Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

Here is an interesting pub by the IPCC.

https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/srex/downloads/SREX-Chap3_FINAL.pdf

Changes in Climate Extremes and their Impacts on the Natural Physical Environment

"There is generally low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds because of the relatively few
studies of projected extreme winds, and shortcomings in the simulation of these events. An exception is
mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed, which is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean
basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.
There is low confidence in projections of small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes because competing physical
processes may affect future trends and because climate models do not simulate such phenomena. There is medium
confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of mid-latitude cyclones averaged over each hemisphere due
to future anthropogenic climate change. There is low confidence in the detailed geographical projections of mid-latitude
cyclone activity. There is medium confidence in a projected poleward shift of mid-latitude storm tracks due to future
anthropogenic forcings. "

"Uncertainty in projections of changes in large-scale patterns of natural climate variability remains large.
There is low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons (rainfall, circulation), because there is little consensus
in climate models regarding the sign of future change in the monsoons. Model projections of changes in El NiñoSouthern Oscillation variability and the frequency of El Niño episodes as a consequence of increased greenhouse g...."

I am just not seeing the "everyone predicted increased hurricanes." I am just finding what I'm finding. I am not trying to find anything in particular. Indeed, I was really hoping to find both a prediction of and data showing increases percipitations, storm size or frequency. I am not finding it.

I fact, I am finding the complete opposite, very low confidence here with even expectation of decrease. Not sure of the date.

What is it that some people are reading that has them believing things that turn out to be just not so? Wouldn't it be the IPCC, primarily, that one would go to for these kinds of statements? If not them, who is "everybody"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said extreme weather generally. You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

That’s the claim that you have to support.

I said extreme weather generally.

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?

Because nobody is able to make long term weather forecasts, just like I said. Especially those people with zero understanding of science.

Because nobody is able to make long term weather forecasts

You'd better tell your warmer buddies, they keep predicting more numerous, more powerful hurricanes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said extreme weather generally. You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

That’s the claim that you have to support.

I said extreme weather generally.

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?

"All of them. Including you." over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality, Todd. Intelligent understanding of the world isn't grounded in abstractions and generalizations. It is grounded in specific details.

I haven't seen any actual link to back up this claim that hurricanes were predicted to be more extreme. So, I did a search on the IPCC 2007 report. The page is

10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections


The reason, it seems, the the UN convened the IPCC is to have an official clearinghouse for climate science relative to global warming. To pick some individual, out of some 7 billion people, and apply their statement to being indicative of climate science is simple stupidity.

On the other hand, we can turn to an official source

It says;

A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones, with results dependent on the model, although those models do show a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future storms. Higher-resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones project some consistent increase in peak wind intensities, but a more consistent projected increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in future tropical cyclones. There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of relatively weak tropical cyclones, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones and a global decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones.

So, it appears that as of 2007, the word is "Earlier studies ... showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe.... " "A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones,"

That all says that, at best, some indicate higher severity would be LIKELY. Specifically, "likely" equals "> 66% probability". That is, a 2 in 3 probability. Not great odds, but better than 50:50. At worse, a synthesis of models few consistent changes. Taken together, that is a very weak prediction, if any, of an increase in storm intensity.

Taking a look at NOAA, we find

Due to the Federal government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. crap!!!

Additionally, we find

"But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future."

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

This is just a sampling of the wealth of info about global warming and hurricanes. It includes ocean area, storm strength, frequency, and precipitation.

All in all, I find no reason to conclude that there was a strong consensus on predicting future increases in intensity or frequency. This in light of the data that tends to show increased frequency and intensity without claiming statistical significance, depending on the type of measure considered.

I think we would better serve our understanding if we first detail the number of measures before going off and making some general claim that "All of them."

over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality

That's why I don't fall for the over generalizations of the warmers. I prefer reality.

 

[itfitzme]

I said extreme weather generally.

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?

"All of them. Including you." over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality, Todd. Intelligent understanding of the world isn't grounded in abstractions and generalizations. It is grounded in specific details.

I haven't seen any actual link to back up this claim that hurricanes were predicted to be more extreme. So, I did a search on the IPCC 2007 report. The page is

10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections


The reason, it seems, the the UN convened the IPCC is to have an official clearinghouse for climate science relative to global warming. To pick some individual, out of some 7 billion people, and apply their statement to being indicative of climate science is simple stupidity.

On the other hand, we can turn to an official source

It says;





So, it appears that as of 2007, the word is "Earlier studies ... showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe.... " "A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones,"

That all says that, at best, some indicate higher severity would be LIKELY. Specifically, "likely" equals "> 66% probability". That is, a 2 in 3 probability. Not great odds, but better than 50:50. At worse, a synthesis of models few consistent changes. Taken together, that is a very weak prediction, if any, of an increase in storm intensity.

Taking a look at NOAA, we find

Due to the Federal government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. crap!!!

Additionally, we find

"But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future."

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

This is just a sampling of the wealth of info about global warming and hurricanes. It includes ocean area, storm strength, frequency, and precipitation.

All in all, I find no reason to conclude that there was a strong consensus on predicting future increases in intensity or frequency. This in light of the data that tends to show increased frequency and intensity without claiming statistical significance, depending on the type of measure considered.

I think we would better serve our understanding if we first detail the number of measures before going off and making some general claim that "All of them."

over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality

That's why I don't fall for the over generalizations of the warmers. I prefer reality.

Like I posted, details.

You haven't presented any over generalizations attributed to warmers. All you have presented is your own.

Your claim is entirely refuted. I looked. It isn't there.

 

[SSDD]

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.

[/QUOTE]

So describe the mechanism by which the force of gravity operates. Prove that I was wrong when I stated that we don't understand everything. Tell us the precise nature of the force of gravity...or you could admit that you thought you had something there but it turned out that you had nothing but your own dick in your hand....

 

[itfitzme]

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.

So describe the mechanism by which the force of gravity operates. Prove that I was wrong when I stated that we don't understand everything. Tell us the precise nature of the force of gravity...or you could admit that you thought you had something there but it turned out that you had nothing but your own dick in your hand....[/QUOTE]

The presence of mass curves space time.

 

[mamooth]

It's been pointed out to SSDD before that gravity operates consistently, unlike his PC physics where all kinds of special exceptions pop up solely because his 'tard political theory demands them.

But anyways, his 'tard theory that posits magical special exceptions and which contradicts the past century of physics clearly must be correct, simply because we can't give him a one-paragraph explanation of the Grand Unified Field Theory. So, he also fails logic hard, as well as physics.

 

[itfitzme]

^^^ The big problem is that he simply does not know exactly what is being measured and how the measurements are related. This puts him in a conceptual position of having to create his own flawed perception of what "force", "mass", "charge", "acceleration", "energy", "heat", "entropy", "current", "gravitational force", "electric force", "photon", etc. are.

The issue is in his statement;

I was wrong when I stated that we don't understand everything.

He mistakes that HE doesn't understand with others. It is an issue of being unable to separate his concept of self from that of the world around him. It's like infants don't know that their mommy is a unique and separate individual.

He doesn't get that he's the only one that doesn't know.

 

[bripat9643]

Your idiot suggestion that there is a selection process is evidence of a complete failure to grasp that there are forces at work in the universe that, while we can't explain them, exist none the less.

So describe the mechanism by which the force of gravity operates. Prove that I was wrong when I stated that we don't understand everything. Tell us the precise nature of the force of gravity...or you could admit that you thought you had something there but it turned out that you had nothing but your own dick in your hand....

The presence of mass curves space time.

How?

 

[itfitzme]

So describe the mechanism by which the force of gravity operates. Prove that I was wrong when I stated that we don't understand everything. Tell us the precise nature of the force of gravity...or you could admit that you thought you had something there but it turned out that you had nothing but your own dick in your hand....

The presence of mass curves space time.

How?

There is no "how", grasshopper. First, you must realize that there is no spoon.

You are still living in the dark ages. We have known how to do science since Newton, and describe it. The "how" is by curving space time with the presence of mass.

 

[bripat9643]

The presence of mass curves space time.

How?

There is no "how", grasshopper. First, you must realize that there is no spoon.

In other words, you don't know.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?

 

[itfitzme]

How?

There is no "how", grasshopper. First, you must realize that there is no spoon.

In other words, you don't know.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?

In other words, you don't know the right questions. Slacknuts....

E=mc^2. Light has no mass and always travels in a straight line. Mass, with a rest mass of E=mc^2 curves space time. The result is that light follows a geodesic, the straightest line between two points, so that it "appears" to curve from an outside point of observations.

This is a direct consequence of the geometry of space and the constant nature of the speed of light. Maxwell demonstrated that all electromagnetic waves move at the same speed, dependent only upon the permitivity and permeability of free space. Einstein set this as a postulate, the constancy of properties in inertial reference frames, known as relativity.

If we then observe a clock made of a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors that are in a plane perpendicular to the motion, the distance traveled by an outside observer is seen at (vt)^2+l^2=(ct)^2. When rearranges, the euclidean geometry of the right triangle requires that the distance in the direction of motion be shortened and the time as experienced within the reference frame be slower.

When this is taken as the starting point in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, along with that there is no distinguishable difference between being in a gravitational field or being in an accelerating reference frame, the consequence is that the geometry of space is curved.

So, what you are really asking is why does space have three dimensions which have the particular shape that it does?

The answer to that question is no different than asking the question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" The answer, for all that know, is that the sound of one hand clapping is the sound of one hand clapping. Similarly, space just does.

Why are you so confused about this? It's like asking "what is outside the universe?"

All you are demonstrating is that you simply don't get it.

It is why the answer to gravity is that the Earth sucks.

In other words, it is a dumb fucking question, moron. Until you accept that, you are lost.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no "how", grasshopper. First, you must realize that there is no spoon.

In other words, you don't know.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?

In other words, you don't know the right questions. Slacknuts....

E=mc^2. Light has no mass and always travels in a straight line. Mass, with a rest mass of E=mc^2 curves space time. The result is that light follows a geodesic, the straightest line between two points, so that it "appears" to curve from an outside point of observations.

This is a direct consequence of the geometry of space and the constant nature of the speed of light. Maxwell demonstrated that all electromagnetic waves move at the same speed, dependent only upon the permitivity and permeability of free space. Einstein set this as a postulate, the constancy of properties in inertial reference frames, known as relativity.

If we then observe a clock made of a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors that are in a plane perpendicular to the motion, the distance traveled by an outside observer is seen at (vt)^2+l^2=(ct)^2. When rearranges, the euclidean geometry of the right triangle requires that the distance in the direction of motion be shortened and the time as experienced within the reference frame be slower.

When this is taken as the starting point in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, along with that there is no distinguishable difference between being in a gravitational field or being in an accelerating reference frame, the consequence is that the geometry of space is curved.

So, what you are really asking is why does space have three dimensions which have the particular shape that it does?

The answer to that question is no different than asking the question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" The answer, for all that know, is that the sound of one hand clapping is the sound of one hand clapping. Similarly, space just does.

All you've said is that the mass curves space. You haven't explained how. Einstein didn't explain how either. He simply explained that it does.

Why are you so confused about this? It's like asking "what is outside the universe?"

If you had been reading about the theory of 'branes' then you would know that question might have an answer.

All you are demonstrating is that you simply don't get it.

It is why the answer to gravity is that the Earth sucks.

In other words, it is a dumb fucking question, moron. Until you accept that, you are lost.

Wrong, the correct answer is that we just don't know, and you obviously don't have a clue.

You made a statement similar to saying "rocks are hard," and I asked "why are they hard."

Your answer was that they're hard because they're rocks.

And you think that demonstrates your brilliance.

 

[itfitzme]

In other words, you don't know.

Who do you think you're fooling, asshole?

In other words, you don't know the right questions. Slacknuts....

E=mc^2. Light has no mass and always travels in a straight line. Mass, with a rest mass of E=mc^2 curves space time. The result is that light follows a geodesic, the straightest line between two points, so that it "appears" to curve from an outside point of observations.

This is a direct consequence of the geometry of space and the constant nature of the speed of light. Maxwell demonstrated that all electromagnetic waves move at the same speed, dependent only upon the permitivity and permeability of free space. Einstein set this as a postulate, the constancy of properties in inertial reference frames, known as relativity.

If we then observe a clock made of a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors that are in a plane perpendicular to the motion, the distance traveled by an outside observer is seen at (vt)^2+l^2=(ct)^2. When rearranges, the euclidean geometry of the right triangle requires that the distance in the direction of motion be shortened and the time as experienced within the reference frame be slower.

When this is taken as the starting point in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, along with that there is no distinguishable difference between being in a gravitational field or being in an accelerating reference frame, the consequence is that the geometry of space is curved.

So, what you are really asking is why does space have three dimensions which have the particular shape that it does?

The answer to that question is no different than asking the question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" The answer, for all that know, is that the sound of one hand clapping is the sound of one hand clapping. Similarly, space just does.

All you've said is that the mass curves space. You haven't explained how. Einstein didn't explain how either. He simply explained that it does.

Why are you so confused about this? It's like asking "what is outside the universe?"

If you had been reading about the theory of 'branes' then you would know that question might have an answer.

All you are demonstrating is that you simply don't get it.

It is why the answer to gravity is that the Earth sucks.

In other words, it is a dumb fucking question, moron. Until you accept that, you are lost.

Wrong, the correct answer is that we just don't know, and you obviously don't have a clue.

You made a statement similar to saying "rocks are hard," and I asked "why are they hard."

Your answer was that they're hard because they're rocks.

And you think that demonstrates your brilliance.

Dude, you just refuse to get it.

Space is curved.

Why does 1+1=2? What is the force, the mechanism that makes 1=1=2? I have one rock, I have another rock. They are the same as those other two rocks.

What is the mechanism?

You just refuse to get it because you are a turd.

And, you don't know anything. Just stop being an idiot. Just stop. Why are you a moron? Because you are..... It is just that simple.

 

[PMZ]

I said extreme weather generally.

Hurricanes aren't extreme weather generally?

You're talking about specific long range hurricane forecasts.

Long range? It was 1-5 years later. And it was wrong. Why?

"All of them. Including you." over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality, Todd. Intelligent understanding of the world isn't grounded in abstractions and generalizations. It is grounded in specific details.

I haven't seen any actual link to back up this claim that hurricanes were predicted to be more extreme. So, I did a search on the IPCC 2007 report. The page is

10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections


The reason, it seems, the the UN convened the IPCC is to have an official clearinghouse for climate science relative to global warming. To pick some individual, out of some 7 billion people, and apply their statement to being indicative of climate science is simple stupidity.

On the other hand, we can turn to an official source

It says;





So, it appears that as of 2007, the word is "Earlier studies ... showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe.... " "A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones,"

That all says that, at best, some indicate higher severity would be LIKELY. Specifically, "likely" equals "> 66% probability". That is, a 2 in 3 probability. Not great odds, but better than 50:50. At worse, a synthesis of models few consistent changes. Taken together, that is a very weak prediction, if any, of an increase in storm intensity.

Taking a look at NOAA, we find

Due to the Federal government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. crap!!!

Additionally, we find

"But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future."

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

This is just a sampling of the wealth of info about global warming and hurricanes. It includes ocean area, storm strength, frequency, and precipitation.

All in all, I find no reason to conclude that there was a strong consensus on predicting future increases in intensity or frequency. This in light of the data that tends to show increased frequency and intensity without claiming statistical significance, depending on the type of measure considered.

I think we would better serve our understanding if we first detail the number of measures before going off and making some general claim that "All of them."

over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality

That's why I don't fall for the over generalizations of the warmers. I prefer reality.

''I prefer reality.''

Talk about something for which there is an absence of evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"All of them. Including you." over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality, Todd. Intelligent understanding of the world isn't grounded in abstractions and generalizations. It is grounded in specific details.

I haven't seen any actual link to back up this claim that hurricanes were predicted to be more extreme. So, I did a search on the IPCC 2007 report. The page is

10.3.6.3 Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes) - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections


The reason, it seems, the the UN convened the IPCC is to have an official clearinghouse for climate science relative to global warming. To pick some individual, out of some 7 billion people, and apply their statement to being indicative of climate science is simple stupidity.

On the other hand, we can turn to an official source

It says;





So, it appears that as of 2007, the word is "Earlier studies ... showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe.... " "A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones,"

That all says that, at best, some indicate higher severity would be LIKELY. Specifically, "likely" equals "> 66% probability". That is, a 2 in 3 probability. Not great odds, but better than 50:50. At worse, a synthesis of models few consistent changes. Taken together, that is a very weak prediction, if any, of an increase in storm intensity.

Taking a look at NOAA, we find

Due to the Federal government shutdown, NOAA.gov and most associated web sites are unavailable. crap!!!

Additionally, we find

What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

This is just a sampling of the wealth of info about global warming and hurricanes. It includes ocean area, storm strength, frequency, and precipitation.

All in all, I find no reason to conclude that there was a strong consensus on predicting future increases in intensity or frequency. This in light of the data that tends to show increased frequency and intensity without claiming statistical significance, depending on the type of measure considered.

I think we would better serve our understanding if we first detail the number of measures before going off and making some general claim that "All of them."

over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality

That's why I don't fall for the over generalizations of the warmers. I prefer reality.

''I prefer reality.''

Talk about something for which there is an absence of evidence.

We have evidence that CAFE standards kill several thousand each year, you ignore that reality.
Typical.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, you don't know the right questions. Slacknuts....

E=mc^2. Light has no mass and always travels in a straight line. Mass, with a rest mass of E=mc^2 curves space time. The result is that light follows a geodesic, the straightest line between two points, so that it "appears" to curve from an outside point of observations.

This is a direct consequence of the geometry of space and the constant nature of the speed of light. Maxwell demonstrated that all electromagnetic waves move at the same speed, dependent only upon the permitivity and permeability of free space. Einstein set this as a postulate, the constancy of properties in inertial reference frames, known as relativity.

If we then observe a clock made of a beam of light bouncing between two mirrors that are in a plane perpendicular to the motion, the distance traveled by an outside observer is seen at (vt)^2+l^2=(ct)^2. When rearranges, the euclidean geometry of the right triangle requires that the distance in the direction of motion be shortened and the time as experienced within the reference frame be slower.

When this is taken as the starting point in Einsteins General Theory of Relativity, along with that there is no distinguishable difference between being in a gravitational field or being in an accelerating reference frame, the consequence is that the geometry of space is curved.

So, what you are really asking is why does space have three dimensions which have the particular shape that it does?

The answer to that question is no different than asking the question of "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" The answer, for all that know, is that the sound of one hand clapping is the sound of one hand clapping. Similarly, space just does.

All you've said is that the mass curves space. You haven't explained how. Einstein didn't explain how either. He simply explained that it does.



If you had been reading about the theory of 'branes' then you would know that question might have an answer.

All you are demonstrating is that you simply don't get it.

It is why the answer to gravity is that the Earth sucks.

In other words, it is a dumb fucking question, moron. Until you accept that, you are lost.

Wrong, the correct answer is that we just don't know, and you obviously don't have a clue.

You made a statement similar to saying "rocks are hard," and I asked "why are they hard."

Your answer was that they're hard because they're rocks.

And you think that demonstrates your brilliance.

Dude, you just refuse to get it.

Space is curved.

Yep, and rocks are hard.

Why does 1+1=2? What is the force, the mechanism that makes 1=1=2?

1+1 = 2 because that is how we define 2. We invented a word to designate the result of 1+1. We called it 2.

I have one rock, I have another rock. They are the same as those other two rocks.

What is the mechanism?

Now you're just babbling incoherently.

You just refuse to get it because you are a turd.

And, you don't know anything. Just stop being an idiot. Just stop. Why are you a moron? Because you are..... It is just that simple.

What I refuse to do is accept idiocy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Stilll slumming at skepticalscience eh fitzme?? That graph of "NAMED" storms is pure bunk and has NOTHING AT ALL to do with frequencies OR strength of hurricanes OR Global Warming OR CO2.

They are naming storms now if the winds exceed trop depression status for 10 minutes..

No one in the 80s GAVE A SHIT about that. THATS all that fabricated toxic shit from skep science is...


We just saw them PROMOTE a nothing storm into a hurricane in the Atlantic because of POLITICS.. Had it gone ONE MORE DAY without a hurricane -- it would have been a record.

 

[PMZ]

Stilll slumming at skepticalscience eh fitzme?? That graph of "NAMED" storms is pure bunk and has NOTHING AT ALL to do with frequencies OR strength of hurricanes OR Global Warming OR CO2.

They are naming storms now if the winds exceed trop depression status for 10 minutes..

No one in the 80s GAVE A SHIT about that. THATS all that fabricated toxic shit from skep science is...


We just saw them PROMOTE a nothing storm into a hurricane in the Atlantic because of POLITICS.. Had it gone ONE MORE DAY without a hurricane -- it would have been a record.

''They are naming storms now if the winds exceed trop depression status for 10 minutes..''

Have you ever been in 75 mph winds?

 

[PMZ]

over generalizations like this are the very thing that keeps you in the dark about reality

That's why I don't fall for the over generalizations of the warmers. I prefer reality.

''I prefer reality.''

Talk about something for which there is an absence of evidence.

We have evidence that CAFE standards kill several thousand each year, you ignore that reality.
Typical.

How many lives do they save?