a little bit on the mark and we do nothing about our levees significant parts of my country run the risk of serious (meaning: worse than Katrina) type flooding.

So yeah, I'd like the people responsible for our coastal defences to take the possibility seriously lest we get a repeat of the 1953 flood.

Less hysteria would be nice, though...
Click to expand...

And you believe that the ONLY possible reason for either sea level rise or subsidence can be...global warming? And you believe as well that because you live in Netherlands it's my job as an American to make sure your country is not flooded by naturally occuring sea level rise due to naturally occuring climate warming?

Why?

Tokie
 
mhaze said:
Your dikes and the gate systems (not sure that's the right phrase) are quite interesting. Do not compare your system with the one that was in place in New Orleans. Well, you probably know that.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If billions of Euros or gilder or whatever were earmarked to improve the dykes there, and instead went into crooked politicos pockets and the first storm that came along swampe half their country, I am sure those politicos would not then be re-elected to office at the very next election.

Tokie
 
Dr Adequate said:
So, have I got this right?

Your argument really seems to be that there were worse hurricanes in America in 2005 than there were in 2006 and 2007 --- therefore AGW is a crock.

There seems to be a bit missing between your premise and your conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is...it's you reading comprehensively.

Tokie
 
kallsop said:
I have seen "expert" predictions that (A)GW will cause fewer and less severe hurricanes.

With some predicting more, and some less, either will be evidence of (A)GW. QED.
Click to expand...

That's the wonderful thing about AGW!

ANY "unusual" or even non-unusual weather event, local, regional, even global is caused by AGW!

Lots of hurricanes? AGW
No hurricanes? AGW.
Heavy rains? AGW
Drough? AGW
Cold? AGW
Hot? AGW.

There were tornadoes in Wisconsin a week or two ago. Tornadoes are rare in Wisconsin, especially this time of year. The cause: AGW!

There was a heatwave and drought in England and France a few years ago: AGW.

There was snow in Baghdad for the first time in "living memory" a few weeks ago: AGW.

Now, if we don't see another tornado in WI for 50 years...that TOO will be because of AGW.

If England and France have very wet cool years for the next few years (that NEVER happens right after a drought!)...AGW!

If it doesn't snow in Baghdad again for a century? AGW!

AGW is the leftists dream: ANYthing and EVERYthing can be blamed on it, and that in turn means more "evidence" for shutting down the US economy! It's a win-win for everyone!

Tokie
 
...and the rest of this thread is virtually a laboratory on my "Irrational Thinking: a Winner" thread.

Tokie
 
Last edited:
And you believe that the ONLY possible reason for either sea level rise or subsidence can be...global warming? And you believe as well that because you live in Netherlands it's my job as an American to make sure your country is not flooded by naturally occuring sea level rise due to naturally occuring climate warming?

That's the wonderful thing about AGW!

ANY "unusual" or even non-unusual weather event, local, regional, even global is caused by AGW!

AGW is the leftists dream: ANYthing and EVERYthing can be blamed on it, and that in turn means more "evidence" for shutting down the US economy! It's a win-win for everyone!
Click to expand...
Strawmen galore. Are your serious, or are you just trolling for a response, or hoping for a spot on my ignore list with mhaze's one-liners, fallacies and juvenlie comments such as the commonly spouted 'Duuuuh!?'s?

See, this is why I hate debating AGW. You can't have a single thread without a bunch of deniers coming in not even taking the discussion halfway seriously, effectively lowering the discussion into a pointless spitting contest and parroting of clichés they know to be illogical. I swear, if I see one more 'stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle' (implying that humans can't have anything to do with it), I'll go eat a kitten.

...and the rest of this thread is virtually a laboratory on my "Irrational Thinking: a Winner" thread.
Click to expand...
victoria_cheval_mirror.jpg


You couldn't have concluded your tirade in a more hilarious way if you tried.
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
So, have I got this right?

Your argument really seems to be that there were worse hurricanes in America in 2005 than there were in 2006 and 2007 --- therefore AGW is a crock.

There seems to be a bit missing between your premise and your conclusion.
Click to expand...

Tokenconservative said:
Yes, there is...it's you reading comprehensively.

Tokie
Click to expand...

:popcorn1
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Strawmen galore........pointless spitting contest and parroting of clichés they know to be illogical. I swear, if I see one more 'stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle' (implying that humans can't have anything to do with it), I'll go eat a kitten.
Click to expand...

Stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle, for which humans have nothing to do with it.

Couldn't resist. Now we find what stuff you are made of.
 
BenBurch said:
Tokie,

The fact still remains that nobody who knows anything is trying to use the hurricanes as anything like proof of AGW. There is plenty of other proof, though.

-Ben
Click to expand...

I know, plenty of evidence:

Drought.

Floods.

Snowstorms.

Rain.

Wind.

Lack of wind.

Normal conditions.

All of these are evidence of climate.


Change.

I know that.

Tokie
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Strawmen galore. Are your serious, or are you just trolling for a response, or hoping for a spot on my ignore list with mhaze's one-liners, fallacies and juvenlie comments such as the commonly spouted 'Duuuuh!?'s?

See, this is why I hate debating AGW. You can't have a single thread without a bunch of deniers coming in not even taking the discussion halfway seriously, effectively lowering the discussion into a pointless spitting contest and parroting of clichés they know to be illogical. I swear, if I see one more 'stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle' (implying that humans can't have anything to do with it), I'll go eat a kitten.

[qimg]http://baysideproducts.com/store/images/victoria_cheval_mirror.jpg[/qimg]

You couldn't have concluded your tirade in a more hilarious way if you tried.
Click to expand...

Well, Haze and I are competing to see who can get on more hysterical monstershouting fearmonger's ignore lists.

So if you've already added him to yours, no sense in adding me.

But if you just want to stop posting in response to my stuff, that would work for me.

I'd prefer to read something that's not a bunch of hysterical fearmongering, anyway.

I take it from this nonsensical rant and the childish posting of that pic of a mirror that you don't have anything of value to add to the conversation anyway. No sense in your wasting scarce 'net space, huh?

Tokie
 
BenBurch said:
Exactly.

Tokie is using the same noisy data set that we would never dare use as evidence of AGW as evidence AGAINST AGW. Somehow, the noise in the data utterly disappears when he uses it!
:D
Click to expand...

Hmm...possibly, but I wonder...what would it look like if you AGWists WERE doing this?

As to your question, I really don't care if anyone "who matters" is/has said that AGW will/is increasing hurricane numbers and intensity, the popular belief now (hmm...where'd THAT come from!?) is that this is what AGW will do. Along with killing polar bears and walruses and frogs and dolphins, and sea ice melting causing rising sea level (quick! Rant about how dumb I am to not know that floating ice melting does not raise sea level and demonstrate even more clearly how you read what you WANT me to write rather than what I actually DO write...), etc., etc., etc., and oh yeah, by the way, it's all the fault of the US.

And if that's NOT how things are, could you please tell me how they would look if this were the case?
Tokie
 
mhaze said:
Stop worrying about GW, it's a natural cycle, for which humans have nothing to do with it.

Couldn't resist. Now we find what stuff you are made of.
Click to expand...

He said he had you on ignore...


Hey, Safe!! I want to be on your ignore list!!!!

Gonna beat ya Haze!!!

Neener, neener!!
 
Tokie,

Hurricane data would look just about like it always does and only with many years of data would we discern the difference. Noisy data is like that. There can be trends, but you have to average a LOT of samples before a signal like that shows them to you.

-Ben
 
BenBurch said:
Tokie,

The fact still remains that nobody who knows anything is trying to use the hurricanes as anything like proof of AGW. There is plenty of other proof, though.

-Ben
Click to expand...

Plenty of convincing evidence.

The thing about hurricanes is that they happen to 'Murrica, and therefore must be crucially important to everybody. So even though there's no evidence that anyone's presenting them as proof of AGW, they must be. Because they're crucially important. Since they happen to 'Murrica.

(That's an attempt at channeling Tokie and his ilk.)

Didn't Mexico get hit by some unimportant hurricanes last year? Unimportant because they didn't hit 'Murrica. So who gives a toss?
 
Heeeeeeeeeeeelloooooo!!!

A quick check of google shows 207,000 hits for "global warming" and Hurricanes.

Lots and lots of assertions (wrong, but sensational) that GW causes fiercer hurricanes. Lots of other opinions, also.

Tokie is correct about the misrepresentation in the pop media, the misrepresentation in the media releases, pamphlets and so forth by the radical environmental groups. Also the issue is misrepresented in Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" (standard school kid propaganda).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom