Global fry-up.

Beira city '90 percent destroyed' by Cyclone Idai, hundreds dead

Filipe Nyusi says more than 100,000 are at risk after storm hit Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe.

President Filipe Nyusi feared the death toll could rise to 1,000 in Mozambique in the wake of Cyclone Idai he said in a nationwide address on Monday.


Hundreds are missing and more than 1.5 million people have been affected by the widespread destruction and flooding.

"First came ferocious winds and torrential rain that lasted almost four days. It only eased up a short while ago," said Al Jazeera's Malcolm Webb, reporting from central Mozambique.

"The damage is extensive even 300km [from the cyclone's landing area] where we are. Hundreds of houses are destroyed in this district alone. People are sheltering in schools or with neighbours."

A United Nations humanitarian agency says 5.3 million people will require food aid.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ity-90-percent-destroyed-190318101752250.html
Click to expand...


maggot would send them umbrellas. For sale.
 
Havana Moon said:
Funny how you castigate the Daily Mail, yet use it as evidence when it suits you! Stick to Joo baiting, it's more your bag!!
Click to expand...

Yup, you will notice this with many people... If it agrees with them, it is a "holy link"... If it disagrees with them, then it is an "unholy link".

That's why I don't participate in the "holy link wars"... I generally form my own arguments.


Now, there are some sources that I outright dismiss on sight, as I do not find them to be credible sources... Wikipedia is the prime example of such a source. It is often incomplete, incorrect, and can be edited by virtually anybody.
 
Nordberg said:
You can always find an expert contrarian. When 98 percent of climate scientists say it is a big problem and man is a huge contributor, I tend to lean their way.
Click to expand...
I thought it was 97%?? Anyway, it's a BS number... It's not even considering all "climate scientists" (I put that in quotes since there is actually no such thing, as those people don't make use of science at all; they outright deny it).

Science is not a consensus, nor any group of people. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.

Nordberg said:
Sorry. People who do not want to accept the facts can always find an excuse.
Click to expand...
Not what "facts" are... Facts are not universal truths, nor are they proofs... Facts are shorthand predicate (accepted by all conversing parties)... That's all facts are. They are meant to speed up conversation, so that one doesn't have to form an argument for every little thing that they say.

Nordberg said:
But this expert does not balance with all the rest. Temps are at highest levels recorded and have been 15 out of last 16 years.
Click to expand...
Random numbers and nothing more than that... There is currently no way to measure a global temperature; we don't have NEAR enough thermometers...
 
gfm7175 said:
I don't do argumentation by links... I consider it to be intellectual laziness... Do you have any of your OWN arguments you'd like to make?
Click to expand...

Sure- what would you care to discuss ?

Links aren't the substance of on-line discussion. They serve as verification - and their absence lends cause to suspicion.
You clearly hadn't considered that when adopting your ...er....pose.


Incidentally- maggot is my target. If you're planning on supporting the asshole you're going to become collateral damage.
 
Last edited:
moon said:
Sure- what would you care to discuss ?
Click to expand...

Ummmm, since this thread is titled "global fry-up", which I take that to mean that you know the global temperature has been steadily increasing for quite a while now... I'd like to know, firstly, what the term "global warming" means... define it... what IS it... Do so in a non-circular manner, as circular definitions are meaningless...

Then, I'd like to know how your source(s) came up with their global temperature readings... Did your source(s) make use of selection by RandN? (as in, uniformly spaced thermometers)... Did your source(s) use the same observer to read all of them simultaneously?? Did your source(s) declare the variance that they are making use of?? Did your source(s) perform a margin of error calculation and declare what their result was?? I have a very high standard for data, as you can see; I don't just accept any random data that is thrown my way...

I'd like to know precisely HOW "global warming" is happening... What is causing it?? How does that align with currently standing theories of science?? If it doesn't, then how have you falsified those theories of science which stand in your way?


I could go on and on... but that's a start I think...
 
gfm7175;
I could go on and on... but that's a start I think...
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that you could. You're going to have to demonstrate this in greater capacity so as to create confidence in your integrity.
The forum awaits. You have the floor. Proceed.
 
Some people think they are weather experts. Most people are not weather experts and are ignorant and speaking from ignorance.

Scientists on the other hand, are our best chance at understanding our world.

Take for instance, most people do not understand the Parrot Fish and how it's shit, over the period of millions of years, have formed islands that exist only today because of the Parrot fish!

Because most people do not understand that Parrot fish eat coral, and shit sand- literally!

And thus Islands are formed right up out of the sea!

So, there are many things that shape our world and some things may or may not affect our climate change. We should be listening to our Scientists that know more than we know!

Here is a picture of Islands that were created totally by the Parrot Fish's shit!

We would never had known this, had we not studied the Parrot Fish! Now you have the right to believe me, or doubt me!

cq5dam.web_.720.405.jpeg
 
That's amazing ! On the other hand, maggot shit destroys environments. I recommend that all members desist from eating maggot shit.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Some people think they are weather experts. Most people are not weather experts and are ignorant and speaking from ignorance.

Scientists on the other hand, are our best chance at understanding our world.

Take for instance, most people do not understand the Parrot Fish and how it's shit, over the period of millions of years, have formed islands that exist only today because of the Parrot fish!

Because most people do not understand that Parrot fish eat coral, and shit sand- literally!

And thus Islands are formed right up out of the sea!

So, there are many things that shape our world and some things may or may not affect our climate change. We should be listening to our Scientists that know more than we know!

Here is a picture of Islands that were created totally by the Parrot Fish's shit!

We would never had known this, had we not studied the Parrot Fish! Now you have the right to believe me, or doubt me!

cq5dam.web_.720.405.jpeg
Click to expand...

Climate alarmism goes back a long way, here is Leonard Nimoy giving out apocalyptic warnings back in 1978 about the coming ice age. He didn't mention any parrot fish though!


 
Havana Moon said:
Climate alarmism goes back a long way, here is Leonard Nimoy giving out apocalyptic warnings back in 1978 about the coming ice age. He didn't mention any parrot fish though!


Click to expand...

Hey thanks! I used to be a History Channel buff, and I remember watching similar programs like this. At least the History channel would present programs like this, and when subject matters like these would come up that relied on theory, views on both sides were provided in it's broadcasts, leaving it's viewer to make their own conclusions based on what was said by the opposing views.

And the only reason why I used the Parrot fish story, was because I just wanted to say that Science is often times a little almost unbelievable at times, until you watch how scientists proved something with your very own eyes and ears.

The point being that Politics has somehow entered into the denial of certain things that are compelling evidence based on Scientific fact, such as Weather and Climate Science, Vaccinations, and many other things.

I suppose a forum is a good place to discuss differences of opinions of scientific theories on controversial scientific studies, but not in such a hate-filled political hacked forum like this one where half of the contributors are trolls.

Science is science- Politics is politics, and there will always be political hacks that will deny scientific fact, if it does not play into their political agenda or narrative.

And most certainly Scientific facts will be ignored if a president stands up on a platform denying Scientific facts or data to his base, while trying to shore up his political agenda to attract political hacks and deniers to his base- tell them what they want to hear-in return for their vote.

Politics is nasty! Science is clean!

We didn't go to the moon for political reasons. We went to the moon to study man's capabilities in space. Everything is not political.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
Hey thanks! I used to be a History Channel buff, and I remember watching similar programs like this. At least the History channel would present programs like this, and when subject matters like these would come up that relied on theory, views on both sides were provided in it's broadcasts, leaving it's viewer to make their own conclusions based on what was said by the opposing views.

And the only reason why I used the Parrot fish story, was because I just wanted to say that Science is often times a little almost unbelievable at times, until you watch how scientists proved something with your very own eyes and ears.

The point being that Politics has somehow entered into the denial of certain things that are compelling evidence based on Scientific fact, such as Weather and Climate Science, Vaccinations, and many other things.

I suppose a forum is a good place to discuss differences of opinions of scientific theories on controversial scientific studies, but not in such a hate-filled political hacked forum like this one where half of the contributors are trolls.

Science is science- Politics is politics, and there will always be political hacks that will deny scientific fact, if it does not play into their political agenda or narrative.

And most certainly Scientific facts will be ignored if a president stands up on a platform denying Scientific facts or data to his base, while trying to shore up his political agenda to attract political hacks and deniers to his base- tell them what they want to hear-in return for their vote.

Politics is nasty! Science is clean!

We didn't go to the moon for political reasons. We went to the moon to study man's capabilities in space. Everything is not political.
Click to expand...

Here are some facts!!

RCP8.5 is an impossible scenario

RCP6.0 is almost impossible

There are many scientists that disagree with the so called consensus

The politicisation of science is coming from the Left almost exclusively.

The temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 concentration is around 1.2C. That is from 1780, the start of the Industrial Revolution where it was 280ppm, until 2070-80 when it is predicted to be around 560 ppm.


Other than in climate models, nobody has demonstrated that the positive feedbacks needed to ramp global temperatures up to 3C and beyond even exist. Indeed it is just as likely , and possibly even more so that negative feedbacks will come into play.

The PCCS headed up by William Happer will call on many scientists and will provide an objective assessment of the many claims made by climate alarmists. You should welcome that but I bet you won't.

Lastly, it's a fact that you don't understand any of the above.
 
Last edited:
Delingpole: Trump’s New Skeptic-Led Climate Security Committee Triggers Greenies

President Trump is set to launch his long-awaited climate change assessment panel and the greenies are furious. Most especially they’re angry and fearful that the proposed Presidential Committee on Climate Security will be led by one of the world’s most distinguished skeptics, physicist William Happer.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/0...ecurity-committee-triggers-environmentalists/
 
Havana Moon said:
Here are some facts!!

RCP8.5 is an impossible scenario

RCP6.0 is almost impossible

There are many scientists that disagree with the so called consensus

The politicisation of science is coming from the Left almost exclusively.

The temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 concentration is around 1.2C. That is from 1780, the start of the Industrial Revolution where it was 280ppm, until 2070-80 when it is predicted to be around 560 ppm.


Other than in climate models, nobody has demonstrated that the positive feedbacks needed to ramp global temperatures up to 3C and beyond even exist. Indeed it is just as likely , and possibly even more so that negative feedbacks will come into play.

The PCCS headed up by William Happer will call on many scientists and will provide an objective assessment of the many claims made by climate alarmists. You should welcome that but I bet you won't.

Lastly, it's a fact that you don't understand any of the above.
Click to expand...

You are the best example of someone who is here to play politics by ignoring scientific data and study.

Because you cannot present your case without insulting people, and acting as if you are some kind of an expert, when you clearly are not educated in Scientific study.

You are one of those people who likes to run your mouth and too politically biased to say any thing relevant to the discussion!

Thanks for helping me make my case on that.
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
You are the best example of someone who is here to play politics by ignoring scientific data and study.

Because you cannot present your case without insulting people, and acting as if you are some kind of an expert, when you clearly are not educated in Scientific study.

You are one of those people who likes to run your mouth and too politically biased to say any thing relevant to the discussion!

Thanks for helping me make my case on that.
Click to expand...

I have a very low tolerance for idiots, as for scientific study I have a 2:1 honours in Chemistry, what about you? I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't understand a word I said, that's not an insult just a pertinent observation. Oh and argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy, did you know that?
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
I have a very low tolerance for idiots, as for scientific study I have a 2:1 honours in Chemistry, what about you? I suppose that I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't understand a word I said, that's not an insult just a pertinent observation. Oh and argumentum ad verecundiam is a logical fallacy, did you know that?
Click to expand...

No one here in this forum should have a low tolerance for idiots- because you are in the wrong place for that and you yourself are one of the most contributing factors here in the forum regarding idiocy!!

Great- you know some chemistry! Every Meth lab has an expert in chemistry!

And your chemistry knowledge should come in handy here since some of the earths problems deal with gas elements!

So you should be here warning people of the dangers of these gasses to the world's atmosphere and protective Ozone layer- not running from the facts of their dangers!

Send people to school and what do they do- eat the teacher! LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top