Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

You do realise that Pielke told a Senate hearing that he believed in CO2 being behind climate change don't you?

Whitehouse: We agree that climate change is happening.
Pielke: Yes
Whitehouse: We agree that we should both mitigate and adapt in response to that change.
Pielke: Yes
Whitehouse: We both find the IPCC reports credible?
Pielke: Yes.
Whitehouse: Can we also agree that a body of credible research projects that extreme weather events could increase in frequency and intensity due to manmade carbon dioxide emission
.Pielke: Yes, that's certainly the case and if you look at the literature you'll find many such projections.

 

More advertisement for how stupid you are.

There are more people living in flood and storm and coastal areas than in 1990, ******
It is actually that simple.

You compared direct cost of losses without even considering the real world human element.

 

You think this adds to any points you made, no, it is another switch to from a lost argument.

Of course I do, which proves I don't discount him based on beliefs.

I watched that hearing, you left something out

he also said in that hearing that there is no detectable signal of human influence and there wont be for decades

More copy paste destroyed

Strange you left that out

 

Unlike you Tobes I aint a bigot based on beliefs. I've follow Piekle jnr and snr on Twitter for months.

doesn't fit in with your "profiling" of me does it

 

I assume you can back up this rationale with some actual facts that prove that the beyond inflation increase costs of extreme weather damage are accounted for by more people living by the seaside?

In addition I assume you can also factor into that calculation the improvement in build quality and materials that will offset a proportion of said cost?

Or have you just pulled that 'fact' our of your arse?

 

Just getting back to science for a moment, did anyone see this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06y8hyr/the-brain-with-david-eagleman-1-what-is-reality

I posted a Youtube link from Eagleman last month. Fascinating stuff. Real science as opposed to the pseudo stuff of psychology.

Sis, you're ****ing that brain up, dude!

Just kidding.

 

It fits perfectly with your 'profile' as it just makes you a ****ing idiot, as you'd probably not read that he so publicly contradicted himself after the reems of climate change denial blogs he'd fired out.

 

Woah woah, hold on You said Piekle is wrong because the net financial loss of 1990 was .3 but the 2015 net loss of .2 but was a lot more actual cash.

Ergo Pielke was wrong in your words.

Now you are talking inflation, as if the number of people in areas of extreme weather have not increased at all, that economies have not grown as a result.

So you consider inflation a principle component.

is this a principle component?
Less storms but more to lose means more net loss but as a % of the total, it's down.

please log in to view this image

So inflation is a factor but less hurricanes is not?

 

"beyond inflation" you ****ing cabbage

i.e. the REAL cost has increased in the timeframe, despite building technology and materials being improved

For you to prove that the increased capital cost was due to more people living in more vulnerable areas, you'd have to do so after offsetting the cost saving created by the better building techniques.

Peilke did none of that, you added that narrative yourself, all he tried to make out was that the cost of weather damage had decreased, when the reality was that it hadn't it had increased. Ergo his graph was disingenuous bullshit.

 

You've been on a #campaign on here for months. because of some weird bitter reason, about **** you have absolutely no idea about, and even reading and understanding your own sources is beyond you.

You've jumped from one failed argument to another and so much drivel.

You just go away lad, even with your links you just got hammered today. I pity you enough to hang up my boots for the day.

On that note, don't forget to make childish remarks about my absence, a true sign of bitterness and VICTORY for BBF.


I'll take that award now, you three have been comical today, by the simple fact I decided to reply to your garbage, I usually ignore it.

So enjoy your faux moral outrage at being called bigot, not the first time and no doubt will it be the last I'd imagine

 

No I didn't

Your logic is that the police shouldn't bother trying to find murderers while the population is still growing

"There are still more people than before WTF more do you want?"

 

Campaign? Hammered? Victory for BBF? No idea what you're on about? Bigot?

#standard

#delusional
Paranoia, the need for self affirmation, faux 'victory' calls, decrying the intellectual capacity of the other party in order to boost your own self worth, a cheap shot at intimated racism when all else fails.

What's happened to today is that you've followed your usual MO of scurrying away from answering a straightforward question #4385 (and repeated a few times afterwards)

Called everyone who disagreed with you a ****** and then got your knickers in a knot when I made a joke about your house husbandry.

Your emasculation also forms part of your demented psyche imo.

 

The original financial data from Munich Re was for a longer time period, why formulate this chart using only some of that time? He must have blogged an excuse for you to copy and paste from.

 

please log in to view this image

#nosnow #warmwinter #? #coldwinter ?

Just watch them try blame the arctic blizzards on global warming.

 

Wheel of Denial

It was the Sun
It's a long term cycle
The temperatures are faked
The temperatures are inaccurate
The scentists are paid off
It's colder at night

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

I would suggest to read this, it explains the errors in the raw data and how those have been taken out, not just made up to meet a political agenda. Makes you wonder what the oil and gas shrills have at risk if you Co2 isn't the cause of global warming. The dirty energy they produce would still be needed for the next 100 years while technology/build of renewable sources catches up to meet future demands

 

Think you also need to add
Lying
Cherrypicking
Dodging questions
Ad hominems
Hypocrisy
Strawman arguments
Doublethink

 

Don't suppose anyone wants to talk about that brain thing on the Beeb with Dr Eagleman last night?

 

All climate denier claims destroyed in one article

Sisu won't read it though, he "already knows what he needs to"

 

Haven't seen it yet but will watch it after your recommendation