• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Change Denial Is An Insane Argument

AYSM said:
Nothing to prove me wrong yet.
Click to expand...

But what if it turns out you are?

Then we wasted all that time making the air cleaner, water safer, energy consumption more efficient and achieving energy independence for NOTHING!
 
Opinion
[h=1]So What Happened to Integrity?[/h]Guest essay by John Ridgway My father, when he was alive, used to be a wire rope salesman. In that capacity he would tour the coalmines of the North of England, trying to sell the cables by which colliers would be lowered into their abyss. One day during the early 1980s, when prime minister Margaret…
 
Spartacus FPV said:
But what if it turns out you are?

Then we wasted all that time making the air cleaner, water safer, energy consumption more efficient and achieving energy independence for NOTHING!
Click to expand...

Not really nothing, our alternative energy plans have so far moved millions of people from
marginally nourished to malnourished, because of the increases in corn prices.
 
Jack Hays said:
Storm characteristics have already been measured. Neither Harvey nor Irma was extraordinary, and they were not especially closely sequenced either. No climate change propaganda value.
Click to expand...

Both were extraordinary. In fact both are record setting. Irma is one the largest ever measured Atlantic hurricanes; it set a record for the length of time sustaining wind speeds over 180 miles an hour. Harvey set a record for tropical rainfall amount in the U.S. The devastation from Harvey while severe was partially contained by flood control measures not in effect in earlier decades. Madow recently ran a newsreel video from 1935 of a hurricane rainfall in Houston that year, showing motor boats on the main streets of the city. This was a result from 12 inches or rain. Harvey's was 45 inches.

When your critics call you "deniers", Jack, a post like that one is what they mean.
 
Last edited:
JackA said:
Both were extraordinary. In fact both are record setting. Irma is one the largest ever measured Atlantic hurricanes; it set a record for the length of time sustaining wind speeds over 180 miles an hour. Harvey set a record of tropical rainfall amount in the U.S. The devastation from Harvey while severe was partially contained by flood control measures not in effect in earlier decades. Madow recently ran a newsreel video from 1935 of a hurricane rainfall in Houston that year, showing motor boats on the main streets of the city. This was a result from 12 inches or rain. Harvey's was 45 inches.
Click to expand...

Please see the table in #48. Both were severe storms. Not, however, unprecedented. Harvey's heavy rainfall was, as I understand it, a function of its slow movement.
 
Cigar said:
There were plenty of Non-Believers heading for High Ground ... but why? :confused:
Click to expand...

There aplenty of believers who buy waterfront property. but why?
 
AYSM said:
Irma makes that clear.

On tg:
Click to expand...

LOL...

this is what happens when you get your 'science' from the Huffingtopn Post or Chris Hayes.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see the table in #48. Both were severe storms. Not, however, unprecedented. Harvey's heavy rainfall was, as I understand it, a function of its slow movement.
Click to expand...

I saw your table. It is a comparison of a single factor, neither relating to storm size - Irma's was massive, wind speed, or length of time of sustained high wind speed - Irma has that record. As for rainfall, obviously the amount will be affected by the length of time that it rains at the site where the rainfall is measured. However you choose to explain it, Harvey holds the record.

"The chief defect of Henry King/Was chewing on little bits of string."
 
JackA said:
I saw your table. It is a comparison of a single factor, neither relating to storm size - Irma's was massive, wind speed, or length of time of sustained high wind speed - Irma has that record. As for rainfall, obviously the amount will be affected by the length of time that it rains at the site where the rainfall is measured. However you choose to explain it, Harvey holds the record.

"The chief defect of Henry King/Was chewing on little bits of string."
Click to expand...

Not at landfall.
 
JackA said:
It does if you leave out the history of dikes, other flood control measures, building codes, and weather forecasts.
Click to expand...

...Which has nothing whatever to do with the OP.
 
AYSM said:
I'm no history denier, nor would I rely on "virtually everybody posting here" when making a case...especially when quite often "virtually everybody" in many threads seems to consist of like minded people doing a bit of leg humping.
Click to expand...

If you can't recognize the recorded history of hurricanes and similar events, you are in fact denying history. I simply noticed there are at least some sentient people posting here who do in fact recognize weather history as pertinent. You don't appear to be among them.
 
The Hurricane Harvey Hustle

Facts about Harvey negate attempts to use it to advance manmade climate cataclysm agendas Guest essay by Paul Driessen “When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight,” English essayist Samuel Johnson observed 240 years ago, “it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” That’s certainly true in the climate change arena. After ending US…

. . . Weather historian Roger Pielke, Jr. says 14 Category 4-5 hurricanes made landfall along US coasts, during the 44-year period between 1926 and 1969. In the ensuing 47 years, 1970 to 2017, just four struck the US mainland, including Harvey. Some, like the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane in the Florida Keys, were incredibly powerful. NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division counts 10 Category 4-5 monsters between 1920 and 1969 (50 years), but only four since then. Either way, it’s a huge reduction.
Harvey lost its Cat 4 status shortly after making landfall, so winds declined as a major factor after they destroyed Rockport. What devastated Houston was the vast quantity of rain: some 19 trillion gallons of water in the Houston/South Texas area alone. By comparison, Chesapeake Bay holds 18 trillion gallons.
Worse, all this rain came in just a few days. Harris County (Greater Houston) alone got 1 trillion gallons. The Mont Belvieu area got 51.9 inches of rain – the highest rainfall total in any storm in US history. The 16 inches of rain August 27 at George Bush Airport is the single wettest day in Houston history.
However, previous storms were not far behind. Hurricane Easy deluged Florida with 45.2 inches in 1950; Tropical Cyclone Amelia dumped 48 inches on Texas in 1978; and Tropical Storm Claudette inundated Texas with 54 inches in 1979. In fact, Claudette emptied 43 inches in just 24 hours on the little town of Alvin, Texas; that one-day record still stands. Buffalo Bayou topped out at 62.7 feet this time – but it reached 54.4 feet in 1935. All the Texas storms were along its Gulf Coast. . . .



 
Jack Hays said:
Not at landfall.
Click to expand...

That's right, not at landfall. Landfall is a given moment in time. The record is for length of time wind speed was maintained. Harvey maintained a wind speed of at least 185 miles per hour longer than any other Atlantic hurricane on
record.
 
JackA said:
That's right, not at landfall. Landfall is a given moment in time. The record is for length of time wind speed was maintained. Harvey maintained a wind speed of at least 185 miles per hour longer than any other Atlantic hurricane on
record.
Click to expand...

I believe you meant Irma.

You know why the best measure is at landfall? There's the obvious one that landfall marks the point where more people are at risk. But it's also true that not so long ago there was no way to reliably measure hurricane wind speed at sea, and certainly not sustained wind speed. So that record's not so important.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not at landfall.

And what about the fact that Irma and Harvey have come in 7th and 18th compared to storms of that era, hmmm?

Table of all hurricanes with landfall pressures <= 940 mb at time of U.S. landfall. #Irma was 929 mb and #Harvey was 938 mb.
irma-table-landfall.jpg


​
Click to expand...

That's funny, I don't care who you are.

So you wish to equate a global phenomenon, possibly the longest run as a Cat 5 in history, with US statistics...gotcha...why don't you explain to the former residents of Barbuda, their island doesn't count...or to the Cubans that a Cat 5 riding their north shore doesn't count...at least you should thank them for bolstering your argument by taking an enormous hit for the home team...even if they aren't on it.

As to your ratings which look at death tolls going back to the 1800's...death toll does nothing to provide an accurate measurement of comparison...about as relevant as taking the claim by the WH that this is the biggest electrical disaster in history, and comparing the millions effected to a storm from a time before electricity...unless you are going to give no credit to technology and better building practices.
 
countryboy said:
Can you please demonstrate precisely how Harvey and Irma are unusual? While you're at it, please explain why Florida hasn't had a major hurricane in years. Please be detailed and specific. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Record setting flooding for one...consider that wind speed records off of the Atlantic, all in the top of the list, were in more recent history...same with low pressure records...both would be effected by warmer water...all that does is provide an indicator to substantiate using hurricane's as an example but hardly needed to substantiate the claim that climate change denial is insane.

I'm not the one who claimed these massive hurricanes are normal...I'll leave that to someone else.
 
AYSM said:
That's funny, I don't care who you are.

So you wish to equate a global phenomenon, possibly the longest run as a Cat 5 in history, with US statistics...gotcha...why don't you explain to the former residents of Barbuda, their island doesn't count...or to the Cubans that a Cat 5 riding their north shore doesn't count...at least you should thank them for bolstering your argument by taking an enormous hit for the home team...even if they aren't on it.

As to your ratings which look at death tolls going back to the 1800's...death toll does nothing to provide an accurate measurement of comparison...about as relevant as taking the claim by the WH that this is the biggest electrical disaster in history, and comparing the millions effected to a storm from a time before electricity...unless you are going to give no credit to technology and better building practices.
Click to expand...

There was no mention of death tolls. You're confused.

The rest of your post is just content-free arm waving. Not impressive.
 
bubbabgone said:
th
Click to expand...

:yt

Entertaining for sure...I made a simple statement that climate change denial is insane. (pretty much guaranteed to strike a chord with a few)

Seriously...is there anyone who denies that climate change has been going on since the beginning of time?

Where the entertainment comes in is people creating arguments attributing things to me that I didn't say.

Climate change exists, check...the global ocean temperature is on the rise, ever so slight...polar ice caps are receding and ocean levels are rising, check...humans are responsible...huh?

How is that even relevant?
 
MaggieD said:
See what a difference "denial" can make? We talk about "climate change" rather than global warming.

Irma proves nothing, in my opinion. What Irma AND Harvey MAY do is cause states to change building codes and better designate flood plains.
Click to expand...

The global warming hypothesis suggests a higher upper bound to global temperature. What this represents is a greater quantity of thermal energy in our atmosphere, a larger gradient of thermal energy. Weather events are primarily driven by the gradients of thermal energy, differences in thermal energy (and by extension pressure) that provide wind and precipitation.

In this way, global warming suggests an increase in the frequency and/or severity of weather events, which Irma and Harvey are consistent with.
 
Don't get it... In order to diminish the controversy, why not poll scientists in countries around the world, commission an international body to study the issue and report back, measure ice melting, sea rises, etc., determine the short and long term dangers, and fashion some solutions? Who could argue with that?
 
Jack Hays said:
There was no mention of death tolls. You're confused.

The rest of your post is just content-free arm waving. Not impressive.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I was confused.

As to discounting this...

"So you wish to equate a global phenomenon, possibly the longest run as a Cat 5 in history, with US statistics...gotcha...why don't you explain to the former residents of Barbuda, their island doesn't count...or to the Cubans that a Cat 5 riding their north shore doesn't count...at least you should thank them for bolstering your argument by taking an enormous hit for the home team...even if they aren't on it."

...as "just content-free arm waving" then I would border on insanity by continuing to try to make a point with you...it's rather obvious you are not open to looking at a more worldly view when discussing such an issue.
 
AYSM said:
Record setting flooding for one...consider that wind speed records off of the Atlantic, all in the top of the list, were in more recent history...same with low pressure records...both would be effected by warmer water...all that does is provide an indicator to substantiate using hurricane's as an example but hardly needed to substantiate the claim that climate change denial is insane.

I'm not the one who claimed these massive hurricanes are normal...I'll leave that to someone else.
Click to expand...

Beside the fact that you didn't provide any sources for your claims of "record this", and "record that", you completely ignored my question about frequency. Why haven't there been more frequent and stronger storms, and why have strong hurricanes been trending down for over a century?
 
Nickyjo said:
Don't get it... In order to diminish the controversy, why not poll scientists in countries around the world, commission an international body to study the issue and report back, measure ice melting, sea rises, etc., determine the short and long term dangers, and fashion some solutions? Who could argue with that?
Click to expand...
That might work, assuming the results found by the scientist were not edited to arrive at a prearranged finding.
The Scientist of the last report found an ECS of 2C from the observable data,
https://www.ethz.ch/content/dam/eth...documents/group/climphys/knutti/otto13nat.pdf
which somehow did not make it into the final report.
Also strangely missing was the actual satellite measurements of the energy imbalance from CO2 added between 2001 and 2011.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
The findings do not support the more catastrophic predictions.
FYI a .2 Wm-2 increase for a delta of 22ppm change in CO2 levels is a very low climate response.
 
Jack Hays said:
I believe you meant Irma.

You know why the best measure is at landfall? There's the obvious one that landfall marks the point where more people are at risk. But it's also true that not so long ago there was no way to reliably measure hurricane wind speed at sea, and certainly not sustained wind speed. So that record's not so important.
Click to expand...

Yes, Irma. You disputed a record on length of time by referencing a single point in time. Even on that you're mistaken. Irma was enjoying her record breaking marathon when she began her onslaught in the Caribbean, starting with her ravaging of the island of Barbuda.

Hurricane Irma Hits Caribbean With Record-Breaking Winds | Time.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom