2014 hottest year for at least the last 135 years

Originally posted by Metal Brain
.....but went on to make the statement that if a jet was brought down by lightning that few people would remember the date it happened. What are the odds of a modern aircraft being brought down by lightning? Jets are hit by lightning all the time, but if one has ever crashed because of a lightning strike I am unaware of it.

Well you proved his point didn't you.

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/avaition_losses.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Now you both look foolish for liking such nonsense without being critical of the lies and/or ignorance.

I am critical of just about everything I see, and yes, he did make a number of mistakes in his talk. But they are nothing compared to the nonsense that comes out of your mouth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well you proved his point didn't you.

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/avaition_losses.html

MODERN aircraft. Not old aircraft.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am critical of just about everything I see, and yes, he did make a number of mistakes in his talk. But they are nothing compared to the nonsense that comes out of your mouth.

He is an idiot. His statement is as bad as Sonhouse's statement that 100% of warming is man made. As far as my statements are concerned, they are accurate contrary to your empty claim.
I think I have proven my point here. You GW alarmists have no credibility as you have all proven again and again. 😏

Originally posted by humy
I have just watched it. It is pretty good. It has just made me learn something new about psychology, specifically, how we irrationally asses treats according to whether intentions are involved, how soon they will be a threat, and the rate of change we notice when they happen.

I can also see now how this wouldn't be too much of a problem in the stone age but a big problem in the modern age.

misprint:

"...irrationally asses treats..."

should have been

"...irrationally assess threats..."

-my typing is dreadful!

Originally posted by Metal Brain

...
The guy said global warming was a threat to all life on earth.
...

His deliberate exaggeration for a statement: Global warming is a threat to much of life on Earth, not literally all life on earth. Obviously he doesn't believe it threatens, say, every species of soil bacteria without exception. Nor would he expect as to think this is what he literally meant when he said “all” because he expects each listener to have the necessary intelligence to figure that one out for himself. It is like the casual everyday statement someone may make: “everyone has heard of evolution” (what? Including every new born baby? And every deaf person? ) ; -the speaker assumes you got the intelligence to figure out you are not supposed to take his statement too literally.

But you have just proved his assumption in the link that each listener has the necessary intelligence is wrong! -you have just demonstrated you do not have the necessary intelligence to figure that one out for yourself! So you have proven your point and proven him wrong and won the argument. Well done!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
MODERN aircraft. Not old aircraft.

Yeah, cos nobody flies 747's any more....

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yeah, cos nobody flies 747's any more....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2012/may/16/worried-lightning-striking-plane

Originally posted by humy
His deliberate exaggeration for a statement: Global warming is a threat to much of life on Earth, not literally all life on earth. Obviously he doesn't believe it threatens, say, every species of soil bacteria without exception. Nor would he expect as to think this is what he literally meant when he said “all” because he expects each listener to ...[text shortened]... or yourself! So you have proven your point and proven him wrong and won the argument. Well done!

🙄

Originally posted by Metal Brain
As far as my statements are concerned, they are accurate contrary to your empty claim.

Your statement that I was uncritical of him was an outright lie.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
MODERN aircraft. Not old aircraft.

Did you know about those accidents or not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you know about those accidents or not?

Most of the aircraft listed in the link you posted are from the 50s. I specifically stated "modern aircraft" like those from 911. The link I posted also explains it well. My statements in regard to this are very accurate and I stand by them. The odds of modern aircraft crashing because of a lightning strike are extremely low, perhaps even non-existent although I never claimed that for sure either. I was right. Learn to read and get over it. You goofed!

The link you posted is an embarrassment to you and humy because of the false statements you both overlooked. Be more careful next time.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Most of the aircraft listed in the link you posted are from the 50s. specifically stated "modern aircraft" like those from 911.

Regardless of what you 'specifically stated', did you know about them or not?

My statements in regard to this are very accurate and I stand by them.
And I never claimed otherwise. You still proved his point.

Learn to read and get over it. You goofed!
No, actually, I didn't.

The link you posted is an embarrassment to you and humy because of the false statements you both overlooked. Be more careful next time.
Well for some odd reason, I don't feel embarrassed, but I think you should be.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
He is an idiot. His statement is as bad as Sonhouse's statement that 100% of warming is man made. As far as my statements are concerned, they are accurate contrary to your empty claim.
I think I have proven my point here. You GW alarmists have no credibility as you have all proven again and again. 😏

Actually the peak of the probability distribution [bell curve] of the amount of warming we are responsible for
is about 110% of observed warming.

The reason being that the net effect of the natural variation has been slightly negative, offsetting some
of the warming we have caused.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing

Originally posted by twhitehead
Regardless of what you 'specifically stated', did you know about them or not?

[b]My statements in regard to this are very accurate and I stand by them.
And I never claimed otherwise. You still proved his point.

Learn to read and get over it. You goofed!
No, actually, I didn't.

The link you posted is an embarrassment to you and hum ...[text shortened]... l next time.
Well for some odd reason, I don't feel embarrassed, but I think you should be.[/b]

Do you not know the difference between modern aircraft and old planes made in the 50s? If there is a modern aircraft that people were killed on because of a lightning strike I am willing to look at it. It would not contradict any of my statements, but I would like to know if it happened. Do you have an example you have not presented here yet?