Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

well when you pick it out of the whole dealio on it's own it might seem that way, but added into volumes of other information, it is just an anecdotal reference.

You are being picky you ****, all because of the loss today, want a hug

 

Hey Sisu, here's your original post re Pielke's chart.

Sounds to me like you were setting a lot on that chart. Shame you didn't understand what it was saying, maybe you should try reading things before you post them.

PS got any data on the " there's more stuff to be damaged" argument? Dont forget to factor in those other issues that anyone wanting to present a balanced argument would include.

 

That is the Polar Bear post I replied to

It tries to debunk the theory that the population is increasing by saying we have no good data to start from, I want to know how alarmists can then say it is decreasing with any certainty.

 

I just want LvG gone, I could be happy again then

 

Any thoughts on my ageing/weakening theory, or the fact that the population has grown a lot so there are many more houses now (and many more business buildings/estates as there are more small businesses now)

 

Of course its a completely spurious argument, that's the whole point of the critism ie he cherrypicksed a data set to give a result that would please people who follow him on twiiter etc

 

@Diego you fell for the troll standard ploy, try make the argument about something irrelevant to avoid getting mullered on the actual topic

Well lets look at the basis of this fraud, they have no ice.. and Al Gore convinced millions of idiots that polar bears cant swim.

Every picture of a polar bear on a block of ice is a photoshop, done by green organisations

Polar bears can swim and in fact they spend most of their life in the water and almost all of them are born on land not ice
Seal populations, Polar Bear food, have also grown largely due to the fact we dont club thousands of seal babies on the head every year.

Once the bears started recovering from sport hunters, the numbers have tripled. The best thing man can do is leave them alone.

Global warming is a hypothesis, and these loons directly link a hypothesis to a non problem for Polar Bears

PJ will only read what agrees with him, when searching, any link that said Polar Bears are increasing, he moves on to the next link looking for what he wants, the others do exactly that too.

yet my data comes from all sides

 

If you talk to him you will get a load of schlemiel about me.

 

This was your original claim, you never backed up, you are just assuming something was done without looking at data and methods.

You picked up cherry pick from the other losers, whatever nonsense they come out with, and stuff I say, you repeat back.. you weirdo

 

Things weakening when? In 1980 when the financial data started or was everything new then and suddenly everything got old so costs will rise???? Surely there will always be a mix of things ageing across the time period.

 

Yep, I know all that

 

We do get it, we just don't think that "yeah there's load more damage because there's more stuff to be damaged" is some sort of anti-climate change argument

Some might even suggest that if you know for a fact more people are now at risk, then you might actually want to be MORE careful about the climate

 

You think everything that was damaged was built 1980+ ?
Some of the damage has been caused to buildings built back in the 19th century (it will catch up with even more eventually), trees that have lost branches and damaged buildings and cars have stood for hundreds of years,
Things age, old bridges and foundations get there mortar washed away over the years (the more years the more likely the damage), when this happens a flood can cause major damage at any time.

Yes things cost more to repair/replace now than they did 35 years ago, unless you know a cheap handyman.

 

You mean like not building on flood plains ? Do the Government know something you don't ?

 

I dont see a flaw i your logic, just an exclusion of anything that I might say. How about an actual decline in destructive weather, this is about claims or more extreme weather after all

please log in to view this image

which is what the chart was assessing via that method.

half arguments and filter bubbles, exclude anything that doesn't fit?

 

Ffs you are even worse than him, at least he has an excuse for his refusal to look at things logically. Trees losing branches etc will happen at a fairly consistent rate throughout the period as will buildings ageing etc
Maybe as sisu sees you as being on his side you can ask him for evidence re the more buildings etc but remember to factor in other issues such as advances in engineering

 

Ffs you are even worse than him, at least he has an excuse for his refusal to look at things logically. Trees losing branches etc will happen at a fairly consistent rate throughout the period as will buildings ageing etc
Maybe as sisu sees you as being on his side you can ask him for evidence re the more buildings etc but remember to factor in other issues such as advances in engineering/ flood defences/ advance warnings etc that any person looking for a true result would factor in.

PS you can also tryasking why Pielke left out the first ten years of the financial data.

 

Which shows what I have been trying to get across, as time goes by weaker storms can cause more damage to things previously untouched.

 

yet my point (I posted the darn chart) was that alarmists have claimed that extreme weather was increasing.. that was the entire point

Astro believes England never had floods in December before 2015. So of course he believes weather is more extreme

 

No it doesn't