A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Houston Houston, do you hear me?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 1st 17, 08:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Fred J McCall wrote:
Cite? I'm calling bull****.


You *are* bull****.

So GLOBAL warming is local to where you live?


Global warming has local effects, and they widely vary.
But global warming deniers don't understand that, so don't bother.
  #22  
Old September 1st 17, 08:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Cite? I'm calling bull****.


You *are* bull****.


So no cite, then. As expected. Claim fails.

So GLOBAL warming is local to where you live?


Global warming has local effects, and they widely vary.
But global warming deniers don't understand that, so don't bother.


In other words, the usual GCC bull**** that EVERYTHING is evidence of
GCC unless they say it isn't.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
  #23  
Old September 1st 17, 08:29 AM posted to sci.space.policy
jacob navia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Le 01/09/2017 Ã* 03:11, Fred J. McCall a écritÂ*:
jacob navia wrote:

I said:
Are they condemmed to die of thirst and hunger or what?

You said:
Your ignorance doesn't kill anyone, fortunately.


I know, my ignorance is immense. But please see this news on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/us...ons/index.html

Woman stranded in roof with no water or food.


So nothing about there not being food and water distribution, then.



Of course nothing. That woman is nothing. She is black and poor. Why
save her?

Too expensive. Just let her die.

That was what republican G.W. Bush thought and 2 000 people, mostly
poor, died in New Orleans.

There were 2 000 casualties for half a million people, we have now 11
million people, just extrapolating it could be a catastrophe. But since
most of the future victims are latinos or black, no republican
government will care about that.

As the general said, it is months later, when nobody speaks about it any
more, that their bodies will be discovered.

But they are dying NOW, and everybody remains silent, as if nothing
important happens.

There is no global warming, just a hoax. And no, of course hurricanes
aren't stronger now even if the laws of physics tell us otherwise. ANd
the victims?

Just let them die.

No emergency measures, no massive help for all those millions of people,
just let them figure out how to live for days and days without food or
water.

Trump's America is great again.


  #24  
Old September 1st 17, 08:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Rob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Fred J McCall wrote:
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Cite? I'm calling bull****.


You *are* bull****.


So no cite, then. As expected. Claim fails.


No, I simply won't spend time on collecting that info in a discussion
with a denier because I know it is a waste of time.
  #25  
Old September 1st 17, 11:26 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

jacob navia wrote:

Le 01/09/2017 à 03:11, Fred J. McCall a écrit*:
jacob navia wrote:

I said:
Are they condemmed to die of thirst and hunger or what?

You said:
Your ignorance doesn't kill anyone, fortunately.

I know, my ignorance is immense. But please see this news on CNN:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/31/us...ons/index.html

Woman stranded in roof with no water or food.


So nothing about there not being food and water distribution, then.


Of course nothing. That woman is nothing. She is black and poor. Why
save her?

Too expensive. Just let her die.


And yet apparently she was saved. It's a big disaster with lots of
people at risk. Complaining that you didn't get 24 hour service is
just rather silly.


That was what republican G.W. Bush thought and 2 000 people, mostly
poor, died in New Orleans.


You're a lying ****wit.


There were 2 000 casualties for half a million people, we have now 11
million people, just extrapolating it could be a catastrophe. But since
most of the future victims are latinos or black, no republican
government will care about that.


I repeat. You're a lying ****wit.

snip ****wit raving


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
  #26  
Old September 1st 17, 11:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Cite? I'm calling bull****.

You *are* bull****.


So no cite, then. As expected. Claim fails.


No, I simply won't spend time on collecting that info in a discussion
with a denier because I know it is a waste of time.


I repeat. So no cite, then. As expected. Claim fails.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
  #27  
Old September 2nd 17, 12:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

On Aug/31/2017 at 9:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Aug/31/2017 at 1:24 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
OK, you're adamantly ignorant. Your choice. Again, given global
warming, why do we not have constantly increasing storm power and
frequency (because we don't, you know)?

Because global warming only means the AVERAGE temperature is going
up. The ACTUAL temperature, both locally and globally, varies around
that average and is not higher everywhere and always.

Everyone except Donald and you understands that.


In other words, like all GCC True Believers, the evidence only matters
when you say it does. If the AVERAGE temperature is going up, the
AVERAGE storm should be more severe and the AVERAGE number should be
going up. Why are neither of those two things true?


But they ARE true!


Hogwash! You are entitled to your own opinion but you are NOT
entitled to your own data.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp


Did you actually look at the site you cited?

Seasons with the most named storms, 1851 - Present
11 of 15 years given, or 73%, are in the past 25 years. By random
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most hurricanes, 1851 - Present
5 out of 10 given, or 50%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most major hurricanes, 1851 - Present
3 out of 8 given, or 38%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the highest Accumulated Cyclone Energy, 1851 - Present
4 out of 10 given, or 40%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

That's all the info given on that site. All of it showing that
we now having more severe weather than in the past.


But it is not, as it should be if GCC is true and only water
temperature matters, monotonically increasing.


What are you talking about? I don't think I have ever seen anyone
anywhere claim that global warming is monotonic, nor anyone
saying only water temperature matters. There really no reason
whatsoever to think that hurricanes should increase monotonically.


Alain Fournier
  #28  
Old September 2nd 17, 04:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Alain Fournier wrote:

On Aug/31/2017 at 9:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Aug/31/2017 at 1:24 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
OK, you're adamantly ignorant. Your choice. Again, given global
warming, why do we not have constantly increasing storm power and
frequency (because we don't, you know)?

Because global warming only means the AVERAGE temperature is going
up. The ACTUAL temperature, both locally and globally, varies around
that average and is not higher everywhere and always.

Everyone except Donald and you understands that.


In other words, like all GCC True Believers, the evidence only matters
when you say it does. If the AVERAGE temperature is going up, the
AVERAGE storm should be more severe and the AVERAGE number should be
going up. Why are neither of those two things true?


But they ARE true!


Hogwash! You are entitled to your own opinion but you are NOT
entitled to your own data.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

Did you actually look at the site you cited?

Seasons with the most named storms, 1851 - Present
11 of 15 years given, or 73%, are in the past 25 years. By random
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most hurricanes, 1851 - Present
5 out of 10 given, or 50%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most major hurricanes, 1851 - Present
3 out of 8 given, or 38%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the highest Accumulated Cyclone Energy, 1851 - Present
4 out of 10 given, or 40%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

That's all the info given on that site. All of it showing that
we now having more severe weather than in the past.


But it is not, as it should be if GCC is true and only water
temperature matters, monotonically increasing.


What are you talking about? I don't think I have ever seen anyone
anywhere claim that global warming is monotonic, nor anyone
saying only water temperature matters. There really no reason
whatsoever to think that hurricanes should increase monotonically.


Then you should pay closer attention because the contention that
frequency and severity of storms correlates only to water temperature
is what I've been arguing against right along. Perhaps you should
understand the positions being taken before you mix in?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #29  
Old September 2nd 17, 11:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Le Sep/1/2017 à 11:19 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Aug/31/2017 at 9:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Aug/31/2017 at 1:24 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
OK, you're adamantly ignorant. Your choice. Again, given global
warming, why do we not have constantly increasing storm power and
frequency (because we don't, you know)?

Because global warming only means the AVERAGE temperature is going
up. The ACTUAL temperature, both locally and globally, varies around
that average and is not higher everywhere and always.

Everyone except Donald and you understands that.


In other words, like all GCC True Believers, the evidence only matters
when you say it does. If the AVERAGE temperature is going up, the
AVERAGE storm should be more severe and the AVERAGE number should be
going up. Why are neither of those two things true?


But they ARE true!


Hogwash! You are entitled to your own opinion but you are NOT
entitled to your own data.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

Did you actually look at the site you cited?

Seasons with the most named storms, 1851 - Present
11 of 15 years given, or 73%, are in the past 25 years. By random
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most hurricanes, 1851 - Present
5 out of 10 given, or 50%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most major hurricanes, 1851 - Present
3 out of 8 given, or 38%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the highest Accumulated Cyclone Energy, 1851 - Present
4 out of 10 given, or 40%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

That's all the info given on that site. All of it showing that
we now having more severe weather than in the past.


But it is not, as it should be if GCC is true and only water
temperature matters, monotonically increasing.


What are you talking about? I don't think I have ever seen anyone
anywhere claim that global warming is monotonic, nor anyone
saying only water temperature matters. There really no reason
whatsoever to think that hurricanes should increase monotonically.


Then you should pay closer attention because the contention that
frequency and severity of storms correlates only to water temperature
is what I've been arguing against right along. Perhaps you should
understand the positions being taken before you mix in?


Care to show who and when someone said that frequency and severity of
storms correlates *only* to water temperature? JF Mezei said on Aug 30
at 1:25 AM, that "So warmer oceans will result in more frequent extreme
weather events." He didn't say that there are no other causes for
extreme weather or that the increase of frequency in extreme weather
events will be monotonic. You pulled that out, because you needed a
straw man.


Alain Fournier

  #30  
Old September 2nd 17, 05:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

Alain Fournier wrote:

Le Sep/1/2017 à 11:19 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Aug/31/2017 at 9:13 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On Aug/31/2017 at 1:24 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
Rob wrote:

Fred J McCall wrote:
OK, you're adamantly ignorant. Your choice. Again, given global
warming, why do we not have constantly increasing storm power and
frequency (because we don't, you know)?

Because global warming only means the AVERAGE temperature is going
up. The ACTUAL temperature, both locally and globally, varies around
that average and is not higher everywhere and always.

Everyone except Donald and you understands that.


In other words, like all GCC True Believers, the evidence only matters
when you say it does. If the AVERAGE temperature is going up, the
AVERAGE storm should be more severe and the AVERAGE number should be
going up. Why are neither of those two things true?


But they ARE true!


Hogwash! You are entitled to your own opinion but you are NOT
entitled to your own data.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/top10.asp

Did you actually look at the site you cited?

Seasons with the most named storms, 1851 - Present
11 of 15 years given, or 73%, are in the past 25 years. By random
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most hurricanes, 1851 - Present
5 out of 10 given, or 50%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the most major hurricanes, 1851 - Present
3 out of 8 given, or 38%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

Seasons with the highest Accumulated Cyclone Energy, 1851 - Present
4 out of 10 given, or 40%, are in the past 25 years. By random,
this should be about 15%.

That's all the info given on that site. All of it showing that
we now having more severe weather than in the past.


But it is not, as it should be if GCC is true and only water
temperature matters, monotonically increasing.

What are you talking about? I don't think I have ever seen anyone
anywhere claim that global warming is monotonic, nor anyone
saying only water temperature matters. There really no reason
whatsoever to think that hurricanes should increase monotonically.


Then you should pay closer attention because the contention that
frequency and severity of storms correlates only to water temperature
is what I've been arguing against right along. Perhaps you should
understand the positions being taken before you mix in?


Care to show who and when someone said that frequency and severity of
storms correlates *only* to water temperature? JF Mezei said on Aug 30
at 1:25 AM, that "So warmer oceans will result in more frequent extreme
weather events." He didn't say that there are no other causes for
extreme weather or that the increase of frequency in extreme weather
events will be monotonic. You pulled that out, because you needed a
straw man.


No, I don't care to show you. I'm disinclined to go wading back
through the thread just because you failed to pay attention. Go read
Rob's ****e, you lying ****wit, and stop molesting your straw man.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AIAA Houston Al Space Station 0 October 31st 07 08:27 PM
Houston, You Have a Problem Danny Deger Space Shuttle 101 July 25th 07 12:07 AM
Houston, You Have a Problem Danny Deger Space Shuttle 9 July 21st 07 02:42 AM
Houston, You Have a Problem Danny Deger Space Station 9 July 21st 07 02:42 AM
"Houston, we've got a problem" jjustwwondering Policy 0 March 7th 04 09:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.