Hurricane Patricia

[cvfd1399 0]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

[Amazon 7]

cvfd1399

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

I think that all of you in low lying areas will find that Karma is going to catch up with ya'll eventually and she is going to be one great big ole bitch.

[turtlespeed 212]

Amazon

***http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

I think that all of you in low lying areas will find that Karma is going to catch up with ya'll eventually and she is going to be one great big ole bitch.

Ya know when they buy land in Texas, it is mapped out in 100, 50, and 25 year flood plains.

Yep that means that some places, about every 100 years or so, gets flooded.

That MUST BE because the climate changes.

What a novel thought, the climate changes, it is what it does. It is a constant state of flux.

But now I'm a climate change denier because I believe the climate changes. THAT is alarmist logic.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cvfd1399 0]

Amazon

***http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

I think that all of you in low lying areas will find that Karma is going to catch up with ya'll eventually and she is going to be one great big ole bitch.

I am used to dealing with um so bring it on!

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

******http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

I think that all of you in low lying areas will find that Karma is going to catch up with ya'll eventually and she is going to be one great big ole bitch.

Ya know when they buy land in Texas, it is mapped out in 100, 50, and 25 year flood plains.

Yep that means that some places, about every 100 years or so, gets flooded.

That MUST BE because the climate changes.

What a novel thought, the climate changes, it is what it does. It is a constant state of flux.

But now I'm a climate change denier because I believe the climate changes. THAT is alarmist logic.

You did not bother reading the link to USGS that Kallend posted did you....
It seems strange that more and more areas are having 100 year floods almost every year... strange how that works huh????

[Amazon 7]

cvfd1399

******http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

I think that all of you in low lying areas will find that Karma is going to catch up with ya'll eventually and she is going to be one great big ole bitch.

I am used to dealing with um so bring it on!

Is your doublewide on 30 foot high stilts????

I saw a lot of that sort of thing on my vacation to Americas version of the third world the last couple weeks in Coastal FL and Coastal SC.

[cvfd1399 0]

LMFO. My 3000 square foot home is above 100 year flood plain and if not my 1000 sqft shop has a 1000 square foot apartment above it on the second story to live out the flood noah.

So typical of a left wing feminist to lash out and down talk others when they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

Not surprising when you call your parents dumb-asses on an online forum, that shows exactly whats going on up there in your head.

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

******http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

I think that all of you in low lying areas will find that Karma is going to catch up with ya'll eventually and she is going to be one great big ole bitch.

Ya know when they buy land in Texas, it is mapped out in 100, 50, and 25 year flood plains.

Yep that means that some places, about every 100 years or so, gets flooded.



Incorrect. That is NOT the definition.

Quote

That MUST BE because the climate changes.

Nope, that is because weather is a chaotic (in the mathematical sense) phenomenon. Weather <> climate

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

cvfd1399

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

A major hurricane hits, by chance, a sparsely populated area and therefore doesn't do much damage, and you draw that ridiculous conclusion. Un-be-lievable.

...

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

[billvon 2,396]

Your one warning.

[cvfd1399 0]

So she gets away with caling me trailer trash. But if I get salty back I get warned. Got it.

[cvfd1399 0]

kallend

***http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/10/24/hurricane-patricia/74517864/

Yes it is a blessing that those like you and Amazon will not be able to turn this hurricane into climate change ammo.

Quote

"So far, there are no reports of major damage from Patricia," Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said on Twitter Saturday afternoon. "Our gratitude to all for your thoughts, prayers and actions. #PrayForMexico."

As for myself I sat and drank some wine and watched it slowly drizzle all day watering my 150 year old live oak trees and refilling my bass pond.

A major hurricane hits, by chance, a sparsely populated area and therefore doesn't do much damage, and you draw that ridiculous conclusion. Un-be-lievable.

You have just made an incredibly stupid statement-kallend

[rushmc 18]

billvon

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

Here is your 97% bs explained

Quote

Speaking of a minuscule number of “scientists who refute global warming” perhaps lead author Diego Román might benefit from an actual analysis of the famous “97% agree” meme:

Why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s [Anthropogenic GW] real?
-10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation
– 7,054 scientists did not reply to the survey
– 567 scientists surveyed did not believe man is responsible for climate change
– Only 157 of the remainder were climate scientists
– The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively identified “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 invited. What’s interesting is that 3% of the invitees didn’t think the earth had warmed since the Little Ice Age.

"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]

What percentage of reputable qualified scientists do you think would say that the earth is warming due to man's activities?
You think 97% is a false number, but must agree that a significant amount of the scientific community do agree, so what's your guess as to how many it really is?
I did ask you this before, guess you missed it.

But what do I know?

[turtlespeed 212]

fasted3

What percentage of reputable qualified scientists do you think would say that the earth is warming due to man's activities?
You think 97% is a false number, but must agree that a significant amount of the scientific community do agree, so what's your guess as to how many it really is?
I did ask you this before, guess you missed it.

I know you didn't ask me.

As is pointed out it is a complex issue with not only one answer, or if there is an answer, it is one answer in 27 parts. ( movie reference)

I would think that 90+ percent of the scientists in the world would agree that the earth is warming.

I also think that 100% of the ones paid to cause figures that are alarming are in agreement that man is the cause, if not the sole cause.

I would guess that only half the climate scientists in the world would put mans involvement somewhere in the 50% range.

But. With China as it is, and what we did and and are slowly cutting back on causing, with the rest of the world as well, the problem is probably not in stasis yet and we have a ways to go to prevent major change.

That doesn't mean that we are at a point of no return, or a point of no reasonable management.

It means that it can be politicized and embellished to achieve financial end game profit.

Look at Algore.

All that is why I question the reality. When AGW became a profitable endeavor, it ceased being without corruption.

I would like to make sure we are not just wasting money on insignificant fixes that are counterproductive in the long run.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cvfd1399 0]

turtlespeed

***What percentage of reputable qualified scientists do you think would say that the earth is warming due to man's activities?
You think 97% is a false number, but must agree that a significant amount of the scientific community do agree, so what's your guess as to how many it really is?
I did ask you this before, guess you missed it.

I know you didn't ask me.

As is pointed out it is a complex issue with not only one answer, or if there is an answer, it is one answer in 27 parts. ( movie reference)

I would think that 90+ percent of the scientists in the world would agree that the earth is warming.

I also think that 100% of the ones paid to cause figures that are alarming are in agreement that man is the cause, if not the sole cause.

I would guess that only half the climate scientists in the world would put mans involvement somewhere in the 50% range.

But. With China as it is, and what we did and and are slowly cutting back on causing, with the rest of the world as well, the problem is probably not in stasis yet and we have a ways to go to prevent major change.

That doesn't mean that we are at a point of no return, or a point of no reasonable management.

It means that it can be politicized and embellished to achieve financial end game profit.

Look at Algore.

All that is why I question the reality. When AGW became a profitable endeavor, it ceased being without corruption.

I would like to make sure we are not just wasting money on insignificant fixes that are counterproductive in the long run.

I am in the exact situation on this. Ditto.

[billvon 2,396]

>I would think that 90+ percent of the scientists in the world would agree that the
>earth is warming.

And that it is due to Man's actions.

>I would guess that only half the climate scientists in the world would put mans
>involvement somewhere in the 50% range.

Four studies so far have put it at 97% or higher. Three were peer-reviewed. They were:

Oreskes 2004 - The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Science

928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Doran 2009 - Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union

Survey of scientists. Question - "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 97.4% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

Anderegg 2010 - Expert credibility in climate change - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

The fourth one, by John Cook (The Consensus Project) went through a similar set of papers, and also asked the authors to rate their own papers (to avoid claims of reading bias.) It was not peer-reviewed.

12,000 papers reviewed, 4,000 of those expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% endorsed human-caused global warming. 1400 papers were self-rated (by the authors; 1200 participated) as taking a position; 97.2% endorsed human-caused global warming.

>It means that it can be politicized and embellished to achieve financial end game profit.

Yes, it can. But like the man says, follow the money. Look at how much money goes to enrich grad students and climate change researchers. Then look at how much money goes to enrich Exxon, Halliburton and BP.

Who has a bigger financial incentive to deceive?

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>I would think that 90+ percent of the scientists in the world would agree that the
>earth is warming.

And that it is due to Man's actions.

>I would guess that only half the climate scientists in the world would put mans
>involvement somewhere in the 50% range.

Four studies so far have put it at 97% or higher. Three were peer-reviewed. They were:

Oreskes 2004 - The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Science

928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Doran 2009 - Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change - Transactions of the American Geophysical Union

Survey of scientists. Question - "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" 97.4% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes.

Anderegg 2010 - Expert credibility in climate change - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

The fourth one, by John Cook (The Consensus Project) went through a similar set of papers, and also asked the authors to rate their own papers (to avoid claims of reading bias.) It was not peer-reviewed.

12,000 papers reviewed, 4,000 of those expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% endorsed human-caused global warming. 1400 papers were self-rated (by the authors; 1200 participated) as taking a position; 97.2% endorsed human-caused global warming.

>It means that it can be politicized and embellished to achieve financial end game profit.

Yes, it can. But like the man says, follow the money. Look at how much money goes to enrich grad students and climate change researchers. Then look at how much money goes to enrich Exxon, Halliburton and BP.

Who has a bigger financial incentive to deceive?

Then we need to curb the deception.

I think perhaps I wasn't clear on what I meant about 50% . , . Not 50%!of the scientists, but half of the problem bring caused by mans interludes.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[fasted3 0]

turtlespeed

That doesn't mean that we are at a point of no return, or a point of no reasonable management.

It means that it can be politicized and embellished to achieve financial end game profit.

Look at Algore.

All that is why I question the reality. When AGW became a profitable endeavor, it ceased being without corruption.

I would like to make sure we are not just wasting money on insignificant fixes that are counterproductive in the long run.

You don't like Al Gore, fine; I don't like the Koch brothers.
Their message is what we should be looking at.
I believe the deiners are funded by those that profit most from burning carbon, and that most scientists are convinced that we are headed for big trouble, not if, but when.

Are you aware that to balance the small percentage of real scientists, (if there are any,) that think this isn't happening, there is a growing fringe that is saying things could be much worse, much sooner, than the main bunch are.
I don't know who's right, but with human life itself at stake, I'm alarmed already.

"That doesn't mean that we are at a point of no return, or a point of no reasonable management."

What if you're wrong about that?
What if we are running out of time, right now?

But what do I know?

[billvon 2,396]

>Then we need to curb the deception.

Since we live in a society where free speech is protected, even when it's wrong, sometimes all you can do is make sure that the valid research is readily available, and try to ensure that people are educated enough to understand it.

[rushmc 18]

The alarmists get more money than the so called deniers


The deniers
Who's message you should look at (as you expressed in your post)

"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

>Then we need to curb the deception.

Since we live in a society where free speech is protected, even when it's wrong, sometimes all you can do is make sure that the valid research is readily available, and try to ensure that people are educated enough to understand it.

So you disagree with the alarmists who think the RICO laws should be used against the deniers?

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

[turtlespeed 212]

fasted3

***
That doesn't mean that we are at a point of no return, or a point of no reasonable management.

It means that it can be politicized and embellished to achieve financial end game profit.

Look at Algore.

All that is why I question the reality. When AGW became a profitable endeavor, it ceased being without corruption.

I would like to make sure we are not just wasting money on insignificant fixes that are counterproductive in the long run.

You don't like Al Gore, fine; I don't like the Koch brothers.
Their message is what we should be looking at.
I believe the deiners are funded by those that profit most from burning carbon, and that most scientists are convinced that we are headed for big trouble, not if, but when.

Are you aware that to balance the small percentage of real scientists, (if there are any,) that think this isn't happening, there is a growing fringe that is saying things could be much worse, much sooner, than the main bunch are.
I don't know who's right, but with human life itself at stake, I'm alarmed already.

"That doesn't mean that we are at a point of no return, or a point of no reasonable management."

What if you're wrong about that?
What if we are running out of time, right now?

It has nothing to do with Algore.

But I will interject this little nugget:
If Algore was really worried about the ocean rising, why did he just spend 9 million on a home right next to the ocean?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,396]

>The alarmists get more money than the so called deniers

Total budget for UCAR: 208 million
Total budget for NOAA: 5.5 billion

Total budget for Exxon: 394 billion
Total budget for Chevron: 192 billion

You were saying?

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>The alarmists get more money than the so called deniers

Total budget for UCAR: 208 million

Total budget for NOAA: 5.5 billion

Total budget for Exxon: 394 billion
Total budget for Chevron: 192 billion

You were saying?

Going to post sources?

How about the rest of the story?

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