Houston's chemical pollution and Trump's firing half the EPA will revive that debate after Harvey.

[Billo_Really]

Imagine that...the goober thinks that empirical isn't science....he is a natural useful idiot isn't he....that has to be one of the stupidest things ever said on this board..

I posted its official definition. It's not my problem you're too ***** to go back and read it.

 

[Billo_Really]

So a logical fallacy is your argument? Appeal to authority? The political heads of those organizations are on board with the AGW hypothesis...the rank and file scientists aren't....survey after survey shows that they aren't.

You really aren't prepared for a discussion on the science...all you have is dogma, propaganda, a bit of data based on a very short view which is easily put down when one takes a longer view...like your hysterics over the Muir and McBride glaciers...showing me the ice lost between 1941 and 2004....a period of 60 years..when more ice was lost in the 15 year period between 1892 and 1907.

Your positions based on pop news, current events, and politics whereas my position is rooted solidly in scientific fact...empirical evidence.

You're calling NASA pop news?

 

[SSDD]

Empirical evidence is Measurable, Quantifiable, and repeatable. IT IS THE BASIS OF REAL SCIENCE..

Hate to burst your bubble there, buckwheat, empirical evidence is what you perceive.

Definition of Empirical facts:
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).​

How stupid are you billo? The climate is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity...if you aren't basing your climate change claims on observation, measurement exactly what are you basing them on? Observation and experiment is the basis of science.

Here is a bit of very basic knowledge for you....science itself is defined as "
systematic knowledge of the physical or materialworld gained through observation and experimentation." You really are out of your league here...hell you don't even know what science is.

And perceiving things with a pre-disposition of the outcome, may or may not be accurate. In your case, your conclusions are horseshit.

OK...I am going to type this real slow...and I am going to use some big letters and even some colors for you so that perhaps you can understand...

Science - n - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.​

Empirical - adj - derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

If it isn't empirical evidence, it isn't science....

 

[SSDD]

Please pull your head from your ass... Your nothing more than a useful idiot. Gobbles will be so proud..

You can't even spell "Goebbels" right, you fuckin' hillbilly!

So you are reduced to looking for spelling errors now...that didn't take long. Find any commas or semicolons out of place?

 

[Billo_Really]

How stupid are you billo? The climate is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity...if you aren't basing your climate change claims on observation, measurement exactly what are you basing them on? Observation and experiment is the basis of science.

Here is a bit of very basic knowledge for you....science itself is defined as "
systematic knowledge of the physical or materialworld gained through observation and experimentation." You really are out of your league here...hell you don't even know what science is.


OK...I am going to type this real slow...and I am going to use some big letters and even some colors for you so that perhaps you can understand...

Science - n - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.​

Empirical - adj - derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

If it isn't empirical evidence, it isn't science....

Trashing NOAA, NASA, the Meteorological Society findings, shows you don't know shit about science.

 

[Billo_Really]

So you are reduced to looking for spelling errors now...that didn't take long. Find any commas or semicolons out of place?

Hey, if you can't get the little stuff right, what makes you think people will believe you when commenting on complex issues like climate change?

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[SSDD]

Debunked by who? The remaining 3% who chose to be fossil fuel bitches for money? ['/quote]

No...debunked by actual research and a look at the facts

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Change Dispatch

"The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,"

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

• Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

In short billo...the 97% myth is a lie based on flawed methodology, and good old bullshit.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

You claim I don't know science and in the same breath, you trash all the major science organizations in the world.

I said that the political heads of those organizations support the AGW hypothesis...the rank and file scientists that belong to those organizations do not...they don't get a vote on the policy policy of the management...

And once again, your appeal to authority fallacy can be easily put down with one single challenge that you simply can not answer.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

If 97% of the scientists in the world agree with the AGW hypothesis, surely there must be some observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over all other hypotheses...Lets see just a single piece of it....and do keep in mind that evidence of change is not evidence of what caused the change. And if you can't provide that single shred of evidence I am asking for...which I already know you can't....if you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are....you would ask yourself, exactly what they are basing their position on...if it isn't actual evidence that supports the hypothesis, what else is there?

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[SSDD]

So you are reduced to looking for spelling errors now...that didn't take long. Find any commas or semicolons out of place?

Hey, if you can't get the little stuff right, what makes you think people will believe you when commenting on complex issues like climate change?

If you don't even know that actual science is defined as empirical study then you are out of your depth and have shown conclusively that you don't have the first clue when it comes to science.

 

[eagle1462010]

No industrial plant can go under freaking water without having massive problems or cleanups. You can issue OSHA requirements out the ass and it still cannot make the potential of problems to go away. If you believe the opposite you should go to a place called FANTASY LAND. Because your argument belongs there.

Refining Gas is a dangerous business.................It uses extremely high processes over and over agains to extract useable products that are far more than just gasoline. They don't make BLUE BELL ICECREAM. And in a violent storm or massive flooding there is no way to contain every possible problem.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You really don't have a clue with regard to science do you? Empirical is defined as
"derived from or guided by experience or experiment."....If it isn't empirical it is something other than science.

Since you clearly don't know what scientific evidence is, I guess you are out of luck.

Aside from the fact that the 97% number is bullshit, even if 97% did agree, that wouldn't make it true. That is just a logical fallacy which is what most of your arguments are based on. Until recently more than 97% of the scientific community would have agreed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. If you look at the history of science, especially in relatively new branches of science like climate science, the majority opinion has almost always been wrong.

Funny, the primary research upon which that 97% number was based (debunked by the way) was done by a cartoonist.

Debunked by who? The remaining 3% who chose to be fossil fuel bitches for money?

You claim I don't know science and in the same breath, you trash all the major science organizations in the world.

Here's the groups you say don't know shit...

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

• 
  
  American Association for the Advancement of Science
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
• 
  
  American Chemical Society
  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
• 
  
  American Geophysical Union
  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
• 
  
  American Medical Association
  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
• 
  
  American Meteorological Society
  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
• 
  
  American Physical Society
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
• 
  
  The Geological Society of America
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 
  
  U.S. National Academy of Sciences
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

• 
  
  U.S. Global Change Research Program
  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

• 
  
  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

So you're saying you're smarter than NASA?

Appealing to authority, and yet those same authorities have been committing fraud for decades. Its now exposed but you continue to "believe"...

Smarter than NASA..?? Anyone who practices real science is smarter than you and NASA.. (by the way Obama made NASA's mission MUSLIM APPEASEMENT) But hey, that's your kind of science..

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is little wonder that you have been duped...if it isn't empirical it is not science. If it isn't empirical, it is based on feelings, or wild assed guesses, or tea leaves, or maybe astrology. If it isn't observed, measured, quantified evidence, which is what empirical evidence is, then it is not science. You really aren't prepared for this discussion. Perhaps you should visit some kiddy politic page where people aren't going to batter your position to death with actual science.

I posted the definition of empirical a few posts back. It is what you perceive with your senses. And yes, it is what you observe. However, perceptions can be skewed.

Place a pencil into a glass of water and what you observe, is a bent pencil. No matter how many times you repeat this experiment, the pencil looks bent. ​

That meets the definition of empirical evidence and it is evidence that has been skewed by your perception.

Refraction is a quantifiable, repeatable observation you ******* moron.. You really are a useful idiot dupe..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Imagine that...the goober thinks that empirical isn't science....he is a natural useful idiot isn't he....that has to be one of the stupidest things ever said on this board..

I posted its official definition. It's not my problem you're too ***** to go back and read it.

LOL

You believe in liberal common core bull shit changes to what the real definition of science is.. Dupe.. SO you believe the new meaning.....'Its what we authorities tell you it is, don't ask questions or seek empirical evidence'. Its the same as believing in fantasy modeling, no facts, no evidence... just lots of bull shit..

 

[mudwhistle]

I can't believe these right wingers are defending what's toxic.

They not only want to live in filth, but toxic filth. Is that their message?

The health dangers from Hurricane Harvey’s floods and Houston’s chemical plants

Short term: Chemical dangers

Texas is thick with chemical plants as well as natural gas and oil refineries. On Thursday, a tanker at one such factory caught fire after its refrigeration system failed. The chemical, called a liquid organic peroxide, is extremely flammable. The chemical plant company said it expected the other organic peroxide containers to catch fire as well.

Environmental experts are also monitoring several Superfund sites in flood-damaged areas. The EPA usually reinforces such sites before impending hurricanes hit. Despite this, past storms have spread contamination, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. Southeast of Houston, Wes Highfield, a researcher at Texas A&M University Galveston, said he saw children swimming in flooded retention pools downstream from the Brio Refinery Superfund site. "And that's not good," he told The Post.

--------------------------

Remember the many thousands of carcinogenic trailers Republicans passed on to the poor and survivors after Katrina?
It only proves why it's a mistake putting Republicans in charge. If they don't poison you, they give you cancer and tell you to shut up and be thankful.

Yup. The right wants to poison the planet and themselves along with it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Debunked by who? The remaining 3% who chose to be fossil fuel bitches for money? ['/quote]

No...debunked by actual research and a look at the facts

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus" | Climate Change Dispatch

"The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,"

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

• Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

In short billo...the 97% myth is a lie based on flawed methodology, and good old bullshit.

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change [\quote]

You claim I don't know science and in the same breath, you trash all the major science organizations in the world.

I said that the political heads of those organizations support the AGW hypothesis...the rank and file scientists that belong to those organizations do not...they don't get a vote on the policy policy of the management...

And once again, your appeal to authority fallacy can be easily put down with one single challenge that you simply can not answer.

Can you provide a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

If 97% of the scientists in the world agree with the AGW hypothesis, surely there must be some observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over all other hypotheses...Lets see just a single piece of it....and do keep in mind that evidence of change is not evidence of what caused the change. And if you can't provide that single shred of evidence I am asking for...which I already know you can't....if you were even fractionally as smart as you think you are....you would ask yourself, exactly what they are basing their position on...if it isn't actual evidence that supports the hypothesis, what else is there?

Amazing... The idiot is easily refuted with facts.. but he relies on fantasy... Truly a religious zealot..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I can't believe these right wingers are defending what's toxic.

They not only want to live in filth, but toxic filth. Is that their message?

The health dangers from Hurricane Harvey’s floods and Houston’s chemical plants

Short term: Chemical dangers

Texas is thick with chemical plants as well as natural gas and oil refineries. On Thursday, a tanker at one such factory caught fire after its refrigeration system failed. The chemical, called a liquid organic peroxide, is extremely flammable. The chemical plant company said it expected the other organic peroxide containers to catch fire as well.

Environmental experts are also monitoring several Superfund sites in flood-damaged areas. The EPA usually reinforces such sites before impending hurricanes hit. Despite this, past storms have spread contamination, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday. Southeast of Houston, Wes Highfield, a researcher at Texas A&M University Galveston, said he saw children swimming in flooded retention pools downstream from the Brio Refinery Superfund site. "And that's not good," he told The Post.

--------------------------

Remember the many thousands of carcinogenic trailers Republicans passed on to the poor and survivors after Katrina?
It only proves why it's a mistake putting Republicans in charge. If they don't poison you, they give you cancer and tell you to shut up and be thankful.

Yup. The right wants to poison the planet and themselves along with it.

Its not like republicans created the EPA... OH WAIT..YES WE DID....left wing talking points are killing me...The OP's ignorance is breathtaking..

 

[SSDD]

Imagine that...the goober thinks that empirical isn't science....he is a natural useful idiot isn't he....that has to be one of the stupidest things ever said on this board..

I posted its official definition. It's not my problem you're too ***** to go back and read it.

I read it and it states exactly the opposite of what you said it means..apparently even that level of reading is over your head....

The definition you posted said...

Definition of Empirical facts:
Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

Did you miss the fact that right there in the middle of your definition it said that observation and experimentation are particularly important...observation and experimentation are what science is all about...and if it isn't empirical it can't be rightly called science...for example...religion is not empirical...it is faith in something that is not observable, not measurable, not quantifiable...science on the other hand deals with things that are observable measurable, and quantifiable via observation or experiment.

Your choice of avatar is particularly telling in this conversation...that you would choose a clown to represent your virtual self speaks volumes...

 

[SSDD]

So a logical fallacy is your argument? Appeal to authority? The political heads of those organizations are on board with the AGW hypothesis...the rank and file scientists aren't....survey after survey shows that they aren't.

You really aren't prepared for a discussion on the science...all you have is dogma, propaganda, a bit of data based on a very short view which is easily put down when one takes a longer view...like your hysterics over the Muir and McBride glaciers...showing me the ice lost between 1941 and 2004....a period of 60 years..when more ice was lost in the 15 year period between 1892 and 1907.

Your positions based on pop news, current events, and politics whereas my position is rooted solidly in scientific fact...empirical evidence.

You're calling NASA pop news?

Yep..nasa has been caught cooking the books so many times now that it isn't even surprising when it happens any more.

 

[SSDD]

Trashing NOAA, NASA, the Meteorological Society findings, shows you don't know shit about science.

The very fact that you believe government is trustworthy on anything tells me that you aren't very bright.