Senate Global Climate Change

Why are people wasting their time with a troll? Just ignore him and move on. This thread was informative and darkly funny until it got stupid.

 

Hurricane Sandy was recorded as the most destructive storm that hit Jersey. That is how it was reported, and passed off. So many took that as meaning it was the strongest storm that ever hit, but it wasn't the strongest that ever hit. It was the most destructive because it hit a highly populated area, high population means more of everything that can be destroyed. Stronger storms have hit that area many times before, but, there was less destruction because it wasn't as populated at that time. As I have said, scientists, politicians, and the general public that want to prove climate change don't tell the whole story behind the tales they tell of the destruction they blame on Climate Change. They want it to be true so bad, they point at the devastation, but don't tell the whole truth as to why we haven't seen the devastation in the past.

 

An attempt to educate...?

 

Justifiable solely for learning that dp4m slept through a Category 1 hurricane, and for an encore went on to chew nails for breakfast and pick his teeth with a rasp.

EDIT: <------ This is what @dp4m's teeth looked like afterwards.

 

C'mon man, Cat 1s are for babies.

The best part is, Irene (a Cat 4) never caused as much damage in our area as Sandy did (a Cat 3) and they both (I think?) topped out at Cat 1/2 when they hit the major metro NY/NJ area...

EDIT: On the other hand, I ended up in HK last... September(?) when the giant typhoon hit the Philippines and we had the Typhoon Warning 8 / 10 go up as we weren't sure if it would swing in our direction or not.

Believe me, this was my reaction to being asked to go outside...

 

I hear ya, but, as you said, it doesn't mean climate change made it happen. I am 38 years old, live in Buffalo NY, and this past winter was crazy harsh here. A lot of us were saying it was one of the worst we can remember. However, I looked at the facts, average temperature, snowfall over the last 30+ years and it really wasn't all that bad. I think we as humans tend to forget things that really happen and allow perception to take hold, Now I am not saying that's what happened in your situation. I imagine that experience will be pretty damned memorable, but my point is that things seem worse than they really are when it just happens.

 

Really? I'm a troll? I have a differing opinion, and your goal is to shut me up? That's your role as an Admin? I think I have made a pretty good case for my opinion and shown some evidence for it. Even got some help from another poster showing some info that doesn't support a lot of the Climate Change/Global Warming rhetoric that is out there. But I'm a troll when I am still sitting here defending my position?

 

I'm not an administrator-- I was one a long time ago now.

We've all seen folks like you wander through here over the years. The wording changes to match current events, but the general tenor remains the same. I have no patience for it now and would ban you if it were up to me. You've already derailed multiple threads and regurgitate nonsense from the Fox News/tea party bubble.

What I want is for a normal discussion and that's not possible when people take it upon themselves to repeatedly respond to things that are completely irrational and have no basis in reality.

In short, please let the adults have their conversation. If you want to go post what you've been posting, you can do it at redstate and any number of other websites while getting a far better reception than here. I have no power at all, of course-- I'm just a regular member. But, we've seen your "evidence" far too many times to count on countless websites. It's just noise.

 

If a study suggests that as the result of human induced climate change we should expect to see an increase in the frequency and severity of droughts in the U.S., it's going to be pretty easy to measure the accuracy of that prediction over time. It doesn't mean that we didn't have drought before or that they were never severe. No one has to point at one particular drought and insist that it was caused by burning fossil fuels. What is interesting is the accumulates data over decades and what we can predict as the result of that for the effects on, say cattle ranching in TX or the LA freshwater supply.

It's clear that laypeople confuse climate change with forecasting the weather, but taking advantage of that kind of confusion to prerend to attack the science is a lowbrow maneuver of right wing radio talk show hosts and tea party congressmen, and you should not listen to it.

 

Right, because I don't agree with you on some aspects I am labelled as something undesirable. When you don't know me, and don't know my ideology or philosophies. However that doesn't stop you from labeling me to make yourself feel better.
I have said so many times, that I believe Climate Change is happening, I just don't think it's as extreme as so many want it to be. I have issues with how Scientists, Politicians, and the general public that want to be right about Climate Change take these assessments, and turn it proof that, how did you put it in your first post... "Totally, utterly, completely hosed."

I have pointed to a couple parts within the report that are misleading, and someone else, even agreed that some of the information could very well be questionable. When the report says that as proof of Climate Change Flood Insurance is going up dramatically, and I am able to show that Flood Insurance is going up not because of Climate Change, but because the Insurance companies are in debt and need to recover their money. Yes I have a problem with that information being in the report.

So you can call me what you will, I haven't hijacked anything based on Fox News. I am not a total Fox News nut. As I have pointed out to you in another thread I read and watch many different news outlets. I am not Liberal or Con, I am not Repub or Dem, I believe both sides are crooked!

Here is another, I look at crap like this and look at it with Common Sense:




Here is the Caption under the graph from the report:

Dots show the average summer temperature and total rainfall in Texas for each year from 1919 to 2012. Red dots illustrate the range of temperatures and rainfall observed over time. The record temperatures and drought during the summer of 2011 (large red dot) represent conditions far outside those that have occurred since the instrumental record began.3 An analysis has shown that the probability of such an event has more than doubled as a result of human-induced climate change.4 Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

So looking at that Graph and the Caption, they want you to see 2011, with it's big red dot that's bigger than all the other dots. Look at it, it's bigger and more menacing. The caption says that it represents conditions far outside... Which it does. The caption then goes on to say that the probability of such an event has doubled? Really, because there was one extreme year? Well lets look at 2007, that year, just 4 years prior to the extreme one, shows that there was an extreme the other way. Lower than average temperature, and higher than average rainfall "since the instrumental record began". What does that year mean as far as climate change? You know what happens, when someone like me asks that question, it gets brushed off that that is not the new norm and 2007 is dismissed. The 2011 data is looked at and pushed up because it supports the "assessment" or in other words, their opinion.

This is a Scientific Paper? Making one year a BIG RED DOT over all the others as if it has more meaning than the others? At best 2011 and 2007 should be automatically expelled from the data, and the actual emphasis should be on the trend, if any, seen in the grouping in the middle. But there is no way to get anything tangible out of that info because they don't include all the available information there.

Your problem is that you aren't taking an objective view of this because you already agreed with it before it even came out. I sit back and look at that and ask questions. But I am a troll because I ask questions.

Watch out for that BIG RED DOT though, cause it's a sign Climate Change is going to get you.

Go ahead and start up your Suicide machines, as you came up with in your earlier post. That's just a great idea there.


Edit: Just to add... Graphs like these are used by Scientitsts, Politicians, the Media, and the general "lay-person" to push forward that there is proof of Climate Change and extreme weather. They will point to 2011 as if it means more scientifically and because the Dot Is Bigger than all the others, so it must be more important. But what about the importance of the 2007 dot, the 2004 dot, the 2010 dot, the 2008 dot etc etc. Those years don't get discussed because they don't help support the opinion of the assessment!

 

Oh shut it, KW. You speak from your own personal MSNBC/Left-Wing bubble too. You're not a moral authority and you certainly aren't having an adult conversation. There was zero actual discussion gonig on in this thread before he arrived--just a bunch of morbid, hand-wringing. Attacking him for interrupting a non-discussion is pathetic and stupid.

 

That's an exceptionally dumb comment. The caption reads: "An ANALYSIS has shown that the probability of such an event has more than doubled as a result of human-induced climate change." You're confusing a single chart with the entire study. The research includes a look at trends over time and a calculation of the probability of drought occurring. There has been a lot of research into this. Models suggest this is going to be the case, and the historical data suggests that this is in fact the case. Where do you see a calculation of probability on this chart? It's just a visualization of the raw data. Don't be dumb.

That's an even dumber comment. When you attack people for being pathetic and stupid, you need to take care not to up the stupidity stakes. The National Climate Change Assessment is not just "morbid-handwringing." Finally, we have the government pointing out that ocean acidification may cause a mass extinction of corals and shellfish, with devastating consequences for the ocean food chain. Nor is it morbid handwringing to connect climate change to its most direct cause: human population growth and the per capita energy and resource consumption that goes with it.

 

Who said the assessment was morbid-handwringing? I said this thread was. And your ridiculous posts about wiping out 6 billion people (at least) are past ridiculous and are far more worthy of attack and disdain than someone who dares to suggest that perhaps we're overstating the problem.

 

How is that a dumb comment? I am not making anything up. That graph is right from the assessment, unaltered. They prop 2011 up as if it has more important meaning than any of the other years, they (not me) made the dot bigger. They (not me) push it in the caption under their (not mine) graph. There is a clear attempt to correlate the event of 2011 as proof of the of the report that there will be more extreme weather events. Yes I followed the citation even before I made my post about it. That is the point, they took one year, and they are pushing it up as proof, but, at the same time, not discussing the 2007 dot, or any other dot for that manner and how those dots work in reference to the Extreme Weather Report in the citation!

 

First of all, being ridiculous is an art form. Moreover, it's the preferred art form of the JC. Haven't you noticed? Second, if you're going to suggest that we're overstating the problem, you need to do it in a way that isn't dumb. Your attack on KW was both unnecessary and dumb.

You're still confusing a single graph with the analysis itself. Stop doing that.

 

lol. And this is where I say that KW's attack on mikeximus is unnecessary and dumb. Then you say "YOU'RE unnecessary and dumb!" Then I say "No, YOU!"

Let's skip the nonsense.

KW attacked the guy personally and that was uncalled for.

Edit: Also, in the interests of not escalating things, I've said what I have to say. I'm done now.

 

Climate change "skepticism" is almost always coming from a position of extreme ignorance, as you can see from mikeximus's posts. You shouldn't be encouraging it.

 

No I am not, you simply refuse to see what they are doing. You are so set in your ways that you refuse to see it. Lets pretend I agree with the Extreme weather report. Lets say I agree with it 100%. Let me ask you this, does the drought of 2011 in texas prove that there is climate change? Because that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do with that graph. The cite the report, than they make 2011 the biggest dot on the chart, and then they try to correlate that one year as proof that the Extreme Weather Report was right. Whether you agree or disagree with the Extreme Weather Report or not is irrelevant. The point being is the Assessment is pointing out 1 year as proof the Extreme Weather Report is right and ignoring all the other years. If they aren't trying to prop 2011 up as proof, then why is it BIGGER than the others?

 

And you shouldn't be encouraging ass-hattery. We all have our flaws.

 

You're still confusing the plot of data points with the probability analysis mentioned in the caption.

Here's a link to the same graph, divorced from the reference to the probability calculation:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/record-breaking-texas-drought-and-heat/

The size of the dot is meant to emphasize its location on the graph.

 

oy. I figured your insistence that you didn't need the last word was a ploy. It's a good one btw. Rhetorical self-inoculation. Sophisticated.

Also, know you are one of my JC heroes, Soudi.

 

Lol even in that article you posted it's mostly about, ready... 2011. Even in that article, just as they did in the assessment, they push 1 year above all else. The size of dot is meant to emphasize it's importance, as if it something is more important about that one year more so than any of the other data on the chart. If you want to say it's the location, then fine say that, but, again it's location on the chart, being the extreme event is what they are talking about. They want people to see that one big dot out there and go oh my gosh look at that, see that's proof.

In a completely unbiased report, that dot is the same size as all the others!

Edit: If I made the same graph and made 2007 the biggest dot on the graph and said see, this is proof that Climate Change isn't as bad, I would get scorched by you for ignoring all the other data! But because you agree with the point they're making, you ignore the obvious preference they pay to 2011!

 

It's unfortunate that unlike the election in 2012, where the "unskewers" were indeed skewered on a virtual pitchfork for their idiocy when the actual returns came in, climate change "skeptics" and deniers won't have the same done to them. By the time it becomes too massively obvious for anyone with an IQ above 50 to deny, they'll morph their attacks into ones that say that there was a conspiracy to hide evidence and that action should have been taken long ago.

 

Remember when people thought H1N1 would create a population decrease? lol

 

I have two full treatments of Tamiflu for that, given to me by my company. Of course, we had people in areas with both Avian Flu and SARS, as well as people traveling regularly between the two sites (and everywhere else) so it was a pretty prudent course of action.