Yasi - Be scared, very scared of this storm

[Egbert]

Still no casualties fortunately. On the down side a great deal of damage has been done. Cairns is OK I hear. (biggest town in the path of Yasi).

[SlowwHand]

MOBIUS, you don't know jack****. You pay no attention. I certainly do know about evacuations, and they're never "controlled" and "orderly". Not even when it's with certainty that the evacuation is necessary.

[ricketyclik]

Of course it's not a coincidence

Cyclones in Queensland from 1906 to 2007

I guess you missed all of those reports by the Bureau of Meteorology stating that it was the worst in living memory to make landfall in Australia.

[MOBIUS]

MOBIUS, you don't know jack****. You pay no attention. I certainly do know about evacuations, and they're never "controlled" and "orderly". Not even when it's with certainty that the evacuation is necessary.

Kindly point out where I mention the words "controlled" or "orderly", or STFU and leave this thread to the big boys...

[BlackCat]

I guess you missed all of those reports by the Bureau of Meteorology stating that it was the worst in living memory to make landfall in Australia.

So what if it is ? Or are you trying to claim that cyclones never can be stronger than those that already has been ?

[MOBIUS]

[ricketyclik]

So what if it is ? Or are you trying to claim that cyclones never can be stronger than those that already has been ?

Of course not. I'm stating that this one has occurred at the same time as record sea surface temperatures in the neighbouring seas, the world has just had its equal warmest on record, weather records are being broken around the world, the Arctic has just had its lowest summer ice area on record, the largest observed chunk of ice to break off Antarctica has broken off, and that meteorologists and physicists have been forecasting these things to happen for more than 30 years.

If you think these things form no type of pattern, then you are in denial. But then, I think people like you will continue to trot out the "records are broken all the time" line forever more, so I don't think I'll bother to address this further.

[BlackCat]

Well, there are that minor fact that these predictions hasn't come true - we don't get stronger hurricanes more often, so yes, it's probably just a coincidence.

[Hauldren Collider]

When Hurricane Katrina hit, Al Gore said it was global warming. When Hurricane Andrew hit, was that global warming?

First of all, they haven't been forecasting these things for years. In fact, 30 to 40 years ago, they were forecasting an ice age. And at the same time that you are having hot summers, we've also had record cold winters. Ricketyclik, you're like one of those people that reads the horoscope: whenever something happens that could fall under the purview of the vague predictions you buy into it completely and declare it PROVEN SCIENCE!

As I said before, when you've already arrived at your conclusions everything looks like evidence. In the middle ages, someone might have said "Why is there a hurricane?" to which the wise man might have replied, "because God willed it to be so." And the wise man would have said the same thing had he been asked to explain the calm weather. Fast forward to 2011. Why is there a hurricane in Australia? Because of global warming! Well explain the snowstorm in Chicago then? Because global warming increases temperature variation! Really, it ought to be called climate change! Antarctic ice blocks are breaking off! Nevermind that Arctic and Antarctic ice is actually thickening (Or is it just Antarctic? Whatever, irrelevant to the point.). And all the flooding and droughts and rainstorms and tornadoes--all of those are global warming too! Why? Because they appear to confirm what I already believe.

If you have 30 people screaming "IT'S HEADS!" and 30 people screaming "IT'S TAILS!" and then you pick up the coin and see it was tails, that doesn't mean the 30 people who were screaming tails are prophets or scientists. Similarly, if someone tells you that global warming is a real thing and causes hurricanes and then you see a hurricane the next day, that doesn't make that person a scientist.

None of what I have said disproves or even challenges the theory of global warming, just the "evidence" you have cherry-picked from your surroundings. The theory is falsifiable, but environmentalists' faith in it seems as entrenched as any religion. Thus, global warming public policy is fundamentally based on bad science, right or wrong.


EDIT: Xpost, responding to ricketyclik

[ricketyclik]

First of all, they haven't been forecasting these things for years.

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-e...ng-history.htm

Check your facts. It is common fallacy amongst denialists that warmer weather and increased frequency of extreme events was observed and a theory found to fit. The truth is quite the reverse - scientists wondered what the effect of massively increased CO2 would mean, studied the subject and made their projections, the beginnings of which we've seen played out during the noughties.

In fact, 30 to 40 years ago, they were forecasting an ice age.

That's because we were 8,000 years overdue for an ice age. Now we know why we didn't get it.

We are presently in an orbital cycle that was seeing a balmy 2,000 year period about every 20,000 years during a long term glacial period. 30 years ago scientists realised this and panicked because our next return to icy was well overdue. Those were palaeontologists, not meteorologists.

During the last balmy period, 10,000 years ago, the human race invented agriculture. Clearing. Increase in methane-belching ruminates. Balmy period remained, humans flourished, the rest is history.

I've debated this with you before, and recall that you get your information from Fox news and the like. That's where you're getting this idea that the theory is falsifiable.

It's interesting how deniers are all from the right of politics, and have all these conspiracy theories about a bid for world government, etc, when the obvious propaganda being spread is by big carbon. EVERY source I've ever read countering warming theory comes from them, when you trace the money.

It scares the right that the international community (sounds like commune ) going to have to cooperate (sounds like cooperative ) to head this off. In fact, you guys have been complicit in allowing big fossil to continue on their merry way unabated, building ever more heat into the atmosphere every year.

0.8 C so far, another 1.5 built in already, even if we were zero carbon today. If you don't think what we've seen already is convincing, wait until you see what's to come.

Of course no single event can be claimed as evidence. It is the mounting number of record events around the world that is forming a pattern.

Oh, and as for your fickleness argument, I first studied this subject at a university level in 1990, and have been paid to follow the science closely - including regular attendance at peak body scientific conferences - ever since graduating in order to advise my city on water resources infrastructure ever since. I suggest you do some reading on the subject from sources other than big fossil supporters.

[MOBIUS]

Considering HC is such a ****** on every other subject under the sun, it stands to reason that he's a climate change denier...

[Hauldren Collider]

http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-e...ng-history.htm

Check your facts. It is common fallacy amongst denialists that warmer weather and increased frequency of extreme events was observed and a theory found to fit. The truth is quite the reverse - scientists wondered what the effect of massively increased CO2 would mean, studied the subject and made their projections, the beginnings of which we've seen played out during the noughties.

I'm not talking about how the theory came about, I'm talking about your absurdly silly insistence that this hurricane has to do with global warming and/or supports the theory of global warming. You have no evidence for the former and the latter is science in reverse.

I've debated this with you before, and recall that you get your information from Fox news and the like. That's where you're getting this idea that the theory is falsifiable.

Saying that global warming is falsifiable is a supporting statement. If it isn't falsifiable then it isn't a scientific theory, it's a religion. Do you understand the scientific method?

And I never watch TV news

It's interesting how deniers are all from the right of politics, and have all these conspiracy theories about a bid for world government, etc, when the obvious propaganda being spread is by big carbon. EVERY source I've ever read countering warming theory comes from them, when you trace the money.

You know, plenty of democrats hate climate legislation too. Joe Manchin anyone? Of course, he's from a coal state so that makes him only slightly better than a farm state earmarker but he's still a democrat.

Of course no single event can be claimed as evidence. It is the mounting number of record events around the world that is forming a pattern.

A pattern you only see because you are predisposed to see it based on your prior conclusions. Your listing of weather disasters does not link them to global warming.

Oh, and as for your fickleness argument, I first studied this subject at a university level in 1990, and have been paid to follow the science closely - including regular attendance at peak body scientific conferences - ever since graduating in order to advise my city on water resources infrastructure ever since. I suggest you do some reading on the subject from sources other than big fossil supporters.

Blah blah blah I'm an expert. Yeah, I've read up about it from all sorts of angles, no, I'm not the most knowledgeable about it nor do I pretend to be. Irrelevant. Your statements on recent natural disasters are stupid.

[Hauldren Collider]

MOBIUS: Insults lose their sting when the person throwing them is a Ben Kenobi style buffoon.

[Egbert]

Nature's revenge for the Aussies (QLDers being the worst offenders) voting down Kevin Rudd's climate change bill...

And then we tossed out Kevin.

Tossing out Kevin.

[Egbert]

Dude, you're a Texan. You don't know crap - full stop!

I heard a rumour that Texans don't study crap which may explain why they don't know much about it. Are you planning to enlighten them with your knowledge of crap?