Maybe Congress will provide relief for Victims of Hurricane Sandy. Maybe not

@corlier: you have a demonstrated history of inventing elaborate backgrounds and then using that to rant on a political bias, followed by a loud histrionic claim that you are an expert.

frankly you are the probably the world's first salesman into the auto industry "expert" converted into a
"science expert" all tied to elaborate falsifications and tied to highly emotional child like claims. You simply have exposed yourself as a liar.

Case closed.

@rugbat: my cousins were on the Ct side of the Long Island Sound. They are on the shore but their home was well above sea level...sort of a cliff. Lost power, were blocked on the roads. couldn't get out to drive. Several days of crackers and cheerios. not fun but no serious damage or injuries....just a lousy situation for several days. A lot luckier than many...but NY and NJ took the brunt of it, even as CT got hit.

 

I have two ex-girlfriends in the area, one on Long Island, another in Jersey, as well as a bevy of illegitimate children, all of whom suffered horribly due to Sandy. They tell me the only way they and their neighbors can be helped is by providing billions of taxpayer dollars to the fisheries of Alaska.

They and their neighbors got together and decided that Sandy was obviously the result of global warming, based on the size of the storm surge. The only way to prevent storms like this from occurring is to tax pollution creating American businesses and give those tax revenues to less polluting nations like China as a reward for their eco-friendly behavior, after providing Al Gore a reasonable transaction fee.

Anyone who disagrees with these views is obviously either a bible thumping, redneck, gun toting lunatic, or a shill from some secret society that hates women, children, and racial minorities. Perhaps both.

Remember, Koch Brothers, the NRA, Illuminati, Free Masons, the Bilderburg group, the Rothschilds, Al Queda, and the international banking cabal. These are the people who want you to own fire arms, destroy the planet via global warming, and oppose our views!

 

o-nation. so you are the family member that drinks the scotch that was already filtered through your body. seems to have a powerful effect, creating hallucinogenic fantasies and all around whacked out nuttiness.

o-nation you probably are one up on the effects of legalized drugs and how it can damage one's mental capacities. well done

 

I'll give you an F- for that (because I'm a VERY generous marker). There's no evidence for x, therefore ... there's no evidence for x, not therefore not x. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Logic 101.

You're reading the wrong side of the script - that's my line. No one who thinks that lack of evidence is evidence of lack doesn't have a clue when it comes to logic. (And you think it's proof of lack, which is even worse.)

Stop trying to make a logic teacher think that you know anything about logic when you keep proving that you've never taken a basic logic course. (Or, if you took one, you got a gentleman's C, because you never learned even the basics of the basic course.)

This isn't even ludicrous - it's shooting fish that have been crammed mouth-first onto the barrel of a rifle with with an automatic trigger.

 

Haha. I believe that is a Viking tradition requiring the consumption of magic mushrooms first.

You can actually drink your own urine twice over before it becomes toxic. Good to know if you ever lose your mast on the way to Hawaii. With limited water on board, always best to start with the urine drinking immediately because you never know how long it will be until you are rescued.

I have a lot of friends who are Democrats. It is like a continual study.

 

I waited a few days to see if you were going to take that back.

Well, it's pretty obvious by now that you come from a place where logic was dropped on it's head as a child.

By your "logic" (hehehe), you must believe in unicorns, UFOs, and the tooth fairy. Oh, and Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster (haha)!!!

 

Sorry, I take it back. It should read "Anyone who thinks that lack of evidence is evidence of lack doesn't have a clue when it comes to logic." It's an axiom of formal logic that lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

You have evidence that they exist? I don't need evidence that something doesn't exist to lack belief in it, I need evidence that it does exist to believe in it.

And I have more than sufficient evidence that you don't understand logic any better than any semi-intelligent 4 year old.

 

May I politely point out that this is why I do not believe that global warming is man-made?

However, I am noticing that the media now discusses this as "climate change", with an absence of debate was to whether or not it is manmade. If I put my marketing hat on, I suspect that this is because there is a significant customer base that both believes and doesn't believe that man is affecting the climate. Therefore, by using the generic term "climate change", a broader customer base can be addressed when selling people stuff.

 

1) "I do not believe" isn't the same as "lack of evidence proves that ...".

2) What's the difference whether it's man-made or not? Do you care if someone shoots you in the heart with a handgun or stabs you in the heart with a knife? You have a hole in your heart and it has to be repaired or you'll die.

If we can "man-made" cause global cooling enough to keep from reaching the tipping point, we'll fix the problem - of hitting the tipping point and being a lot more like Venus than we are now. Whether global warming is 100% man-made, 100% natural or some combination. (And if we go too far, it won't kill us as a species. We can survive Arctic temperatures. We can't survive temperatures that denature proteins.)

Because "there's no proof that it's man-made, so we shouldn't do anything" isn't a scientific viewpoint, it's the viewpoint of companies that would lose money if they had to do anything.

Science doesn't care about marketing or customers, it cares about facts. And I don't care about how the media misinterprets scientific findings to increase ratings. The average temperature is going up. Call it global warming, call it climate change, it's still going up. If we reach the tipping point, it won't come down, it will go up to somewhere in the 500+ F range, and the discussion about what to call it will end. Even if you call it global cooling. What it's called makes no difference. What we do about it before we reach the tipping point does. (Once we reach the tipping point, fixing it becomes orders of magnitude more difficult - and science can't yet do it at that point.)

 

@Rukbat, look - you are now officially making no sense. Seriously, I'm not being argumentative here, you literally aren't making any sense.

Besides, you seem to be having a circular argument with yourself. You yourself wrote:

I don't need evidence that something doesn't exist to lack belief in it, I need evidence that it does exist to believe in it.

O.K., that's basically it. That's the whole argument. There is no evidence that global warming is manmade, no evidence it exists, therefore you should not believe in it. Right?

Then you engage in the logical fallacy of trying to prove a negative. It's like trying to disprove "1+1=2" by saying that just because it hasn't been disproved doesn't mean it isn't true. Look, it's a logic axiom - I don't know how I can make this any clearer.

And then you renew the argument that you don't care if global warming is manmade, it still needs to be addressed. But we already discussed this - what if climate change is natural,and by messing with the climate we cause real, horrible disasters? (again I do not believe that Man has the ability to significantly affect the climate)

Look, I say this with no malice, you've clearly lost this argument. You should be intelligent enough to recognize this yourself.

 

To you - because you don't actually understand the basics of logic.

Exactly. But that's not what you said. You said that the lack of evidence that it's man-made is evidence that it's not man-made. It's not. It's just lack of evidence that it IS man-made.

That you shouldn't accept the assertion that it's man-made without evidence that it is, is a totally different argument. And it's a valid one. So is the argument that whether it's man-made or not is irrelevant.

I can easily prove a negative. I'm not currently sitting on your computer desk. You can't prove an unlimited existential negative (like "no god exists anywhere in the universe"). There's a HUGE difference.

You just muddied it up by claiming that lack of evidence that it's true is the same as evidence that it's not true. Which isn't true. Or logical. Or sane.

The only "real horrible disaster" we'd cause by doing things like stopping the CO2 and methane dumping is global cooling. And we lived through a period of intense global cooling already. In fact, that's one of the reasons it's thought that the current warming trend IS man-made. The paleometeorological history, and what we should still be seeing, is 10,000 years of interglacial (what we're in now) and 90,000 years of glacial (ice age). The cause of that, for about a million years now, is most likely the fact that circulation past BOTH poles is blocked. Since it's still blocked, the global weather pattern shouldn't have changed.

So what happens if we overdo it? We go back to what probably should have been the natural pattern - an ice age. Which will cause more disruption and death - temperatures of around 300 degrees F? Or temperatures around 20 degrees F? (People live in areas in which the temperature very seldom gets above freezing. They don't seem to have a problem.)

I'm intelligent enough to realize that there's no argument here - you don't understand logic, you don't know the history and you don't understand the science. No malice, though - I won't say anything if you beat a strategic retreat and leave the thread while you're way behind.

 

Look, there's a lot I can say about what's wrong with what you wrote. But this glaring logical fallacy of yours says it all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can't_prove_a_negative

 

Since I did prove a negative in my post, nothing that someone posted on Wikipedia makes any difference. (You don't actually think that a website is an authoritative reference, do you?)

 

So. . . .

Superstorm Sandy anniversary: One year later, thousands still not home

'Where is all the money?': Pace of aid effort frustrates Sandy survivors

It's OK though because it's Obama. Maybe he forgot about it or simply doesn't know? Or maybe he just doesn't care. Hmm. . .

 

GR get a life outside of hatred and copying and pasting. take a course. learn something.

Its 8 years since Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf. They are still rebuilding: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/08/katrina-new-orleans-on-rebound-8-years-later-93346.html

Besides copying tea party complaint and attack articles can you actually think for yourself or use common sense or reasoning?

Why don't you attack the governor of Louisiana for not having everything solved and perfect in New Orleans? Its 8 years. Go ahead attack him. 8 years.

 

LOL, you all sound the same...

Earl, Earl, Earl - step away from the TV and MSNBC. "We must spew hatred towards all that are against Obama."

I think Obama did a terrible job managing the storm and posting 2 articles to display that, is pretty common sense.

Get mad at the guy doing a terrible job, not me.

 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Look Earl, I just moved from Boston to Dallas so I could get a job that would allow me to send money to my parents and brothers in New York because the Obama administration screwed everyone over on Sandy payments.

In this context - Earl, you have no idea how little you mean to me.

Just to remind you:

 

"2013 was a forgettable year [for the Obama administration]"
- Robert Gibbs (WH Press Secretary 2009-2011) on Meet the Press today

 

I haven't forgot. My guess is that the 5 million people who lost their health insurance over the ACA haven't forgot either. I hope we can send the Obama administration a nice little reminder in 11 months.