The Environment Thread

[pigseye]

3 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

What is the definition of fact and that of theory?

Please answer my question first, are you a science denier, do you disagree with the scientific method.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

I know the difference between fact and theory, do you? 

I asked you for a definition- you haven't given one.

20 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Please answer my question first, are you a science denier, do you disagree with the scientific method.

Science denier? no, not at all. 

 

I agree with the scientific method.... 

 

 

 

[pigseye]

24 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I asked you for a definition- you haven't given one.

Science denier? no, not at all. 

 

I agree with the scientific method.... 

 

 

 

Thank you, the answers are right in the definition of the scientific method I gave you, empirical evidence being the facts (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) and hypothesis or theory, both have links so I won't repeat them. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

13 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Thank you, the answers are right in the definition of the scientific method I gave you, empirical evidence being the facts (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) and hypothesis or theory, both have links so I won't repeat them. 

I checked out the links- I would suggest you do a thorough read through of the links you provided as, you still don't seem to understand those principles based on you original hurricane comment.

[pigseye]

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I checked out the links- I would suggest you do a thorough read through of the links you provided as, you still don't seem to understand those principles based on you original hurricane comment.

If you can't refute the empirical evidence then you are wasting your time, case closed. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

If you can't refute the empirical evidence then you are wasting your time, case closed. 

What empirical evidence?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, pigseye said:

What is insane, the only thing unprecedented is the long 12-year period from 2005 to 2017 which saw not a single major hurricane hitting the US. This is probably the most devastating and frustrating fact for the global warming ambulance chasers. That’s a glaring statistic that’s impossible to alter. The frequency and intensity of major landfall hurricanes hitting the eastern seaboard is declining, end of story. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1

The real data isn't supporting the model projections at this time, so quit making **** up. 

Where in that paper does it draw this conclusion? I may have missed it, could you point it out to me please.

[Mark F]

 Pig last citation american meterological society thinks it show no warming. 

here's what that organisation says about climate change, recently.

Quote

 

Nearly all AMS members (96%) think climate change -as defined by AMS-is happening with almost 89% stating that they are either "extremely" or "very sure" it is happening. Only 1% think climate change is not happening. 

A large majority of AMS members indicated that human activity is causing at least a portion of  the changes in the climate over the past 50 years (see summary for details)....Conversely, 5% think the climate is caused largely or entirely by natural events, 6% say they don't know....

Nearly one in five AMS members say their opinion of climate change has changed in the past 5 years. Of those, the large majority (87%) say the feel more convinced climate change is happening (The report suggests that new science literature, personal observations, or climate scientist expertise has changed their views)

 

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Mark F

[Mark F]

3 hours ago, pigseye said:

Again, model projections and actual data are not the same thing. Right now, the actual data isn't supporting the model projections and until it does, what you are claiming is just hot air so stop it. 

spare us your fake science, and obnoxious instructions. thanks.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Think I will start a new thread, about this, and hopefully this pig person will kindly refrain from posting about this.

Thanks.

I think that is a great idea.

[Mark F]

19 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I think that is a great idea.

Quote

 

In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels).

Later that decade, in 1988, an internal report by Shell projected similar effects but also found that CO2 could double even earlier, by 2030. Privately, these companies did not dispute the links between their products, global warming, and ecological calamity. On the contrary, their research confirmed the connections.

Shell’s assessment foresaw a one-meter sea-level rise, and noted that warming could also fuel disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, resulting in a worldwide rise in sea level of “five to six meters.” That would be enough to inundate entire low-lying countries.

Shell’s analysts also warned of the “disappearance of specific ecosystems or habitat destruction,” predicted an increase in “runoff, destructive floods, and inundation of low-lying farmland,” and said that “new sources of freshwater would be required” to compensate for changes in precipitation. Global changes in air temperature would also “drastically change the way people live and work.” All told, Shell concluded, “the changes may be the greatest in recorded history.”

For its part, Exxon warned of “potentially catastrophic events that must be considered.”

 All told, Shell concluded, “the changes may be the greatest in recorded history.

These internal assesments are available, having been disclosed online, and in courtroom proceedings in the USA. Their authenticity is not in doubt.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Mark F

[pigseye]

You are accusing NOAA of deliberating publishing false data?

You have gone off the deep end and become what you despise most, science deniers. And nobody is suggesting the warming hasn't occurred, only that there is so far no correlation between the warming and the frequency and intensity of hurricanes making landfall in the US. This is contrary to the model projections, which you still don't seem to realize are just that, projections only.

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

54 minutes ago, pigseye said:

You are accusing NOAA of deliberating publishing false data?

You have gone off the deep end and become what you despise most, science deniers. And nobody is suggesting the warming hasn't occurred, only that there is so far no correlation between the warming and the frequency and intensity of hurricanes making landfall in the US. This is contrary to the model projections, which you still don't seem to realize are just that, projections only.

 

You obnoxiously demand answers to you questions (which are provided),  yet you refuse to answer questions asked of you. Not the way to have a civil discourse. 

 

You cling to %1 of data that taken out of context "supports" your "argument" and Ignore the 99% of the data that is inconvenient to your "argument" and then insult people who don't accept your flat-earth rationale.... ridiculous. 

Until you come to the table with a basic understanding of science, your arguments should be treated as those of a flat-earther.

 

 

[Mark F]

27 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

You obnoxiously demand answers to you questions (which are provided),  yet you refuse to answer questions asked of you. Not the way to have a civil discourse. 

 

You cling to %1 of data that taken out of context "supports" your "argument" and Ignore the 99% of the data that is inconvenient to your "argument" and then insult people who don't accept your flat-earth rationale.... ridiculous. 

Until you come to the table with a basic understanding of science, your arguments should be treated as those of a flat-earther.

 

 

Thanks.

This is precisely what he does. With  a frequent spicing of insults.

This is clearly intentional. Who knows what the goal is. 

There's a name for it "Gish Gallop"

Quote

 

Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter.

There may also be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments present in the Gallop, which are — like the Gish Gallop itself — specifically designed to be brief to pose, yet take a long time to unravel and refute.

 

As they used to say "bullshit baffles brains"

sometime next few days, I'll post a new thread and with any luck this Pigeye will do us a favour and keep away from it. 

Too much time wasted on his dog's breakfast endlessly looping looking glass arguments.

Edited September 19, 2018 by Mark F

[pigseye]

Put your big boy pants on you two, you're making me weepy. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 hours ago, pigseye said:

Put your big boy pants on you two, you're making me weepy. 

Whuk? You are feeling weepy because we aren't wearing pants?

 

Damn, your ignorance for all things scientific seems to be systemic- even your insults don't make sense.

 

[Mark F]

Quote

 

China is stepping up its push into renewable energy, proposing higher green power consumption targets and penalizing those who fail to meet those goals to help fund government subsidies to producers.

The world’s biggest energy consumer is aiming for renewables to account for at least 35 percent of electricity consumption by 2030, according to a revised draft plan from the National Development & Reform Commission seen by Bloomberg. Previously, the government has only set a goal for “non-fossil fuels” to make up 20 percent of energy use by 2030.

 

Bloomberg

[Mark F]

comment about working as a wind turbine repair technicican

 

Quote

"Im currently a wind tech, every company is different but most will pay you per diem, cover rental or give you company truck, they'll cover the hotel or per diem will, they are required to give you clothes most sites FRC is required, get boots with a rubber toe otherwise you'll rub the leather off to the steel and then they won't be E rated anymore. Other than that you'll find out everything you need to know when you start most people in wind are real cool. You made a good choice, to me I don't think there's a better job out there

 

 

[pigseye]

Well this is going to create a few red faces at the IPCC

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/08/reliable-cru-nasa-best-noaa-land-temp-data-conflict-by-up-to-90-0-8c-spawning-large-uncertainty/

And for those of you not familiar with the AGU, I suggest you look them up before you say they are oil company shills. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

6 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Well this is going to create a few red faces at the IPCC

http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/08/reliable-cru-nasa-best-noaa-land-temp-data-conflict-by-up-to-90-0-8c-spawning-large-uncertainty/

And for those of you not familiar with the AGU, I suggest you look them up before you say they are oil company shills. 

[pigseye]

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Why be a science denier? Because it doesn't fit your narrative any longer? 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

11 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Why be a science denier? Because it doesn't fit your narrative any longer? 

no, it's because your failing to accept climate change caused by humans is akin to flatearthing. the fact you continually use that terrible notrickszone as your source of misinformation... tells me that you are not interested in facts. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by wanna-b-fanboy

[pigseye]

2 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

no, it's because your failing to accept climate change caused by humans is akin to flatearthing. the fact you continually use that terrible notrickszone as your source of misinformation... tells me that you are not interested in facts. 

The source is the study from the AGU, you just refuse science period unless it's part of your pre-determined narrative, and that study btw is good news for the planet as the warming may not be as bad as they thought. Why would you be against good news for the planet? Are you some sort of anarchist? 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, pigseye said:

The source is the study from the AGU, you just refuse science period unless it's part of your pre-determined narrative, and that study btw is good news for the planet as the warming may not be as bad as they thought. Why would you be against good news for the planet? Are you some sort of anarchist? 

Sorry dude, you ain't taking me down that rabbit hole with you. do yourself a favour and google cherry-picking data. 

here, this will help you out:

Edited October 10, 2018 by wanna-b-fanboy

[pigseye]

12 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Sorry dude, you ain't taking me down that rabbit hole with you. do yourself a favour and google cherry-picking data. 

here, this will help you out:

So, first you didn't believe NOAA, now you don't believe the American Geophysical Union, who's the flat-earther again? 

How can anyone take you seriously.