Why do so many people deny climate change

[PMZ]

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.



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.



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.

''What I refuse to do is accept idiocy''

You not only accept it, you produce it.

 

[bripat9643]

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."

Your claims are bullshit.

Hurricanes and Deception by the Global Warming Alarmists ? Hurricanes at a 33 Year Low | Thetruthpeddler's Blog

ccording to data from the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS), global tropical cyclone activity, which has been unusually inactive for the past three years, is now at its lowest level in at least 33 years. (2)

“Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years,” reports COAPS hurricane scientist Ryan Maue.” The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific.”

“While the North Atlantic has seen 15 tropical storms/hurricanes of various intensity and duration, the Pacific basin as a whole is at historical lows!” Maue explains. “In the Western North Pacific stretching from Guam to Japan and the Philippines and China, the current ACE value of 48 is the lowest seen since reliable records became available (1945) and is 78% below normal.”

 

[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

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."

Your claims are bullshit.

Hurricanes and Deception by the Global Warming Alarmists ? Hurricanes at a 33 Year Low | Thetruthpeddler's Blog

ccording to data from the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS), global tropical cyclone activity, which has been unusually inactive for the past three years, is now at its lowest level in at least 33 years. (2)

“Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years,” reports COAPS hurricane scientist Ryan Maue.” The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific.”

“While the North Atlantic has seen 15 tropical storms/hurricanes of various intensity and duration, the Pacific basin as a whole is at historical lows!” Maue explains. “In the Western North Pacific stretching from Guam to Japan and the Philippines and China, the current ACE value of 48 is the lowest seen since reliable records became available (1945) and is 78% below normal.”

From the referenced blog.

''The report also found that the increase in tropical storm activity the planet has seen since 1995 is part of a natural cycle completely unrelated to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.''

So an unreferenced report claims that there is more hurricane activity but someone unnamed thinks that they are unrelated to AGW.

People who fall for bullshit like this deserve all of the ridicule that we can heap on them.

 

[bripat9643]

"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."

Your claims are bullshit.

Hurricanes and Deception by the Global Warming Alarmists ? Hurricanes at a 33 Year Low | Thetruthpeddler's Blog

ccording to data from the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS), global tropical cyclone activity, which has been unusually inactive for the past three years, is now at its lowest level in at least 33 years. (2)

“Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years,” reports COAPS hurricane scientist Ryan Maue.” The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific.”

“While the North Atlantic has seen 15 tropical storms/hurricanes of various intensity and duration, the Pacific basin as a whole is at historical lows!” Maue explains. “In the Western North Pacific stretching from Guam to Japan and the Philippines and China, the current ACE value of 48 is the lowest seen since reliable records became available (1945) and is 78% below normal.”

From the referenced blog.

''The report also found that the increase in tropical storm activity the planet has seen since 1995 is part of a natural cycle completely unrelated to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.''

So an unreferenced report claims that there is more hurricane activity but someone unnamed thinks that they are unrelated to AGW.

People who fall for bullshit like this deserve all of the ridicule that we can heap on them.

It's pretty easy to make the determination for yourself. Does the graph below correlate with your favorite abracadabra graph of world temperature?

 

[PMZ]

BriPat-

You really do need to try and understand what 'appeal to authority' means.

It does not mean that the side with no scientific backing wins.

Ah, because true science is based on consensus....

AGW "scientists" reach a consensus on a new hockey stick graph

How did we get from hurricanes to an unidentified graph of unidentified data from an unidentified source?

 

[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.

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

Have you ever been in 75 mph winds?

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

 

[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?

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

What is the evidence that skepticalscience . com is not a perfectly reliable source?

 

[itfitzme]

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.



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.



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.

You have absolutely no explanation of anything, yet you just "know". Simply refusing to accept reality isn't knowledge.

The fact is, you don't know.

 

[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

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."

Your claims are bullshit.

Hurricanes and Deception by the Global Warming Alarmists ? Hurricanes at a 33 Year Low | Thetruthpeddler's Blog

ccording to data from the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS), global tropical cyclone activity, which has been unusually inactive for the past three years, is now at its lowest level in at least 33 years. (2)

“Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years,” reports COAPS hurricane scientist Ryan Maue.” The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific.”

“While the North Atlantic has seen 15 tropical storms/hurricanes of various intensity and duration, the Pacific basin as a whole is at historical lows!” Maue explains. “In the Western North Pacific stretching from Guam to Japan and the Philippines and China, the current ACE value of 48 is the lowest seen since reliable records became available (1945) and is 78% below normal.”

My claim is that the IPCC published something or that Ryan Maue said something or that the skeptical science presents.....

It is simply a reporting of what is presented.

So you are claiming that it isn't on their website? Is that what you are saying, that what is on their website isn't on their website?

You are really retarded

 

[itfitzme]

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.

You are really stupid. You want to claim that the Skeptical Science website and the IPCC made claims.

I present what the IPCC and the Skeptical Science website says.

I see your problem, you don't actually get your evidence from where it comes from. To make a claim that the IPCC said something, you have to get it from the IPCC. You simply make it up.

 

[itfitzme]

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

Have you ever been in 75 mph winds?

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

What is the evidence that skepticalscience . com is not a perfectly reliable source?

The Skeptical Science is a reliable source for what the Skeptical Science says. The IPCC is a reliable source of what the IPCC says.

It is really important, when quoting someone, to get the quote from the person that is making it.

This is a really simple idea that he doesn't seem to get. He doesn't understand what a quote is.

 

[itfitzme]

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?

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

You really are out of touch with reality. The Skeptical Science is the source for what the Skeptical Science says. If you wan't to know what they say, you don't quote someone else.

What part of that are you having difficulty with?

 

[itfitzme]

"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."

Your claims are bullshit.

Hurricanes and Deception by the Global Warming Alarmists ? Hurricanes at a 33 Year Low | Thetruthpeddler's Blog

ccording to data from the Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS), global tropical cyclone activity, which has been unusually inactive for the past three years, is now at its lowest level in at least 33 years. (2)

“Current Year-to-Date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) and Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3-years,” reports COAPS hurricane scientist Ryan Maue.” The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where Typhoons form in the Western Pacific.”

“While the North Atlantic has seen 15 tropical storms/hurricanes of various intensity and duration, the Pacific basin as a whole is at historical lows!” Maue explains. “In the Western North Pacific stretching from Guam to Japan and the Philippines and China, the current ACE value of 48 is the lowest seen since reliable records became available (1945) and is 78% below normal.”

From the referenced blog.

''The report also found that the increase in tropical storm activity the planet has seen since 1995 is part of a natural cycle completely unrelated to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.''

So an unreferenced report claims that there is more hurricane activity but someone unnamed thinks that they are unrelated to AGW.

People who fall for bullshit like this deserve all of the ridicule that we can heap on them.

Apparently, they don't understand the concept of "quoting a source".

The shear magnitude and breadth of the idiocy is unfathomable. With every passing day, the demonstrate more and more specific instances of a complete disconnect with reality.

I am finding it difficult to grasp, but that is the reality and I do accept it.

 

[westwall]

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?

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

I love it how these idiots who have no real world experience, I base the assumption based on their asinine questions, try and lecture us who do. Here in my bailiwick 100mph winds are common. Over the ridge lines it is even higher than that.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Have you ever been in 75 mph winds?

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

You really are out of touch with reality. The Skeptical Science is the source for what the Skeptical Science says. If you wan't to know what they say, you don't quote someone else.

What part of that are you having difficulty with?

Are you having a stroke ----- or are you ALWAYS this scattered brain and incoherent???
The evidence suggests the latter.. Every chart they PRODUCE is a half-truth, a full lie or propaganda --- deal with it...

There is NO EVIDENCE of increased cyclonic activity in the past couple decades that exceeds historical variance. NOTHING AT ALL that looks like that crappile from skepticalscience.. To you and THEM --- EVERYTHING SHAPED like a hockey stick is proof. Even a stick you found in the woods.. YOU WORSHIP hockey stick shapes..


U want to roll in their crap?? Great --- just be prepared to be mocked and have people cross the street to avoid the stench...

 

[itfitzme]

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

You really are out of touch with reality. The Skeptical Science is the source for what the Skeptical Science says. If you wan't to know what they say, you don't quote someone else.

What part of that are you having difficulty with?

Are you having a stroke ----- or are you ALWAYS this scattered brain and incoherent???
The evidence suggests the latter.. Every chart they PRODUCE is a half-truth, a full lie or propaganda --- deal with it...

There is NO EVIDENCE of increased cyclonic activity in the past couple decades that exceeds historical variance. NOTHING AT ALL that looks like that crappile from skepticalscience.. To you and THEM --- EVERYTHING SHAPED like a hockey stick is proof. Even a stick you found in the woods.. YOU WORSHIP hockey stick shapes..


U want to roll in their crap?? Great --- just be prepared to be mocked and have people cross the street to avoid the stench...

What part of, there was "no consistent prediction of increased cyclonic activity" do you not get?

The problem you are having is you have no clue what anyone says or what the data says.

You present bullshit, then you say it is bullshit. We know what you present is bullshit, that goes without saying.

 

[PMZ]

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

You really are out of touch with reality. The Skeptical Science is the source for what the Skeptical Science says. If you wan't to know what they say, you don't quote someone else.

What part of that are you having difficulty with?

Are you having a stroke ----- or are you ALWAYS this scattered brain and incoherent???
The evidence suggests the latter.. Every chart they PRODUCE is a half-truth, a full lie or propaganda --- deal with it...

There is NO EVIDENCE of increased cyclonic activity in the past couple decades that exceeds historical variance. NOTHING AT ALL that looks like that crappile from skepticalscience.. To you and THEM --- EVERYTHING SHAPED like a hockey stick is proof. Even a stick you found in the woods.. YOU WORSHIP hockey stick shapes..


U want to roll in their crap?? Great --- just be prepared to be mocked and have people cross the street to avoid the stench...

How come nothing that you claim comes with any evidence? Do you really think that you have that much credibility here?

Most people who've read your posts here just assume that you're a typical politician saying whatever it takes to create the impression that what you think is best for you is best for everyone.

That just isn't going to fly any further than the other media 'bots singing from the same hymnal.

If you want credibility post evidence and let others decide for themselves what's real and what's unpaid political advertising.

 

[PMZ]

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

Have you ever been in 75 mph winds?

You really are not situationally aware if you ask that question of a guy using the handle "FLAcaltenn".. Get it??
Even in TENN, we get 75mph gust fronts coming thru seasonally.. SOME LAST LONGER than recent "named storms".

And what does that have to do with the shit coming out of skepticalscience??

I love it how these idiots who have no real world experience, I base the assumption based on their asinine questions, try and lecture us who do. Here in my bailiwick 100mph winds are common. Over the ridge lines it is even higher than that.

Do you live in the jetstream?

 

[flacaltenn]

You really are out of touch with reality. The Skeptical Science is the source for what the Skeptical Science says. If you wan't to know what they say, you don't quote someone else.

What part of that are you having difficulty with?

Are you having a stroke ----- or are you ALWAYS this scattered brain and incoherent???
The evidence suggests the latter.. Every chart they PRODUCE is a half-truth, a full lie or propaganda --- deal with it...

There is NO EVIDENCE of increased cyclonic activity in the past couple decades that exceeds historical variance. NOTHING AT ALL that looks like that crappile from skepticalscience.. To you and THEM --- EVERYTHING SHAPED like a hockey stick is proof. Even a stick you found in the woods.. YOU WORSHIP hockey stick shapes..


U want to roll in their crap?? Great --- just be prepared to be mocked and have people cross the street to avoid the stench...

What part of, there was "no consistent prediction of increased cyclonic activity" do you not get?

The problem you are having is you have no clue what anyone says or what the data says.

You present bullshit, then you say it is bullshit. We know what you present is bullshit, that goes without saying.

1) Then why did you fling this poo at us from skepticalscience???

................and what do YOU THINK IT MEANS?


2) What is this "CONSISTENT prediction" weasel shit? CLEARLY --- there were MANY OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS of increased cyclonic activity.. In fact -- you jerkoff --- I just posted HANSEN saying that not an HOUR AGO in a youtube clip..

Face reality dude..

 

[PMZ]

Still waiting for the evidence that skepticalscience.com is not a reliable source of climate science.