What's new

Houston..

Yeah, I thought there was value, but then again, maybe there really isn't. I am naive. But I'll remember in the future.
There is value in posting useful links and thoughtful points of view, but I think the best way to respond to trolls is to never quote them directly. When they post misinformation you feel should not go unanswered, simply post with the reply to thread button, and the viewpoint you wish to present can be read without ever engaging the troll. If context is necessary it can be done by paraphrasing or restating the issue. The trolls in question could often use a translation into coherent English anyway.
 
There is value in posting useful links and thoughtful points of view, but I think the best way to respond to trolls is to never quote them directly. When they post misinformation you feel should not go unanswered, simply post with the reply to thread button, and the viewpoint you wish to present can be read without ever engaging the troll. If context is necessary it can be done by paraphrasing or restating the issue. The trolls in question could often use a translation into coherent English anyway.

Thanks. I've approached it both ways, in fact. As often as not, I've ignored replies directed to me and just carried on as if those replies didn't exist. I've even been ignorant about it at times:-)
 
As a 'new' poster (I've lurked here over a decade) I wouldn't mind a "Who's a Troll" thread. I've said it before but it's tough to differentiate between the trolls and the morons/douches.
 
lols


you do know scientist from the 1400 used that same **** right.

"scientist" always think this time they got it right!!!!!!!!!!!!!



you knwo when they get it right and i will believe them

if in 30 years they did not change their ****. and their **** came true!!



this time we got it right is ********. ok if you got it right we can stop sicence, grab a drink go to some hookers and get drunk!


only retarded people are so naive that we got it right this time!

Yes, the state of science in 2017 is just like it was in the year 1400. Your logic is impeccable. /sarcasm

But back to the question that I've asked twice, that you still haven't answered--what resource(s) do you use to inform yourself about climate science? Whose opinion DO you trust? Why do you believe what you believe? What evidence have you found to be persuasive? And why do you trust that particular evidence and disregard the thousands of other pieces of evidence that argue in favor of climate change?

Basically, your arguments and explanations have been like this so far: "I don't believe because I don't believe." That's not how science works, and it's not how logical critiques of science work either.
 
I like Boris.

Whatever else you say about him, he speaks for about 55% of Americans and 60% of people worldwide.

ya'll have read stuff to come up with opinions manufactured for public consumption in the New York Times, other yellow rags, and corporate media. Most people don't listen to their teachers in school, or pay attention to the propaganda worked into Hollywood movies and stuff.

By the time the average, normal person has seen two seasons of Big Bird or Barney, they're done with the whole standard world views. Well, unless you really believe what you're told, which takes a peculiar kind of mentality hell bent on making the world nice and progressive.
 
Yes, the state of science in 2017 is just like it was in the year 1400. Your logic is impeccable. /sarcasm

But back to the question that I've asked twice, that you still haven't answered--what resource(s) do you use to inform yourself about climate science? Whose opinion DO you trust? Why do you believe what you believe? What evidence have you found to be persuasive? And why do you trust that particular evidence and disregard the thousands of other pieces of evidence that argue in favor of climate change?

Basically, your arguments and explanations have been like this so far: "I don't believe because I don't believe." That's not how science works, and it's not how logical critiques of science work either.

No, the argument is "To Hell with you. I get to think what I want to think."
 
No, the argument is "To Hell with you. I get to think what I want to think."

For several days now, I've been thinking of starting a thread about novelist and one time journalist Kurt Andersens's new book "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: a 500 year History". and now, here you are, in a few words, summarizing part of his thesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ovRt5IW6Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMnLS0RZ-HM&app=desktop
 
Truth is somewhat nebulous. Facts are generally more certain, however they can be (and are of course) used, misconstrued, and interpreted, to construct various versions of "the truth". Especially in a day and age when everything that floats around in someone's head can become a world-wide sensation, when there are so many sources of information that it generates serious information overload, it is tough to ascertain the actual facts, let alone distill that down into something resembling truth, especially for people who get most of their information from individual pictures, memes, and 30 second videos on facebook. Everything tends to be taken at face value. That scares the hell out of me, tbh.
 
Yes, the state of science in 2017 is just like it was in the year 1400. Your logic is impeccable. /sarcasm

But back to the question that I've asked twice, that you still haven't answered--what resource(s) do you use to inform yourself about climate science? Whose opinion DO you trust? Why do you believe what you believe? What evidence have you found to be persuasive? And why do you trust that particular evidence and disregard the thousands of other pieces of evidence that argue in favor of climate change?

Basically, your arguments and explanations have been like this so far: "I don't believe because I don't believe." That's not how science works, and it's not how logical critiques of science work either.

lol what will we say in 2400 about the stat of science in 2020!

also irma wasnt so bad.

i heard cnn calling it the strongest ever! near apocalyptic!

it was EPIC!



investors ran awya from insurance companies and banks.

now that irma passed like a fart in the wind. not being nowhere near apocalyptic, stocks are skyrocketing!


so yeah cnn saying a storm is near apocalyptic supported their climate change agenda!!
 
will any of you at least learn that when in 2040 it comes out we are wrong today just like in 70's 80's and 90's, that settled science does not come from speculation, simulations and modeling?


or will it finally got it right in 2040 by speculating, modelling and simulating?
 
lol now they are spinning the storm it as the top 5 expensive in terms of damages. and we need to control the climate!

NO **** sherlock that is not due to climate change. but that is due to economic progress.


but they act like the damages a storm cost is a correlation to it being one of the worst storms because of climate change!


yeah no **** sherlock. seriously if miami was a barren wasteland with just some poophuts like in africa the economic damage would be a couple of 100 bucks with the exact same storm!! for those of you who do not know about poophuts see picture:
91b4dc780a7129f01e25abac53e488b4.jpg


but instead it is filled with economic marvels, large buildings, nice houses, yachts, boat expensive cars.



but hey the narrative must remain right? hurricanes are getting stronger because of "muh global farting cooling theory"
. so they are grasping at straws. i hope you people see through this. as it not being one of the top 5 expensive storms because of climate change.


but i fear the "muh science is settled crowd" will fall for this narrative and we need world government. to solve a normal tornado!

i thought you people did not beleive in gods, but you want the govenrment do godlike jobs. eradicate hurricanes!

this climate fear is hilarious HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHA!
 
Last edited:
A possible identity for the poster known as Boris was suggested to me and it really seems to fit. I know Ron Mexico believes it is Trout, but I've always had a hard time accepting that. The only clue I'm going to say in the open is that it is very likely that Boris is a female.

So you are not accepting my deal an want me ta continue posting?

BTW there is strong evidence that you are Tha Thriller.
 
The first post asked that question sarcastically. But that's neither here nor there. I was annoyed that you're giving a fake poster so much attention, but I probably shouldn't have singled you out. Nonetheless, Boris is a fake poster, and not simply a troll. He started posting a couple of years ago as a Russian (thus the name Boris), with a fake Russian accent and all, and a thorough knowledge of every poster on this forum. He then changed his character a few times. I think he's a black kid from Baltimore now or something? I've had him on ignore for a while, so I'm not sure.

You can do whatever you wish. Maybe you think there's value to what you're saying even if the person you're arguing with is insincere. But you should know that he IS insincere. He is wasting your time on purpose for his personal entertainment.

Wrong. I posted with my native accent cause I like ta honor my parents an ancestry. Everbody was annoyed so I politely obliged an changed ta my tha hick style I speak in in my current state of affairs. I am pretty much a modern mountain man an as hick as it gits.

I will admit I spent a period bein a parody of others posters. You were the most boring just behind NAOS. Vinylone was my favourite.
 
For several days now, I've been thinking of starting a thread about novelist and one time journalist Kurt Andersens's new book "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: a 500 year History". and now, here you are, in a few words, summarizing part of his thesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ovRt5IW6Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMnLS0RZ-HM&app=desktop


With all due respect, which may not be much respect, my own thesis differs from Boris' in one fact. I am speaking of "Science" being the nutjob political hacks who are creating their own "truth", to the extent of deliberately ignoring many truly significant factors in "climate" such as the total heat content of our oceans in relation to the much smaller heat content of our atmosphere, as they spin their yarns for their politically-motivated power brokers in the grant-funding agencies of government.

Most people look at the climate change "crisis" with some justified disbelief when it is hijacked by political hacks to justify the carbon tax proposals which will have severe economic impacts on the US, on our lives, while requiring virtually nothing from China and India. In fact, the proposal does not effectively address the "problem" if it were really "the problem".

"the problem" is how to redistribute wealth worldwide to achieve more social justice across the globe, and how to cememt political power in the hands of fascists. I mean "fascists" as the general club of top interests who have the best lobbying access to governments across the globe, corporate cartelists who have found it profitable to have governments endorse their interests while more severely hamstringing smaller competitors.

I don't quibble at 1.8F or whatever the data really is. I believe we are still within "normal" for interglacial warm periods, which may in fact carry a feedback sort of mechanism for starting a new ice age..... warmer oceans.... not just surfaces but at depth.

warmer oceans may also contribute to the CO2 rise in a shorter time span, as warming oceans could expel significant amounts of dissolved CO2.

And those warmer oceans supply the water vapors needed to increase snow over sub-arctic areas most susceptible to the formation of great ice sheets, like the Hudson Bay/Great Lakes area.

depletion of glacial ice would logically lead to a point in time where there will be less arctic or antartic net melting, maybe enough to affect temps in the deep ocean, which are generally thought to be something close to 4C, the temp at which water is most dense. At any rate, it may be more important to look at heat flux from the earth's core in assessing deep sea temps. Or, maybe, the "solar wind" or deep space debris fields we are encountering as we move along around our little galaxy....

But who the hell wants all that information when we have chump science professionals who will just make up the science we need to panic mankind into the desired political course.

Nope, when I read "Science" publications, even peer-reviewed publications, I never quit asking obvious questions.

Nobody should. I'm proud of the human race for having the guts to dispute "established science".
 
Of course, with all the heat Boris generates, I consider it possible that Boris' doubts about global warming might not really be significantly different from mine. I'm willing to discuss the science as it presently stands and explain why it is not factual in some respects, but Boris, I think, represents the larger community of disbelievers better than I do. Even if he basically has reached the same opinion.....
 
Yeah the dollar amount of the damage is not a good measure of the severity when comparing to other storms. Back in the 20's when they had some pretty severe storms a total of like 60 or 70k people lived in the Tampa metro area, now it is over 3 million with the requisite infrastructure and buildings. Even adjusted for inflation you just cannot really compare on a dollar basis. Really the same applies to flood waters when the land area covered by impermeable surface material increased dramatically setting up conditions for flood waters to accumulate far more than when the concrete/asphalt areas were much smaller.
 
Wrong. I posted with my native accent cause I like ta honor my parents an ancestry. Everbody was annoyed so I politely obliged an changed ta my tha hick style I speak in in my current state of affairs. I am pretty much a modern mountain man an as hick as it gits.

I will admit I spent a period bein a parody of others posters. You were the most boring just behind NAOS. Vinylone was my favourite.

I thought your native accent was russian, now it appears to be a mix of hillbilly/redneck/utahn/ebonics.
 
And, no Boris in not Pearl Watson. She has had some health issues, is raising teenagers of her own. No need to come here for more of that. She is genuinely ignorant of what we're doing here.
 
Last edited:
Yeah the dollar amount of the damage is not a good measure of the severity when comparing to other storms. Back in the 20's when they had some pretty severe storms a total of like 60 or 70k people lived in the Tampa metro area, now it is over 3 million with the requisite infrastructure and buildings. Even adjusted for inflation you just cannot really compare on a dollar basis. Really the same applies to flood waters when the land area covered by impermeable surface material increased dramatically setting up conditions for flood waters to accumulate far more than when the concrete/asphalt areas were much smaller.

Pressure and windspeed are better measures. This is an interesting wikipedia about the Labor Day hurricane in 1935, the strongest on record to make landfall. This section shows the records for the strongest hurricanes on record by pressure and windspeed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane#Records

Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by central pressure
Rank Hurricane Season Landfall pressure
1 "Labor Day" 1935 892 mbar (hPa)
2 Gilbert 1988 900 mbar (hPa)
Camille 1969
4 Dean 2007 905 mbar (hPa)
5 "Cuba" 1924 910 mbar (hPa)
Sources: National Hurricane Center
Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclones
 
Back
Top