Flood risk

[WheelieAddict]

When I bought my land I did some reseach on flood management and decided to put the house in at 1000 feet above sea level...I can watch from my front yard as those braggarts that own land in the valley, as their land is washed away by floods...

Imagine that, building on higher ground. We need a government study to determine if building on a beach or next to a river increases risk of flooding.

Make sure climate science isn't in charge of the study...the way they torture data they would probably find that you can't escape the coming floods anywhere....including the international space station.

Yeah them there scientists are a bunch of big dummies.

 

[SSDD]

When I bought my land I did some reseach on flood management and decided to put the house in at 1000 feet above sea level...I can watch from my front yard as those braggarts that own land in the valley, as their land is washed away by floods...

Imagine that, building on higher ground. We need a government study to determine if building on a beach or next to a river increases risk of flooding.

Make sure climate science isn't in charge of the study...the way they torture data they would probably find that you can't escape the coming floods anywhere....including the international space station.

Yeah them there scientists are a bunch of big dummies.

Guess you aren't familiar with the history of science and how often the consensus view on any given scientific topic has been proven to be dead wrong. There is no real excuse for not knowing that in todays information flooded atmosphere...but hell, people are willfully ignorant on all sorts of topics...they pick a political side and then ignore any information that might call their belief into question.

 

[WheelieAddict]

When I bought my land I did some reseach on flood management and decided to put the house in at 1000 feet above sea level...I can watch from my front yard as those braggarts that own land in the valley, as their land is washed away by floods...

Imagine that, building on higher ground. We need a government study to determine if building on a beach or next to a river increases risk of flooding.

Make sure climate science isn't in charge of the study...the way they torture data they would probably find that you can't escape the coming floods anywhere....including the international space station.

Yeah them there scientists are a bunch of big dummies.

Guess you aren't familiar with the history of science and how often the consensus view on any given scientific topic has been proven to be dead wrong. There is no real excuse for not knowing that in todays information flooded atmosphere...but hell, people are willfully ignorant on all sorts of topics...they pick a political side and then ignore any information that might call their belief into question.

Yes, yes....scientists are often more wrong than anonymous posters on the internet with an agenda. Carry on.

 

[SSDD]

When I bought my land I did some reseach on flood management and decided to put the house in at 1000 feet above sea level...I can watch from my front yard as those braggarts that own land in the valley, as their land is washed away by floods...

Imagine that, building on higher ground. We need a government study to determine if building on a beach or next to a river increases risk of flooding.

Make sure climate science isn't in charge of the study...the way they torture data they would probably find that you can't escape the coming floods anywhere....including the international space station.

Yeah them there scientists are a bunch of big dummies.

Guess you aren't familiar with the history of science and how often the consensus view on any given scientific topic has been proven to be dead wrong. There is no real excuse for not knowing that in todays information flooded atmosphere...but hell, people are willfully ignorant on all sorts of topics...they pick a political side and then ignore any information that might call their belief into question.

Yes, yes....scientists are often more wrong than anonymous posters on the internet with an agenda. Carry on.

More logical fallacy...is that all you have?

I can name two specific times when this anonymous poster was dead right while nearly the entirety of science was wrong.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Imagine that, building on higher ground. We need a government study to determine if building on a beach or next to a river increases risk of flooding.

Make sure climate science isn't in charge of the study...the way they torture data they would probably find that you can't escape the coming floods anywhere....including the international space station.

Yeah them there scientists are a bunch of big dummies.

Guess you aren't familiar with the history of science and how often the consensus view on any given scientific topic has been proven to be dead wrong. There is no real excuse for not knowing that in todays information flooded atmosphere...but hell, people are willfully ignorant on all sorts of topics...they pick a political side and then ignore any information that might call their belief into question.

Yes, yes....scientists are often more wrong than anonymous posters on the internet with an agenda. Carry on.

More logical fallacy...is that all you have?

I can name two specific times when this anonymous poster was dead right while nearly the entirety of science was wrong.

Wow! You are the smartest! We should all listen to you! It's amazing that some person on a message board has the real answers!

 

[SSDD]

Make sure climate science isn't in charge of the study...the way they torture data they would probably find that you can't escape the coming floods anywhere....including the international space station.

Yeah them there scientists are a bunch of big dummies.

Guess you aren't familiar with the history of science and how often the consensus view on any given scientific topic has been proven to be dead wrong. There is no real excuse for not knowing that in todays information flooded atmosphere...but hell, people are willfully ignorant on all sorts of topics...they pick a political side and then ignore any information that might call their belief into question.

Yes, yes....scientists are often more wrong than anonymous posters on the internet with an agenda. Carry on.

More logical fallacy...is that all you have?

I can name two specific times when this anonymous poster was dead right while nearly the entirety of science was wrong.

Wow! You are the smartest! We should all listen to you! It's amazing that some person on a message board has the real answers!

And yet another logical fallacy...3 posts to me and so far nothing but logical fallacy. Are you able to even discuss the topic on a basic level, or is fallacious reasoning really all that you have?

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yeah them there scientists are a bunch of big dummies.

Guess you aren't familiar with the history of science and how often the consensus view on any given scientific topic has been proven to be dead wrong. There is no real excuse for not knowing that in todays information flooded atmosphere...but hell, people are willfully ignorant on all sorts of topics...they pick a political side and then ignore any information that might call their belief into question.

Yes, yes....scientists are often more wrong than anonymous posters on the internet with an agenda. Carry on.

More logical fallacy...is that all you have?

I can name two specific times when this anonymous poster was dead right while nearly the entirety of science was wrong.

Wow! You are the smartest! We should all listen to you! It's amazing that some person on a message board has the real answers!

And yet another logical fallacy...3 posts to me and so far nothing but logical fallacy. Are you able to even discuss the topic on a basic level, or is fallacious reasoning really all that you have?

Pointing out that you are just some random person on the internet with no credibility, claiming you got it right when in your own words "the entirety of science was wrong" is not a fallacy.

 

[SSDD]

Guess you aren't familiar with the history of science and how often the consensus view on any given scientific topic has been proven to be dead wrong. There is no real excuse for not knowing that in todays information flooded atmosphere...but hell, people are willfully ignorant on all sorts of topics...they pick a political side and then ignore any information that might call their belief into question.

Yes, yes....scientists are often more wrong than anonymous posters on the internet with an agenda. Carry on.

More logical fallacy...is that all you have?

I can name two specific times when this anonymous poster was dead right while nearly the entirety of science was wrong.

Wow! You are the smartest! We should all listen to you! It's amazing that some person on a message board has the real answers!

And yet another logical fallacy...3 posts to me and so far nothing but logical fallacy. Are you able to even discuss the topic on a basic level, or is fallacious reasoning really all that you have?

Pointing out that you are just some random person on the internet with no credibility, claiming you got it right when in your own words "the entirety of science was wrong" is not a fallacy.

No it isn't...but then you never asked about the instances where I was right and the entirety of science was wrong so you wouldn't be in a position to judge....let me give you some information before you jump to another fallacious conclusion.

Quite a few years ago, I was diagnosed with a stomach ulcer...my doc tried to put me on some anti stress medication, telling me that my ulcer was stress related and that if I didn't reduce my stress level, via these meds, it would get worse. I told him that I was probably the most stress free person he had ever met and that my ulcer was not due to stress. The entire medical community...world wide at the time was sure that stomach ulcers were stress related. I knew that mine wasn't and it turns out, after many years, so do they. Stomach ulcers are due to bacteria in the gut...not stress.

Over the past 8 years or so, my primary care doc has been trying to get me to start on statin drugs for my cholesterol levels...telling me that high cholesterol leads to heart disease. The research is out there, available to anyone so I looked at it. I could find nothing that provided a substantial link between high cholesterol numbers and heart disease...everything I found suggested that there was no statistical difference between the numbers of people who developed heart disease with high cholesterol and "normal" cholesterol. I refused to start the statin drugs. About 8 months ago, when I was in for my annual check up, he didn't suggest that I start a regimen of statin drugs for my cholesterol....I asked him about it and he noted a paper recently out at the time...the largest study of its kind...spanning over a decade with thousands of subjects....no evidence of a link between high cholesterol and heart disease.

Science, generally speaking isn't a mystery. The data is out there for any of us to look at...and most of it isn't that difficult to understand if you are reasonably intelligent and willing to take the time to learn some of the language. The evidence of data alteration is clear and undeniable...the question is whether there is a rational, scientifically valid reason for the alterations. To date, I have yet to find any such reason for altering temperatures from half a century or more ago that would make the record more accurate.....and I have looked and looked hard. I hold my position because of the evidence...not because I picked sides based on my politics.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All along, warming has had different effects on different regions of the planet. Polar vortices have caused exceptionally cold weather in roughly half the northern hemisphere and exceptionally warm weather in the other half. We've had many years of flooding along the Mississippi valley and drought in the US southwest. El Ninos do one thing and La Ninas do the opposite. If you all have some idea that global warming is supposed to consistently do the same thing to every location on the planet, you've got it wrong.

Sounds like you just take the top weather story and blame it on age

 

[WheelieAddict]

Yes, yes....scientists are often more wrong than anonymous posters on the internet with an agenda. Carry on.

More logical fallacy...is that all you have?

I can name two specific times when this anonymous poster was dead right while nearly the entirety of science was wrong.

Wow! You are the smartest! We should all listen to you! It's amazing that some person on a message board has the real answers!

And yet another logical fallacy...3 posts to me and so far nothing but logical fallacy. Are you able to even discuss the topic on a basic level, or is fallacious reasoning really all that you have?

Pointing out that you are just some random person on the internet with no credibility, claiming you got it right when in your own words "the entirety of science was wrong" is not a fallacy.

No it isn't...but then you never asked about the instances where I was right and the entirety of science was wrong so you wouldn't be in a position to judge....let me give you some information before you jump to another fallacious conclusion.

Quite a few years ago, I was diagnosed with a stomach ulcer...my doc tried to put me on some anti stress medication, telling me that my ulcer was stress related and that if I didn't reduce my stress level, via these meds, it would get worse. I told him that I was probably the most stress free person he had ever met and that my ulcer was not due to stress. The entire medical community...world wide at the time was sure that stomach ulcers were stress related. I knew that mine wasn't and it turns out, after many years, so do they. Stomach ulcers are due to bacteria in the gut...not stress.

Over the past 8 years or so, my primary care doc has been trying to get me to start on statin drugs for my cholesterol levels...telling me that high cholesterol leads to heart disease. The research is out there, available to anyone so I looked at it. I could find nothing that provided a substantial link between high cholesterol numbers and heart disease...everything I found suggested that there was no statistical difference between the numbers of people who developed heart disease with high cholesterol and "normal" cholesterol. I refused to start the statin drugs. About 8 months ago, when I was in for my annual check up, he didn't suggest that I start a regimen of statin drugs for my cholesterol....I asked him about it and he noted a paper recently out at the time...the largest study of its kind...spanning over a decade with thousands of subjects....no evidence of a link between high cholesterol and heart disease.

Science, generally speaking isn't a mystery. The data is out there for any of us to look at...and most of it isn't that difficult to understand if you are reasonably intelligent and willing to take the time to learn some of the language. The evidence of data alteration is clear and undeniable...the question is whether there is a rational, scientifically valid reason for the alterations. To date, I have yet to find any such reason for altering temperatures from half a century or more ago that would make the record more accurate.....and I have looked and looked hard. I hold my position because of the evidence...not because I picked sides based on my politics.

So you have your own evidence based on anecdotal experiences and your interpretation of facts. Means nothing.

 

[SSDD]

All along, warming has had different effects on different regions of the planet. Polar vortices have caused exceptionally cold weather in roughly half the northern hemisphere and exceptionally warm weather in the other half. We've had many years of flooding along the Mississippi valley and drought in the US southwest. El Ninos do one thing and La Ninas do the opposite. If you all have some idea that global warming is supposed to consistently do the same thing to every location on the planet, you've got it wrong.

Sounds like you just take the top weather story and blame it on age

He seems to not understand that warming has one effect...that being, to warm. If warming, and its following consequences aren't happening everywhere, then we aren't talking about global warming...are we...and if we are talking about regional climate changes, then CO2 really couldn't be the primary...or even a minor reason for those regional changes could it?

 

[SSDD]

More logical fallacy...is that all you have?

I can name two specific times when this anonymous poster was dead right while nearly the entirety of science was wrong.

Wow! You are the smartest! We should all listen to you! It's amazing that some person on a message board has the real answers!

And yet another logical fallacy...3 posts to me and so far nothing but logical fallacy. Are you able to even discuss the topic on a basic level, or is fallacious reasoning really all that you have?

Pointing out that you are just some random person on the internet with no credibility, claiming you got it right when in your own words "the entirety of science was wrong" is not a fallacy.

No it isn't...but then you never asked about the instances where I was right and the entirety of science was wrong so you wouldn't be in a position to judge....let me give you some information before you jump to another fallacious conclusion.

Quite a few years ago, I was diagnosed with a stomach ulcer...my doc tried to put me on some anti stress medication, telling me that my ulcer was stress related and that if I didn't reduce my stress level, via these meds, it would get worse. I told him that I was probably the most stress free person he had ever met and that my ulcer was not due to stress. The entire medical community...world wide at the time was sure that stomach ulcers were stress related. I knew that mine wasn't and it turns out, after many years, so do they. Stomach ulcers are due to bacteria in the gut...not stress.

Over the past 8 years or so, my primary care doc has been trying to get me to start on statin drugs for my cholesterol levels...telling me that high cholesterol leads to heart disease. The research is out there, available to anyone so I looked at it. I could find nothing that provided a substantial link between high cholesterol numbers and heart disease...everything I found suggested that there was no statistical difference between the numbers of people who developed heart disease with high cholesterol and "normal" cholesterol. I refused to start the statin drugs. About 8 months ago, when I was in for my annual check up, he didn't suggest that I start a regimen of statin drugs for my cholesterol....I asked him about it and he noted a paper recently out at the time...the largest study of its kind...spanning over a decade with thousands of subjects....no evidence of a link between high cholesterol and heart disease.

Science, generally speaking isn't a mystery. The data is out there for any of us to look at...and most of it isn't that difficult to understand if you are reasonably intelligent and willing to take the time to learn some of the language. The evidence of data alteration is clear and undeniable...the question is whether there is a rational, scientifically valid reason for the alterations. To date, I have yet to find any such reason for altering temperatures from half a century or more ago that would make the record more accurate.....and I have looked and looked hard. I hold my position because of the evidence...not because I picked sides based on my politics.

So you have your own evidence based on anecdotal experiences and your interpretation of facts. Means nothing.

I have two instances where I...not a medical practitioner...or in possession of any specialized medical education looked at the data and determined that the medical community was wrong....and I turned out to be right. In most fields of science, the early consensus view is nearly always wrong and climate science is in its infancy. There are so many basic factors regarding the climate that we are just starting to scratch the surface of understanding that the idea that the science is settled is just ridiculous. At this point, we don't have any idea of even all the factors that affect the climate, much less what effect they have on each other and to what degree...and climate science thinks it knows enough to suggest major changes in the world economy based on such sketchy knowledge of the climate?...and people like you believe them when they say the science is settled?

 

[WheelieAddict]

Wow! You are the smartest! We should all listen to you! It's amazing that some person on a message board has the real answers!

And yet another logical fallacy...3 posts to me and so far nothing but logical fallacy. Are you able to even discuss the topic on a basic level, or is fallacious reasoning really all that you have?

Pointing out that you are just some random person on the internet with no credibility, claiming you got it right when in your own words "the entirety of science was wrong" is not a fallacy.

No it isn't...but then you never asked about the instances where I was right and the entirety of science was wrong so you wouldn't be in a position to judge....let me give you some information before you jump to another fallacious conclusion.

Quite a few years ago, I was diagnosed with a stomach ulcer...my doc tried to put me on some anti stress medication, telling me that my ulcer was stress related and that if I didn't reduce my stress level, via these meds, it would get worse. I told him that I was probably the most stress free person he had ever met and that my ulcer was not due to stress. The entire medical community...world wide at the time was sure that stomach ulcers were stress related. I knew that mine wasn't and it turns out, after many years, so do they. Stomach ulcers are due to bacteria in the gut...not stress.

Over the past 8 years or so, my primary care doc has been trying to get me to start on statin drugs for my cholesterol levels...telling me that high cholesterol leads to heart disease. The research is out there, available to anyone so I looked at it. I could find nothing that provided a substantial link between high cholesterol numbers and heart disease...everything I found suggested that there was no statistical difference between the numbers of people who developed heart disease with high cholesterol and "normal" cholesterol. I refused to start the statin drugs. About 8 months ago, when I was in for my annual check up, he didn't suggest that I start a regimen of statin drugs for my cholesterol....I asked him about it and he noted a paper recently out at the time...the largest study of its kind...spanning over a decade with thousands of subjects....no evidence of a link between high cholesterol and heart disease.

Science, generally speaking isn't a mystery. The data is out there for any of us to look at...and most of it isn't that difficult to understand if you are reasonably intelligent and willing to take the time to learn some of the language. The evidence of data alteration is clear and undeniable...the question is whether there is a rational, scientifically valid reason for the alterations. To date, I have yet to find any such reason for altering temperatures from half a century or more ago that would make the record more accurate.....and I have looked and looked hard. I hold my position because of the evidence...not because I picked sides based on my politics.

So you have your own evidence based on anecdotal experiences and your interpretation of facts. Means nothing.

I have two instances where I...not a medical practitioner...or in possession of any specialized medical education looked at the data and determined that the medical community was wrong....and I turned out to be right. In most fields of science, the early consensus view is nearly always wrong and climate science is in its infancy. There are so many basic factors regarding the climate that we are just starting to scratch the surface of understanding that the idea that the science is settled is just ridiculous. At this point, we don't have any idea of even all the factors that affect the climate, much less what effect they have on each other and to what degree...and climate science thinks it knows enough to suggest major changes in the world economy based on such sketchy knowledge of the climate?...and people like you believe them when they say the science is settled?

Once again you have anecdotal evidence that since you feel you were right about some medical issue you have authority to proclaim your judgement is better than most professionals. You go on to use this as evidence to bolster your argument that your opinion is meaningful. And you talk about fallacies....

 

[SSDD]

And yet another logical fallacy...3 posts to me and so far nothing but logical fallacy. Are you able to even discuss the topic on a basic level, or is fallacious reasoning really all that you have?

Pointing out that you are just some random person on the internet with no credibility, claiming you got it right when in your own words "the entirety of science was wrong" is not a fallacy.

No it isn't...but then you never asked about the instances where I was right and the entirety of science was wrong so you wouldn't be in a position to judge....let me give you some information before you jump to another fallacious conclusion.

Quite a few years ago, I was diagnosed with a stomach ulcer...my doc tried to put me on some anti stress medication, telling me that my ulcer was stress related and that if I didn't reduce my stress level, via these meds, it would get worse. I told him that I was probably the most stress free person he had ever met and that my ulcer was not due to stress. The entire medical community...world wide at the time was sure that stomach ulcers were stress related. I knew that mine wasn't and it turns out, after many years, so do they. Stomach ulcers are due to bacteria in the gut...not stress.

Over the past 8 years or so, my primary care doc has been trying to get me to start on statin drugs for my cholesterol levels...telling me that high cholesterol leads to heart disease. The research is out there, available to anyone so I looked at it. I could find nothing that provided a substantial link between high cholesterol numbers and heart disease...everything I found suggested that there was no statistical difference between the numbers of people who developed heart disease with high cholesterol and "normal" cholesterol. I refused to start the statin drugs. About 8 months ago, when I was in for my annual check up, he didn't suggest that I start a regimen of statin drugs for my cholesterol....I asked him about it and he noted a paper recently out at the time...the largest study of its kind...spanning over a decade with thousands of subjects....no evidence of a link between high cholesterol and heart disease.

Science, generally speaking isn't a mystery. The data is out there for any of us to look at...and most of it isn't that difficult to understand if you are reasonably intelligent and willing to take the time to learn some of the language. The evidence of data alteration is clear and undeniable...the question is whether there is a rational, scientifically valid reason for the alterations. To date, I have yet to find any such reason for altering temperatures from half a century or more ago that would make the record more accurate.....and I have looked and looked hard. I hold my position because of the evidence...not because I picked sides based on my politics.

So you have your own evidence based on anecdotal experiences and your interpretation of facts. Means nothing.

I have two instances where I...not a medical practitioner...or in possession of any specialized medical education looked at the data and determined that the medical community was wrong....and I turned out to be right. In most fields of science, the early consensus view is nearly always wrong and climate science is in its infancy. There are so many basic factors regarding the climate that we are just starting to scratch the surface of understanding that the idea that the science is settled is just ridiculous. At this point, we don't have any idea of even all the factors that affect the climate, much less what effect they have on each other and to what degree...and climate science thinks it knows enough to suggest major changes in the world economy based on such sketchy knowledge of the climate?...and people like you believe them when they say the science is settled?

Once again you have anecdotal evidence that since you feel you were right about some medical issue you have authority to proclaim your judgement is better than most professionals. You go on to use this as evidence to bolster your argument that your opinion is meaningful. And you talk about fallacies....

It isn't anecdotal evidence....the hard fact is that for the past century, medical science has believed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress...recent advancements in science have shown that the consensus view was false and that bacteria are responsible for stomach ulcers....that is fact.

It is also fact that for at least the past 40 years, the consensus in medical science has been that high cholesterol caused heart disease....advancements in science have shown that consensus to also be wrong...that is not anecdote, that is hard, undeniable fact. The fact that I chose not to accept that my ulcer was not stress related and to not take statin drugs is anecdote....but the fact that the consensus view was wrong is not....

And it is not anecdote, but historical fact hat for most sciences in their early years, the consensus view is almost always wrong. We don't know enough about climate at present to even begin to develop an accurate view of what drives and influences the climate and yet, there is a consensus view. Upon what is that consensus based...certainly not observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Once again weather = climate because it fits the Doomsdayers narrative.

 

[SSDD]

Once again weather = climate because it fits the Doomsdayers narrative.

Only the bad weather though...you hear no mention of the good weather that has been fueling record crop yields for the past couple of decades.

 

[Crick]

Care to provide some data showing "good weather that has been fueling record crop yields"?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Care to provide some data showing "good weather that has been fueling record crop yields"?

Everyone knows ice is good for growing wheat and corn in.

 

[SSDD]

Care to provide some data showing "good weather that has been fueling record crop yields"?

Care to explain how bad weather might fuel record crop yields?

 

[SSDD]

Care to provide some data showing "good weather that has been fueling record crop yields"?

Everyone knows ice is good for growing wheat and corn in.

He gets stupider by the minute it seems...I suppose he things bad weather is good for crops and can't grasp the fact that record crop yields are in fact data showing that good weather is great for crops....