Climate Change Denial Is An Insane Argument

[AYSM]

Irma makes that clear.

On the one hand, to deny the science is a bit insane, as is arguing that storms like Harvey and Irma are normal.

If Irma and Harvey are just more of the same then it becomes an argument that Floridian's and Texan's are necessarily insane as is the Federal Government backing flood insurance.

Having never been south of I-40 east of the Rockies...I find building a city that floods during high tide in a hurricane/tornado prone region a strange notion...considering recent weather as normal...insane.


:sinking:

 

[Jack Hays]

Climate News
[h=1]A useful retort for those claiming #Irma & #Harvey hurricanes are a sure sign of ‘climate change’[/h]History can be a pesky thing, facts are stubborn things. There’s lot’s of caterwauling in the left about hurricane Irma on the heels of Harvey, being a sure sign of ‘climate change’ or global warming, or ‘climate disruption’ or something. A couple of days ago, king of the alarmists, Dr. Michael Mann, and his ex NCDC/NCEI…

 

[Cigar]

Ironically, Some People Actually Believe This

 

[Cigar]

Irma makes that clear.

On the one hand, to deny the science is a bit insane, as is arguing that storms like Harvey and Irma are normal.

If Irma and Harvey are just more of the same then it becomes an argument that Floridian's and Texan's are necessarily insane as is the Federal Government backing flood insurance.

Having never been south of I-40 east of the Rockies...I find building a city that floods during high tide in a hurricane/tornado prone region a strange notion...considering recent weather as normal...insane.


:sinking:

There were plenty of Non-Believers heading for High Ground ... but why?

 

[calamity]

Irma makes that clear.

On the one hand, to deny the science is a bit insane, as is arguing that storms like Harvey and Irma are normal.

If Irma and Harvey are just more of the same then it becomes an argument that Floridian's and Texan's are necessarily insane as is the Federal Government backing flood insurance.

Having never been south of I-40 east of the Rockies...I find building a city that floods during high tide in a hurricane/tornado prone region a strange notion...considering recent weather as normal...insane.


:sinking:

The hurricanes themselves do not prove climate change. But, persistent, regular tidal flooding in places that never used to flood under normal tidal conditions certainly does. Either way, denying climate change is indeed ignorant.

 

[humbolt]

Mention the history of hurricanes and this argument falls to pieces. Those who deny history should read:

18. 1898 Georgia hurricane - What are the deadliest hurricanes in the U. S.? - Pictures - CBS News

 

[MaggieD]

Irma makes that clear.

On the one hand, to deny the science is a bit insane, as is arguing that storms like Harvey and Irma are normal.

If Irma and Harvey are just more of the same then it becomes an argument that Floridian's and Texan's are necessarily insane as is the Federal Government backing flood insurance.

Having never been south of I-40 east of the Rockies...I find building a city that floods during high tide in a hurricane/tornado prone region a strange notion...considering recent weather as normal...insane.


:sinking:

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.

 

[bubbabgone]

Mention the history of hurricanes and this argument falls to pieces. Those who deny history should read:

18. 1898 Georgia hurricane - What are the deadliest hurricanes in the U. S.? - Pictures - CBS News

Remember the old days when weather was NOT climate?

 

[blueliner7]

Irma makes that clear.

Irma makes that clear? Yeah, you're right, a hurricane hitting Florida really proves something strange is afoot.

 

[Taylor]

Irma makes that clear.

On the one hand, to deny the science is a bit insane, as is arguing that storms like Harvey and Irma are normal.

If Irma and Harvey are just more of the same then it becomes an argument that Floridian's and Texan's are necessarily insane as is the Federal Government backing flood insurance.

Having never been south of I-40 east of the Rockies...I find building a city that floods during high tide in a hurricane/tornado prone region a strange notion...considering recent weather as normal...insane.


:sinking:

In other words, you don't know the difference between climate and weather.

 

[joG]

Remember the old days when weather was NOT climate?

It always was. We just didn't realize it.

 

[humbolt]

Remember the old days when weather was NOT climate?

Yeah, back when we were stupid and didn't know that sometimes it's useful to conflate the two.

 

[AYSM]

Climate News
[h=1]A useful retort for those claiming #Irma & #Harvey hurricanes are a sure sign of ‘climate change’[/h]History can be a pesky thing, facts are stubborn things. There’s lot’s of caterwauling in the left about hurricane Irma on the heels of Harvey, being a sure sign of ‘climate change’ or global warming, or ‘climate disruption’ or something. A couple of days ago, king of the alarmists, Dr. Michael Mann, and his ex NCDC/NCEI…

Was there a point to be made in your link or were you just impressed with words like, "caterwauling in the left" and citing "king of the alarmists"...?

Personally, it's not the kind of opinion writing that impresses me and therefore I'm not likely to follow your link.

Was there some factual information to present, that makes some sort of argument, or is it just a feel good opinion piece if you support the denial?

 

[bubbabgone]

Irma makes that clear? Yeah, you're right, a hurricane hitting Florida really proves something strange is afoot.

... then again, if Bill Nye blames AGW for Harvey & Irma and Jennifer Lawrence blames Trump for Harvey & Irma & AGW then I say they both must be on something ... I meant on to something.

 

[blueliner7]

... then again, if Bill Nye blames AGW for Harvey & Irma and Jennifer Lawrence blames Trump for Harvey & Irma & AGW then I say they both must be on something ... I meant on to something.

So Trump...and AGW...are the same thing? Whoa!

So AGW colluded with the Russians?

 

[bubbabgone]

Was there a point to be made in your link or were you just impressed with words like, "caterwauling in the left" and citing "king of the alarmists"...?

Personally, it's not the kind of opinion writing that impresses me and therefore I'm not likely to follow your link.

Was there some factual information to present, that makes some sort of argument, or is it just a feel good opinion piece if you support the denial?

What factual information did your initial post present? It was opinion, wasn't it?

 

[Jack Hays]

Was there a point to be made in your link or were you just impressed with words like, "caterwauling in the left" and citing "king of the alarmists"...?

Personally, it's not the kind of opinion writing that impresses me and therefore I'm not likely to follow your link.

Was there some factual information to present, that makes some sort of argument, or is it just a feel good opinion piece if you support the denial?

What you read or don't read is a matter of indifference to me. Here's the point of the link.

Philip Klotzbach
✔@philklotzbach

Harvey & #Irma made US landfall as major hurricanes ~15 days apart. Record between US major hurricane landfalls is 23 hours set in 1933.
12:40 PM - Sep 10, 2017

• 
  55 Replies
• 
  164164 Retweets
• 
  130130 likes

​

So the question for Mann et al. is: what drove those major hurricanes to be so close together in 1933? Surely if that happened today, it would be used to “kill any doubt” Right?
And what about the fact that Irma and Harvey have come in 7th and 18th compared to storms of that era, hmmm?
Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[AYSM]

There were plenty of Non-Believers heading for High Ground ... but why?

Goes to the second alternative to my argument...insanity

 

[blueliner7]

What factual information did your initial post present? It was opinion, wasn't it?

I think the only factual information presented was that the OP has never been in the area in question. But, I'm sure he reads a blog about AGW so he's obviously an expert.

 

[bubbabgone]

So Trump...and AGW...are the same thing? Whoa!

So AGW colluded with the Russians?

Yup. The Russians can do that. They have a weather making machine you know and they can target any location on earth with whatever kind of weather they want.
They're gonna sell it to North Korea and that's what Li'l Kim keeps yammering about.
Stands to reason, if humans can cause hurricanes it was only a matter of time before some human learned how to control weather events.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yeah, back when we were stupid and didn't know that sometimes it's useful to conflate the two.

Shows flexibility.

 

[AYSM]

Mention the history of hurricanes and this argument falls to pieces. Those who deny history should read:

18. 1898 Georgia hurricane - What are the deadliest hurricanes in the U. S.? - Pictures - CBS News

If we are going to use deaths as the standard, hurricanes certainly aren't that big a deal, especially when only US lives matter in a global issue...we could look at cost too...Florida made out since we can discount an Island population being displaced and the commies.

Imagine if Barbuda were Puerto Rico and if Kennedy had decided to invade Cuba, and it became our 51st state...the north shore would have become Miami South...more insanity...my argument holds.

 

[Fletch]

Irma makes that clear.

On the one hand, to deny the science is a bit insane, as is arguing that storms like Harvey and Irma are normal.

If Irma and Harvey are just more of the same then it becomes an argument that Floridian's and Texan's are necessarily insane as is the Federal Government backing flood insurance.

Having never been south of I-40 east of the Rockies...I find building a city that floods during high tide in a hurricane/tornado prone region a strange notion...considering recent weather as normal...insane.


:sinking:

If you are trying to make the argument that global warming has made hurricanes worse, then you would have to demonstrate that hurricanes were 'better' before human activity messed things up.

 

[AYSM]

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.

I'm sorry but it is too late to conflate the two in my thread starter or I could do so for you...seems to me they are related according to the scientists taking the measurements around the world...goes to insanity argument part A

Rebuilding goes to insanity argument part B

 

[humbolt]

If we are going to use deaths as the standard, hurricanes certainly aren't that big a deal, especially when only US lives matter in a global issue...we could look at cost too...Florida made out since we can discount an Island population being displaced and the commies.

Imagine if Barbuda were Puerto Rico and if Kennedy had decided to invade Cuba, and it became our 51st state...the north shore would have become Miami South...more insanity...my argument holds.

Well, no. We're using history as the standard. If nobody had died that wouldn't have meant the storms didn't happen. I hate having to point that out, but it so thoroughly undermines your argument that virtually everybody posting here who isn't a history denier has mentioned it.