Another blow to the global warming nuts Options

[mhaverty]

After the bad hurricaine season of 05 Al Gore and his band of barking seals told us all it was just another sign of the impending apocalypse.

Well now have 2 straight years of lower tropical storm activity and 2 straight years of forcasts that were not just wrong but DEAD wrong.

cyclone activity at a 30 year low in 07

[Jason Halogen]

Your myopia on the rationale behind opposing viewpoints is nothing short of staggering.

[Mike C]

After the bad hurricaine season of 05 Al Gore and his band of barking seals told us all it was just another sign of the impending apocalypse.

Well now have 2 straight years of lower tropical storm activity and 2 straight years of forcasts that were not just wrong but DEAD wrong.

cyclone activity at a 30 year low in 07

I didn't think it was up for debate.

Only the cause, whether man made or caused by the sun seems to be in dispute?

[Orbitron]

I'll respond to this the same way I respond when global warming nuts point to a very warm day in December as "proof" global warming is occuring. Weather is a chaotic system, it does funny things, you can't just look at a small cross-section of time as proof of anything. You have to look at weather patterns over several decades, not a few years. So, if 2009 and 2010 are the worst years for storms on record, are you going to say Gore & Co. are right? I don't think so.

The loss of the polar ice caps, the rise in ocean temperatures, and the rise of sea-level is the concern. This might create greater periods of storm activity, but that's just extrapolation. But I think just the loss of polar ice caps, etc., is worrying enough.

[His Daddy]

Um, global warming has nuts? So global warming is male?

[mhaverty]

Your myopia on the rationale behind opposing viewpoints is nothing short of staggering.

Jason can you prove to me that the current warming trend is one of the following things (without hyperbole):

1. A 100% human infuenced phenomenon
2. Part of a typical climate cycle exaserbated by human activity
3. Part of a typical climate cycle exaserbated by solar cycles and/or human activity
4. Simply a typical climate cycle. One which includes NO ICE on the polar caps just a short 3000 years ago. Long before the industrial age.

It is one of the 4. I know that.

[mhaverty]

I'll respond to this the same way I respond when global warming nuts point to a very warm day in December as "proof" global warming is occuring. Weather is a chaotic system, it does funny things, you can't just look at a small cross-section of time as proof of anything. You have to look at weather patterns over several decades, not a few years. So, if 2009 and 2010 are the worst years for storms on record, are you going to say Gore & Co. are right? I don't think so.

The loss of the polar ice caps, the rise in ocean temperatures, and the rise of sea-level is the concern. This might create greater periods of storm activity, but that's just extrapolation. But I think just the loss of polar ice caps, etc., is worrying enough.

All 100% true assertions and something that needs to be adressed or better understood. I just find it comical that Al Gore and his ilk pretty much can say whatever they want, even if it has no basis in fact, and people eat it up like rock candy. The fact is for two straight years the forcasts were for very bad seasons and this was seized upon as proof of our folly.

If you look at the graph of activity since 1970 there is was a clear trendline upward for cyclone activity up intil 05. Prof. Gray (Considered the father of Hurricaine Science)predicted this 30 year trend years ago.

[the other dave]

After the bad hurricaine season of 05 Al Gore and his band of barking seals told us all it was just another sign of the impending apocalypse.

Well now have 2 straight years of lower tropical storm activity and 2 straight years of forcasts that were not just wrong but DEAD wrong.

cyclone activity at a 30 year low in 07

It's El Nino, dude. You're smart enough to know that. El Nino disrupts tropical storm development around the globe, but particularly in the Atlantic and Caribbean. Look at the ice in the Arctic and tell me it's not melting.

[killyou]

Um, global warming has nuts? So global warming is male?

mother nature is female to fuck it global warming has to be male..unless of course you think the world is a fucking faggot

[His Daddy]

mother nature is female to fuck it global warming has to be male..unless of course you think the world is a fucking faggot

Dude, the world is totally a fucking faggot.

[smcd]

Al Gore and his band of barking seals

[dimenno]

I believe there is a global warming problem, and it is bevcoming and will turn out to be quite a serious one.

I also believe there needs to be a rational scientific assessment of the problem that is explains it, but in a way that acknowledges people's hidden dread of apocalypse without exploiting it.

[mhaverty]

It's El Nino, dude. You're smart enough to know that. El Nino disrupts tropical storm development around the globe, but particularly in the Atlantic and Caribbean. Look at the ice in the Arctic and tell me it's not melting.

There is also an alternate theory that dust storms in the Sahara are cutting into the ability for tropical storms to develop off the coast.

The point is that seizing upon forcasts and overstating the correlation between global warming and tropical storms damages the credibility of the global warming alarmists to a major degree.

There are numerous factors that go into the development of superstorms... and if the earth is warming it translates to there being more heat energy.... which is the lifeblood of storms. However a direct correlation between the marginal increase in global temperature over the past few decades (which in fact is still with in the margin of error) has yet to be proven and probably can not be proven.

A few scientists have called on the Al Gores of the world to cut the shit and him first and foremost. I wish there were more. It would enable the debate to advance into something more than hyperbolic chest thumping.

[smcd]

It's El Nino, dude. You're smart enough to know that. El Nino disrupts tropical storm development around the globe, but particularly in the Atlantic and Caribbean. Look at the ice in the Arctic and tell me it's not melting.

El Nino - the cheap plaster crackpot environmentalists use to fill the gaping holes in their arguements.

[DanPM]

El Nino - the cheap plaster crackpot environmentalists use to fill the gaping holes in their arguements.

[dimenno]

I'd like to introduce an element of rationality here.

There is a demonstrable global warming problem.

Getting hysterical about it will not solve it.

Stigmatizing people who point out the bad news as crackpots will not solve it.

Thinking about it can and hopefully will solve it.

This is one instance in which indulging in emotional showboating serves nobody.

Both sides need to tone down the hysteria and compromise on this issue.

I propose we treat the problem as though it were real, and work to gradually ramp down worldwide carbon emissions, which do nobody in the world the slightest bit of good.

That way, if it turns out that the fears of global warming were exaggerated, we will still have achieved a desirable outcome without breaking the bank.

And if the fears were not exaggerated, all the better.

[Jason Halogen]

2. Part of a typical climate cycle exacerbated by human activity

This is the most correct answer on your list.

I'm going to leave you to argue with everyone about this if you disagree. The truth is that no-one has all the answers with 100% certainty on this subject, but we live in a time when energy policies are co-dictated by heavy polluters. So things like this aren't even worth arguing about, because some spoon-fed dicknose is always going to scrounge around and find some study, somewhere, that just PROVES that every scientist studying global warming over the last generation is an idiot, and the guy who never got his funding is just totally on the money.

It's stupid. I'm not claiming to be some patron saint of recycling, but people who go out of their way to try and belittle the efforts of organizations trying to make a positive difference by namecalling are just pathetic.

[dimenno]

Frankie here laid it down back in 20 minus 4k:

"The human understanding when it has adopted an opinion ...draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises. . .in order by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain the inviolate." --Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1620.

[mhaverty]

This is the most correct answer on your list.

I'm going to leave you to argue with everyone about this if you disagree. The truth is that no-one has all the answers with 100% certainty on this subject, but we live in a time when energy policies are co-dictated by heavy polluters. So things like this aren't even worth arguing about, because some spoon-fed dicknose is always going to scrounge around and find some study, somewhere, that just PROVES that every scientist studying global warming over the last generation is an idiot, and the guy who never got his funding is just totally on the money.

It's stupid. I'm not claiming to be some patron saint of recycling, but people who go out of their way to try and belittle the efforts of organizations trying to make a positive difference by namecalling are just pathetic.

That happens to be the correct choice in my estimation.

You seem to be upset about name calling yet in the previous paragraph you say this

So things like this aren't even worth arguing about, because some spoon-fed dicknose is

The fact is there are quite a few accredited scientists who think that the global warming theory is a colossal example of group think. Group think and herd mentality have a long and sad storied history in the scientific community which is far from immune from the frailties of the human condition. Many of those in opposition to the theory, or dare to simply question its veracity, make their statements and pronouncements professionally and with earnest good intent. Yet they get shouted down as even the most tenuous link to corporate money through the tangled web of academic grant monies is always seen as bedrock proof of their impropriety. Yet the large group that runs in lock step with the global warming heard direct connections to the wads of environmentalist cash, cash that can be equally as corrupting..... Somebody please explain to me how corporate monies are always corrupting but Greenpeace type money never is? The sheen of invincible credibility is always plied upon those who advance the global warming agenda while any scientist who dares to speak out against the "settled science" is seen as a heretic.

[busyface]

Who's blowing whose nuts?

[In the Woods]

I don't understand why science doesn't just shoot some liquid nitrogen at the sun to cool it down a little until we can get things straightened out down here.

Plus anyways I think if liberals would shut the fuck up there'd be a lot less carbon dioxide.

[ImIdaho]

You are awesome.

[elk]

After the bad hurricaine season of 05 Al Gore and his band of barking seals told us all it was just another sign of the impending apocalypse.

Well now have 2 straight years of lower tropical storm activity and 2 straight years of forcasts that were not just wrong but DEAD wrong.

cyclone activity at a 30 year low in 07

Yeah, if you don't know fuck all about how/what shapes up the Atlantic hurricane season, I guess you could think that. But, like most things you talk about here, you're a complete idiot that can't see past your desire to troll for drama on the nerdboard. Anyone paying nominal attention to global weather this year knew that above average Saharan sandstorms were going to choke the Atlantic's ability to drum up big storms (and hence, big surf, which is why I pay attention to this stuff).

Now, tell me why there have been an above average number of large Saharan sandstorms this year (and last, and probably next), Mr. Wizard.

[Jason Halogen]

That happens to be the correct choice in my estimation.

You seem to be upset about name calling yet in the previous paragraph you say this
The fact is there are quite a few accredited scientists who think that the global warming theory is a colossal example of group think. Group think and herd mentality have a long and sad storied history in the scientific community which is far from immune from the frailties of the human condition. Many of those in opposition to the theory, or dare to simply question its veracity, make their statements and pronouncements professionally and with earnest good intent. Yet they get shouted down as even the most tenuous link to corporate money through the tangled web of academic grant monies is always seen as bedrock proof of their impropriety. Yet the large group that runs in lock step with the global warming heard direct connections to the wads of environmentalist cash, cash that can be equally as corrupting..... Somebody please explain to me how corporate monies are always corrupting but Greenpeace type money never is? The sheen of invincible credibility is always plied upon those who advance the global warming agenda while any scientist who dares to speak out against the "settled science" is seen as a heretic.

We find ourselves in agreement.

It doesn't matter where the money is coming from if you're letting it cloud your judgement. But if we're talking about the scientific community, specifically on this issue, I'll side with the side that considers it our responsibility to at lease TRY to stop royally screwing a planet that was doing pretty well for itself before we came along.

My problem with the opposing argument isn't that there is one - this is healthy. My problem is that I can't find a logical reason for it to exist other than to try to disrupt progress toward a cleaner planet capable of sustaining itself for a while. It seems like a child who has no viable reason to want his room dirty refusing to clean it up because one of his friends said there's nothing wrong with a dirty room, which fits happily into the kid's non-desire to pick up his toys and trash.

[mhaverty]

Yeah, if you don't know fuck all about how/what shapes up the Atlantic hurricane season, I guess you could think that. But, like most things you talk about here, you're a complete idiot that can't see past your desire to troll for drama on the nerdboard. Anyone paying nominal attention to global weather this year knew that above average Saharan sandstorms were going to choke the Atlantic's ability to drum up big storms (and hence, big surf, which is why I pay attention to this stuff).

Now, tell me why there have been an above average number of large Saharan sandstorms this year (and last, and probably next), Mr. Wizard.

I was paying more than nominal attention fuckface:

There is also an alternate theory that dust storms in the Sahara are cutting into the ability for tropical storms to develop off the coast.