Ironically the weakest hurrican season in 10 years

[Karmashock]

http://media.tbo.com/photos/trib/2006/nov/1126hurr2.jpg
http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html


I would give Al Gore and all the other hysterics/morons/chicken-littles a giant bugs bunny kiss on the forehead... but then I'd probably get aids/ebola/cancer/leprosy/chronic-stupid-disease/cooties and my penis would probably fall off...

[Silencio of Dalaran]

Is there a point hiding in there, or are you just engaged in daring performance art satirizing conservative thought in the contemporary US?

[MVB]

He's pointing out that alarmists claiming the impending doom of the world due to "global warming" are stupid, especially when they cite things like "OMG LOOK AT KATRINA AND OUR BAD HURRICANE SEASONS."

What's new, though? Pollution is still a problem, as are a million other environmental issues that neither Republicans nor Democrats do jack shit about (or care about), and "global warming" is still a political matchpoint phrase meant to re-direct or mis-direct the votes of the ignorant and ill-informed.

[Silencio of Dalaran]

great! and so, Mike, how exactly does Karma's post *demonstrate* that?

[MVB]

Um, the photo - it shows a far weaker hurricane season. "Experts" and alarmists claimed last year's hectic hurricane season was "proof" of the detrimental effects of global warming. You know this, why are you being silly about it? Whatever the hell your problem is with it, just come out and say it. You're not an idiot, and this isn't a game I want to be a part of or involved with.

[Silencio of Dalaran]

""Experts" and alarmists claimed last year's hectic hurricane season was "proof" of the detrimental effects of global warming."

And how does that photo disprove that?

Here's a hint

Read the article.

Here's another hint. I'd bet you 10 bucks to a nickel that what you *think* my point is isn't what it actually is.

Or, if you don't want to be a part of it, stop playing stooge for Karma.

[MVB]

I think you should read the rest of this forum if you think I'm Karma's stooge. He and I think very little of each other quite often.


Both the Republican and Democratic parties are hopelessly fucked up on environmental issues. Neither of them give a shit.

Forgetting the article, as I don't find it necessary in I guess MY point ... global warming alarmists (and again, global warming isn't anything at all, it's just ... a pointless phrase) claim worsening weather = proof of "global warming." Calmer weather this year = argument is false. It's all a bunch of "bs."

[Silencio of Dalaran]

"I think you should read the rest of this forum if you think I'm Karma's stooge"

In this case, since I'm asking him the question, yeah, you are mate.

But, since we're getting into it, no, arse backwards. Worsening weather = possible symptom of global warming, not proof. Proof of global warming is something else, and it's not debateable. The globe is getting warmer. (http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003375/). End of debate. it's not difficult.

What's difficult is working out why it's happening, if we have anything to do with it, if so, what proportion our actions have, what we can change *if* we have anything to do with it, is it worth changing even if we can, what the net effects are, what the localized effects are likely to be and what the cost benefit of change, if change has any cost benefit at all, is vs the cost *to* change.

What I *can* say is, there's no serious school of thinking on the "global warming is real" debate that thinks uniformly increasing storms year on year are a firm model of what will happen.

I can also say that there's no serious school of thinking on the "global warming is no big deal" side of the debate think that one year of lesser storms means anything.

If you could take one season's measurements and draw a conclusion from it the argument would have ended *last* year.

You can't.

What you *can* say is people who look at a picture, don't even bother to read the article, and draw a conclusion that's in no way supported by that picture have no worthwhile opinion on the subject.

I'm not anti-global-warming, nor am I pro-global-warming. I'm just anti-idiocy, on both sides of the debate. Karma's no better than the alarmist hippies he's always crying about. Fucking QQ. Stick the ancephalic lot of them on an island and let them compete for survival out of the way of the members of the human race who've worked out conclusions come *after* facts, not before.

[MVB]

Silencio, in-game I'd call you cool and all that jazz. In here, you're as condescending and jackfuckish as Karma is in many of your posts. It's anything but endearing, and makes it almost impossible to take what you say seriously.

Since when did I really focus on serious thinkers? I "quoted" "experts" and referenced alarmists, who use whatever they can get.

Also, find a better globe is getting warmer link. Due to the development of more and more urban areas with higher and higher temperatures WITHIN the cities as a result of trapped heat, global average surface temperatures ARE increasing in a way totally unrelated to pollution/greenhousegases/etc. Your link, by being indiscriminate and unclear on any reasons for the temperature changes, is the kind of misdirecting half-truth science used by global warming "proponents" to advance their political red-herring toward more votes.

Upper atmospheric temperature increases of a significant quantity would be the way to tell if greenhouse gas production by human beings was causing significant increases in global temperature. Find that, how about.

[Silencio of Dalaran]

"Due to the development of more and more urban areas with higher and higher temperatures WITHIN the cities as a result of trapped heat, global average surface temperatures ARE increasing in a way totally unrelated to pollution/greenhousegases/etc."

And here's another kneejerk reaction.

All I said, Mike, was the world is getting warmer. Did I draw any conclusions from it? No, of course not. Because doing so would be *dumb*. Yet, as soon as I point to a scientifically verifiable set of data, you go off on a rant *disproving* a ton of claims i *haven't made*.

Global Warming as a phrase is a red herring. What's critical is.. is the temperature change important? We know it *exists*.. why should we give a fuck, or do anything about it?

If it was global *cooling* the same set of halfassery parading as considered thought would be doing the rounds. And the sides would be reversed.

Why?

Did I say "hey, we caused this", or "hey, we didn't cause this"? no.

As to who you quoted, you referenced Karma's post, and he referenced Al Gore.

Do you have a quote of Al Gore saying that uniformly increasing year on year storm activity is going to happen?

"I "quoted" "experts" and referenced alarmists, who use whatever they can get."

Find me one. Just one source that says uniformly increasing storm activity year on year is expected and I'll withdraw the lot.

[MVB]

Here: alarmist article basically saying or attempting to influence people to believe that "Global warming is causing worse / more frequent / more severe weather and will continue to do so."

He flat out blames Katrina's ferocity on "global warming."
http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/

Forgive the fact that a great deal of studying keeps me from finding something perfect, but IMO it's close enough.

This is alarmist, and inaccurate.

Re: you, please get off the semantics games. Global temperature is not rising. City temperatures are higher than non-city temperatures. Cities are not warmer than they used to be relative to their density, and non-urban areas are not warmer than they used to be relative to their density. There are more cities, denser-populated-and-paved non-cities, etc. Average temperatures are higher, but nothing is getting "warmer."

I realize this is a semantics game of my own, but if I knew all you wanted to do was catch me in word games I'd not even have bothered posting. Reiteration of jacktardedness by you, please knock it off.

[Silencio of Dalaran]

"Here: alarmist article basically saying or attempting to influence people to believe that "Global warming is causing worse / more frequent / more severe weather and will continue to do so.""

It's not what I asked for, nor does it support the argument that the above posted picture has *anything* to say either pro or con.

"this is alarmist and inaccurate"

I completely agree, but I didn't ask for alarmist or inaccurate. I asked for a prediction that the above post would demonstrate to be false.

"you, please get off the semantics games."

if by "semantics" you mean "thermometers" then *no*. If you mean something else, then you're still barking up the wrong tree.

"non-urban areas are not warmer than they used to be relative to their density"

So, what? Greenland (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309102251/html/62.html) has had a big boom in dormitory suburb development lately?

Surface temperature is rising, and has risen, in non urban and urban areas, in areas wholly or almost wholly uninhabited as well as dense urban areas, thus writing it off to urbanization is the weakest of weak science.

As to upper atmospheric temperature: red herring. We've only been measuring it for 20 years. Using that data to support either side of the debate is dishonest. Did you read NAP's analysis of the problems? It's free on the NAP.edu site. They've worked out that the last 20 years of data was worthless as far as their models go, and they have a plan for making the next 100 years or so actually worth something. Right now, the MSU measurements show no change in upper atmospheric temperature. The thing is.. that's what you'd expect with the current global warming models - cooling at one level damps the effect of warming at another for top down measurements. They've conceded they need angled measurments over a period of decades.

Anyway: let's try a different tack.

Mike, I 100% agree with you that the global warming alarmists use shitty science and overplay the data and are selective in what they present, and everything they say has to be taken in light of their agenda, which is having decided that the world is ending based on some deep mental defect, they must now go about proving it.

I also agree that climate change (note I use that term, not global warming) has not been shown to be anything more than a cyclical natural phenomenon and no proof of significant human impact on climate has been provided.

Does that surprise you?

[MVB]

No.

I never thought you were an idiot.

[Silencio of Dalaran]

fair enough.

so knowing that there are those immune-to-logic wingnuts on the environmental alarmist's side, it can't come as any surprise that there are the equivalents on the environmental naysayer's side, can it?

[Karmashock]

In here, you're as condescending and jackfuckish as Karma is in many of your posts.
Excuse me, I only treat people that act like him... like that.


Until someone gets all condescending in MY face... starts lying... starts relying on anything but his argument to hold the point... I am polite.

He was rude from the first punk word out of his mouth.
================================================== ====
fair enough.

so knowing that there are those immune-to-logic wingnuts on the environmental alarmist's side, it can't come as any surprise that there are the equivalents on the environmental naysayer's side, can it?
My post wasn't "wingnut"... your response to it however might have been.


GW alarmists used the bad hurricane season last year as "evidence" that they were right. And yet a weaker storm season means what?... nothing?


See, evidence doesn't just work one way... it works BOTH ways.


I am not saying GW isn't happening... I am saying that there has yet to be a rational debate on the issue. It's too politically charged and the vast majority of people operating it on both sides of the isle have a political incentive to say certain things regardless of the science.


Because it's relevant:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/downloads/images/poster.jpg


the movie poster for Al Gore's pathetic little film. Never mind that practically all the meteorologists screamed when he said this... guess Gore knows more about weather patterns then professionals...

[Marb]

Blablabla impending doom blablabla.

LOLZ LOOCIFRON

[Silencio of Dalaran]

Excuse me, I only treat people that act like him... like that.


Liar.


I am polite.


And I am Pope John Paul II




My post wasn't "wingnut"


That's exactly what it was.


GW alarmists used the bad hurricane season last year as "evidence" that they were right. And yet a weaker storm season means what?... nothing?


No, they used several years of increasing storms as evidence. It's still *wrong*, since there are other explanations for it, but it's considerably less stupid than *you*, who think that *one* year is significant One year's data means nothing *either* way. You just demonstrated that you're as illogical as the same alarmists you criticize *in that sentence*. They're still not right: they're wrong, and dumber than monkeys, but *you're* wrong, and dumber than a cheese wheel.


See, evidence doesn't just work one way... it works BOTH ways.


Like I said. Show me any model, or any claim, even by the most rabid of wingnuts, that claims uniform year-on-year increases in storm activity and I'll concede that you're *not* talking out of your arse. What part of this is hard?

Your post above only disproves *one thing*, and that's a claim no-one made.

Until then, you're just as stupid, ascientific, agenda-driven and dishonest as the people you criticize.

You should try thinking sometime instead. It's remarkably refreshing.


I am not saying GW isn't happening... I am saying that there has yet to be a rational debate on the issue.


You're not qualified to be a participant in that as demonstrated here.

And as demonstrated by the fact that you *still* haven't read the article you pulled the picture from.

[Karmashock]

I am the walrus, I am the walrus, kookoo ka choo!


Thank you as always for your contribution.

[Silencio of Dalaran]

So, you can't show a claim that would make *your* post an actual response to anything?

Quelle surprise.

Here's the thing, Karma. Everytime it gets down into the nitty gritty.. where you have to reason through something, or back something up, you *completely fall apart*.

You don't ever work through an argument, there's no evidence of any critical thought in your head *ever*

You see something that you think maybe supports one of your predetermined conclusions. You post it. You get called on it. You blather, waffle, get lost.. pick a few flowers.. anything except think, back a point up, or make an argument.

It's odd to watch, really.

[amir]

Dude your talking out your ass.

[Karmashock]

Dude your talking out your ass.
who?

[amir]

who?

Silencio of Dalaran

[Silencio of Dalaran]

"Dude your talking out your ass."

I see your debating skills are of a quality comparable to Karma's.

[Karmashock]

Because it's hilarious...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/Karmashock/Political/rgb.jpg

[Berserk]

Silencio of Dalaran... you should become a Lawyer... :O

but all this hostility :/

[Karmashock]

Silencio of Dalaran... you should become a Lawyer... :O

but all this hostility :/
Why?...

[Berserk]

well, maybe i meant a hollywood lawyer xD

U know, the "mean" guys who just seem impossible to be counter attacked in a debate. Well, atleast for me, im still a noob trying to understand WTH is going on here :)

[Karmashock]

"if" sil was worthy of that compliment, then he certainly didn't deserve it for this thread...


if you want some pointers on how to deal with the nonsense in here... the best advice I could give you is this:

1: Stay focused. Most people like to change the subject when you make a good point. They can do this by distracting you with something else, rephrasing your argument in a way that is both inaccurate and conveniently vulnerable, and/or insulting you in hopes that the topic gets shifted to you... instead of the argument.

2: Don't over extend yourself. It's best to make small claims or modify all your opinions with words like "maybe" or " could be." This makes it very clear to the other people that it's not being put forward as a statement of fact. Something that's very important especially in more complicated discussions. Many people like to lay out mine fields in hopes that you'll run right though them. If you take it slow and test the ground as you move forward you can usually plot a safe path through/around the mine field.

3: Don't discuss things with people that have no interest in discussing things. There are some people that literally cannot have a discussion... they don't know how and won't learn. If you enter a discussion honestly and make a good effort to explain your point of view, they'll probably call your mother a whore or something equally unoriginal. It's typically not worth your time to bother with that. If you're bored, then you can have fun with these people sometimes... but that's not really discussing so much as testing your verbal blades on some muppet's flesh. The only thing of value I've ever been able to get out of that kind of thing aside from practicing my smack talk... is understanding how 'some' people think. People that are screaming at you and acting violently are strangely vulnerable and candid. They're much more likely to tell you what they 'really' think and the 'real' why of it. Of course, reasonable people will generally just tell you this sort of thing if you ask the right way. But some people need to be out of control before they're honest... not worth a great deal perhaps... but interesting nonetheless.

love and peace, karmashock.

[Silencio of Dalaran]

And beserk, if you want some pointers from someone who has a clue, instead of from Karma, here's a few

1. Base your arguments on facts. Don't go looking for facts to support your prejudices - look at the facts and draw your conclusion from all of them.

2. When you are hard pressed in a debate, don't try rhetorical dodges to get out of them. They're transparent and just weaken your position. I don't, by this, mean "always be nice", by all means, be an asshole, but be a *correct* asshole. If you're making a personal attack on someone because you can't respond to their argument, you'll just look like a tool. If you're making a personal attack on someone *after* responding to their argument, because .. well.. they're a fucking asshole, go right ahead.

3. Have fun. Debate should be enjoyable.