• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shell foresaw climate dangers in 1988 and understood Big Oil’s big role

late said:
No, because the program didn't get anywhere, it didn't generate a lot of news.

Maybe more later.
Click to expand...

Translation: I can't answer his question, here is a non sequitur instead.
 
late said:
A non sequitir would apply to an argument, not a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

You really failed to understand what I meant...........................

Non Sequitur

a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Click to expand...

Latin, literally ‘it does not follow.’
Click to expand...
 
Sunsettommy said:
You really failed to understand what I meant...........................

Non Sequitur
Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that something that does not follow factually is a non sequtir.

If that is the case, you goofed.

"In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

If there is a flaw, it's because I was factually incorrect, not logically incorrect.

If you had an argument in mind that addressed my reasoning, you would need to provide it, logically speaking.
 
itsforthekids said:
Yea...ever heard of beach erosion? From what algore and the rest of the climate wackjobs, the seas are going to rise dramatically. By the way...where are the category 6 hurricanes?
Click to expand...
My point is, he is not right on the ocean, but some distance on a cliff. I don't remember for certain the height, but 130 ft. comes to mind. He can claim he wanted to be safe when everything rises.
 
Lord of Planar said:
My point is, he is not right on the ocean, but some distance on a cliff. I don't remember for certain the height, but 130 ft. comes to mind. He can claim he wanted to be safe when everything rises.
Click to expand...

Oh, and by the way, to quote some lefty "logic"...why does anyone need a 6,500 sq ft home? Not only has algore created a whole bunch of CO2 by having this mansion built, but he built it on the coast...and imagine the amount of energy it uses!
 
late said:
You seem to be saying that something that does not follow factually is a non sequtir.

If that is the case, you goofed.

"In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

If there is a flaw, it's because I was factually incorrect, not logically incorrect.

If you had an argument in mind that addressed my reasoning, you would need to provide it, logically speaking.
Click to expand...

So did you ever find your gutted satellite program, or where I attacked Science?
I am thinking you are picking up the tendency towards hyperbole used by the alarmist blogs you seem to be reading.
 
late said:
You seem to be saying that something that does not follow factually is a non sequtir.

If that is the case, you goofed.

"In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

If there is a flaw, it's because I was factually incorrect, not logically incorrect.

If you had an argument in mind that addressed my reasoning, you would need to provide it, logically speaking.
Click to expand...

Your abject failure to answer Longview's question about Satellites and avoidance of a real debate in the thread. You spend a lot of time being snotty and lacking depth in your replies in the thread.

Figure it out..................................
 
Sunsettommy said:
Figure it out..................................
Click to expand...

You don't do science in a goofy forum. You talk to scientists. Which I love when I can watch fools get run through the grinder.

Most of what I see here is propaganda, most esp. the fake science.
 
late said:
You don't do science in a goofy forum. You talk to scientists. Which I love when I can watch fools get run through the grinder.

Most of what I see here is propaganda, most esp. the fake science.
Click to expand...

You have stated nothing here that would lead any to believe that you would recognize
the application of the scientific method, if you saw it.
Also did you find the gutted satellite program, or where I attacked Science?
 
late said:
You don't do science in a goofy forum. You talk to scientists. Which I love when I can watch fools get run through the grinder.

Most of what I see here is propaganda, most esp. the fake science.
Click to expand...

It is clear you don't know what your problem is.
 
longview said:
You have stated nothing here that would lead any to believe that you would recognize
the application of the scientific method, if you saw it.
Also did you find the gutted satellite program, or where I attacked Science?
Click to expand...

He is now replying to me, while ignoring your valid questions while he complains there is a lot of propaganda here, which I don't see you doing.

I think he does this to cover up his weakness of science literacy, which is a common behavior of warmists. I had to quit Facebook, because of the ugly name calling replies laced with deep hate in them.

He is a one lost fella.
 
Sunsettommy said:
He is now replying to me, while ignoring your valid questions while he complains there is a lot of propaganda here, which I don't see you doing.
Click to expand...

Been following climate science since the early 80s. I've talked with a scientist who was in the IPCC.

My reaction to goofballs and the fake science they crib from Big Oil propaganda is boredom.

Science, on the other hand, is something I find interesting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-data-hurricanes-will-get-worse/

The fun question is how long before cities get hammered so hard we have to abandon them.
 
late said:
Been following climate science since the early 80s. I've talked with a scientist who was in the IPCC.

My reaction to goofballs and the fake science they crib from Big Oil propaganda is boredom.

Science, on the other hand, is something I find interesting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-data-hurricanes-will-get-worse/

The fun question is how long before cities get hammered so hard we have to abandon them.
Click to expand...

You may have been following the climate sciences since the early 80's, but you do not seem to have picked
up much of the actual science.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas!
If we double the level of CO2, it will cause a top of atmosphere energy imbalance of about 3.71 Wm-2!
This will force warming of the surface troposphere system of about 1.1 C!
That is pretty much the limit of the real science.
The rest is speculation, and non testable concepts.

I live in Houston and was here for Harvey, the only thing that increased the rainfall of Harvey was the slow speed of the storm.
The rainfall totals were predicted on the Friday before the storm, and stuck to the same rule in use for decades.
Blank
Maximum rainfall (inches)=100/speed (in knots)
Click to expand...
Harvey moved at 2 knots per hour, that equals 50 inches of rain, (I got 48 inches at my house).
20% of the homes in Houston saw some flooding (which means that 80% did not).
Hurricanes are messy business, but no cities are likely to be abandoned because of them.
 
longview said:
The rest is speculation, and non testable concepts.

Hurricanes are messy business, but no cities are likely to be abandoned because of them.
Click to expand...

IOW, you want to pretend most climate science isn't science. You don't get to make that call, and in any case, it's an accepted part of science, has been for decades.

If you extrapolate from the new work, it's inevitable. While the costs will continue to go up, and will get gynormous, that's not my primary concern.

NYC would flood anytime the pumps stop working. A major storm would flood the underground areas, making recovery problematic and slow. But global banking and business would need to continue, other cities would take up the slack. The dollar would stop being the reserve currency, for example. That would, at the least, throw us into a recession. But it could get a lot worse than that, economically speaking.

When this might happen is up for grabs. But the odds of it happening are growing.

You can fake it all you want, but stupidity has consequences.
 
late said:
IOW, you want to pretend most climate science isn't science. You don't get to make that call, and in any case, it's an accepted part of science, has been for decades.

If you extrapolate from the new work, it's inevitable. While the costs will continue to go up, and will get gynormous, that's not my primary concern.

NYC would flood anytime the pumps stop working. A major storm would flood the underground areas, making recovery problematic and slow. But global banking and business would need to continue, other cities would take up the slack. The dollar would stop being the reserve currency, for example. That would, at the least, throw us into a recession. But it could get a lot worse than that, economically speaking.

When this might happen is up for grabs. But the odds of it happening are growing.

You can fake it all you want, but stupidity has consequences.
Click to expand...
I do not pretend any science isn't science, but I also do not pretend that non testable concepts are science.
How big is "gynormous" ? is that one of your scientific terms?
Seriously, if you want to discuss New York City, we can.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
a greater than a century trend of 2.84 mm per year,
I looked this up before so,
New York, battery park elevation 6.4 Feet/2= 3.2 feet (975 mm), SLR 2.84 mm/year, or 343 years to cut the elevation in half.
Also NYC is above sea level and so will not flood anytime the pumps stop working.
You should really ease back on the hyperbole you are getting from the alarmist blogs.
 
longview said:
I do not pretend any science isn't science, but I also do not pretend that non testable concepts are science.
How big is "gynormous" ? is that one of your scientific terms?
Seriously, if you want to discuss New York City, we can.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
a greater than a century trend of 2.84 mm per year,
I looked this up before so,
New York, battery park elevation 6.4 Feet/2= 3.2 feet (975 mm), SLR 2.84 mm/year, or 343 years to cut the elevation in half.
Also NYC is above sea level and so will not flood anytime the pumps stop working.
You should really ease back on the hyperbole you are getting from the alarmist blogs.
Click to expand...

Here’s a current review of the science, written by the best scientists in the field.

Whaddya think?

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 
itsforthekids said:
Oh, and by the way, to quote some lefty "logic"...why does anyone need a 6,500 sq ft home? Not only has algore created a whole bunch of CO2 by having this mansion built, but he built it on the coast...and imagine the amount of energy it uses!
Click to expand...

I know. They are so damn hypocritical.
 
late said:
Been following climate science since the early 80s. I've talked with a scientist who was in the IPCC.

My reaction to goofballs and the fake science they crib from Big Oil propaganda is boredom.

Science, on the other hand, is something I find interesting.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-data-hurricanes-will-get-worse/

The fun question is how long before cities get hammered so hard we have to abandon them.
Click to expand...

LOL...

Scientific American links their own links and blogs. They are just a joke. I didn't see any peer reviewed papers linked or referenced.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

Scientific American links their own links and blogs. I didn't see any peer reviewed papers linked or referenced.
Click to expand...

Did you read it??

2nd paragraph:

"Last week researchers published that data in Earth’s Future."

"Kevin Trenberth, a senior climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, led the team. Scientific American asked him why Harvey behaved so strangely, how it confirms predictions about changing hurricanes and what the U.S. and other nations prone to the storms should prepare for in the future."
 
late said:
Did you read it??

2nd paragraph:

"Last week researchers published that data in Earth’s Future."

"Kevin Trenberth, a senior climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, led the team. Scientific American asked him why Harvey behaved so strangely, how it confirms predictions about changing hurricanes and what the U.S. and other nations prone to the storms should prepare for in the future."
Click to expand...

But it gives no link to the paper. Just the journal.

Hey Einstein...

Please link the paper. Maybe they didn't link it because they are lying about what the paper really says?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom