If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsday)   Gov. Cuomo: "There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement. That is a factual statement. Anyone who says there's not a dramatic change in weather patterns, I think is denying reality"   (newsday.com) divider line 162
    More: Scary, Andrew Cuomo, political statement  
•       •       •

1325 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Oct 2012 at 3:44 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-01 01:03:37 AM  

Evil High Priest: That is the problem with humans, right there. There is consensus among the experts. Yet, there will always be deniers.


Well to be fair, it's important that we are careful who we call experts and that the consensus is among opinions based on independent scientific investigations and not just a consensus of opinions.

Remember, at one point in time the consensus of experts said the world was most certainly flat.

I'm not a denier, but imagine the egg on the face of science if in 50 years we figure out it was all caused by a combination of solar activity and some other earthly phenomenon. I don't think that will never happen, but important to always invite dissenting opinion and let the science decide.

So, if we are discussing the consensus of many serious scientific investigations, great.

If we are discussing the consensus of politicians like Cuomo that just happened to have their state get whacked by a storm... it doesn't (shouldn't) even enter into the discussion.
 
2012-11-01 01:09:12 AM  

dittybopper: Dusk-You-n-Me: //but god damnit do I find the telegraph style communication annoying STOP

I don't:

[i47.tinypic.com image 640x480]

That's my home straight key. I don't have an image of the one in my car.

Yes, I Morse while driving. In the last week or so, I've made contacts to places like Tatakoto Atoll in French Polynesia, Edmond Oklahoma, Riihimaki Finland, Elektrogouli Russia, and Havana Cuba using Morse code from my car. 

/Used to use Morse professionally.
//Google "ditty bopper" to see what I used to do.


Porn?

/didn't actually google it
//but it's the internet.
 
2012-11-01 01:18:05 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: . Do you also feel that the fact that your alarm clock goes off the same time everyday is evidence of an impending catastrophic failure of the space-time continuum?


whidbey: So it should be very easy for you to post a link from the IPCC or some other credible source that says that there is not enough study to warrant whether man-made climate change is causing storms like Sandy to appear.


Still waiting.
 
2012-11-01 03:53:35 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: By what percent have extreme weather events gone up in the last 10 years?

What? What's that? Ohhhhh, you don't have any measurements, and instead rely on anecdotal events and gut feeling on things, and the completely nebulous notion of increased severe weather. I see.

Science done where the hypothesis is unfalsifiable by evidence for the loss.


I'll trust the statisticians at the big reinsurance companies over your cherry-picked data, tyvm. Here's Munich Re's graph showing US disasters:

[thinkprogress.org image 600x450]

and one for worldwide disasters:

[www.intechopen.com image 800x489]


That's re-insurance loss claims, tard, not total disasters. A 50 square mile drought in Kansas would now qualify, whereas it would not in 1982, because the loss would not have fallen to re-insurance then. By this metric, the numbers will ALWAYS go up, no matter what weather. And if re-insurers went under, the number would drop to zero immediately. Problem solved.

Way to pick an apples-to-mountains comparison.
 
2012-11-01 10:33:04 AM  
If this hurricane hit florida it would be normal weather but because it followed a non traditional track and made landfall on nj it has to be man made global homicide weather.
 
2012-11-01 01:23:24 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: StoneColdAtheist: Sandy was *barely* a hurricane, and quit being one before (or about as) it hit landfall. Had it been some sort of superstorm for its time of year, you might have a point, but it was a boring, everyday late October hurricane. They happen practically every year at this time.

Wrong. A storm like Sandy has NEVER occurred in the historical record of the US.


Define "like". Number of deaths? Meh...Sandy:74 vs Katrina:1200. Money? Not even close! NY metro area? Sheesh...NYC getting hit is the weather equivalent of "pretty blond girl kidnapped". The ONLY thing that distinguishes Sandy is the coincidence in time of the contributing factors.
 
2012-11-01 02:43:33 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: common sense is an oxymoron: StoneColdAtheist: Sandy was *barely* a hurricane, and quit being one before (or about as) it hit landfall. Had it been some sort of superstorm for its time of year, you might have a point, but it was a boring, everyday late October hurricane. They happen practically every year at this time.

Wrong. A storm like Sandy has NEVER occurred in the historical record of the US.

Define "like". Number of deaths? Meh...Sandy:74 vs Katrina:1200. Money? Not even close! NY metro area? Sheesh...NYC getting hit is the weather equivalent of "pretty blond girl kidnapped". The ONLY thing that distinguishes Sandy is the coincidence in time of the contributing factors.


whidbey: So it should be very easy for you to post a link from the IPCC or some other credible source that says that there is not enough study to warrant whether man-made climate change is causing storms like Sandy to appearr.
 
2012-11-01 03:02:43 PM  
Still pretty quiet in here..
 
2012-11-01 03:29:20 PM  
Is the globe seeing any changes in the length of the growing seasons? Are we seeing areas that have become nonarable due to global warming....even a slight change in what we can grow and how big a window we have to grow it? No? But but sandy? Really? Thats all you got is that a boadwalk washed away?
 
2012-11-01 04:15:18 PM  
Yes. To all of this. We'll have more, and more severe droughts, destroying more crops. More flooding leading to more erosion and loss of topsoil. We'll have more seawater flooding in low areas, meaning no farming there. Rising ocean levels mean millions of people will be displaced. So. Yeah. All of that and more.

Is the globe seeing any changes in the length of the growing seasons? Are we seeing areas that have become nonarable due to global warming....even a slight change in what we can grow and how big a window we have to grow it?
 
2012-11-01 07:16:44 PM  

SevenizGud: common sense is an oxymoron: SevenizGud: By what percent have extreme weather events gone up in the last 10 years?

What? What's that? Ohhhhh, you don't have any measurements, and instead rely on anecdotal events and gut feeling on things, and the completely nebulous notion of increased severe weather. I see.

Science done where the hypothesis is unfalsifiable by evidence for the loss.


I'll trust the statisticians at the big reinsurance companies over your cherry-picked data, tyvm. Here's Munich Re's graph showing US disasters:

[thinkprogress.org image 600x450]

and one for worldwide disasters:

[www.intechopen.com image 800x489]

That's re-insurance loss claims, tard, not total disasters. A 50 square mile drought in Kansas would now qualify, whereas it would not in 1982, because the loss would not have fallen to re-insurance then. By this metric, the numbers will ALWAYS go up, no matter what weather. And if re-insurers went under, the number would drop to zero immediately. Problem solved.

Way to pick an apples-to-mountains comparison.



The second graph is indeed of claims due to disasters worldwide.

The first graph, however, is of events, although the data is for the US only. Upon further searching, though, I was able to find the corresponding worldwide graph:

lh3.ggpht.com

And regardless of how you want to split hairs over how to define an "event," you've given me no reason to believe you instead of the people with the most to lose if their forecasts are wrong.
 
2012-11-02 12:19:32 AM  

beta_plus: Because NYC being hit by a Hurricane is unprecedented.

OMG! There's bad weather - it's da global warming!

/maybe if stupid people didn't build cities on barrier islands you wouldn't have this problem.


Maybe if even stupider (yes I said it) people stopped farking up the environment and making climate change worse, there might not even be a problem.
"Why don't you just move?"... the questionable mindset of cowards who would rather run away like little b*tches than solve the farking problems they created. 

As was explained earlier in the thread... it's not that severe weather events are happening, it's that they're happening more often. More droughts, more blizzards, more hurricanes, more huge storms, more floods, more dumbasses who don't believe until it's too farking late.
 
Displayed 12 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report