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.

(NewsBusters)   NY Gov. Cuomo: Look at these past two years, we have had back to back once a century storm, see global warming. Facts: Ooh we had three worse ones in 1954 alone, and dozens over the past 200 years   (newsbusters.org) divider line 398
    More: Interesting, Andrew Cuomo, New York, global warming, Battery Park, hurricanes, Jesse Jackson, New London, Tim Carney  
•       •       •

892 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-11 09:19:08 AM
Hey hey now- don't stand in the way of a politician misrepresenting facts to increase their power over the masses.

/move along citizen. nothing to question here.
 
2012-11-11 09:24:05 AM
Well then, there's obviously no need to do anything

/I'm sure the repeated devastation is much more cost effective in the long run
 
2012-11-11 09:24:53 AM
Cool. So, we should just ignore it then.

Got it.
 
2012-11-11 09:26:03 AM
More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.
 
2012-11-11 09:26:20 AM
I loooove cherry picking time!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-11-11 10:20:32 AM

dead: Hey hey now- don't stand in the way of a politician misrepresenting facts to increase their power over the masses.

/move along citizen. nothing to question here.


Or a derp blog misrepresenting facts to manipulate the ignorant?

Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.
 
2012-11-11 11:10:38 AM
Good lord. I swear, if flash smog incidents started occurring again, Republicans would claim that they were natural because they occurred in the 40s-60s.
 
2012-11-11 11:14:51 AM

vpb: Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.


Well, of course. NewsBusters is like the Onion, but, y'know, significantly less funny.
 
2012-11-11 11:15:43 AM
The Statue of Liberty could be knee-deep in New York Harbor and deniers would claim it's just seasonal variation.
 
2012-11-11 11:34:12 AM
Stronger hurricanes != worse storms. What made Sandy unprecedented was not that it was a hurricane of unprecedented strength (in fact, by the time it hit NY, it wasn't a hurricane, or even a tropical storm - that's why people are calling it 'superstorm Sandy'). What made it unprecedented was the storm surge and the resulting flood damage.

Also, comparing damage and casualties from this storm to damage and casualties from storms in the 1930s and 1950s is meaningless. We have better storm tracking and communications (allowing more people to be warned and have the opportunity to evacuate), and improved building codes (regulations, oh noes!).
 
2012-11-11 11:39:30 AM
NewsBusters might be derp (never been there, can't say) but I have some faith in NPR, which published this story shortly after Sandy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/31/163960418/americas-most-exp e nsive-storms?live=1%3Futm_source%3DNPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaig n=20121031

If you want to do something, don't allow people to build as densely and as expensively close to a hurricane or strong storm zone. But if you do, realize that you're going to go though periods of expensive cleanup and death. Ask yourself the question, "does the reward outweigh the risk?"

6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).

The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control. What can we do to control the climate (which is not weather- a common misconception) to prevent this in the future? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps it would be easier to control weather before we tried to control the climate.
 
2012-11-11 11:40:22 AM
those storms were LAST century. Sandy was THIS century. if we are going to play semantic games?
 
2012-11-11 11:51:04 AM

dead: NewsBusters might be derp (never been there, can't say) but I have some faith in NPR, which published this story shortly after Sandy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/31/163960418/americas-most-exp e nsive-storms?live=1%3Futm_source%3DNPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaig n=20121031

If you want to do something, don't allow people to build as densely and as expensively close to a hurricane or strong storm zone. But if you do, realize that you're going to go though periods of expensive cleanup and death. Ask yourself the question, "does the reward outweigh the risk?"

6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).

The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control. What can we do to control the climate (which is not weather- a common misconception) to prevent this in the future? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps it would be easier to control weather before we tried to control the climate.


1. More expensive storms in the past, adjusted for inflation, does not account for weaker structures. Older homes were much less able to withstand severe weather events.
2. NYC's flood defenses are better today than they have been in the past and they saw worse floods than any time in recorded history. The Battery Tunnel has no flood barriers partly because it had never needed them before.
3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.
 
2012-11-11 12:04:09 PM

GAT_00: dead: NewsBusters might be derp (never been there, can't say) but I have some faith in NPR, which published this story shortly after Sandy:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/31/163960418/americas-most-exp e nsive-storms?live=1%3Futm_source%3DNPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaig n=20121031

If you want to do something, don't allow people to build as densely and as expensively close to a hurricane or strong storm zone. But if you do, realize that you're going to go though periods of expensive cleanup and death. Ask yourself the question, "does the reward outweigh the risk?"

6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).

The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control. What can we do to control the climate (which is not weather- a common misconception) to prevent this in the future? Is there anything we can do? Perhaps it would be easier to control weather before we tried to control the climate.

1. More expensive storms in the past, adjusted for inflation, does not account for weaker structures. Older homes were much less able to withstand severe weather events.
2. NYC's flood defenses are better today than they have been in the past and they saw worse floods than any time in recorded history. The Battery Tunnel has no flood barriers partly because it had never needed them before.
3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.


Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.

That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.

Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.

You're entitle to your opinion, but it's worth nothing.
 
2012-11-11 12:21:33 PM
Somewhat off topic but I heard Cuomo being interviewed after the storm, and frankly he sounds like he has a bit of a strange Italian accent.
 
2012-11-11 12:38:21 PM

t3knomanser: vpb: Since it's NewsBusters I'm assuming that it's total BS, like every other story of theirs.

Well, of course. NewsBusters is like the Onion, but, y'know, significantly less funny. true.


FTFY
 
2012-11-11 01:35:01 PM

El_Perro: Stronger hurricanes != worse storms. What made Sandy unprecedented was not that it was a hurricane of unprecedented strength (in fact, by the time it hit NY, it wasn't a hurricane, or even a tropical storm - that's why people are calling it 'superstorm Sandy'). What made it unprecedented was the storm surge and the resulting flood damage.

Also, comparing damage and casualties from this storm to damage and casualties from storms in the 1930s and 1950s is meaningless. We have better storm tracking and communications (allowing more people to be warned and have the opportunity to evacuate), and improved building codes (regulations, oh noes!).


But why was the surge so huge? Because Sandy was unusually LARGE. There was something unique to it. It was a relatively low-intensity hurricane, but intensity isn't everything.

dead: That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.


Go away.
 
2012-11-11 01:36:25 PM

GAT_00: 3. Anyone who references Global Cooling, which was a fringe scare story even then disproved and only had 10% of the climate community in support, is not intending to be honest. Your "analysis" is worth nothing.


To be fair he did say "global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's)"
 
2012-11-11 01:36:50 PM
abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.
 
2012-11-11 01:40:42 PM

mahuika: Good lord. I swear, if flash smog incidents started occurring again, Republicans would claim that they were natural because they occurred in the 40s-60s.


Godless socialists and Kenyanism are taking away Real America's natural, God-given weather patterns and replacing them with Global Warming superstorms so Obama can win elections?
 
2012-11-11 01:40:51 PM
0.tqn.com
 
2012-11-11 01:41:12 PM
When you have to go back more than half a century to prove your point, you might be on shaky ground. Yes, even in matters of climate and weather events.
 
2012-11-11 01:43:15 PM
Libertarians don't understand positive liberty.
 
2012-11-11 01:43:41 PM

dead: Fringe scare story picked up by Time magazine in the 1970s. Yeah. Ok. Sure. Believe what you want- which is apparently that government can control your life better than you can.


Because a weekly magazine like Time never picks up on fringe stories and never gets things wrong. Never.

/and you are the one arguing over government control. we are arguing over the very real changes in climate.
 
2012-11-11 01:44:30 PM
We didn"t listen!
 
2012-11-11 01:45:49 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.comencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-11 01:45:51 PM
Then global warming must be fake. That solves it. Move along, nothing to see here.
 
2012-11-11 01:46:20 PM

culebra: When you have to go back more than half a century to prove your point, you might be on shaky ground. Yes, even in matters of climate and weather events.


images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org

Pfft, it's one of the cooler periods in Earth's recent history, temperature change even trends downwards! Global warming is fake!
 
2012-11-11 01:47:59 PM
No other country has so many people who believe global warming is fake than this theocratic, anti-knowledge country.

Of course, we are tops in believing in angels, so it makes sense.

MUST...FIGHT...FACTS!!!
 
2012-11-11 01:49:00 PM

Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.


I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak my interest.
 
2012-11-11 01:49:59 PM

mediablitz: No other country has so many people who believe global warming is fake than this theocratic, anti-knowledge country.

Of course, we are tops in believing in angels, so it makes sense.

MUST...FIGHT...FACTS!!!


Facts are the cudgel liberals use to beat the Conservative cause into submission.
 
2012-11-11 01:50:50 PM

deschinc: Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.

I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak peeve my interest.


FTFY

/Pet pique
 
2012-11-11 01:52:53 PM

Lochsteppe: deschinc: Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.

I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak peeve my interest.

FTFY

/Pet pique


I was just, JUST reviewing a writeup for a non-profit that had "peeked our interest" in it. From a "professional" writer...
 
2012-11-11 01:54:23 PM

GAT_00: More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.


I don't think the actual land cared if it flooded before people moved there.

I don't have to be in the woods to know that a tree falls. I don't believe that no tree has ever fallen unless I'm there.
 
2012-11-11 01:55:28 PM

dead: The point I'm making is, stop, take a deep breath, and do some analysis before abdicating your rights to government control.


You mean like the decades of analysis and consensus?

Abdicating your rights? Talk about a pants wetting whiny statement. "Their going to put me in a camp!!!"

Jesus. You are one gigantic pussy.
 
2012-11-11 01:56:40 PM

Mrbogey: GAT_00: More flood damage than the city has ever seen? Nah, nothing to worry about.

I don't think the actual land cared if it flooded before people moved there.

I don't have to be in the woods to know that a tree falls. I don't believe that no tree has ever fallen unless I'm there.


And you don't believe in scientific consensus, built from decades of study.

So we get it. You ENJOY willful ignorance...
 
2012-11-11 01:56:59 PM

dead: Hey hey now- don't stand in the way of a politician misrepresenting facts to increase their power over the masses.

/move along citizen. nothing to question here.


Ummm, assuming the headline is correct, in conjunction with your statement, Cuomo is *underplaying* the severity of the issue. Underplaying is not how politicians increase power.
 
2012-11-11 01:58:54 PM

dead: That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.


You're convinced that the government is using climate change as a tool to take control of our lives and we're the scared ones?  Projection, you has it.
 
2012-11-11 02:00:29 PM

mediablitz: And you don't believe in scientific consensus, built from decades of study.


"Global climate change made this storm worse" is the "it's cold outside... where global warming" championed by slightly smarter people.

The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional. It's a crapshoot that eventually paid off for Mother Nature.
 
2012-11-11 02:01:06 PM
NEW YORK CITY: Because five million people living effectively on the beach is a GREAT IDEA!

Yee-haw, idiot humans. Yee-haw.
 
2012-11-11 02:03:10 PM

dead: 6 of the top 10 most expensive storms were before 1950. Well before global cooling (as we called it in the 1970's) or global warming (what we called it in the 1990's) or as we call it now climate change (which, well, duh- has been happening since the earth cooled and formed an atmosphere).


This paragraph, alone, is evidence enough to discount anything you say in the future on anything. Ever.
 
2012-11-11 02:03:15 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7428485/80618495#c80618495" target="_blank">dead</a>:</b> <i>Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.</i>

Sometimes.

There have been a LOT of advances in building design over the last few decades, particularly in regards to residential construction designed to resist wind loads.

The only house in a subdivision designed to resist cat 5 hurricane wind loads:

<img src="http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/article-105 5660-02a87a8d00000578-263_468x7052.jpg">

Two outwardly identical houses in a full scale wind test. The house that survived used a couple hundred dollars of hardware installed during construction and some minor detailing changed.

<a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXF44jBBwxU">Link</a>
 
2012-11-11 02:03:33 PM

Mrbogey: mediablitz: And you don't believe in scientific consensus, built from decades of study.

"Global climate change made this storm worse" is the "it's cold outside... where global warming" championed by slightly smarter people.

The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional. It's a crapshoot that eventually paid off for Mother Nature.


Are you denying the scientific consensus regarding global climate change is real?
 
2012-11-11 02:05:42 PM

Mrbogey: The conditions that created Sandy weren't exceptional.


So even THIS is a lie? The climatologists saying the conditions WERE exceptional are lying? You know better? Can I ask where you received your degree? Can I see some of your published work?
 
2012-11-11 02:05:48 PM

dead:
Prove number 1. Do you know the structures were weaker? Where is your support for such a hypothesis? Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think. Given the chose of a house from before 1900 and one from 1970 to ride out the storm, I'll pick the older house every damn time.


Sometimes.

There have been a LOT of advances in building design over the last few decades, particularly in regards to residential construction designed to resist wind loads.

The only house in a subdivision designed to resist cat 5 hurricane wind loads:

www.dvorak.org

Two outwardly identical houses in a full scale wind test. The house that survived used a couple hundred dollars of hardware installed during construction and some minor detailing changed.

Link
 
2012-11-11 02:05:53 PM
We're in an interglacial warming period kids.
It's been warming for 13,000 years.
It's how the Chesapeake Bay formed, you know.
Google it.
 
2012-11-11 02:06:24 PM

Lochsteppe: deschinc: Jake Havechek: abdicating your rights to government control

Easy there, nobody is coming to steal your MREs and canned water.

I don't know. It depends on which varieties he's got down in the bunker. I'm not wasting any ammo for country captain chicken but some chicken breast with cavatelli or some hash might peak peeve my interest.

FTFY

/Pet pique


I don't have any use for them damn sissy French words. This is 'Murika and I'll peak if I damn well please.

/You know who else was a grammar Nazi....
 
2012-11-11 02:07:52 PM

dead: Have you ever looked at older construction? It's far stronger than you think


For good buildings, which is like saying that just because we can build a house that can withstand a Cat-3 today means all buildings can. But the easiest proof of this is earthquake-proofing. Old structures can't handle earthquakes.
 
2012-11-11 02:08:14 PM
One would think at this point, they would perhaps take a second look at "facts" and see if maaaaybe they were right.
 
2012-11-11 02:12:50 PM
dead: That goes to prove the point. One storm, in recorded history, and you're ready to wet your pants like a little girl. You are ready to give control of every facet of your existence to the government because you can't handle a little water.

3.bp.blogspot.com

STFU.
 
Displayed 50 of 398 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report