Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-02-2019, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,207,300 times
Reputation: 7528

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
So, I take it you finally figured out Dihydrogen Monoxide is water!!!
Wrong you just did not understand my post when I was correcting the poster who said DHMO was water vapor. Water vapor and water are not the same. They do not posses the same properties.

I stated this back when I linked the DMHO FAQ site and mentioned that it was a parody.

You went berserk on a parody that I pointed out.

Take a deep breath.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2019, 11:38 PM
 
8,058 posts, read 3,910,446 times
Reputation: 5342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Wrong you just did not understand my post when I was correcting the poster who said DHMO was water vapor. Water vapor and water are not the same. They do not posses the same properties.

I stated this back when I linked the DMHO FAQ site and mentioned that it was a parody.

You went berserk on a parody that I pointed out.

Take a deep breath.
...Or you could just admit you were wrong and got duped by a parody site! Hahahahaha!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2019, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,207,300 times
Reputation: 7528
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiociolliscalves View Post
"There can't be global warming...there's snow in my backyard!"
Why do people think that just because there is snow that this negates Global Warming?

Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favorable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?

Does cold weather disprove global warming?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
31,343 posts, read 14,085,427 times
Reputation: 27849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Why do people think that just because there is snow that this negates Global Warming?

Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favorable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?

Does cold weather disprove global warming?
Heads I win, tails you lose.

Higher temperatures = global warming AKA climate change
Colder temperatures = global warming AKA climate change
More rainfall = global warming AKA climate change
Less rainfall = global warming AKA climate change
Flooding = climate change
Drought = climate change
More hurricanes = climate change
Less hurricanes = climate change


You people continue to move the goalposts to support whatever redistribution schemes you have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 08:32 AM
 
25,736 posts, read 16,356,577 times
Reputation: 15922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Yet we are dropping vehicle fuel economy standards and attempting to prop up failing coal plants.
The coal plants are already mostly slated for decommission. I've not heard of any getting a new license. I agree on the vehicle fuel economy standards.

You know, the fake polls that show Americans as concerned with the environment sure run counter to what I see on the road every day.

I drive a relatively efficient SUV that gets around 30 mpg. I do it because I'm cheap and I believe in efficiency not for environmental concerns...but in this case the two go hand in hand.

I'm dwarfed by all these SUV's with 300 plus HP every day. So are these the people voting in these polls?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,495 posts, read 36,985,044 times
Reputation: 13965
Just a heads up... Huge cavity in Antarctic glacier signals rapid decay... About the size of Florida, Thwaites Glacier is currently responsible for approximately 4 percent of global sea level rise. It holds enough ice to raise the world ocean a little over 2 feet

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2838/h...s-rapid-decay/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,861 posts, read 25,799,606 times
Reputation: 15434
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
The coal plants are already mostly slated for decommission. I've not heard of any getting a new license. I agree on the vehicle fuel economy standards.

You know, the fake polls that show Americans as concerned with the environment sure run counter to what I see on the road every day.

I drive a relatively efficient SUV that gets around 30 mpg. I do it because I'm cheap and I believe in efficiency not for environmental concerns...but in this case the two go hand in hand.

I'm dwarfed by all these SUV's with 300 plus HP every day. So are these the people voting in these polls?
Trump requested that Perry at DOE find funding to prop up some failing coal plants, I don't know that it ever happened but that was their intent. Vehicle emissions are a large source of greenhouse gases, rolling back the fuel standards allows car manufacturers to increase production of trucks and large SUV's. This is a lack of leadership in addressing climate change, some like yourself will choose efficiency but obviously many will not do so particularly with fuel at $2 a gallon.


There needs to be uniform fuel efficiency standards individuals did not go out and buy catalytic converters because of concern over lead, there were standard requirements. We should be increasing fuel efficiency not rolling it back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 01:20 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
11,761 posts, read 7,207,300 times
Reputation: 7528
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Heads I win, tails you lose.
There is nothing to win here. Science is true regardless of what you want to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Higher temperatures = global warming AKA climate change
This should be obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
Colder temperatures = global warming AKA climate change
There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
More rainfall = global warming AKA climate change
Less rainfall = global warming AKA climate change
Flooding = climate change
Drought = climate change
Global warming amplifies the risk factors for extreme weather events - and that is all that Climate Science claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
More hurricanes = climate change

Less hurricanes = climate change
I've never heard one single climate scientist make these claims.

It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
You people continue to move the goalposts to support whatever redistribution schemes you have.
This is simply flat out false. If fact you can go back and look at climate model predictions from the 1970's and compare this to what actually happened and the models were more or less spot on. So how is this moving the goal posts?

However when looking at other global warming indicators climate scientists cautioned on the conservative side and have under estimated the speed of global warming.

Climate deniers are the only one's who move the goal posts as well as cherry pick data. That's not how it works in science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 02:15 PM
 
29,936 posts, read 18,498,341 times
Reputation: 20690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
There is nothing to win here. Science is true regardless of what you want to believe.
This should be obvious.

There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.


Global warming amplifies the risk factors for extreme weather events - and that is all that Climate Science claims.

I've never heard one single climate scientist make these claims.

It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.

This is simply flat out false. If fact you can go back and look at climate model predictions from the 1970's and compare this to what actually happened and the models were more or less spot on. So how is this moving the goal posts?

However when looking at other global warming indicators climate scientists cautioned on the conservative side and have under estimated the speed of global warming.

Climate deniers are the only one's who move the goal posts as well as cherry pick data. That's not how it works in science.
The problem is that you do not believe in actual science, as you condemn the first law of experimental science:

DISPROVE THE "NULL HYPOTHESIS'.

This is the cornerstone of the scientific method and is completely ignored by the AGW crowd.

In actual science, one would disprove that man is NOT causing global warming. That is refuting the null hypothesis.

In AGW, the liberals state definitively that man is warming the planet. They then ask others to provide definitive proof to the contrary.

You see- that is the opposite of actual science. It would be like saying that marshmallow men inhabit the core of Jupiter. It has to be true, as you cannot disprove it. See the lunacy of the core premise of AGW? In addition to violating the very core of the scientific method, liberals CONDEMN AND VILLIFY any contrary data and cling to the premise. Again, in valid science, ANY additional data or challenge to the hypothesis is WELCOMED, as a good hypothesis will stand up under scrutiny.

Lastly, in actual science, the scientist is indifferent to the outcome of the study. Of course, this is the opposite in AGW, in which its proponants have a firm emotional investment in the outcome of their "studies".

Anyone who understands, or has had training in, formal science understands how absurd the contention of AGW actually is and how ridiculous its proponants claim to be supporting "science", when they are actually disregarding every principle of valid science. This is what happens when laymen with no knowledge of science whatsoever claim supreme expertise and understanding in an area in which they have no clue. If they were not so damaging in potential actions that could destroy the planet, they would simply be amusing "useful idiots".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,495 posts, read 36,985,044 times
Reputation: 13965
Some encouraging news....

A recent Monmouth poll found that 78% of Americans believe climate change is real and leading to sea-level rise and more extreme weather. That’s up from 70% three years ago. The headline-grabbing takeaway: a majority of Republicans – 64% – are now believers, a 15-point jump from 2015.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...changing-minds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top