Hurricane Patricia

[normiss 622]

billvon

The GOP is seeing some of this backlash now.

Wait until they continue to stick their own heads up their own asses and fail, yet again, to elect a speaker.

[Driver1 0]

billvon

As hurricanes get stronger there's been a lot of discussion about how we need a new category for storms like this. Right now we are classifying storms like Patricia (200mph winds) in the same category as Emily (160mph) - even though Patricia's winds are twice as destructive.

I'd agree. Right now we have

74-95mph - Category 1
96-110mph - Category 2
111-130mph - Category 3
131-155mph - Category 4
156+mph - Category 5

Now would be a good time to change Category 5 to

156-175mph - Category 5
176+mph - One Bad Motherfucker

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[fasted3 0]

rushmc

and no basklash is coming because when likely voters are polled climate change barely makes the list

It will be an important issue in the presidential campaign, and will peel away support from the conservative base. The Rs will downplay their interference and denial, but it won't do any good.
That's my bet.

But what do I know?

[billvon 2,400]

>I have not flipped on anything.

You flip regularly.

Your posts are almost evenly divided between "look at this - it's NOT WARMING like the alarmists say!" (Type 1) and "everyone knows the climate is warming - it changes all the time - but it's NOT OUR FAULT!" (Type 2)

>Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do
>with it just because you say it does.

Correct. Man has a hand in it because 97% of climate change scientists say he does.

[fasted3 0]

billvon

>I have not flipped on anything.

You flip regularly.

Your posts are almost evenly divided between "look at this - it's NOT WARMING like the alarmists say!" (Type 1) and "everyone knows the climate is warming - it changes all the time - but it's NOT OUR FAULT!" (Type 2)

>Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do
>with it just because you say it does.

Correct. Man has a hand in it because 97% of climate change scientists say he does.

I expect a lot more #2 from Rush after this:

"In 136 years of global temperature data, we are in uncharted territory. This new milestone follows the hottest summer on record, the hottest start to a year on record, the hottest 12 months on record, the hottest calendar year on record (2014) and the hottest decade on record."
Bloomberg

But what do I know?

[rushmc 18]

fasted3

***
and no basklash is coming because when likely voters are polled climate change barely makes the list

It will be an important issue in the presidential campaign, and will peel away support from the conservative base. The Rs will downplay their interference and denial, but it won't do any good.
That's my bet.

What do you want to bet?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>I have not flipped on anything.

You flip regularly.

Your posts are almost evenly divided between "look at this - it's NOT WARMING like the alarmists say!" (Type 1) and "everyone knows the climate is warming - it changes all the time - but it's NOT OUR FAULT!" (Type 2)

>Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do
>with it just because you say it does.

Correct. Man has a hand in it because 97% of climate change scientists say he does.

Ahh
the 97%

I love that lie



I show desperation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[normiss 622]

rushmc

***>I have not flipped on anything.

You flip regularly.

Your posts are almost evenly divided between "look at this - it's NOT WARMING like the alarmists say!" (Type 1) and "everyone knows the climate is warming - it changes all the time - but it's NOT OUR FAULT!" (Type 2)

>Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do
>with it just because you say it does.

Correct. Man has a hand in it because 97% of climate change scientists say he does.

Ahh
the 97%

I love that lie



I show desperation

Every time you post it would seem.

[Amazon 7]

fasted3

***>I have not flipped on anything.

You flip regularly.

Your posts are almost evenly divided between "look at this - it's NOT WARMING like the alarmists say!" (Type 1) and "everyone knows the climate is warming - it changes all the time - but it's NOT OUR FAULT!" (Type 2)

>Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do
>with it just because you say it does.

Correct. Man has a hand in it because 97% of climate change scientists say he does.

I expect a lot more #2 from Rush after this:

"In 136 years of global temperature data, we are in uncharted territory. This new milestone follows the hottest summer on record, the hottest start to a year on record, the hottest 12 months on record, the hottest calendar year on record (2014) and the hottest decade on record."
Bloomberg

The suns atmosphere could expand out past the orbit of Venus into a Red Giant... and the dead ender here will still be denying that anything is warming up

[rushmc 18]

Quote

"In 136 years of global temperature data, we are in uncharted territory.

This is patently false

We have had higher temps
and lower temps

Temps have both risen and fallen faster than they are today

We have had higher CO2 concentrations and we have had lower.

And when pointed out Bill likes to say this happened so long ago but that is not true either

Add to this

More storms=AGW
Less storms=AGW
Stronger storms=AGW (your current claim)
weaker storms=WGS
More rain, less rain, drought, wind, ECT=AGW

Got it all covered huh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

normiss

******>I have not flipped on anything.

You flip regularly.

Your posts are almost evenly divided between "look at this - it's NOT WARMING like the alarmists say!" (Type 1) and "everyone knows the climate is warming - it changes all the time - but it's NOT OUR FAULT!" (Type 2)

>Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do
>with it just because you say it does.

Correct. Man has a hand in it because 97% of climate change scientists say he does.

Ahh
the 97%

I love that lie



I show desperation

Every time you post it would seem.

I know I know

you buy into the 97% myth too!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

As I have posted before

Quote

Over the past 20 years:
•Man-made Co2 emissions have risen by ~14%
•CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by almost ~8%

but there has been no perceptible increase in Global temperature.

Global Warming Alarmists including:
•the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
•the United Nations
•many Western Governments
•Green NGOs, etc.

aggressively assert catastrophe with excessive temperature rises. But is extreme hubris to expect that mankind could achieve a complete reversal of the world’s climatic progress of the last 3000 years and achieve an additional positive +6°C change over the course of the current century.

When the postulated warming in the coming century as promoted by the IPCC and other Global Warming alarmists is collated against the progress of actual Holocene temperatures, the absolute implausibility of the Man-made global warming hypothesis becomes obvious.

Links and more comments here

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4732770;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[fasted3 0]

rushmc

What do you want to bet?

Hmmm. The time you were off here for a month was refreshingly BS free; want to go for another one?
2 to 1 odds. You bet one, me for 2. I think the results will be obvious, but if necessary, decided by a poll?
Decision date, election day 2016.
Are you in?

But what do I know?

[billvon 2,400]

>I show desperation

Yes, yes you do. More so all the time.

[billvon 2,400]

Quote

Over the past 20 years:
•Man-made Co2 emissions have risen by ~14%
•CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by almost ~8%

but there has been no perceptible increase in Global temperature.

And - WHAM! - RushMC is back to a Type 1 denier - only half a dozen posts after he claimed that:

"I have not flipped on anything. . . The issue is, is man causing warming, right? Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do with it just because you say it does."

You could make Al Sharpton dizzy.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Quote

Over the past 20 years:
•Man-made Co2 emissions have risen by ~14%
•CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by almost ~8%

but there has been no perceptible increase in Global temperature.

And - WHAM! - RushMC is back to a Type 1 denier - only half a dozen posts after he claimed that:

"I have not flipped on anything. . . The issue is, is man causing warming, right? Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do with it just because you say it does."

You could make Al Sharpton dizzy.

Point is and has always been

The science is not settled

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

fasted3

***
What do you want to bet?

Hmmm. The time you were off here for a month was refreshingly BS free; want to go for another one?
2 to 1 odds. You bet one, me for 2. I think the results will be obvious, but if necessary, decided by a poll?
Decision date, election day 2016.
Are you in?
I need to understand specifically, what makes a winner

Just saying climate will be an issue is highly subjective

Any specifics that are measurable ?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>The science is not settled

Climate scientists disagree with you. I'll go with them.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>The science is not settled

Climate scientists disagree with you. I'll go with them.

Ya

The 97%

You have already stated that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***>>76% think climate is changing

>well duhhhhh

Means Type I climate change deniers are on their way out. (Since you flip-flop regularly, I'll remind you of this next time you claim that XXX isn't warming)

>this has nothing to do with facts

It means that the efforts that science educators are making - are working.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. And when they find out you've been fooling them they often get mad. The GOP is seeing some of this backlash now.

I have not flipped on anything.
The issue is, is man causing warming, right?
Just because the climate changes does not mean man has anything to do with it just because you say it does.

and no basklash is coming because when likely voters are polled climate change barely makes the list

You need to put a disclaimer on all your posts stating that the company you work for is responsible for belching tens of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

Just to remind us of your impartiality

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[fasted3 0]

I don't know what kind of bet would work, if you come up with one let me know. On the 97% issue, what number do you think would be more accurate? 90%? 75? What's your guess?
Scientists that think:

1. The planet is warming.
2. Human activities are causing it.

Maybe it's not 97%, I don't know, but it sounds about right to me.
Regardless, a lot of smart people have been doing a lot of study on the issue, and a lot of them say we are in trouble if we don't do something.

I'd like to know what percentage of them you think don't agree, and why you choose to side with them, rather than the many for whom the issue is not even an issue any more?

But what do I know?

[cvfd1399 0]

lmao pls explain how storms are getting worse but we are seeing less of them. Wouldnt adding more energy in the gulf increase the number AND severity? Did anyone factor in the El Nino this year?

[billvon 2,400]

> Wouldnt adding more energy in the gulf increase the number AND severity?

?? No. Avalanches are destructive, and big ones are even more destructive - but once you have one, you won't have another one for a while, since the potential energy in the snow (mass X altitude) has been significantly reduced.

A big storm is a heat engine. It moves heat from the surface of the water to higher altitudes and different locations. In the process it moves moisture, and that motion creates rain, winds, lightning etc. Once a big one goes by, the ocean surface is cooler and less likely to spawn a new hurricane (at least until it warms up again.) If you have a bigger than usual one, you will see a longer than usual average time until the next one - because more heat has been removed from the ocean.

[cvfd1399 0]

Explain the lack of hurricanes to hit the gulf cost Tx, La, Ms, in many years.

[billvon 2,400]

>Explain the lack of hurricanes to hit the gulf cost Tx, La, Ms, in many years.

Did you read the post above?