What's new
By:

Houston..

I wish we could have a rational discussion about the actual development of the Houston area. So many subdivisions were unwisely built in flood plains and others without adequate infrastructure for drainage and evacuation. The effects of climate change should be bigly influential in the Houston rebuild. Sadly, one side is too busy trying to grab as much federal money as possible while denying that climate change exists.

What's the point of rebuilding these communities if we're going to ignore science? Regulation is damned yet when disaster strikes they demand my hard earned money for bailouts. They're just going to be destroyed again here in a few years. I'd like to see congress earmark these federal funds to force Houston to rebuild smarter with adequate infrastructure. Otherwise, I feel like my tax dollars will just be pissed away.

I say let Texas pick itself up by its own boostraps. All I've heard from them the past few years was how evil the Feds are and how states do everything better. Now is the perfect time to fire up those bake sales and for "local control" to show the Feds how it's done!
 
discussing this for now is totally ,meaningless.


in 10-20-30 years we will see if it is settled science. or if the models of today will be obsulte in 30 years just like those from 30 years ago ar eobsolete and wrong today
 
The Thriller said:
I wish we could have a rational discussion about the actual development of the Houston area. So many subdivisions were unwisely built in flood plains and others without adequate infrastructure for drainage and evacuation. The effects of climate change should be bigly influential in the Houston rebuild. Sadly, one side is too busy trying to grab as much federal money as possible while denying that climate change exists.

What's the point of rebuilding these communities if we're going to ignore science? Regulation is damned yet when disaster strikes they demand my hard earned money for bailouts. They're just going to be destroyed again here in a few years. I'd like to see congress earmark these federal funds to force Houston to rebuild smarter with adequate infrastructure. Otherwise, I feel like my tax dollars will just be pissed away.

I say let Texas pick itself up by its own boostraps. All I've heard from them the past few years was how evil the Feds are and how states do everything better. Now is the perfect time to fire up those bake sales and for "local control" to show the Feds how it's done!
Click to expand...

i was trying to have that, honestly.
Netherlands is a perfect example. with all the dikes etc, and the flood plans. planned flooding of certain areas.
 
Red said:
No, I'm just not holding my breath, waiting for you to catch up to reality. You're living in an alternative universe. The information I posted blows you out of the water, and you actually want more? Don't be such a glutton for punishment. I'm not sadistic, for heaven's sake. Read the material I left for you, examine the motives for your own detachment from reality, maybe you can learn. I don't know, I'll hope for the best....
Click to expand...

Terrible closing argument TBH. You left out all big oil conspiracy theories.
 
DutchJazzer said:
discussing this for now is totally ,meaningless.


in 10-20-30 years we will see if it is settled science. or if the models of today will be obsulte in 30 years just like those from 30 years ago ar eobsolete and wrong today
Click to expand...
That was a legitimate thing to say 20 years ago. But not today.
 
DutchJazzer said:
what has changed????

suddenly our scientist know everything and our current models are perfect?
Click to expand...
There have been 20 additional years of data collection and building/testing of models, obviously. Just what you were saying should happen between now and 20 years from now
 
colton said:
There have been 20 additional years of data collection and building/testing of models, obviously. Just what you were saying should happen between now and 20 years from now
Click to expand...

I'm dismayed trained "scientists" of today make this kind of semantic mistake, logical mistake, and utterly non-scientific assertion.

extrapolation of whatever data is always hypothetical, never fact.... yet.

The data we have clearly indicate that we do not have a factual knowledge of all that occurs at the onset of any ice age, and that what we have recorded so far in terms of "climate change" on the warm extreme is within statistical norms established in the two decades presaging ice age onsets for the past six ice ages, per the core data we do have.

"scientists" today who are onboard with the "global warming" side "climate change" hypothesis must, from the data available, be reaching that conclusion for political if not monetary (grant funding or position holding) reasons.

For whatever reasons, with the onset of each ice age, the data indicate that global temps, per sediment or ice core estimates. will plunge 10-15C within a span of fifty years from onset, after arriving at temps statistically indistinguishable from todays temps or "climate".

There is a wealth of support for these statements in the lit. Peer-reviewed lit.
 
Siro said:
I bet Red's back has gone raw from all the self patting for winning all of those totally legit debates.

How many hours have you spent empowering trolls so far?
Click to expand...

You're right. Were it not for me, Dutch and Boris would have been quiet as chuchmice. They would never have posted to a thread where the subject if climate change came up. My bad...
 
Siro said:
He should just create a notepad file, and make up an argument he can demolish.

Question: If globel wornimg is true ten how come antactuca haz ice?

Response: a wall of text about changing ocean temperature around Antarctica.

There. All the satisfaction of research without contributing to the forum takeover by awful trolls.
Click to expand...

In the several forums I post to, including one I moderate, once trolls are identified as such, they are usually banned.
 
babe said:
I'm dismayed trained "scientists" of today make this kind of semantic mistake, logical mistake, and utterly non-scientific assertion.

extrapolation of whatever data is always hypothetical, never fact.... yet.

The data we have clearly indicate that we do not have a factual knowledge of all that occurs at the onset of any ice age, and that what we have recorded so far in terms of "climate change" on the warm extreme is within statistical norms established in the two decades presaging ice age onsets for the past six ice ages, per the core data we do have.

"scientists" today who are onboard with the "global warming" side "climate change" hypothesis must, from the data available, be reaching that conclusion for political if not monetary (grant funding or position holding) reasons.

For whatever reasons, with the onset of each ice age, the data indicate that global temps, per sediment or ice core estimates. will plunge 10-15C within a span of fifty years from onset, after arriving at temps statistically indistinguishable from todays temps or "climate".

There is a wealth of support for these statements in the lit. Peer-reviewed lit.
Click to expand...

LOL an the alarmists are worried about 1.8 degrees f increase? We won't be able ta mine coal fast enough with that kinda drop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top