Jump to content

Thetexashammer

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3,425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thetexashammer

  1. Local monopolies have always been regulated at the state level. Gas, power, etc.
  2. Offense is likely to roll. It comes down to To__ Olran_o's defense. That'll be $9.95 please.
  3. It's true that the models predict positive feedbacks. But in the real world, there are both positive and negative feedbacks. And the environment is a very complicated system on which it is very difficult to perform experiments. Therefore it is very difficult to tighten down your variables to the point where you can make accurate predictions. The current models cannot replicate the temperature movements of the past. Add that to the reasons that these models are not valid. But most of all...., see below. It isn't as simple as simply looking at a tube of co2 and observing that the co2 absorbs a certain wavelength of energy. Everyone gets that. We all agree co2 is a greenhouse gas. The earth is a complex system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system Even wikipedia is willing to admit that it is very difficult to model this type of system, and that climate is a complex system. The models themselves are models on top of models. Which makes for extremely poor statistical validity. But complex systems are complex. How do you model the risk an a meteor hitting the earth? How do you predict changes in insolation? How do you model changes in technology that make thorium the dominant source of energy? I'm not saying co2 doesn't warm the earth, it does. But the runaway temperatures are modeled on those positive feedbacks, not on co2. Such things have never been observed in the past and have never been demonstrated experimentally. I'll believe it when there is evidence. These guys have made fake prediction after fake prediction. If they want to be taken seriously they should stop worrying about PR and produce real evidence that they understand the climate and aren't jut climate activists like James Hansen and Michael Mann with his fake hockey stick. It's old news now, but the Copenhagen Consensus is just absolutely compelling. If you want to help people, climate change just isn't your bag. Millions of people are dying from indoor cooking fires, lack of gatorade, and lack of clean water. Deal with that stuff, you can save lives.
  4. Shit well apparently they are. But I saw the 610 and had to assume Houston. Why the fuck are they called that? Oh well, I like New Orleans too.
  5. The 610 Stompers. This is why I love Houston.
  6. An intriguing idea is a QB who runs like Roschon. I mean, if he can throw with accuracy.
  7. Well our women like to romance each other. So that's a plus in my book.
  8. I don't expect you to "believe" anything. I do expect you to be able to evaluate the evidence I offered. Alas, I was disappointed.
  9. There are multiple sources. It's a page full of links. The point is that CO2 lags temperature. Period. Still true. Not a debate.
  10. AGW could be a valid hypothesis. But I'll wait until the data confirm it. As of today, the pattern of wrong predictions and fearmongering is hard to ignore. It's not unlike the runup to the Iraq war. "BUT ALUMINUM TUBES IN NIGER!!!!!" Call me when you have real evidence.
  11. Again, there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3d4deec03f9f In any case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority How much persuasive power do you give to a logical fallacy? I give little to none.
  12. What NOAA did in you link was to maniuplate the data to achieve their desired outcome. You may note, should you choose to be skeptical, that your link does not show an graph of CO2 levels. Because who are gonna believe, NOAA or your lying eyes? I don't know if it's news to you, but NOAA has a lonhg history of climate activism. Here are some sea level reading with CO2 superimposed on them, It makes the point even better. I don't know where you're seeing a relationship between CO2 and sea level. Please point it out. But sure, if you pick an artificially low point in 1993, you might believe that sea levels are increasing at an increasing rate. In any case, everyone expects a small rise from additional CO2. I put a lot more trust in the UAH data set, which shows about what you would expect.
  13. That's what I assumed. And I gave you their actual data. Show me the increase.
  14. CO2 lags global temperature, it doesn't lead it. https://www.bing.com/search?q=does+CO2+lag+global+temperature&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
  15. See the logo on the top right? Now show me the increase. ' I will assume your post accurately describes NOAA's position. But their position is not supported by their own data. Hmmmm.
  16. To you. Again, the suggestion is the CO2 would cause an increase in the rate of sea level rise. None has been observed according to NOAA.
  17. I am saying that you evaluate a scientific hypothesis based on the accuracy of its predictions. I just said it again. Why are you rejecting this?
  18. Indeed, no evidence. Your graph doesn't show great detail of the time period where we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere, but if you look at the data regarding sea level rise, there is no observed increase. Your graph wouldn't show that because it doesn't show the relevant time period in enough detail. Here's one. It shows a mostly straight line. Here's another straought line with a better time frame for you to ponder. Do you mean to suggest that the IPCC is wrong? They said there was no evidence of increased hurrican activity. Do you also suggest the NOAA is also wrong? They show a straight line of sea level increasing, not sea levels increasing at an increasing rate due to runaway global warming. Your argument is with them, and their data, not me.
×
×
  • Create New...