Greta Thunberg day in NYC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks mr coffee. I relegated the fellow to ignor again a week or two ago. Pigeon on the game table analogy fits.
 
I think this "both sides" fallacy is a bunch of bull pucky.

Only one side in this debate has argued in extremely bad faith, bordering on malevolence. I think arguing that the whole hypothesis of human-caused climate change is invalid because of possible "misconduct" or "errors" in a paper nearly 20 years old, while ignoring all of the other evidence that is plain as day if you just open your eyes, is a clear case of arguing in extreme bad faith.
As usual, that screed is based on false information - the misconduct and errors fight is so old because Mann's hubris won't allow him to admit faults and instead he smeared people who found fault.
He hid the fact that r2 statistical testing would have shown his study invalid. He refused to disclose about info on r2 testing, which he had excluded from his paper. That's very bad behavior.
His years long refusal to show the court his r2 lost him his court case.

AND new studies very often INCORPORATE THE MISTAKES, over and over and over because Mann refuses to correct.
Mr Coffee misrepresents the scenario so utterly, it's comical.
 
Last edited:
Noted that Mr Coffee said nothing and quoted nothing wrt to showing evidence. It's so funny. I don't have to do anything.
 
Thanks mr coffee. I relegated the fellow to ignor again a week or two ago. Pigeon on the game table analogy fits.
Oh, Thomas, you don't need to make up stories. Even last Saturday the 11th we were having pleasant exchanges and you liked my posts and nothing changed until you came up empty here.
Here's the evidence you're making up stuff once again: https://electricbikereview.com/foru...ng-to-solve-charging-on-the-road.31265/page-7

you said:
I said:
Nice..you can see the difference between cells. That is your beater battery?

No, it's the same as I support for an online reseller. But I did buy a 36V 17Ah 35E for my new MAC and folder.
 
Last edited:
You provided a lot smears and not much else. You offer no quotes that show what you claimed

In 1990 IPCC was aware of Exxon's contributions to the science.
Here is a sample of the state of knowledge at IPCC in 1990

Table 1.2 Estimates for regional changes by Working Group I (IPCC Business-as-Usual scenario; changes from pre-industrial) The estimates arc based on high resolution models, scaled to give a global mean warming of 1.8°C consistent with the best estimate (2.5"C) of climate response to greenhouse gases. With the low estimate value of 1.5°C, these values should be reduced by 30%; with a high estimate of 4.5°C, they should be increased by 50%. Confidence on these estimates is low.

repeat: Confidence on these estimates is low.

So if in 1990 IPPC has low confidence, your claim that Exxon KNEW in 1980 is odd.
 
Last edited:
If you guys are aiming to shut down your embarrassing position in this thread by turning this into name-calling, watch me not respond to it and stay on track instead.
 
As for "extreme": perhaps you should go have a conversation with people in Australia about what "extreme" means.
Perhaps you could also drop in on Paradise, CA and see what they think as well.

The truth will set you free... ;)

Australia wildfires started by 100+ arsonists.
Paradise wildfires started by PG&E power lines.
 
They report 114 human started fires. They don't explain that arsonists light fires that they think would be particularly difficult to stop and ones that would cause the most damage.
 
Mr Coffee provided links but nothing supporting his claim.
Even his own link from the dubious and highly prejudiced source said
The industry had the science 30 years ago and knew what was going to happen but made no warning so that preemptive steps could have been taken.

So Mr Coffee seems to have a conflict with his own dubious source. 30 years isn't 40 yrs and my argument that he scorned is that they would have had to know more than IPCC in 1990.
In 1990 IPCC had low confidence in their scenarios.
 
The truth will set you free... ;)

Australia wildfires started by 100+ arsonists.
Paradise wildfires started by PG&E power lines.

It must be nice being able to pass around disinformation...



As for the fires in CA, yes they were started by power lines, as are many wildfires. However, the hotter conditions earlier in the year produced extremely dry fuel conditions which made those fires catastrophic. Even very slightly elevated air temperatures, over a long period of time, can accelerate evaporation and decrease the humidity of fuels.

So please, spare us all the willful misinformation of ignorant right-wing kooks.

If it sounds like I'm pissed off, it is because I am pissed off. We are facing a frightening and catastrophic situation and people are trying to pretend that "this is fine." Nearly 50 million homes in the United States are vulnerable to wildfire, and nearly a third of Americans could be displaced by even very modest amounts of sea level rise. We can't all abandon our homes and move someplace else... now I am going to write a $9990 check for homeowner's insurance, up from $7500 last year, due to, (you guessed it!) wildfire risk. So you boneheads are taking money out of my pockets.
 
As for the fires in CA, yes they were started by power lines
We have a fact here! One that you have evidence for!! Yay!

However, the hotter conditions earlier in the year produced extremely dry fuel conditions which made those fires catastrophic. Even very slightly elevated air temperatures, over a long period of time, can accelerate evaporation and decrease the humidity of fuels.

There only one thing missing in your evaluation, Mr Coffee.
The evidence that CO2 did it. California has had massive long droughts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back