maporsche wrote:An increase in extreme weather has nothing to do with our ability to FORECAST extreme weather. Just because we do a bad job at forecasting these storms doesn't mean that the quantity of actual storms is not increasing.
I'm not talking about our ability to make forecasts for extreme weather. I am talking about forecasting the frequency and severity of extreme weather. Global warmongers have tried to issue dire forecasts in this regard, but such forecasts are impossible because we don't know what the frequency of extreme weather has been in the past.
Quote:Has there been a rise in hurricanes in the last 50 years? 100?
We don't know what the frequency of hurricanes was 50 or 100 years ago, so whether or not the frequency has risen since them is impossible to know.
flaja wrote:maporsche wrote:An increase in extreme weather has nothing to do with our ability to FORECAST extreme weather. Just because we do a bad job at forecasting these storms doesn't mean that the quantity of actual storms is not increasing.
I'm not talking about our ability to make forecasts for extreme weather. I am talking about forecasting the frequency and severity of extreme weather. Global warmongers have tried to issue dire forecasts in this regard, but such forecasts are impossible because we don't know what the frequency of extreme weather has been in the past.
Quote:Has there been a rise in hurricanes in the last 50 years? 100?
We don't know what the frequency of hurricanes was 50 or 100 years ago, so whether or not the frequency has risen since them is impossible to know.
Well, it doesn't look like the number of storms is increasing (at least not predictably).
National Geograpic reported this as fact over 2 years ago (and I doubt they were the first). What the claim is that the INTENSITY of the storms has been increasing with GW.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html
It's all a bunch of hooey perpetuated by a vast group who, for ideological (and perhaps more aptly, psychological) reasons, have decided that this is the cause to get behind.
In Tibet there is a sacred glacier that is receding (rather than advancing) and this bothers the fundamentalists who figure it's the result of electricity or tourists' disrespect. It also bothers the free marketeers who appreciate that with the retreat of the glacier comes the retreat of feckless tourists' dollars.
Forget the fact that glaciers advance and recede over thousands of years in accordance with a natural pattern. We happen to be in a point of recession and so let us blame someone --- the Emperor, the King, industrialized mankind.
Clearly this whole malarky is widely embraced and therefore it is bound to be a determining influence on human civilization. Choices will be made not for their intrinsic rationality but because of how they abide by climate change orthodoxy.
The irony is that the acolytes of Climate Change are the very same people who would rather die than subscribe to the old and decrepit orthodoxy of western values, judeo-christian principles, or righteous nationalism.
Some time to come, the heroes of the avant garde will be those who challenge the new orthodoxies - included among them will be the orthodoxy of humanities blight upon Mother Earth.
At some point, one might hope that people will think beyond the superficility of what is "cool."
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The irony is that the acolytes of Climate Change are the very same people who would rather die than subscribe to the old and decrepit orthodoxy of western values, judeo-christian principles, or righteous nationalism.
Finn - I believe you exactly defined the situation. My congratulations to you.
The Global Warming hysteria is a religion. And just as Christians who converted from Paganism to Christianity hated Paganism, so do many of the new converts to the religion of Global Warming hate Christianity.
Jim wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The irony is that the acolytes of Climate Change are the very same people who would rather die than subscribe to the old and decrepit orthodoxy of western values, judeo-christian principles, or righteous nationalism.
Finn - I believe you exactly defined the situation. My congratulations to you.
The Global Warming hysteria is a religion. And just as Christians who converted from Paganism to Christianity hated Paganism, so do many of the new converts to the religion of Global Warming hate Christianity.
Thank you, but prepare yourself Jim for the slings and arrows of outrageous a-holes.
Jim wrote:The Global Warming hysteria is a religion. And just as Christians who converted from Paganism to Christianity hated Paganism, so do many of the new converts to the religion of Global Warming hate Christianity.
Well, the strongest 'followers' of it are here .... the Evangelical Church(es) of Germany, a bit less the Catholic.
But since I know that most of you deny that they are Christians ...
Walter Hinteler wrote:Jim wrote:The Global Warming hysteria is a religion. And just as Christians who converted from Paganism to Christianity hated Paganism, so do many of the new converts to the religion of Global Warming hate Christianity.
Well, the strongest 'followers' of it are here .... the Evangelical Church(es) of Germany, a bit less the Catholic.
But since I know that most of you deny that they are Christians ...
Your churches don't have a good track record. After all Catholics and Lutherans supported the Nazis in large numbers.
flaja wrote:maporsche wrote:flaja wrote:maporsche wrote:An increase in extreme weather has nothing to do with our ability to FORECAST extreme weather. Just because we do a bad job at forecasting these storms doesn't mean that the quantity of actual storms is not increasing.
I'm not talking about our ability to make forecasts for extreme weather. I am talking about forecasting the frequency and severity of extreme weather. Global warmongers have tried to issue dire forecasts in this regard, but such forecasts are impossible because we don't know what the frequency of extreme weather has been in the past.
Quote:Has there been a rise in hurricanes in the last 50 years? 100?
We don't know what the frequency of hurricanes was 50 or 100 years ago, so whether or not the frequency has risen since them is impossible to know.
Well, it doesn't look like the number of storms is increasing (at least not predictably).
National Geograpic reported this as fact over 2 years ago (and I doubt they were the first). What the claim is that the INTENSITY of the storms has been increasing with GW.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html
t is very likely [at least 9 to 1 odds] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.'"
That's pretty much what my post said.
So why are we arguing about the ability to predict the FREQUENCY of hurricanes in a GW thread....since no one is claiming that GW increases the frequency of hurricanes? Seems pretty retarded doesn't it.
flaja wrote:Your churches don't have a good track record. After all Catholics and Lutherans supported the Nazis in large numbers.
I don't know that any major religion has a good track record. After all, Protestants and Evangelicals are still supporting President Bush in large numbers, Hindus and Muslims are still committing atrocities in India, etc. But back to Global Warming, we don't really have a basis for discussion. Several people have presented websites of respected research organizations saying the Earth is warming. You've refused to accept any of them. You've referenced another data source, but the information is apparently not available online for review. If we can't even agree that the globe is warming, we don't even have enough common ground for a debate on the causes and whether those are man-made.
flaja wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Jim wrote:The Global Warming hysteria is a religion. And just as Christians who converted from Paganism to Christianity hated Paganism, so do many of the new converts to the religion of Global Warming hate Christianity.
Well, the strongest 'followers' of it are here .... the Evangelical Church(es) of Germany, a bit less the Catholic.
But since I know that most of you deny that they are Christians ...
Your churches don't have a good track record. After all Catholics and Lutherans supported the Nazis in large numbers.
And a lot of males and females - both genders, who now are trying to act against Global Warming.
(You are a little but bad ahole, flaja: the failed assassination on Hitler's life in 1943 for instance was organised by members of the Catholic and the [Evangelical] Confessing Church, some tenthousand Catholics and Evangelicals were imprisoned in the KZs, thousands died there.)
Ah. Why bother, Walter. He's already shown that he doesn't know too much about history, and that he won't let mere facts get in the way of his preconceived notions.
Indeed. I suspect there is a factory somewhere in Lubbock that turns out the flajas that appear and disappear at regular intervals.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Thank you, but prepare yourself Jim for the slings and arrows of outrageous a-holes.
Here come the Global Warming jihadists. Their Religion has been threatened, so they must respond to defend it. And instead of countering with facts (because there aren't any) they resort to personal insults.
maporsche wrote:flaja wrote:maporsche wrote:flaja wrote:maporsche wrote:An increase in extreme weather has nothing to do with our ability to FORECAST extreme weather. Just because we do a bad job at forecasting these storms doesn't mean that the quantity of actual storms is not increasing.
I'm not talking about our ability to make forecasts for extreme weather. I am talking about forecasting the frequency and severity of extreme weather. Global warmongers have tried to issue dire forecasts in this regard, but such forecasts are impossible because we don't know what the frequency of extreme weather has been in the past.
Quote:Has there been a rise in hurricanes in the last 50 years? 100?
We don't know what the frequency of hurricanes was 50 or 100 years ago, so whether or not the frequency has risen since them is impossible to know.
Well, it doesn't look like the number of storms is increasing (at least not predictably).
National Geograpic reported this as fact over 2 years ago (and I doubt they were the first). What the claim is that the INTENSITY of the storms has been increasing with GW.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0804_050804_hurricanewarming.html
t is very likely [at least 9 to 1 odds] that hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.'"
That's pretty much what my post said.
So why are we arguing about the ability to predict the FREQUENCY of hurricanes in a GW thread....since no one is claiming that GW increases the frequency of hurricanes? Seems pretty retarded doesn't it.
Because we don't know what the past frequency has been. Thus we cannot predict whether that frequency will increase or decrease for one reason or another. But global warmongers have forecast that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of global warming.
engineer wrote:flaja wrote:Your churches don't have a good track record. After all Catholics and Lutherans supported the Nazis in large numbers.
I don't know that any major religion has a good track record. After all, Protestants and Evangelicals are still supporting President Bush in large numbers, Hindus and Muslims are still committing atrocities in India, etc. But back to Global Warming, we don't really have a basis for discussion. Several people have presented websites of respected research organizations saying the Earth is warming. You've refused to accept any of them. You've referenced another data source, but the information is apparently not available online for review. If we can't even agree that the globe is warming, we don't even have enough common ground for a debate on the causes and whether those are man-made.
Whether or not there is global warming is cause enough for debate. You are demanding that I agree with at least part of your global warming beliefs before you will even enter into a discussion of the issue. This shows the folly of your position. You insist on having your argument half-won before you will agree to even consider any opposing view. I don't call it global warming dogma for nothing.
Walter Hinteler wrote:flaja wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Jim wrote:The Global Warming hysteria is a religion. And just as Christians who converted from Paganism to Christianity hated Paganism, so do many of the new converts to the religion of Global Warming hate Christianity.
Well, the strongest 'followers' of it are here .... the Evangelical Church(es) of Germany, a bit less the Catholic.
But since I know that most of you deny that they are Christians ...
Your churches don't have a good track record. After all Catholics and Lutherans supported the Nazis in large numbers.
And a lot of males and females - both genders, who now are trying to act against Global Warming.
(You are a little but bad ahole, flaja: the failed assassination on Hitler's life in 1943 for instance was organised by members of the Catholic and the [Evangelical] Confessing Church, some tenthousand Catholics and Evangelicals were imprisoned in the KZs, thousands died there.)
Typical Hunnish behavior: insult others when they point out the Hun's shortcomings.
If you are referring to the Count Stauffenberg attempt, that was in 1944. So tell us again how much history you studied at the University.
And even if there was an attempt on Hitler's life in 1943 it was after the Germans had killed how many million innocent people? There was a running military conspiracy against Hitler since before Munich, but no one got serious about it until after the Generals knew that they had lost the war.
flaja wrote:Because we don't know what the past frequency has been. Thus we cannot predict whether that frequency will increase or decrease for one reason or another. But global warmongers have forecast that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of global warming.
No kidding flaja! I agree with this point.
What I'm asking is WHERE do "global warmongers" say that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of GW?
maporsche wrote:flaja wrote:Because we don't know what the past frequency has been. Thus we cannot predict whether that frequency will increase or decrease for one reason or another. But global warmongers have forecast that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of global warming.
No kidding flaja! I agree with this point.
What I'm asking is WHERE do "global warmongers" say that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of GW?
IAre you are asking for evidence or links to where people have made that claim, or are you asking "where" as in what part of the world will experience more frequent hurricanes?
Either way, I believe these articles will interest you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070730092544.htm
http://www.webpennys.com/hurricane_frequency_study/index.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17367701.htm
maporsche wrote:
What I'm asking is WHERE do "global warmongers" say that the frequency of hurricanes will go up because of GW?
Where have you been? Did you forget a couple of years ago or whenever Katrina hit? Thats all we heard for a while, among other things about how Bush blew up the dikes, and whatever else.
