- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New phenomenon caused by climate change
Posted on 9/7/17 at 1:26 am to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 9/7/17 at 1:26 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:Weak sauce. It's not really about me. It's about your position you can't seem to defend without sophomoric ogical fallacies.
In between your 30,000 shite posts, did you decide to take an intro to philosophy class at University of Phoenix and fail it or something?
This post was edited on 9/7/17 at 1:29 am
1
Posted on 9/7/17 at 1:46 am to Taxing Authority
Next time you retake the course(third times the charm!) maybe you will make it to the point where you realize how dumb you look trying to apply bandwagon fallacy to issues of overwhelming scientific consensus. Is the next step in weak retorts gonna be an appeal to solipsism? That should be fun.
Would you call me referencing the first law of thermodynamics bandwagon nonsense as well?
Though I guess the more interesting question is, what exactly do you object about the greenhouse effect? Scientifically speaking? Or was that really just an attempt to make you feel like that overpriced online course taught you something?
This post was edited on 9/7/17 at 1:53 am
Posted on 9/7/17 at 1:56 am to Strannix
I nominate all liberals kills themselves to reduce the mount of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere
Posted on 9/7/17 at 2:04 am to DEG
quote:
This is the strongest hurricane on record to ever hit the Atlantic.
Your article says otherwise. It's neither the highest in terms of wind speed, nor the most intense in terms of barometric pressure.
It is seriously going to wreck whatever it touches, though.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 6:13 am to cssamerican
quote:
How much stronger and bigger is this compared to Hurricane Gilbert?
This or Camille. They don't know how fast the winds were because it blew away gauges. Gilbert was a huge storm.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 6:30 am to Strannix
quote:Sorry to disappoint, but reportedly he survived. The island is pretty much destroyed. His island was pretty much in the worst part of the storm.
Dear baby Jesus I've been good all year and if you can just see to it that Richard Branson.......
Posted on 9/7/17 at 6:38 am to mmcgrath
quote:Me neither
No effing way I am staying on that tiny island in a Cat 5 hurricane.
But Branson shits nails and wipes with sandpaper.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 6:40 am to Strannix
It's been over a decade since a Cat 3 made landfall in the US.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 6:58 am to Roaad
quote:
Me neither
But Branson shits nails and wipes with sandpaper.
I am curious to see his remarks after this one. 185 mph winds with gusts up to 220 mph. I bet at one point even he thought staying was a serious mistake.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 8:42 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
you realize how dumb you look trying to apply bandwagon fallacy to issues of overwhelming scientific consensus
no. quote:False equivalence. Classic thermo isn't comparable to the theory of AGW. But it was a nice attempt.
Would you call me referencing the first law of thermodynamics bandwagon nonsense as well?
quote:The attribution-with no evidence-of every single weather event to: "muh climate change" is... silly. Oversimplifed single-variable models of the climate system like you present are... silly. The more complex modeling is so full poorly constructed thermo, cooked boundary conditions, uncontrolled residuals, and strucural integrity that they are,,, sillly. The AGW acolyte community's tolerance for poor work (as long as it reaches the 'properr' conclusion) is...silly.
Though I guess the more interesting question is, what exactly do you object about the greenhouse effect? Scientifically speaking?
quote:I have no idea why you feel the need to make up stories in your head.
Or was that really just an attempt to make you feel like that overpriced online course taught you something?
This post was edited on 9/7/17 at 8:48 am
Posted on 9/7/17 at 2:10 pm to Taxing Authority
For someone that wants to appear like he learned enough to lecture people about fallacious reasoning, anchoring half your response to a straw man makes you look kinda foolish TA.
Nowhere have I asserted every weather event is due to climate change, the argument from the consensus is that climate change affects the frequency, severity, and stability of climate phenomena, not that it magically is the reason for every rainfall. But the fact you are reaching for such preposterous straw men indicates either you 1.) have no better argument to offer, or 2.) really don't even grasp the basic science on this subject.
Now, back to my question, do you or do you not accept the ironclad scientific consensus on how the greenhouse effect works?
Nowhere have I asserted every weather event is due to climate change, the argument from the consensus is that climate change affects the frequency, severity, and stability of climate phenomena, not that it magically is the reason for every rainfall. But the fact you are reaching for such preposterous straw men indicates either you 1.) have no better argument to offer, or 2.) really don't even grasp the basic science on this subject.
Now, back to my question, do you or do you not accept the ironclad scientific consensus on how the greenhouse effect works?
Posted on 9/7/17 at 3:00 pm to Strannix
""According to the NWS, Irma is already the strongest storm ever in the Atlantic (not counting those that reached the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico). And it’s not far off from the all-time record hurricane wind speed of 190 mph.""
So why the qualifier in parenthesis? Why don't they mention those that DID reached the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico? And WHEN they reached those areas?
I am not a GW denier, but the slant in almost every story is the fact that THIS is what we can expect from now on. They said the same thing after Katrina and how did that work out for the zealots?
So why the qualifier in parenthesis? Why don't they mention those that DID reached the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico? And WHEN they reached those areas?
I am not a GW denier, but the slant in almost every story is the fact that THIS is what we can expect from now on. They said the same thing after Katrina and how did that work out for the zealots?
Posted on 9/7/17 at 3:08 pm to cssamerican
Gilbert...888mbar, wow. 185MPH sustained winds. sounds about like Irma.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 9:11 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:Keep arguing against the person, it's the high mark of true intellectualism.
For someone that wants to appear like he learned enough to lecture people about fallacious reasoning, anchoring half your response to a straw man makes you look kinda foolish TA.
quote:Never said you did. You asked why I have a problem with the "science" of "climate change". That's exactly what I did.
Nowhere have I asserted every weather event is due to climate change
quote:Make the case. Let's see your energy balance, and what Harvey's rainfall "should" have been. Attribution without proof isn't really "science"... but many portray it that way. It's silly.
he argument from the consensus is that climate change affects the frequency, severity, and stability of climate phenomena
quote:
But the fact you are reaching for such preposterous straw men indicates either you 1.) have no better argument to offer, or 2.) really don't even grasp the basic science on this subject.
quote:You''re going to have to quantify "works". In thermodynamic terms. Otherwise, I can't agree to your bumper sticker memes.
Now, back to my question, do you or do you not accept the ironclad scientific consensus on how the greenhouse effect works?
Posted on 9/7/17 at 9:12 pm to LSUCouyon
quote:The desire to make everything "historic" is hilarious.
So why the qualifier in parenthesis?
Posted on 9/7/17 at 9:15 pm to DEG
quote:
I think the point is that those others reached their peak strength in the carribean, not the Atlantic.
I think the proper reference is Atlantic Basin.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 9:32 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You''re going to have to quantify "works". In thermodynamic terms. Otherwise, I can't agree to your bumper sticker memes.
Quit crawfishing, do you believe in the greenhouse effect? Yes or no.
Posted on 9/7/17 at 9:37 pm to Strannix
Is Branson the one who burns unfathomable amounts of fossil fuels with his airline, personal aircraft, and space excursions?
Yeah...he can eat a bag of dirty aids dicks.
Yeah...he can eat a bag of dirty aids dicks.
Posted on 9/8/17 at 1:25 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Quit crawfishing, do you believe in the greenhouse effect? Yes or no.
believe? As in have faith without understanding? Nope. Odd your "science" requires belief rather than evidence. And it's not crawfishing to say you need to quantify something in scientific terms rather than vague bumper sticker generalities. You appear unable to accomplish that.
This post was edited on 9/8/17 at 1:34 am
Posted on 9/8/17 at 1:37 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
believe? As in have faith without understanding? Nope. Odd your "science" requires belief rather than evidence.
And it's not crawfishing to say you need to quantify something in scientific terms rather than vague bumper sticker generalities. You appear unable to accomplish that.
Yes or no.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News