He mopped the in' floor with her in' ass.
& buster, nothing is going to change that fact. You thought it was you. & it was not.
Suffer. I've no sympathy for you.
How many 100 year + floods has Houston had in the past ~15 years? Probably not enough for Darrin not to stop denying climate change.
Just don't hug anybody there. Bush looked like an asshole doing that on demand.
& they don't want to be hugged. They want it to be like it was. & you---nor anybody else can give them that.
3 500-year floods in 3 years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ecb72c996720
Wow, she makes a great point there Darrin too bad she's not credible the rest of the time she talks about climate change, huh?
I guess CO2 caused the two high pressure systems that stalled Harvey over Houston.
Last edited by DarrinS; 08-31-2017 at 07:35 AM.
Trump president, not Clinton.
Time has actually moved forward for the rest of the world old man.
But you rest comfortably while kneeling and rotting.
Definitely not enough for him to stop making really bad arguments.
This is exactly the problem for the people who WANT the world to fit their model even though the current consensus does not extrapolate this far.
Just like FOX and the constant, "damn it's cold HERE, ha, where's that GLOBAL warming Bimbette? *insert bimbo response of agreement* . And the FOX people buy it and then reuse it. The guy from the hurricane center at least made the correction instead of having some female anchor dutifully listen to the weather guy shaking that pretty head in agreement.
Darrin you gotta listen to WOAI.
What is it with this Joe Pags guy and his female cohost? Why do they need a servant for him?
He's heading to Missouri
Here's What Happened When A Climate Scientist Went To A Pub To Argue With Deniers
So a climate scientist walks into a pub...
It sounds like the first line of a bad joke. But it's not. It's reality. Dr Tamsin Edwards has actually been to the pub to engage with climate science sceptics on numerous occasions.
Why?
Because Edwards, a British climate modeller and lecturer in environmental sciences, believes that "it's so much harder to demonise and dismiss someone when you understand that they're going through the same kind of things as a human, the same struggles".
"They might find it hard to get out of bed in the morning, they might not feel confident in their job, they might be an insomniac like I am, they might like doing the same sports as you do," she says.
Her point being: if you find a little common ground, it's a lot easier to talk about, well, anything.
Edwards is the fifth climate scientist in HuffPost Australia's Breaking The Ice series -- in which we profile the people behind the climate science -- and to be frank, we couldn't wait to get hold of her.
Our series is all about humanising the climate scientists. It's about saying hey, before you blindly dismiss their work, understand who they are as people.
"And of course it goes both ways," she told HuffPost Australia on the podcast.
"It's been incredibly powerful for me to go and have a beer or a cup of tea with climate sceptics, to find out what they're like as humans, just so you can then bring the conversation to a more normal level, less of a mudslinging bun fight aggressive sort of thing.
"I've found it's incredibly powerful just to listen a bit, and usually there's something really powerful in making people feel heard."
Edwards attended a talk recently where research was tabled showing that the further away someone is from the group, the more the brain sees that person as an object.
"You literally dehumanise them," she says.
There's a strong argument that's exactly what some people do when they label scientists "warmists" or "alarmists". It's easy to create an "us and them" narrative when the "them" are not personally known to you.
But when people actually meet a climate scientist, and when they discover that the research is not being done to cash in on exorbitant grants, and that scientists are genuinely worried about the liveability of planet earth, they often change their tune.
As a climate modeller, Edwards deals with the side of climate science which is most difficult to sell -- namely, its downstream effects.
That humans are causing warming at an unprecedent rate is disputed only by those with an ideological anti-science barrow to push. But no one knows for sure what happens next.
How much do oceans rise? Exactly how fast is the world warming? What else is happening in the incredibly complicated interface between the land, the atmosphere and the oceans that could threaten our cities and towns, our food security and our very ability to live?
That's where people like Edwards come in.
"Climate is all about probability," she says. "By definition you cannot pin it down to a single number. But on the balance of things, it's more of a risk than it's going to be a benefit."
Unlike some of the scientists in our series like Michael Mann -- who in episode 1 urged Donald Trump to take renewable energy policy seriously -- Edwards stops short of prescribing action for politicians in the face of climate change.
She's all about tabling the facts, rather than telling people what to do about them.
"As scientists, we cannot determine the values of society," she says. "We can only talk about our expertise and feed that into the conversation."
Tamsin Edwards has the knack of feeding conversations on both the global and individual scale -- more often that not, washed down with a lovely pint of British ale.
nothing to do with global warming in the Anthropocene, but temps will be 25F above normal for the Burning Man festival this weekend.
The DeGrasse comment was called out, this is a very relevant healthy disagreement.
Now it's time for a Republican to chime in with "see, the science guys don't know wtf they are doing" in order to deny.
Why is it that conservatives have such a hard time with science?
Btw the short term modeling vs. long term data gathering on global temps are two very different things. When climatologists model exact locations as turning into deserts in 30 years it should be understood this is a very tenuous, inexact forecast. And should be labeled as such by the press. But the press wants their jollies as well in some cases.
Last edited by pgardn; 08-31-2017 at 08:43 AM.
very simple, the oligarchy pays them to deny AGW.
compounded by
Bible-humpers denying anything that isn't in their Bible's fairy tales.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-31-2017 at 08:55 AM.
And why do you have such a hard time with GMO in totality?
What do you think about the recent gene therapy results in humans?
because GMO crops have NOTHING to do with nutrition, crop yields, and
EVERYTHING to do with enslaving farmers as a captive market for GMO seeds and TONS of x-icide.
Has your cherished golden rice EVER been shown to raise Vit A levels?
FDA just approved its first gene/immunotherapy for one type cancer this week, costing $450K / year.
When given facts and details, people dig in their heels.
Did man-caused climate change cause any given storm? Probably not.
Hurricanes get their energy from warm water in the oceans. Global warming means that ocean water is warmer. We have measured and quantified this effect.
Warmer water evaporates a bit more than colder water. Global warming means more water in the air. We have measured and quantified this effect.
Any given storm is going to be a bit more intense, and have a bit more rain than it would otherwise. It is around the edges that the effects will be increasingly felt. 7-10% more intensity usually doesn't mean much, but when you get tipping points such as "10 inches of rain in this area can be absorbed by a river system without flooding, but 11 inches will cause it to overflow its banks" that is where you get disasters.
These things will happen more frequently, and be worse than they would have otherwise.
Funny thing is that accepting the science on this is just the first step.
Taking steps to avoid future warming is where the people with their head in the sand really fail.
"Limiting fossil fuels is harmful to the economy", is easily disproved, and our reductions in CO2 emissions will not only cut our climate risks, but actively help our economy.
From a risk management standpoint, the net cost of mitigation is really low, even setting aside the variable costs associated with such events.
Shifting energy usage patterns will have costs, however balanced they will be by gains elsewhere.
Here is where the limitations of conservative "in the box" thinking are working against a solution:
The biggest losers will be energy companies that see themselves as primarily fossil fuel companies, and can't or won't adapt. Fossil fuel extraction is a trillion dollar industry, and they pay for a LOT of propaganda that people who are intellectually lazy and lack the key critical thinking skill of evaluating their own biases accept as truth.
You don't stop research on Golden Rice you fool. You are more worried about big AG and Pharma than you are people.
450k only if it works and the price will come down. It's in the first stages. Also people that cannot afford can still get it. You always leave out info.
Stick to the legit big Pharma rip offs and AG. You paint with a giant brush that incorrectly hurts people. Why don't you spend time with farmers who still till rather than use GMO? Tilling is MUCH MORE DESTRUCTIVE and leads to all the bad chemicals and you don't want. But have you ever mentioned it, NO.
Why? Because it does not involve your cherished BIG hangup. It's a technique you can't hang on a big company.
GMOs are simply allowing much faster tailoring of crops to specific needs. We are learning how best to do this, just as we have had learning curves for every new technology we have discovered.
At some point, the ability to modify genomes will become cheaper, and cheaper, and this technology will be "pushed down" to the local and individual levels.
What will you say when it is the individual farmer modifying their crops?
(nods)
It does have some factors going for it, yes. In that Houston has a leg up on N.O. The parts that I worry about not coming back are exactly what you correctly named here.
Harvey was significantly weakened by the time it was in the Houston area. The fact that it lingered there for so long is why there is such epic flooding.
The Galveston hurricane of 1900 killed between 9-12k people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
...