Jump to content

Thetexashammer

Certifiably Surly
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3444

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Thetexashammer

  1. Thetexashammer
    The 610 Stompers. This is why I love Houston.
  2. Thetexashammer
    An intriguing idea is a QB who runs like Roschon. I mean, if he can throw with accuracy.
  3. Thetexashammer
    Well our women like to romance each other. So that's a plus in my book.
  4. Thetexashammer
    I don't expect you to "believe" anything. I do expect you to be able to evaluate the evidence I offered. Alas, I was disappointed.
  5. Thetexashammer
    There are multiple sources. It's a page full of links. The point is that CO2 lags temperature. Period. Still true. Not a debate.
  6. Thetexashammer
    Bing is a creationist website?
  7. Thetexashammer
    AGW could be a valid hypothesis. But I'll wait until the data confirm it. As of today, the pattern of wrong predictions and fearmongering is hard to ignore. It's not unlike the runup to the Iraq war. "BUT ALUMINUM TUBES IN NIGER!!!!!" Call me when you have real evidence.
  8. Thetexashammer
    Again, there is a propaganda war and I would encourage you to get past the media manipulation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3d4deec03f9f In any case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority How much persuasive power do you give to a logical fallacy? I give little to none.
  9. Thetexashammer
    OK this is really good.
  10. Thetexashammer
    What NOAA did in you link was to maniuplate the data to achieve their desired outcome. You may note, should you choose to be skeptical, that your link does not show an graph of CO2 levels. Because who are gonna believe, NOAA or your lying eyes? I don't know if it's news to you, but NOAA has a lonhg history of climate activism. Here are some sea level reading with CO2 superimposed on them, It makes the point even better. I don't know where you're seeing a relationship between CO2 and sea level. Please point it out. But sure, if you pick an artificially low point in 1993, you might believe that sea levels are increasing at an increasing rate. In any case, everyone expects a small rise from additional CO2. I put a lot more trust in the UAH data set, which shows about what you would expect.
  11. Thetexashammer
    That's what I assumed. And I gave you their actual data. Show me the increase.
  12. Thetexashammer
    CO2 lags global temperature, it doesn't lead it. https://www.bing.com/search?q=does+CO2+lag+global+temperature&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
  13. Thetexashammer
    See the logo on the top right? Now show me the increase. ' I will assume your post accurately describes NOAA's position. But their position is not supported by their own data. Hmmmm.
  14. Thetexashammer
    To you. Again, the suggestion is the CO2 would cause an increase in the rate of sea level rise. None has been observed according to NOAA.
  15. Thetexashammer
    Indeed.
  16. Thetexashammer
    I am saying that you evaluate a scientific hypothesis based on the accuracy of its predictions. I just said it again. Why are you rejecting this?
  17. Thetexashammer
    Indeed, no evidence. Your graph doesn't show great detail of the time period where we have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere, but if you look at the data regarding sea level rise, there is no observed increase. Your graph wouldn't show that because it doesn't show the relevant time period in enough detail. Here's one. It shows a mostly straight line. Here's another straought line with a better time frame for you to ponder. Do you mean to suggest that the IPCC is wrong? They said there was no evidence of increased hurrican activity. Do you also suggest the NOAA is also wrong? They show a straight line of sea level increasing, not sea levels increasing at an increasing rate due to runaway global warming. Your argument is with them, and their data, not me.
  18. Thetexashammer
    You're turning science on its head. This is very precisely wrong. You are saying that an hypothesis is not evaluated on its predictions. To the contrary, science is the study of the natural world. Science is only valuable insofar as it makes valuable predictions. An hypothesis which makes inaccurate prediction is discarded. It is an invalid hypothesis. So, to take one example, when the AGW model predicts that tropospheric temperatures will increase, and they don't, that is an invalid predictions. They have made one invalid prediction after another after another ad infinitum. At what point do you stop believing them? How many lies do you have to be told? Most people already gave up. And that's not on me, that's on the people who started this whole thing. They failed to persuade. They don't have the evidence, and they never had it.
  19. Thetexashammer
    The seas have been rising for 1000's of years. To date, there is no eveidence CO2 has cause even the slightest increase in rate of sea level rise. Whatever is going on the the environment, there has been no connection between increased strength of hurricanes, drought, or other climate related events. https://co2coalition.org/2018/09/19/no-global-warming-isnt-causing-worse-hurricanes/ I'm sorry but your post is simply evidence of how easy it is to manipulate people when the you have an agenda. Get educated on the subject, don't consume news reports and think you know anything.
  20. Thetexashammer
    I just assume this was Joe Buck.
  21. Thetexashammer
    Toll roads most often are self supported. And even our highways are paid for by special federal and state taxes on gasoline. These taxes serve as user fees and are analogous to ticket prices. Shockingly, the price to maintain a piece of concrete is far less than a high speed rail. If it doesn't make sense to connect 27 million people who live in LA and the Bay Area, it doesn't make sense to connect the 14 million who live in Houston and Dallas.
  22. Thetexashammer
    In the wallet.
  23. Thetexashammer
    I'm proud of my farts. Fuck off with that shit.
  24. Thetexashammer
    But you don't know why the last ice age happened. You don't know why it ended. You don't know why the medieval warm period happened. You don't know why there was a temperature spike in the 1930's. You don't have a single example of the CO2 levels driving global temperature, nor of any time in the past where there was a runaway increase in temperature due to an increase in CO2. AGW is an hyposthesis entirely lacking in evidentiary support. What you do have is a statistically flawed model with questionable data inputs whose predictions (a) have a 95% confidence interval that do not include the current temperature, and (b) predict, with a 95% confidence level, in 50 years that temperature will stay exactly the same as it is today.
  25. Thetexashammer
    I know it's not cool to dox people, but I was able to identify jimmyjames in real life.

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...