• 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!

This is getting pretty damn scary!!

It ain't over yet. The fat lady hasn't sung:

Hurricane Maria was upgraded to an "extremely dangerous" Category 4 storm this afternoon, the National Hurricane Center said, as islands including Puerto Rico brace for the impact.

Maria may be nearing Category 5 strength as it approaches the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico on Wednesday. Maria might make landfall on the eastern side of Puerto Rico and could bring major damage to the U.S. territory late Wednesday morning and into the afternoon, two weeks to the day since Hurricane Irma tore through Puerto Rico, killing at least three.
Click to expand...

source
 
independentusa said:
https://qz.com/1072166/irma-jose-and-katia-three-hurricanes-in-one-satellite-image/?utm_source=qzfb
Three hurricanes in a row. Wonder if a fourth or even fifth will form once these move to the west. Is this just normal or might it have something to do with climate change. Of course a lot of you don't believe in climate change, especially those who live in the Southern parts of our country. Well as the saying goes, wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...

Ihad a condo on the ocean at Hutchinson Island when 3 hurricanes hit almost all at the same place near Jupiter inlet in the middle of the last decade
around 2006 or 7. I was on the 6th floor but almost every 1st floor condo had over a foot of sand inside and our clubhouse was wiped out. My flood
insurance went up from 900 to 2 600 in one year and I sold quickly, thank goodness before the financial crisis about 3 years later.

All the global warmers were pointing to more hurricanes the very next year and there have not been one even grazing that area until now that's 12 years.
The global warming warners are about the sillies none scientific element in society, it's amazing how many of the are still around, didn't Gore
predict about 15 years ago tragedies that never materialized.
 
independentusa said:
https://qz.com/1072166/irma-jose-and-katia-three-hurricanes-in-one-satellite-image/?utm_source=qzfb
Three hurricanes in a row. Wonder if a fourth or even fifth will form once these move to the west. Is this just normal or might it have something to do with climate change. Of course a lot of you don't believe in climate change, especially those who live in the Southern parts of our country. Well as the saying goes, wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...

Hogwash Idiotic post!


Seasons with the most hurricanes, 1851 - Present



Number of Hurricanes


1. 2005 15
2. 2010 12
2. 1969 12
4. 1887 11
4. 1950 11
4. 1998 11
4. 1995 11
8. 2012 10
8. 1933 10
8. 1916 10

Seasons with the most major hurricanes, 1851 - Present


Rank

Year

Number of Major Hurricanes


1. 1950 8
2. 2005 7
3. 1999 6
3. 1996 6
3. 1964 6
3. 1961 6
3. 1955 6
3. 1926 6
 
independentusa said:
https://qz.com/1072166/irma-jose-and-katia-three-hurricanes-in-one-satellite-image/?utm_source=qzfb
Three hurricanes in a row. Wonder if a fourth or even fifth will form once these move to the west. Is this just normal or might it have something to do with climate change. Of course a lot of you don't believe in climate change, especially those who live in the Southern parts of our country. Well as the saying goes, wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...

Wonder no longer. Here comes Maria. Puerto Ricans have been told, "evacuate, or you will die."
 
MaggieD said:
I think everybody believes in climate change. But climate changes don't mean we're going into the next ice age or that NYC will one day be underwater due to any actions by mankind.

Mother Nature is invincible.
Click to expand...

Mother Nature itself may be invincible. But we puny humans are not. Just ask the dinosaurs.
 
ataraxia said:
Mother Nature itself may be invincible. But we puny humans are not. Just ask the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Can't ask the dinosaurs. They were done in by that asteroid a few million years back. Mother nature doesn't care about dinosaurs or humans anyway. When humans are gone, something else will take over the role of top predator.
 
VanceMack said:
I didn't disingenuously ignore anything. I went in 10 year increments using 2005...the year of Katirna...as a base. In point of fact YOUR SOURCE stopped at 2015. Or didnt you bother reading what you posted?

And there WERE 63 Hurricanes between 2006 and 2015. There were 82 from 1996 to 2005. You either suck at math or are intentionally lying.
Click to expand...



“I didn't disingenuously ignore anything.”

You ignored most of history by going back only 20 years. That simply isn’t a long enough time period to support your claim of “They also ignore that the hurricane seasons post 2005 were much milder than normal.”. The term “normal” would, scientifically, need to include as much history as possible and reasonable to determine that. Combining your two time periods comes up with a much higher than normal number of hurricanes at an average 7.2 hurricanes per year vs. the 5.4 from 1851 to 2016, inclusive.

“I went in 10 year increments using 2005…”

Yeah, TWO ten-year increments. Hardly historical or scientifically significant. My data goes back to 1851.

“In point of fact YOUR SOURCE stopped at 2015.”

I gave two sources. One from 1851 to 2015, and one for the year 2016. You’re the one that is not reading and/or not comprehending.

“And there WERE 63 Hurricanes between 2006 and 2015. There were 82 from 1996 to 2005. You either suck at math or are intentionally lying.”

Your math is right. In fact, as a 20-year period, it was much higher than the historical average. You are just comparing two recent ten-year periods against each other. Your purposely ignoring the historical context, and continuing to do so, is disingenuous.

One correction of my figure of 16 hurricanes in 2016: There were 8 hurricanes and 8 tropical storms for a total of 16. The one year does not make a difference in the fact that the number of hurricanes are on the rise, in historical context.
 
bluesmoke said:
“I didn't disingenuously ignore anything.”

You ignored most of history by going back only 20 years. That simply isn’t a long enough time period to support your claim of “They also ignore that the hurricane seasons post 2005 were much milder than normal.”. The term “normal” would, scientifically, need to include as much history as possible and reasonable to determine that. Combining your two time periods comes up with a much higher than normal number of hurricanes at an average 7.2 hurricanes per year vs. the 5.4 from 1851 to 2016, inclusive.

“I went in 10 year increments using 2005…”

Yeah, TWO ten-year increments. Hardly historical or scientifically significant. My data goes back to 1851.

“In point of fact YOUR SOURCE stopped at 2015.”

I gave two sources. One from 1851 to 2015, and one for the year 2016. You’re the one that is not reading and/or not comprehending.

“And there WERE 63 Hurricanes between 2006 and 2015. There were 82 from 1996 to 2005. You either suck at math or are intentionally lying.”

Your math is right. In fact, as a 20-year period, it was much higher than the historical average. You are just comparing two recent ten-year periods against each other. Your purposely ignoring the historical context, and continuing to do so, is disingenuous.

One correction of my figure of 16 hurricanes in 2016: There were 8 hurricanes and 8 tropical storms for a total of 16. The one year does not make a difference in the fact that the number of hurricanes are on the rise, in historical context.
Click to expand...
Stop...you are just embarrassing yourself.
 
bluesmoke said:
Your reference supports the fact of global warming and the goals of the Paris Agreement. The difference between predictions and actual does not change the fact of global warming.
Click to expand...

Nor, does your article change the facts and point of my post or even address my post.
 
VanceMack said:
Stop...you are just embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...



If have your own opinion, but you can't refute my facts nor the point of my post. Is your point that hurricanes are not on a historical rise? What is your point?
 
bluesmoke said:
Your reference supports the fact of global warming and the goals of the Paris Agreement. The difference between predictions and actual does not change the fact of global warming.
Click to expand...

For the one millionth time, global warming is real. But, man doesn't have much to do with global warming and can't do anything to stop it, other than a drop in the bucket. The title of the thread was just a teaser to get people to click on the thread. The thread is about the liberal left using false models to further their agenda, which the right has been saying all along.
 
Moderate Right said:
For the one millionth time, global warming is real. But, man doesn't have much to do with global warming and can't do anything to stop it, other than a drop in the bucket. The title of the thread was just a teaser to get people to click on the thread. The thread is about the liberal left using false models to further their agenda, which the right has been saying all along.
Click to expand...



Such a fatalist. We can't do anything, so let's not try anything. Well, maybe go to the interior and higher ground. What do you think should be done?
 
Moderate Right said:
For the one millionth time, global warming is real. But, man doesn't have much to do with global warming and can't do anything to stop it, other than a drop in the bucket. The title of the thread was just a teaser to get people to click on the thread. The thread is about the liberal left using false models to further their agenda, which the right has been saying all along.
Click to expand...

The evidence shows otherwise, because the models are pretty accurate in showing the rate of climate change, based on the amount of carbon dioxide that is being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
 
bluesmoke said:
Such a fatalist. We can't do anything, so let's not try anything. Well, maybe go to the interior and higher ground. What do you think should be done?
Click to expand...

The new technologies that we are right on the bring of using (solid state batteries, new green methods of generating electricity from solar/wind/thermal and solid state fuel cells) are coming to fruitation to the point that they will be less expensive than fossil fuels for manufacturing, energy generation, and transportation. My prediction is that if those technologies develop fast and far enough so that the 2 degree 'tipping point' is avoided, then the climate deniers will just say 'see'.. without looking at the facts of the reduction of CO2 by human activity into the atmosphere.
 
bluesmoke said:
Such a fatalist. We can't do anything, so let's not try anything. Well, maybe go to the interior and higher ground. What do you think should be done?
Click to expand...

Where's the proof that putting many businesses out of business and putting many workers out of work and spending trillions upon trillions of dollars fighting global warming will in fact make global warming cease to exist? Why don't you ask me how we can stop hurricanes or how we can stop earthquakes or how we can stop tornadoes?
 
RAMOSS said:
The evidence shows otherwise, because the models are pretty accurate in showing the rate of climate change, based on the amount of carbon dioxide that is being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
Click to expand...


Proof that cows are what is responsible for global warming, not humans:

https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea.../files/livestock_table_1_575.jpg&action=click

https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea...l-temperature-forecast-graph.jpg&action=click
 
Moderate Right said:
Proof that cows are what is responsible for global warming, not humans:

https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea.../files/livestock_table_1_575.jpg&action=click

https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea...l-temperature-forecast-graph.jpg&action=click
Click to expand...

Oh boy, gizmodo.. How wonderful.

And, straw man. Do you have any comprehension of the percentage for cow farts vs transportation., manufacturing, and energy production? Mind you, the cow farts are due to people needing FOOD.. and it is indeed possible to reduce the methane they produce by adding enzymes to their food.


Such a wonderful
 
RAMOSS said:
Oh boy, gizmodo.. How wonderful.

And, straw man. Do you have any comprehension of the percentage for cow farts vs transportation., manufacturing, and energy production? Mind you, the cow farts are due to people needing FOOD.. and it is indeed possible to reduce the methane they produce by adding enzymes to their food.


Such a wonderful
Click to expand...

It is blaming man made carbon emissions that is the straw man. I just proved that cow farts and burps are the cause of global warming and you are in denial about global warming. However, I will acknowledge that man is mostly responsible for the increase in cow population. The solution is simple. We need a Paris accord to cull worldwide cow populations and then there will be no such thing as global warming anymore.
 
Moderate Right said:
It is blaming man made carbon emissions that is the straw man. I just proved that cow farts and burps are the cause of global warming and you are in denial about global warming. However, I will acknowledge that man is mostly responsible for the increase in cow population. The solution is simple. We need a Paris accord to cull worldwide cow populations and then there will be no such thing as global warming anymore.
Click to expand...

Uh, no you haven't at all. In fact, that actually is evidence for it, because the reasons there are so many cows is because of human activity to feed the human population with cows. Cow methane is just a very small part of the green house gas emissions.

You are taking things out of context in isolation, and that doesn't show anything what so ever, much less what you think it shows.
 
RAMOSS said:
Uh, no you haven't at all. In fact, that actually is evidence for it, because the reasons there are so many cows is because of human activity to feed the human population with cows. Cow methane is just a very small part of the green house gas emissions.

You are taking things out of context in isolation, and that doesn't show anything what so ever, much less what you think it shows.
Click to expand...

Oh. Gee Whiz. You guys wouldn't take things out of context yourself, now would you? Of course you would. I just gave the same evidence that you guys do and you dismiss mine while accepting yours as fact - the very same evidence.
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh. Gee Whiz. You guys wouldn't take things out of context yourself, now would you? Of course you would. I just gave the same evidence that you guys do and you dismiss mine while accepting yours as fact - the very same evidence.
Click to expand...

I can only conclude you can not read in context. Yes, cow farts do contribute to the green house gasses, however, if you read the entire evidence , agricultural activities, including animal livestock ,contribute 9% of the total green house gasses every year.

total_0.png


So, no, you are not using the same evidence, you are using a cherry picked subsection of the evidence. You are not looking at the big picture, and you are misusing the evidence you do use.
 
RAMOSS said:
I can only conclude you can not read in context. Yes, cow farts do contribute to the green house gasses, however, if you read the entire evidence , agricultural activities, including animal livestock ,contribute 9% of the total green house gasses every year.

total_0.png


So, no, you are not using the same evidence, you are using a cherry picked subsection of the evidence. You are not looking at the big picture, and you are misusing the evidence you do use.
Click to expand...

Please show any proof you have that if we drastically cut back on our carbon footprint that there will no longer be global warming. And, you still haven't proven that it is actually greenhouse gases that are responsible for global warming, only that they have happened at the same time frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom