self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival

by Guest Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:06 am

First topic message reminder :

Tonight we come together': Leonardo DiCaprio, George Clooney, and Cher lead star-studded telethon as Beyoncé offers message of unity and hope during hurricane relief special

Tuesday night's Hand in Hand: A Benefit for Hurricane Harvey Relief telethon brought together stars from around the world in a bid to raise millions of dollars for those affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

The hour-long special included performances and messages from A-list celebrities including: Beyoncé, Justin Bieber, George Clooney, Cher, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx, all asking viewers to donate to help with relief from the disastrous storms that hit the southern US.

Although the telethon was first announced amid the devastation from Harvey, it was expanded to raise money for victims of Irma, which struck parts of Florida. Estimates from various groups have said that both hurricanes caused between $150 billion and $290 billion in damage to Texas and Florida.

More than 60 people died during Harvey and 12 deaths have been reported in the US from Irma.

In the first hour of the special, generous viewers opened their wallets and raised more than $14million for victims of the storms, according to Billy Crystal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4878622/Stevie-Wonder-opens-star-studded-Hand-Hand-telethon.html

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:20 am

Tommy Monk is no longer the leading science dunce on NewsFix...

That crown has been firmly grasped by SmellyBum this week..

Tommy may have failed Science in Year 7; it seems that Smelly's school didn't even teach the sciences. jocolor

by Guest Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:32 am

Original Quill wrote:
SB wrote:You say hurricanes are a result of natural forces in the atmosphere

He says they are the result of man made pollution

No, vic and I are saying the same thing. It's not about absolutes. Understand the dynamics, and stop playing games with words.

There have always been storms that form off of Cape Verde, Africa. Do they traverse all the way to the Americas, and do they strengthen into a category 5 storm? Increasing numbers of them do, and it is because of alterations in the ozone layer. Many more become hurricanes because of climate change.

As I said, a rise in ocean temperature strengthens the storm, elevating the intensity. Ocean temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean, and in particular over the Gulf Stream, are rising because of man-made climate change. It is the numbers of hurricanes, and increased intensity, that have increased.

what you say only makes sense if there has never been a cat 5 hurricane before

if there has, then its a NATURALLY occurring weather event.

secondly, by saying man is increasing the severity and frequency of such events with farting or heavy breathing during exercise, or whatever other nonsense you decide to blame climate warming on this week, then you are saying that man has the power to influence and control weather.

bollox, man can do nothing to influence the weather

its all about big business making loads of money, al gore the climate change high priest has a beach front property which he no doubt bought from the money he made in his long-con, thats how much he worries about rising sea levels, none of these multi millionaire climate change zealots practice what they preach, i don't see climate change cardinal dicaprio slumming it in economy class as he flies around the world to collect his eco warrior awards.

all you eco fanatics would the first to riot if your cars were taken away from you and the power plants shut down and your little iphones ran out of juice,you would be enraged about not being able to come on here and whine about how awful man made climate change is.

and the tragic fact is that nothing would change if you lunatics got your way, there would still be hurricanes and tsunamis and earth quakes, the only difference is society would be technologically devolved about 1000 years we would all be living in caves freezing to death and eating grass.

by 'Wolfie Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:58 pm

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 3408175593

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 1132368643

SlimyBumBandit is determined to prove himself a lying and uneducated piece of corporatist crap...

Those businesses making money from human-accelerated climate change are those involved in causing it -- oil, gas and coal mining companies, coal-fired power stations, broadacre wheat and cotton growers, large agribusiness concerns..

The sad fact that his Smellyness is forever championing big business, corrupt businessmen, crooked politicians, tax evaders and polluting industries -- that more about SmellyBum as a person, than these actual topics that he keeps on trolling.. self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 474684931

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 474684931

by Guest Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:27 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

SlimyBumBandit is determined to prove himself a lying and uneducated piece of corporatist crap...

Those businesses making money from human-accelerated climate change are those involved in causing it -- oil, gas and coal mining companies, coal-fired power stations, broadacre wheat and cotton growers, large agribusiness concerns..

The sad fact that his Smellyness is forever championing big business, corrupt businessmen, crooked politicians, tax evaders and polluting industries -- that more about SmellyBum as a person, than these actual topics that he keeps on trolling..

Human accelerated climate change

*Chortle*

Such hysteria

by Original Quill Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:30 pm

SB wrote:what you say only makes sense if there has never been a cat 5 hurricane before

if there has, then its a NATURALLY occurring weather event.

There you go again with the absolute categories. Like, they have to be saying something categorically distinct between them. In fact, the world doesn't come in categorical form; it comes in analogue, or incremental form. Nature doesn't judge storms; only man imposes gradients for his purposes.

That said, in fact experts are saying that Irma did pose a categorically new level: a category 6. The National Weather Service says that the winds of Irma so surpassed the limits of category 5, that a new category made more sense than continuing to maintain it as a category 5. Only...there is no next category. One has to be invented.

So you are wrong by either standard.

by Guest Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
SB wrote:what you say only makes sense if there has never been a cat 5 hurricane before

if there has, then its a NATURALLY occurring weather event.

There you go again with the absolute categories. Like, they have to be saying something categorically distinct between them. In fact, the world doesn't come in categorical form; it comes in analogue, or incremental form. Nature doesn't judge storms; only man imposes gradients for his purposes.

That said, in fact experts are saying that Irma did pose a categorically new level: a category 6. The National Weather Service says that the winds of Irma so surpassed the limits of category 5, that a new category made more sense than continuing to maintain it as a category 5. Only...there is no next category. One has to be invented.

So you are wrong by either standard.

"Nature doesn't judge storms; only man imposes gradients for his purposes"

"Only...there is no next category. One has to be invented"

errrrrrrrrrrrrr??????? what??

by Guest Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:10 pm

Climate Myth...
Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
"The 30 major droughts of the 20th century were likely natural in all respects; and, hence, they are "indicative of what could also happen in the future," as Narisma et al. state in their concluding paragraph. And happen they will. Consequently, the next time a serious drought takes hold of some part of the world and the likes of Al Gore blame it on the "carbon footprints" of you and your family, ask them why just the opposite of what their hypothesis suggests actually occurred over the course of the 20th century, i.e., why, when the earth warmed - and at a rate and to a degree that they claim was unprecedented overthousands of years - the rate-of-occurrence of severe regional droughts actually declined." (source: CO2 Science)

Whenever there is an extreme weather event, such as a flood or drought, people ask whether that event was caused by global warming. Unfortunately, there is no straightforward answer to this question. Weather is highly variable and extreme weather events have always happened. Detecting trends takes time, particularly when observational records are rare or even missing in certain regions. An increase in extreme weather is expected with global warming because rising temperatures affect weather parameters in several ways. Changes in the frequency of extreme events coinciding with global warming have already been observed, and there is increasing evidence that some of these changes are caused by the impacts of human activities on the climate.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming.htm

Climate Myth...
Humans are too insignificant to affect global climate
To suggest that humanity is capable of impacting and disturbing forces of such magnitude is reflective of a self-centred arrogance that is mind numbing. Humanity is a subset of Nature. Nature is not a subset of humanity. We have travelled full circle. We are back in the mindset that prevailed when Society’s leaders dictated what people in Copernicus’ days may or may not think. The Earth is once again flat. (source: Financial Sense University)

When we experience weather events like hurricanes and floods, it’s very easy for us to feel insignificant and powerless in the face of such massive natural forces. How can humans influence this? Well, yes, we can. Of course we can’t influence a single weather event, but we can and do have a long term influence on the climate that causes it. Since the industrial revolution, with ever-increasing supplies of fossil fuels, the activities of a dramatically expanding world population have made significant alterations to the make-up of our atmosphere.

In some cases human-caused change is direct and unambiguous. The harmful effect of the human release of CFCs on the ozone layer is well documented and not disputed. Down on the ground, draining of marshland and deforestation can produce a significant decrease in water vapour in the atmosphere downwind; while the introduction of irrigation for agriculture has the opposite effect. Over time, both of these human activities can alter patterns of rainfall, turning deserts into green areas and green areas into deserts. In other cases the human causes of climate change are more complex. Emissions from cement production, pollution and the release of particulates to form smog in the atmosphere, all affect climate.

Without doubt the most significant of all the human causes of changing climate is the dramatic increase in CO2. After remaining relatively steady for the last 650,000 years or more, in just the last two hundred years the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has suddenly shot up from 280, to more than 380 parts per million. And it’s still rising. This dramatic 30% increase has all taken place at the same time as humans have been burning fossil fuels at a greater and greater rate. Of course there are also natural sources of the CO2 in the atmosphere, such as vegetation, but fortunately there are differences that scientists can measure between the CO2 derived from fossil fuels and the CO2 derived from plants. The changing concentrations of the two types demonstrate that the additional CO2 can only be the result of human activity.

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 Evidence_CO2

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 Evidence_CO2

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm

Climate Myth...
The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming
"The magnitude of ignorance on display by people claiming Sandy is a sign of global warming is stunning!" (Joe Bastardi)

Hurricane Sandy was an unprecedented storm in modern times, arriving late in the hurricane season, making landfall abnormally far to the north on the US east coast, with an exceptionally low pressure, and a record-breaking storm surge. The hurricane also had among the most kinetic energy of all tropical cyclones on record at 222 trillion Joules (the equivalent of 3.5 Little Boy Hiroshima atomic bombs) - more energy than Category 5 hurricanes like Katrina despite Sandy just being Category 1, because Sandy was spread over a much larger area. Given the unprecedented nature of this event, many people are asking whether it was caused by or its impacts amplified by global warming, and many others are of course trying to deny any hurricane-climate links. There is actually a fairly simple answer to this question: human-caused climate change amplified the hurricane's impacts.

Higher Sea Levels Cause Bigger Storm Surges

One reason we can draw this conclusion is that as Michael Mann noted, sea levels around the New York area are now close to 1 foot higher than they were a century ago. For example, Figure 1 shows the annual mean sea level rise since 1900 for Battery Park, New York from tide gauge data.

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 NYSLR

Figure 1: Annual mean sea level rise in Battery Park, New York from Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) tide gauge data.

While Battery Park represents just one tide gauge, there are many other tide gauges in the region which tell a very similar story, as you can see at the PSMSL site. And of course we know that the global sea level rise (approximately 0.6 feet since 1900, on average) is predominantly caused by melting land ice and the thermal expansion of the oceans. As Church et al. (2011) found, approximately 40% of the average global sea level rise since 1972 is due to thermal expansion, and approximately 60% due to land ice melting (Figure 2), both of which in turn are predominantly driven by human-caused global warming.

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 Church11Fig2

Figure 2: The global sea level budget from 1961 to 2008. (a) The observed sea level using coastal and island tide gauges (solid black line with grey shading indicating the estimated uncertainty) and using TOPEX/Poseidon/Jason‐1&2 satellite altimeter data (dashed black line). The two estimates have been matched at the start of the altimeter record in 1993. Also shown are the various contributing components. (b) The observed sea level and the sum of components. The estimated uncertainties are indicated by the shading. The two time series are plotted such that they have the same average over 1972 to 2008. From Church et al. (2011).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricane-sandy-global-warming.htm

by Guest Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:44 pm

Oh look you have some pretty graph charts

*must be genuine then*

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:44 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

There you go again with the absolute categories. Like, they have to be saying something categorically distinct between them. In fact, the world doesn't come in categorical form; it comes in analogue, or incremental form. Nature doesn't judge storms; only man imposes gradients for his purposes.

That said, in fact experts are saying that Irma did pose a categorically new level: a category 6. The National Weather Service says that the winds of Irma so surpassed the limits of category 5, that a new category made more sense than continuing to maintain it as a category 5. Only...there is no next category. One has to be invented.

So you are wrong by either standard.

"Nature doesn't judge storms; only man imposes gradients for his purposes"

"Only...there is no next category. One has to be invented"

errrrrrrrrrrrrr??????? what??

Point is...climate change is affecting the weather for the worse.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:57 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane

And plenty of other powerful hurricanes have happened before too...

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:35 am

Tommy Monk wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane

And plenty of other powerful hurricanes have happened before too...

Not like Irma, tommy. It was the worse storm ever in recorded history, according to NOAA. It's wind velocities far exceeded 180 mph, and sustained for over 30-hours straight. It had a water surge that flooded from San Antonio to the coast...that would be over half of England. They said if the calibration didn't arbitrarily stop at category 5, it probably would have been a 6 or 7.

You can't get more proof than that.

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

"Nature doesn't judge storms; only man imposes gradients for his purposes"

"Only...there is no next category. One has to be invented"

errrrrrrrrrrrrr??????? what??

Point is...climate change is affecting the weather for the worse.

yeah i agree

there is climate change and its affecting the weather, what i don't agree with is that man is capable of influencing that change to any great degree.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:30 pm

Waffle quill...

by 'Wolfie Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:00 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Point is...climate change is affecting the weather for the worse.

yeah i agree

there is climate change and its affecting the weather, what i don't agree with is that man is capable of influencing that change to any great degree.

Stop being such a self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 3350646086

idiotic corporatist shill, Smelly...

Are you even aware that mankind has cleared more than 25% of the planet's forests over the last three centuries ???

Or how much pollution "industrialised" countries have pumped out in the last 200-or-so years..

by nicko Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:59 pm

I will sell my Range Rover, I promise.

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:15 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle quill...

So...that's a, I have no response. I already knew that. Wink

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:19 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Point is...climate change is affecting the weather for the worse.

yeah i agree

there is climate change and its affecting the weather, what i don't agree with is that man is capable of influencing that change to any great degree.

You can contest anything you want, smells. Hell, guys tell girls all the time: No honey, it won't get you pregnant.

The thing is, they're never around to answer for it when it happens. Laughing

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

yeah i agree

there is climate change and its affecting the weather, what i don't agree with is that man is capable of influencing that change to any great degree.

You can contest anything you want, smells. Hell, guys tell girls all the time: No honey, it won't get you pregnant.

The thing is, they're never around to answer for it when it happens.

that swings both ways.

you wont be around to answer to a society that has regressed a 1000 years because of the fanatical green lunacy you are preaching

by Original Quill Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:43 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You can contest anything you want, smells. Hell, guys tell girls all the time: No honey, it won't get you pregnant.

The thing is, they're never around to answer for it when it happens.

that swings both ways.

you wont be around to answer to a society that has regressed a 1000 years because of the fanatical green lunacy you are preaching

So, what's our take-home lesson? It is: Better to be safe than sorry. Heed the word of the scientists who are knowledgeable about the subject.

It's a classic case put before a judge on a petition for temporary restraining order. Will the party (in this case, the world) suffer irreversible damage if the order is not imposed? Clearly, if the scientists advocating climate change are right, the answer is 'yes'.

Case closed.

by Guest Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

that swings both ways.

you wont be around to answer to a society that has regressed a 1000 years because of the fanatical green lunacy you are preaching

So, what's our take-home lesson? It is: Better to be safe than sorry. Heed the word of the scientists who are knowledgeable about the subject.

It's a classic case put before a judge on a petition for temporary restraining order. Will the party (in this case, the world) suffer irreversible damage if the order is not imposed? Clearly, if the scientists advocating climate change are right, the answer is 'yes'.

Case closed.

I had the talk with wolfie, scientists will lie if paid enough money to do so.

They will tell you the earth is flat if you pay them enough.

no Quill the issue of climate change is ongoing which means there is no definite proof either way, in a court of law this would be considered reasonable doubt and the case would be thrown out

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:41 am

It's not a 'no answer' from me... I saw a weather expert on news here saying that Irma was cat 5, and that although the spread/size of Irma and the eye was larger than most other cat 5 hurricanes, the wind speeds were not much different to others... he was saying that the max wind speeds seemed to only be able to reach a certain max level, but couldn't get beyond this max wind speed level, somehow limited by natural forces to this top end wind speed level, regardless of size being larger etc...

So basically, bigger size hurricane, but still cat 5 wind speeds...!

by Ben Reilly Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:02 am

Irma was a monster, Harvey was a monster and Maria has just knocked out power to Puerto Rico, likely for months. I can't remember a worse hurricane season for the U.S., and that's including Katrina.

And just because I can't resist ...

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 Obama-Katrina-tweets_compilation

self serving celebrities come together in a preening festival - Page 3 Obama-Katrina-tweets_compilation

For the conservatives among us -- Obama wasn't president when Katrina hit, but he actually did go down and help, as he was a Senator at the time.

by Ben Reilly Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:06 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

that swings both ways.

you wont be around to answer to a society that has regressed a 1000 years because of the fanatical green lunacy you are preaching

So, what's our take-home lesson? It is: Better to be safe than sorry. Heed the word of the scientists who are knowledgeable about the subject.

It's a classic case put before a judge on a petition for temporary restraining order. Will the party (in this case, the world) suffer irreversible damage if the order is not imposed? Clearly, if the scientists advocating climate change are right, the answer is 'yes'.

Case closed.

I had the talk with wolfie, scientists will lie if paid enough money to do so.

They will tell you the earth is flat if you pay them enough.

no Quill the issue of climate change is ongoing which means there is no definite proof either way, in a court of law this would be considered reasonable doubt and the case would be thrown out

Actually, some very smart people (aka not yourself) are saying now that we're about to see Big Oil sued over climate change ala Big Tobacco getting sued over lung cancer Smile

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinions/climate-justice-is-coming-sachs/index.html

But you're used to being on the wrong side of history by now, right dude? Just roll with the punches.

by veya_victaous Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:10 am

^^^

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:56 am

In 2011, Hurricane Irene’s winds ramped up to 120 mph (193 kph), but the storm weakened before coming ashore in North Carolina. Still, it was the seventh-most expensive hurricane in U.S. history, causing $16.5 billion in damages from North Carolina to Canada.

Hurricane Sandy morphed into “Frankenstorm” as it thundered up the East Coast a few days before Halloween 2012. Sandy devastated the Jersey Shore, knocked out power for millions, flooded New York City subways, and inflicted $65 billion in damage—second only to Katrina. Sandy would’ve been far worse had it not weakened before hitting New Jersey.

And if you read the list of hurricanes here... you will see that there has been plenty of years with many more hurricanes...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_hurricanes

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:59 am

Ben Reilly wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I had the talk with wolfie, scientists will lie if paid enough money to do so.

They will tell you the earth is flat if you pay them enough.

no Quill the issue of climate change is ongoing which means there is no definite proof either way, in a court of law this would be considered reasonable doubt and the case would be thrown out

Actually, some very smart people (aka not yourself) are saying now that we're about to see Big Oil sued over climate change ala Big Tobacco getting sued over lung cancer

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/opinions/climate-justice-is-coming-sachs/index.html

But you're used to being on the wrong side of history by now, right dude? Just roll with the punches.

any chance you gonna throw some punches for me to roll with??

it doesn't matter what some fully paid up puppet says its not going to happen, people will say anything you tell them too for money. look at brexit in the UK how many "experts" lined up to warning about the dangers of brexit?? none of those warnings or predictions have materialized and these were some "very smart people" all of whom have vested interests in the EU.

if big oil gets sued it will be because of something they have done, ie an oil spill or some other irresponsible practice or breach of law. suing them for "climate change" which is in dispute, is going to fall flat on its face.

by 'Wolfie Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:05 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

SlimyBumBandit is determined to prove himself a lying and uneducated piece of corporatist crap...

Those businesses making money from human-accelerated climate change are those involved in causing it -- oil, gas and coal mining companies, coal-fired power stations, broadacre wheat and cotton growers, large agribusiness concerns..

The sad fact that his Smellyness is forever championing big business, corrupt businessmen, crooked politicians, tax evaders and polluting industries -- that more about SmellyBum as a person, than these actual topics that he keeps on trolling..

Human accelerated climate change

*Chortle*

Such hysteria

Nothing hysterical about it, Herr SmellyBumBrain...

Just more proof that you know less-than-zero about climatology, the weather, and the difference..

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:17 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Human accelerated climate change

*Chortle*

Such hysteria

Nothing hysterical about it, Herr SmellyBumBrain...

Just more proof that you know less-than-zero about climatology, the weather, and the difference..

climate change fanatic destroyed

lol

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:33 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So, what's our take-home lesson? It is: Better to be safe than sorry. Heed the word of the scientists who are knowledgeable about the subject.

It's a classic case put before a judge on a petition for temporary restraining order. Will the party (in this case, the world) suffer irreversible damage if the order is not imposed? Clearly, if the scientists advocating climate change are right, the answer is 'yes'.

Case closed.

I had the talk with wolfie, scientists will lie if paid enough money to do so.

They will tell you the earth is flat if you pay them enough.

no Quill the issue of climate change is ongoing which means there is no definite proof either way, in a court of law this would be considered reasonable doubt and the case would be thrown out

So, if it's undecided in your mind, best to change our ways. The only answer.

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not a 'no answer' from me... I saw a weather expert on news here saying that Irma was cat 5, and that although the spread/size of Irma and the eye was larger than most other cat 5 hurricanes, the wind speeds were not much different to others... he was saying that the max wind speeds seemed to only be able to reach a certain max level, but couldn't get beyond this max wind speed level, somehow limited by natural forces to this top end wind speed level, regardless of size being larger etc...

So basically, bigger size hurricane, but still cat 5 wind speeds...!

Number 1, he was no expert...he was a common stiff hired to be a TV mouthpiece.

Number 2, the wind speeds were not just at 180 mph, but sustained at that level for over 30-hours. Remember, the test is not just wind speed, but the duration at that wind speed.

I'm afraid you got some faulty information. They probably just watched a US Weather Service broadcast and misunderstood what was being said. But, what do Brits have to know about Hurricanes, anyway? I don't believe y'all have ever experienced one, have you?

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

I had the talk with wolfie, scientists will lie if paid enough money to do so.

They will tell you the earth is flat if you pay them enough.

no Quill the issue of climate change is ongoing which means there is no definite proof either way, in a court of law this would be considered reasonable doubt and the case would be thrown out

So, if it's undecided in your mind, best to change our ways. The only answer.

hardly the only answer.

if im at the edge of a cliff and want to jump into the water below but am undecided about how deep the water is, i don't decided the matter by diving in head first.

you might prefer that approach but cooler heads will hopefully prevail

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:12 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So, if it's undecided in your mind, best to change our ways. The only answer.

hardly the only answer.

if im at the edge of a cliff and want to jump into the water below but am undecided about how deep the water is, i don't decided the matter by diving in head first.

you might prefer that approach but cooler heads will hopefully prevail

No, but you would determine which alternative causes you to change your position irreversibly, and then you avoid that alternative. That's why it's called a restraining order...you are trying to prevent (restrain) something. Jumping off your hypothetical cliff would be irreversible, so you restrain that option. You hold the status quo until a definitive answer can be had.

With climate change the question is, does use of fossil fuels cause climate change? If your claim even contemplates irreversible changes in the weather due to use of fossil fuels, you would impose a TRO on the use of fossil fuels. You hold the status quo until a definitive answer can be had.

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:43 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

hardly the only answer.

if im at the edge of a cliff and want to jump into the water below but am undecided about how deep the water is, i don't decided the matter by diving in head first.

you might prefer that approach but cooler heads will hopefully prevail

No, but you would determine which alternative causes you to change your position irreversibly, and then you avoid that alternative. That's why it's called a restraining order...you are trying to prevent (restrain) something. Jumping off your hypothetical cliff would be irreversible, so you restrain that option. You hold the status quo until a definitive answer can be had.

With climate change the question is, does use of fossil fuels cause climate change? If your claim even contemplates irreversible changes in the weather due to use of fossil fuels, you would impose a TRO on the use of fossil fuels. You hold the status quo until a definitive answer can be had.

"With climate change the question is, does use of fossil fuels cause climate change?"

i thought you said the question was already decided and fossil fuels are responsible and that changing our ways was the only answer?

anyway, you are talking about an irreversible course of action, there is no such thing as temporary in this world anymore, mostly because we have all lost our fucking minds, and money talks, the second a TRO (temporary restraining order???) is imposed it will be permanent. every issue facing the world today is massive and balanced on knife edge. there is no longer such a thing as incremental, its all or nothing.

the climate change fanatics will immediately declare that "its working" (even if its not), governments will move to permanently remove fossil fuels faster than they will be implementing alternatives, the shift away from fossil fuels would happy so quickly economies will crash overnight because lets be honest, when was the last time a government approaching anything like competence was in power in the UK or the US??

meanwhile cat 5 hurricanes would rage in the skies while wars rage on the ground

mankind and all our societies are addicted to fossil fuels, you wouldn't be saving the world you would be destroying it.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:It's not a 'no answer' from me... I saw a weather expert on news here saying that Irma was cat 5, and that although the spread/size of Irma and the eye was larger than most other cat 5 hurricanes, the wind speeds were not much different to others... he was saying that the max wind speeds seemed to only be able to reach a certain max level, but couldn't get beyond this max wind speed level, somehow limited by natural forces to this top end wind speed level, regardless of size being larger etc...

So basically, bigger size hurricane, but still cat 5 wind speeds...!

Number 1, he was no expert...he was a common stiff hired to be a TV mouthpiece.

Number 2, the wind speeds were not just at 180 mph, but sustained at that level for over 30-hours. Remember, the test is not just wind speed, but the duration at that wind speed.

I'm afraid you got some faulty information. They probably just watched a US Weather Service broadcast and misunderstood what was being said. But, what do Brits have to know about Hurricanes, anyway? I don't believe y'all have ever experienced one, have you?

A meteorologist is a weather expert...

And maybe it is just you and your news media that talk shit...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/strongest-atlantic-hurricanes-wind-speed-allen-irma-wilma-2017-9

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:00 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Number 1, he was no expert...he was a common stiff hired to be a TV mouthpiece.

Number 2, the wind speeds were not just at 180 mph, but sustained at that level for over 30-hours. Remember, the test is not just wind speed, but the duration at that wind speed.

I'm afraid you got some faulty information. They probably just watched a US Weather Service broadcast and misunderstood what was being said. But, what do Brits have to know about Hurricanes, anyway? I don't believe y'all have ever experienced one, have you?

A meteorologist is a weather expert...

And maybe it is just you and your news media that talk shit...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/strongest-atlantic-hurricanes-wind-speed-allen-irma-wilma-2017-9

It's just another talking head, tommy. It's in a periodical aimed at a business audience, not relevant and concerned individuals regarding a hurricane. No wonder he knows nothing about hurricanes.

The article does not make fine points, important to those in America who have to live through them. It barely touches on the calibration of storms, mentioning in passing, wind speed and volume of water. But calibrations are more complex than that. The category is not classified merely on wind speed, but on the length of time that the wind speed maintains.

The reason why the National Weather Service said that Irma exceeded a category 5 storm, was that it had sustained winds of 180-mph or more, for over 30-hours straight. This is technical information that you wouldn't get in a business journal, least of all in England.

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:07 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Number 1, he was no expert...he was a common stiff hired to be a TV mouthpiece.

Number 2, the wind speeds were not just at 180 mph, but sustained at that level for over 30-hours. Remember, the test is not just wind speed, but the duration at that wind speed.

I'm afraid you got some faulty information. They probably just watched a US Weather Service broadcast and misunderstood what was being said. But, what do Brits have to know about Hurricanes, anyway? I don't believe y'all have ever experienced one, have you?

A meteorologist is a weather expert...

And maybe it is just you and your news media that talk shit...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/strongest-atlantic-hurricanes-wind-speed-allen-irma-wilma-2017-9

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

A meteorologist is a weather expert...

And maybe it is just you and your news media that talk shit...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/strongest-atlantic-hurricanes-wind-speed-allen-irma-wilma-2017-9

It's just another talking head, tommy. No wonder he knows nothing about hurricanes.

Read the list of other cat 5 hurricanes and you will see that Irma was well within the expected wind speed range...

So it looks like the talking head that you heard going on about there needing to be new cat 6/7 ratings for Irma was not an expert and was talking shit...!!!

Laughing

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's just another talking head, tommy. No wonder he knows nothing about hurricanes.

Read the list of other cat 5 hurricanes and you will see that Irma was well within the expected wind speed range...

So it looks like the talking head that you heard going on about there needing to be new cat 6/7 ratings for Irma was not an expert and was talking shit...!!!

To what end, tommy? The article doesn't even list the correct elements to classify a storm. It's just an amateur piece, designed for those who will never experience a real hurricane.

It's minor league stuff.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:42 pm

It shows a list of cat 5 hurricanes and their wind speeds...

Irma fits in with the speeds shown for the other cat 5 hurricanes... so nothing new...!!!

And no need to make any new categories...!!!

So stop the waffle!!!

Laughing

by Guest Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:18 pm

by Original Quill Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

It shows a list of cat 5 hurricanes and their wind speeds...

Irma fits in with the speeds shown for the other cat 5 hurricanes... so nothing new...!!!

And no need to make any new categories...!!!

So stop the waffle!!!

Irma was a Cat-5 because there are no higher categories. The National Weather Service said that had there been a Category 6 or 7, Irma would have achieved those levels. Irma's wind speeds/duration, and water volume made it the strongest hurricane ever.

by Tommy Monk Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:40 pm

No...the wind speeds were the same/similar to many other cat 5 hurricanes that have happened before... as shown in the list on the link I posted...!!!

by Original Quill Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:13 am

Tommy Monk wrote:No...the wind speeds were the same/similar to many other cat 5 hurricanes that have happened before... as shown in the list on the link I posted...!!!

Haha...you don't even remember. What was the duration? Your article forgot to mention that.

Tommy, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. The wind (180-mph) speeds lasted over 30-hours, making it a category 6 or 7.

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:12 am

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

It shows a list of cat 5 hurricanes and their wind speeds...

Irma fits in with the speeds shown for the other cat 5 hurricanes... so nothing new...!!!

And no need to make any new categories...!!!

So stop the waffle!!!

Irma was a Cat-5 because there are no higher categories. The National Weather Service said that had there been a Category 6 or 7, Irma would have achieved those levels. Irma's wind speeds/duration, and water volume made it the strongest hurricane ever.

im pretty sure if a man made system of measuring hurricane strength can have 5 levels , it can have 6 or 7, numbers dont run out after 5

by Original Quill Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:05 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Irma was a Cat-5 because there are no higher categories. The National Weather Service said that had there been a Category 6 or 7, Irma would have achieved those levels. Irma's wind speeds/duration, and water volume made it the strongest hurricane ever.

im pretty sure if a man made system of measuring hurricane strength can have 5 levels , it can have 6 or 7, numbers dont run out after 5

Yes. I think that was the point of the National Weather Service, when it made that analogy. We have had no call to use higher categories, ever before in recorded history...so we didn't think about it.

Now, after the revelation that Irma went way higher, we've got to rethink the scale and perhaps add some calibrations.

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

im pretty sure if a man made system of measuring hurricane strength can have 5 levels , it can have 6 or 7, numbers dont run out after 5

Yes. I think that was the point of the National Weather Service, when it made that analogy. We have had no call to use higher categories, ever before in recorded history...so we didn't think about it.

Now, after the revelation that Irma went way higher, we've got to rethink the scale and perhaps add some calibrations.

yeah i think we need to rethink our understanding of what makes nature tick

lets start with ditching the global warming myth

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:02 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes. I think that was the point of the National Weather Service, when it made that analogy. We have had no call to use higher categories, ever before in recorded history...so we didn't think about it.

Now, after the revelation that Irma went way higher, we've got to rethink the scale and perhaps add some calibrations.

yeah i think we need to rethink our understanding of what makes nature tick

lets start with ditching the global warming myth

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

How about you start by actually understanding what you are saying smelly?

by Original Quill Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:27 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes. I think that was the point of the National Weather Service, when it made that analogy. We have had no call to use higher categories, ever before in recorded history...so we didn't think about it.

Now, after the revelation that Irma went way higher, we've got to rethink the scale and perhaps add some calibrations.

yeah i think we need to rethink our understanding of what makes nature tick

lets start with ditching the global warming myth

What do you replace it with, to explain these extraordinary anomalies?

by Guest Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

yeah i think we need to rethink our understanding of what makes nature tick

lets start with ditching the global warming myth

What do you replace it with, to explain these extraordinary anomalies?

an anomaly is something which is a complete break from the norm, its something that just doesn't usually happen

a hurricane is not an anomaly, its a common occurrence,

a cat 100 hurricane, now that's an anomaly.

think about this for a minute

if the system for measuring hurricanes had 10 categories instead of just an arbitrary 5 , would irma have been been anything special???

it would certainly make your argument against climate change that much harder to defend.

secondly, what happens when the next hurricane that comes along is a mere category 3?? climate change is supposed to be making the weather worse, so in theory moving forward, we should only ever experience category 5 and above hurricanes

right???

its not an anomaly, its just a slightly stronger storm than last time.

by Original Quill Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:14 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What do you replace it with, to explain these extraordinary anomalies?

an anomaly is something which is a complete break from the norm, its something that just doesn't usually happen

a hurricane is not an anomaly, its a common occurrence,

That's like saying life has always been here, so anything that happens in life is nothing new.

You've seized the wrong gestalt. It's not hurricanes, nor heatwaves, nor sharks appearing in northern climes, that are the ultimate anomaly. It's the weather that accounts for all of these irregularities.

SB wrote:a cat 100 hurricane, now that's an anomaly.

think about this for a minute

if the system for measuring hurricanes had 10 categories instead of just an arbitrary 5 , would irma have been been anything special???

it would certainly make your argument against climate change that much harder to defend.

Any change is an anomaly. Our argument isn't with the scale we have invented to measure or calibrate. Our subject matter is reality. Just because Nature doesn't calibrate her changes for us, doesn't mean that there is not an observable phenomenon in the change itself.

The calibration is only a way of speaking about the change. To say the weather has "gone off the charts..." is just same thing. We are not talking about the charts, but the weather. Science has linked these changes in the weather to climate change. All I think anyone is saying is, you don't need microscopes or special tools to make this argument; the average person can now see for himself in the changes in hurricanes, or temperatures, or sharks swimming now much further north.

SB wrote:secondly, what happens when the next hurricane that comes along is a mere category 3?? climate change is supposed to be making the weather worse, so in theory moving forward, we should only ever experience category 5 and above hurricanes

right???

its not an anomaly, its just a slightly stronger storm than last time.

But on average, the trend in storms is spiraling upwards, toward stronger, more damaging levels. In that pattern, over time, we can observe a measurable change. That change is the anomaly.

by Sponsored content