Lake Mead and Climate Change

[Mina]

Research is not a proof

Science is always subject to dispute. But when it comes to setting policy, the question is whether we set it based on the best available evidence, which often will take the form of scientific research, or whether we just go with what we wish were true. When it comes to matters touching on climate change, liberals, progressives, lefties, and Democrats are usually pretty good about favoring policies that are consistent with the best available evidence, while conservatives, reactionaries, wingnuts, and Republicans go with whatever they wish were true.

Apparently you forgot the record snowstorms that were in the news.

What makes that apparent? Remember, the issue with water levels in cases like this are based on multi-year total precipitation averages within a given watershed, not whether there were particular record precipitation events in that time. If you have a record snowstorm but also record low average precipitation across several years, you're getting the worst of both worlds.

 

[Mina]

"climate change" or whatever the buzzword is today that gets dumb people like yourself worked up over it is not the reason.

Climate change isn't a buzzword. It's an observable phenomenon which has been exhaustively studied by scientists. It has, indeed, been a driving factor in the falling water levels at Lake Mead. See the links I provided. What made you think otherwise? Be specific, please.

 

[Mina]

You clearly didn't know

As you can see, I clearly did. Now, you should take the time to read up about it, so that you can be informed, too. I provided you some links that will get you started with some elementary material. Once you master that, let me know, and I'll be happy to provide you some more advanced material, as well. Good luck!

 

[Into the Night]

Yea. I thought Dillon was talking about one that failed in this nation? The north uses countless millions of tons of salt on the roads every winter out of necessity. Not sure where it comes from now. If they can find a cheap way heat the water, some day it might be worthwhile. Pretty soon they're going to have to do it whether it's cheap or not.

Use sand. Salt rots your cars.

 

[Into the Night]

For some reason, I keep you around because your ignorance amuses me.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Half-Of-US-Oil-Pipelines-Sit-Empty.html

[h=1]Half Of U.S. Oil Pipelines Sit Empty[/h][FONT="]By [URL="https://oilprice.com/contributors/Charles-Kennedy"]Charles Kennedy[/URL] -[/FONT][FONT="] Dec 16, 2021[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="], 9:00 AM CST[/FONT]

No permits to drill or finish the uncompleted pipelines, dumbass.

 

[evince]

Our governments fail us all around, but their failure at water management will be one of the most catastrophic failures.

But GW isn’t real huh


Republicans are to blame for this

 

[Into the Night]

Science is always subject to dispute.

Nope. Science is not a debate or dispute. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

But when it comes to setting policy, the question is whether we set it based on the best available evidence,

Science is not evidence.

which often will take the form of scientific research,

Science is not a research or study.

or whether we just go with what we wish were true.

Science is not religion.

When it comes to matters touching on climate change,

There is no value associated with climate. It cannot change. Buzzword fallacy.

liberals, progressives, lefties, and Democrats are usually pretty good about favoring policies that are consistent with the best available evidence,

Which is to say 'religion'. Only religions use support evidence. Science does not.

while conservatives, reactionaries, wingnuts, and Republicans go with whatever they wish were true.

No. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. Science has no politics.

What makes that apparent? Remember, the issue with water levels in cases like this are based on multi-year total precipitation averages within a given watershed,
not whether there were particular record precipitation events in that time.

Argument from randU fallacy. Paradox C. You are shooting down your own argument.

If you have a record snowstorm but also record low average precipitation across several years, you're getting the worst of both worlds.

Paradox C.

You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. You cannot claim a particular event is 'climate change' and then turn around and claim it's not. You are being irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

Climate change isn't a buzzword.

It is a buzzword. It is meaningless. Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can change.

It's an observable phenomenon

You can't observe a meaningless buzzword.

which has been exhaustively studied by scientists.

Science isn't a study or research. Climatologists are not scientists. They deny and discard science. Science is not a scientist or any group of scientists.

It has, indeed, been a driving factor

A buzzword is not a factor of anything. It is meaningless.

in the falling water levels at Lake Mead.

Over usage of the water supplied by the Colorado river is the only factor.

See the links I provided.

Discarded as false authorities. Argument by repetition.

What made you think otherwise? Be specific, please.

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

But GW isn’t real huh


Republicans are to blame for this

The Church of Global Warming is very real.
Republicans didn't create it.

 

[Mina]

Out of curiosity, are you asserting that no deserts ever formed before the use of Fossil Fuels?

No. What would have made you think I could possibly be asserting that? It's a very odd question.

 

[Mina]

Nope. Science is not a debate or dispute. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You're trolling again. Let me know if you change your mind and want to discuss the matter seriously.

 

[Into the Night]

No. What would have made you think I could possibly be asserting that? It's a very odd question.

Your posts. Not an odd question at all.

 

[Into the Night]

You're trolling again.

Inversion fallacy.

Let me know if you change your mind and want to discuss the matter seriously.

You are not discussing anything. You are preaching.

 

[Mina]

Your posts. Not an odd question at all.

My posts implied nothing even close to that. Which part of what I wrote, specifically, do you think he misread as suggesting no deserts ever formed before the use of fossil fuels?

 

[Mina]

You are preaching.

When it comes to you, I'm teaching. You don't want to learn, so you avoid engaging on the substance, and instead just try to troll an emotional response from people. I have better things to do with my day than feed your need for attention, though. So, I'll engage if you seem to have a good-faith desire to talk about the substance, but not when you're in "randomly name various fallacies and hope that gets a rise out of someone" mode. Life's too short for that.

 

[Sailor]

Climate change isn't a buzzword. It's an observable phenomenon which has been exhaustively studied by scientists. It has, indeed, been a driving factor in the falling water levels at Lake Mead. See the links I provided. What made you think otherwise? Be specific, please.

Your links are all biased horseshit. The only thing democrats know how to attempt to link.

 

[Mina]

Your links are all biased horseshit.

Do you have better ones that say differently?

 

[Sailor]

Do you have better ones that say differently?

Within seconds from legitimate sources. You should try it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

When it comes to you, I'm teaching. You don't want to learn, so you avoid engaging on the substance, and instead just try to troll an emotional response from people. I have better things to do with my day than feed your need for attention, though. So, I'll engage if you seem to have a good-faith desire to talk about the substance, but not when you're in "randomly name various fallacies and hope that gets a rise out of someone" mode. Life's too short for that.

The odds are good that Sybil is a paranoid schizophrenic. Teaching a delusional person is an exercise in futility.

 

[Mina]

Within seconds from legitimate sources.

Will you provide an example?