Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

Brilliant isnt it, maybe sisu knows why Pielke didn't go back to 1980 as the original financial data did.

 

He won't have even read it properly, just assumed it was fact as it looked like it backed his #science based conclusions

 

He must have gone to do his chores and stick the tea on before his lass gets home

 

Explain how this makes the data from the UN he used to show loss trends untrue.

More ******ism, when you dont know what you are talking about, just copy and paste some link with no credability, like say pro CAGW orgs.

So you are not going to attack the data no? Did you note the sources of his data ******? The UN for a start.



#fail

 

Ye always seem to know why I cant sit at a computer all day, like ye.

I have a life Tobes. It needs tending to once in a while. You just have yourself, and your internet to worry about.

 

Don't burn her tea lad, there'll be hell on.

Any chance of answering the question I posed to you 4 times btw?

 

Are you really that thick or are you just putting a brave face on the graph that you gave credibility to being destroyed with basic logic?

He states the percentage of GDP that the damage caused has reeked has diminished, whilst failing to acknowledge that the GDP has increased nearly 3 fold in the time frame chosen, therefore the actual cost of the damage has doubled

It's therefore both a meaningless graph and totally disingenuous

 

0.3 is less than 0.2?

You make a copy paste you dont understand, with figures from the first two links that your search provided, I searched your quote edited to seem your own as if you "know".

% of GDP means loss of total.
What you want to believe is "total losses in $$"

Thing is ******, there is a lot more to get damaged in 2015 compared to 1990, development and economic boom and more and more people living in extreme weather areas, means more damage.

So to correctly judge what is the loss per growth, 0.2 is less than 0.3 and given we are told extreme weather is "increasing" and there are more people living in exposed areas and more businesses ect.. % of GDP losses should be more than 1990.

But you have gone with the lie, $$ amount lost, and excluding the real world growth, as in the physical, and only selecting the $$.

Again you are too stupid to understand Peilke's simple chart. Jesus!

 

Oh jesus, apart from jumping ship on Finland cool summer 2015 not true, and misquoting much that actually doesn't say what you think it says..

You are not making another idiotic mistake I just pointed out to Astro.

You are talking 1990 loss $$ and growth $$ and claiming we lost more because of financial growth.. yes? So 0.3 in 1990 is less $$ than .2 in 2015.

Seems logical to an idiot except.
While you use the financial growth to put forward your copy paste argument you forgot the real world, more people and businesses are in those areas of vulnerability to extreme weather.

If you cant understand why therefor loss % of GDP is relevant, you shouldn't be discussing it

 

In Sisu's world, if the sea level rises and 17 million people in the Netherlands drown, then the fact that the total population of the Earth still increased is proof that climate change is a #fraud

 

I find it funny that if I dont post for an hour, ye as so desperate to see that as some kind of victory, the sad truth is whilst you guys think of me I am just doing normal workaday family ****.

Having no wife and kids is an advantage to a troll, personally I think differently.

Pretty sad like, pathetic.

 

Ahh so you've ran away from your booker thing now... after running away from your muons and lightclock once your cursory knowledge expired in the face of something who can think.

Your arguments dissolve on contact with even the most rudimentary scrutiny

 

3 idiots who do not understand Pielke's simple analysis and using half baked arguments against it and attacking the bloke personally.

To make it simple for you three ******s, if you claim there is more financial loss because of growth, then you must accept there is more to lose in actual tangible assets and lives. Using fraudulent UN data apparently
Ergo GDP assessment is correct. But ye missed that in yer link hunt, and because you are idiots

 

Nope, your association with Booker remains well documented and is a great discredit to you

#beforemodernindustry

 

Yes, by posting 1 line with a link and headline of an article.. is association. How desperate to make such silly false arguments. You really are meltdowny today, full denial mode

I suggest you look up the meaning of "association"

what does your hastag mean anyways?

 

@astroturfnaut and you failed epically on your copy paste on Pielke's data.
You somehow forgot there is more to lose than in 1990. You just compared losses, which is not a % of GDP comparison.

Pseudologic.

Do you just fall over sometimes for no reason?

 

Climatard logic.

If you mention losses are up on 1990 that's good
If you mention that there is more to lose because of growth.. that's denial

3 idiots who dont understand loss per % of GDP, it's so ****ing simple
But then again Tobes doesn't understand how a summer can be cool and still the average temp (for the whole year) warms

Astro, you pasted half a page about booker, I never knew who he was till your conspiracy meltdown

 

Oh right so the actual doubling of the cost of repairing damage caused by extreme weather (greater than inflation) was due to extreme weather.

Awesome

 

I assume you mean me as one of those three as anyway who challenges your artificial reality is automatically an idiot.

So you are standing by People and his clearly cherry picked data. That's fine at it suits your argument but it just adds more evidence of your doublethink re sources etc

 

Enough stupidity for today methinks. You three are possibly the biggest idiots to ever discuss this subject, though your general knowledge is less than the average clima tard which is saying something.

At least many of them understand the sources they cite

More nonsense not about the subject, cherry picked UN data is it?

Tell me exactly what data he cherry picked and from where?

You seem to believe one data set on global warming and not the other three, and you talk of cherry picking? #ouch