Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, October 11, 2018

The sobering report from the leading U.N. panel of researchers studying human-caused climate change calls on the world to take swift and drastic action to curb greenhouse gas emissions before the effects of climate change become irreversible. Republican leaders just scoff and shrug.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Don't believe your lying eyes, believe the liars in the Republican Party. Don't think about droughts all over the world, don't think about intense hurricanes hitting far more often than ever before, don't think about melting glaciers, melting ice in Greenland and Antartica. Don't get mad when the rest of us call you an imbecile.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-11 12:46 PM | Reply

Scientists are obviously in a global conspiracy.

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 12:46 PM | Reply

The global glacier melt down is in full swing.

Only a tax of some sort will restore civility.

and the ice. in their cocktails.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 12:49 PM | Reply

--don't think about intense hurricanes hitting far more often than ever before,

Nonsense. That's statistically false.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 12:50 PM | Reply

"Statistically false" meaning what exactly?
P-value greater than 0.05?
Can I see your math?

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 01:02 PM | Reply

Words like "drought" and "hurricane" never even existed in the English language until Republicans caused Global Warming.

#6 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-11 01:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#6 is in the "denial" stage of the Kübler-Ross model.

That's the first stage.
Only four to go.

Congratulations, you built that!

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 01:13 PM | Reply

There is a vast scientific conspiracy to make our lives healthier and happier. I am part of it. I know some of the posters here are part of it. There are plenty of folks who are smart and creative and hard-working, who choose to turn their backs on more lucrative and easier careers in business to do this too.

The GOP fights every day to defeat that scientific endeavour.

Choose your side.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-10-11 01:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I assume all of you have ripped out your A/C's and HVAC units replaced by fans and swamp coolers?

Keeping food in a Yeti down in the root cellar? Drive your Flintstone car with the windows down?

Refuse to draw power from coal plants and nuclear sources? why destroy the planet, Poser?

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 01:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Words like "drought" and "hurricane" never even existed in the English language until Republicans caused Global Warming."

Though intended sarcastically you are actually speaking factually.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-11 01:29 PM | Reply

"I assume all of you have ripped out your A/C's and HVAC units replaced by fans and swamp coolers?"

Why, is that what you did?
Got any tips?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 01:31 PM | Reply

--I assume all of you have ripped out your A/C's and HVAC units replaced by fans and swamp coolers?

Or stopped eating meat?

Huge reduction in meat-eating ‘essential' to avoid climate breakdown
www.theguardian.com

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 01:32 PM | Reply

Why, is that what you did?
#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No, my A/C rarely shuts off. I spent the summer at a comfortable 71 degrees.

- Got any tips?

Change the filter every month. Change your diaper every hour.

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 01:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"No, my A/C rarely shuts off. I spent the summer at a comfortable 71 degrees."

Why no swamp cooler?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 01:38 PM | Reply

Or stopped eating meat?

I just stopped at a local Kroger to pick up a bit of produce for tomorrow night's dinner and observed they had chuck roast - buy 1, get 1 free. I bought 2 and am pretty excited about it. I'm going to grind one and use it to make coney sauce for the Michigan/Wisconsin tailgate on Saturday.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-11 01:40 PM | Reply

I assume all of you have ripped out your A/C's and HVAC units replaced by fans and swamp coolers?
Keeping food in a Yeti down in the root cellar? Drive your Flintstone car with the windows down?
Refuse to draw power from coal plants and nuclear sources? why destroy the planet, Poser?

#9 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

That's cute.

It's also the Republican way on going to war. Tax cuts for the rich and send the poor kids to die or be horribly wounded in battle.

Look, I know you and the rest of the Republicans would never do anything to cause any level of discomfort to your own lives regardless how much it helps people around you, the country, future generations, etc. But that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are willing to sacrifice some for their country.

The GOP motto after all is: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you!

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 01:42 PM | Reply

I assume all of you have ripped out your A/C's and HVAC units replaced by fans and swamp coolers?

Keeping food in a Yeti down in the root cellar? Drive your Flintstone car with the windows down?

Refuse to draw power from coal plants and nuclear sources? why destroy the planet, Poser?

#9 | Posted by SheepleSchism

thebestschools.org
15 Logical Fallacies You Should Know Before Getting Into a Debate
Tu Quoque Fallacy

"The "tu quoque," Latin for "you too," is also called the "appeal to hypocrisy" because it distracts from the argument by pointing out hypocrisy in the opponent. This tactic doesn't solve the problem, or prove one's point, because even hypocrites can tell the truth. Focusing on the other person's hypocrisy is a diversionary tactic. In this way, the tu quoque typically deflects criticism away from one's self by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable. If Jack says, "Maybe I committed a little adultery, but so did you Jason!" Jack is trying to diminish his responsibility or defend his actions by distributing blame to other people. But no one else's guilt excuses his own guilt. No matter who else is guilty, Jack is still an adulterer.

The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame, but it really only distracts from the initial problem. "

Since you're too stupid to understand this paragraph, I'll sum it up for you. It basically says that your "if you produce any pollution then you're just as bad as republicans who deny climate change and defend polluters" argument is pathetic horsecrap.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 11

intense hurricanes hitting far more often than ever before

Nonsense. That's statistically false.
#4 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-10-11 12:50 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

At least one model predicts a "significant increase (+87%) in the frequency of very intense (categories 4 and 5) hurricanes."

Your turn.

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 01:55 PM | Reply

Or stopped eating meat?

I don't buy meat unless it's already been killed. Once it's in the store I buy it to prevent waste.

#19 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2018-10-11 01:56 PM | Reply

Your turn.

#18 | POSTED BY JOE

That was also predicted more than 2 decades ago. Thus far, it hasn't materialized.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-11 02:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20 If it was wrong once (was it even the same model?), that means it will never be right? Which fallacy is that?

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 02:07 PM | Reply

--that means it will never be right?

No, but the assertion was "far more often than ever before" not "far more often in the future"

#22 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 02:15 PM | Reply

#22 Still waiting for your source.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 02:21 PM | Reply

That was also predicted more than 2 decades ago. Thus far, it hasn't materialized.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ

Here are the predictions that HAVE materialized: Worse droughts, worse floods, bigger storms, desertification, melting ice caps, tropical diseases spreading north, bigger wildfires...

But you cling to anything you can find to allow you to ignore this. Because the alternative is admitting that dems are right on this issue and that's worse than getting wiped out in a hurricane.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

skepticalscience.com

#25 | Posted by Snowfake at 2018-10-11 02:23 PM | Reply

"No, but the assertion was "far more often than ever before" not "far more often in the future"

You couldn't figure out she didn't mean compared to hurricane season 65,000,000 years ago?

That's hilarious!

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 02:23 PM | Reply

What about the prediction of giant mosquitoes infesting North America?!

Truth be told!

#27 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-10-11 02:23 PM | Reply

--The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame,

If one says global warming is false because Di Caprio uses a private jet to fly an "eyebrow artist" 7000 miles to the Oscars, that would be a tu quoque fallacy. Pointing out that Di Caprio is a "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrite is not a fallacy.

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 02:24 PM | Reply

Because the alternative is admitting that dems are right on this issue and that's worse than getting wiped out in a hurricane.

#24 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

JeffyLube's papi, Putin, doesn't pay him to admit the dems are right.

#29 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-11 02:25 PM | Reply

At least one model predicts a "significant increase (+87%) in the frequency of very intense (categories 4 and 5) hurricanes."
Your turn.
#18 | POSTED BY JOE
That was also predicted more than 2 decades ago. Thus far, it hasn't materialized.
#20 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No. It wasn't.

What was predicted two decades ago was an increase in storm severity, not an 87% increase in the frequency of category 4 or 5 hurricanes. And that storm severity has happened. Storm severity has increased decade by decade over the last 50 years in direct correlation with ocean warming.

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I just stopped at a local Kroger to pick up a bit of produce for tomorrow night's dinner and observed they had chuck roast - buy 1, get 1 free. I bought 2 and am pretty excited about it. I'm going to grind one and use it to make coney sauce for the Michigan/Wisconsin tailgate on Saturday.
#15 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's waaaaaay too much information (TMI!).

#31 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-10-11 02:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--#22 Still waiting for your source.

I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the person that made the assertion. If true, it should be easy to do with data over the last 20-50 years.

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 02:27 PM | Reply

"Pointing out that Di Caprio is a "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrite is not a fallacy."

Well in that case, the reason it's not a logical fallacy is because it's not even a logical argument to begin with.

It's just an angry old man expressing the only emotion he can find any comfort in.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 02:32 PM | Reply

I'm not really that interested in number crunching, so I'll just repost this. Whether his numbers are correct or not I have no idea.

But, so far, nothing about hurricanes and global warming has come true. Since 1851, we've had an increase of 2.2 hurricanes per year with an avg. wind speed of 10 mph increase. But if you go by 50 year increments, the past 50 years shows a decrease in the number of storms and a very small increase in wind mph. If you go by 25 year increments, we are slightly higher in both measurements but 2 other 25 year periods in the same time had significantly higher increases in both the number of storms and the wind speed.

In fact, the avg wind speed from 2010 was 111.88mph and the average so far in 2011-2020 decade is 109.75. So, actually, wind speed has decreased in the same time period that global warming scientists have said it will be a dramatic increase. The number of hurricanes in the 2000-2010 decade was 75. So far in the 2011-2020 decade there have been 50 (as of 2017 numbers). That gives us three years to have 25 storms which is on par with the average.

So, tell me again how a warming climate has any relation at all to the Atlantic hurricanes. Go ahead, I'll wait. I actually did all of the numbers in my own Excel sheets from Wunderground's hurricane archive. What have you done to prove climatologists right or wrong?

Posted by humtake at 2018-10-10 12:09 PM

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 02:34 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

End Thread.

#35 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 02:39 PM | Reply

The dicapprio, gore, streisand examples of hypocrisy are always funny to point out on these threads.
They don't advance the discussion, but either does most of what is posted here.
-John Kerry, Vietnam Vet

#36 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-11 02:42 PM | Reply

I don't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the person that made the assertion

This isn't a criminal courtroom. If you had any interest in advancing the discussion, you'd post the source you relied upon to say that Danni's claim was "statistically false."

Unless you don't have a source and are just making things up, in which case you should just admit that and STFU.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

But, so far, nothing about hurricanes and global warming has come true.

#34 | Posted by nullifidian

So lets ignore the Worse droughts, worse floods, bigger storms, desertification, melting ice caps, tropical diseases spreading north, bigger wildfires...and JUST focus on hurricanes. Yeah maybe the suckers will fall for that.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 02:43 PM | Reply

It's not a logical fallacy to point out the hypocrisy AGW proponents because it's not being used as an argument to prove that AGW doesn't exist.

It's being used to prove that most proponents are hypocrites.

I will consider altering my lifestyle when the hypocrites alter theirs. Until then I'll keep on keeping on.

#39 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-11 02:43 PM | Reply

I'm not really that interested in number crunching, so I'll just repost this. Whether his numbers are correct or not I have no idea.

Lol.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 02:44 PM | Reply

I'll be honest....if the UN issued a letter stating the sky was blue, I'd be skeptical and go verify it for myself.

#41 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-11 02:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's being used to prove that most proponents are hypocrites."

So what's that prove?

I can just as readily prove the Founders were hypocrites for writing "All men are created equal" while owning some.

What does me proving that accomplish?

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 02:50 PM | Reply

--he dicapprio, gore, streisand examples of hypocrisy are always funny to point out on these threads.
They don't advance the discussion, but either does most of what is posted here.

Agreed. The more important question is why cripple the economy based on the most extreme, worst-case projections.

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 02:50 PM | Reply

it's not being used as an argument to prove that AGW doesn't exist.
It's being used to prove that most proponents are hypocrites.

You're either saying "these people are hypocrites therefore anything else they say is stupid," or you're saying "these people are hypocrites therefore we should not listen to their idea on this particular subject."

In either case you are indirectly attacking the idea, or at minimum throwing up a fallacious roadblock.

You also have no idea what levels of conservation anyone in this thread pursues. Why not assume i'm a conservationist and address the thread topic.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 02:53 PM | Reply

It's being used to prove that most proponents are hypocrites.

I will consider altering my lifestyle when the hypocrites alter theirs. Until then I'll keep on keeping on.

#39 | Posted by visitor_

Great strategy for morons who don't give a damn about the future.
Everyone who says we need to take better care of the planet does SOMETHING that harms the planet, therefore they're ALL hypocrites, therefore you will never have to do anything to help, which is really your goal.

You get to create an impossibly high bar of: "before I do anything to help, the people telling me to help have to live like monks or cavemen outside of modern society. They have to be PERFECT, before I'll stop being a completely selfish -------."

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 02:53 PM | Reply

I'll be honest....if the UN issued a letter stating the sky was blue, I'd be skeptical and go verify it for myself.

#41 | Posted by MUSTANG

And if trump told you it was red you'd say "sounds right to me! That guy has excellent credibility!"

#46 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 02:55 PM | Reply

They have to be PERFECT, before I'll stop being a completely selfish -------."
#45 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Tesla. end thread.

#47 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 02:55 PM | Reply

--So what's that prove?

Not anything more than when you guys get gleeful about a Christian minister/social conservative getting caught in a sex scandal.

Of course, they aren't demanding huge public policy changes that punish American families with high energy and carbon taxes.

#48 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tesla. end thread.

#47 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Are we all supposed to be able to read your deranged mind and hear your simpleton thoughts?

Do you even get paid for posts that short? There should be a minimum character requirement.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 03:02 PM | Reply

It's not a logical fallacy to point out the hypocrisy AGW proponents because it's not being used as an argument to prove that AGW doesn't exist.
#39 | POSTED BY VISITOR_
It's being used to prove that most proponents are hypocrites.
I will consider altering my lifestyle when the hypocrites alter theirs. Until then I'll keep on keeping on.
#39 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

That's a lie.

You are really saying unless AGW proponents completely upend every part of their life and reduce their emissions in every way possible, you won't change a thing.

Most AGW proponents invest in energy saving home features, better fuel economy, solar energy options from electric providers, etc. They make small sacrifices that would solve a good chunk of the issue if everyone did it.

And you will claim they are hypocrites until they lose their air conditioning, ride bikes everywhere, and stop eating meat.

Just more garbage from a political hack.

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-11 04:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And you will claim they are hypocrites until they lose their air conditioning, ride bikes everywhere, and stop eating meat.
Just more garbage from a political hack.

#50 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

*sips Starbucks latte in victory

#51 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-11 04:06 PM | Reply

In 1971, another global-cooling alarmist, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, made similarly wild forecasts for the end of the millennium in a speech at the British Institute for Biology. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people," he claimed. "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower quality than it is today." Of course, England still exists, and its population was doing much better in 2000 than when Ehrlich made his kooky claims. But long before 2000, Ehrlich had abandoned global-cooling alarmism in favor of warning that the Earth faced catastrophic global warming. Now he is warning that humans may soon be forced to resort to cannibalism.

#52 | Posted by homerj at 2018-10-11 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"This isn't a criminal courtroom."

Is it a job interview?

#53 | Posted by homerj at 2018-10-11 04:30 PM | Reply

#52 | Posted by homerj

What is the point of that post?

An idiot would post it to suggest that an example of an inaccurate predictions provess you can't trust any predictions.

Is that why you posted it?

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 04:34 PM | Reply

--What is the point of that post?

If someone has a 50 year record of horrendously wrong predictions, why would you keep listening to him? Paul Ehrlich is representative of a class of environmental extremists that make boneheaded predictions and are never called out. What other areas in life do you naively accept the advice of people with a terrible predictive track record? Your stock broker? Quick way to lose all your money.

#55 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 04:46 PM | Reply

--What is the point of that post?

If someone has a 50 year record of horrendously wrong predictions, why would you keep listening to him? Paul Ehrlich is representative of a class of environmental extremists that make boneheaded predictions and are never called out. What other areas in life do you naively accept the advice of people with a terrible predictive track record? Your stock broker? Quick way to lose all your money.

#56 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-11 04:46 PM | Reply

#56 It was stupid the first time you posted it.

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-11 05:17 PM | Reply

If someone has a 50 year record of horrendously wrong predictions, why would you keep listening to him? Paul Ehrlich is representative of a class of environmental extremists that make boneheaded predictions and are never called out. What other areas in life do you naively accept the advice of people with a terrible predictive track record? Your stock broker? Quick way to lose all your money.

#56 | Posted by nullifidian

You can cherry pick an idiot to make a case for anything.

Are the sea levels rising? Are storms getting bigger? Are tropical diseases moving north? Are glaciers dissappearring? Are droughts, floods, and wildfires getting worse?

Because all of these things were predicted by climate scientists. You look like a moron for trying to say we should ignore them because they're not flawless.

#58 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-10-11 06:12 PM | Reply

"The more important question is why cripple the economy based on the most extreme, worst-case projections."

Actually that's wrong too.

The reason it's wrong is because you can't say how much the economy will be crippled by global warming itself.

So until you can hang a price tag on that, you can't answer why cripple the econony, because you don't have any way of saying which will actually cost more, an economic paradigm that disincentivizes global warming, or one that simply doesn't price it in at all, which is the current paradigm.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 07:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If someone has a 50 year record of horrendously wrong predictions, why would you keep listening to him?"

Trump has a 50 year record of horrendously wrong predictions.

And you voted for him, and you still support him.

Why?

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-11 07:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Joe: "You're either saying "these people are hypocrites therefore anything else they say is stupid," or you're saying "these people are hypocrites therefore we should not listen to their idea on this particular subject."

Not exactly. I'm exactly saying:

"I will consider altering my lifestyle when the hypocrites alter theirs. Until then I'll keep on keeping on."

#61 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-11 11:51 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly: "You get to create an impossibly high bar of: "before I do anything to help, the people telling me to help have to live like monks or cavemen outside of modern society. They have to be PERFECT, before I'll stop being a completely selfish -------."

I believe that's a straw-man argument. At the least it's not anything close to what I wrote.

#62 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-11 11:54 PM | Reply

These posers want to preach from their soapbox about environmentalism while practicing consumerism.

They believe that signing documents during black tie dinners over cocktails accomplishes something.

Meanwhile, they separate their trash, and feel good about themselves, even when they use K-cups in their Keurig. and drive 'green' Teslas.

#63 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-12 12:00 AM | Reply

I don't think they've read the report and understand what is being required. Maybe they assume someone else will make the sacrifices or possibly they just like to point fingers and complain. One thing is certain, a check to Algore's carbon fund won't do f*** all about sh**.

#64 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-10-12 12:22 AM | Reply

I have a coworker that drives a horrible big old smelly truck for no apparent reason. When the subject comes up he goes on a tirade about how the production of batteries for electric cars are way worse for the environment than the effects of gas cars. What he always seems to gloss over is how that, if true, somehow stops him from getting a small, efficient gas car.

#65 | Posted by Snowfake at 2018-10-12 12:24 AM | Reply

woo-woo

www.corbettreport.com

#66 | Posted by Heinrich at 2018-10-12 01:22 AM | Reply

"I will consider altering my lifestyle when the hypocrites alter theirs. Until then I'll keep on keeping on."

#61 | POSTED BY VISITOR_ AT 2018-10-11 11:51 PM | REPLY

In other words, you have no personal convictions of your own.

#67 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-10-12 01:30 AM | Reply

#65

Thanks for the anecdote, it really helps prove whatever point you are trying to make.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-12 01:51 AM | Reply

woo-woo

www.corbettreport.com

#66 | Posted by Heinrich at 2018-10-12 01:22 AM | Reply | Flag: Sock Puppet Account of TOR, created just today

He will now make random posts everywhere to try and make himself "legitimate". LOL

#69 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-10-12 03:16 AM | Reply

What about the prediction of giant mosquitoes infesting North America?!
Truth be told!

#27 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Giant mosquitoes emerge in North Carolina post-Florence www.cnn.com

#70 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-10-12 10:42 AM | Reply

Ouch! The floodwaters that followed Hurricane Florence, which made landfall in North Carolina on September 14, have spawned thousands of mega-mosquitoes across the state, according to entomologists.

These giants have zebra-striped legs and are two to three times as big as the normal bloodsuckers encountered during summer, said Michael H. Reiskind, an assistant professor in the Department of Entomology at North Carolina State University. www.cnn.com

#71 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-10-12 10:45 AM | Reply

he also cited a statement from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) discussing the purported link between hurricanes and climate change.

"It is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming -- have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity," the organization reported.

Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018

www.gfdl.noaa.gov

#72 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-12 11:15 AM | Reply

Why do y'all joke or argue about this?

Believing is not a substitute for KNOWING, as in science.

Or an actual education.

Not a Trumpublican value.

#73 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-10-12 11:25 AM | Reply

Doctor: You've got cancer and need treatment immediately or you'll die in 24 months.

Patient: I'll get a second opinion.

Second Doctor: You've got cancer and need treatment immediately or you'll die in 6 months.

Patient: Well, doctors also once advocated blood letting and cocaine for headaches. Wrong before, could be wrong now. Better not get treatment.

#74 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-12 12:51 PM | Reply

"It is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming -- have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity," the organization reported.

Last Revised: Sept. 20, 2018
www.gfdl.noaa.gov

#72 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-10-12 11:15 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

It's premature because not enough time has elapsed, nor sufficient data been collected, to allow a scientifically supportable conclusion to be made. This is not remotely the same as saying there is no connection.

Not all the consequences of global warming enhance hurricane formation, so it remains to be seen if global warming leads to more hurricanes. But some of the basic consequences of global warming can provide the conditions for hurricanes, when formed, to become both more intense ( higher sea surface temperatures energizing higher wind speeds ) and more destructive ( higher sea levels supporting higher storm surges; warmer air temperatures holding more water vapor and producing higher rain rates ).

The article you linked covered these things but you chose to ignore them. Since 1924 there have been 33 category 5 hurricanes recorded in the Atlantic. Of these 11 have occurred in the last 14 years. In the same period there were 6 hurricane seasons with more than 1 category 5 hurricane, with 3 of these being in the last 14 years. Statistical anomalies or a sign of things to come?

I think we know where you stand but objectively minded people won't be standing with you.

#75 | Posted by Foreigner at 2018-10-12 01:41 PM | Reply

--I assume all of you have ripped out your A/C's and HVAC units replaced by fans and swamp coolers?

NOPE _ got mine full tilt boogie...

Unlike you clowns, mine runs on R22a.

Also known as LPG or Natural Gas. It has 3X times the coolin power of R22 and 5X that of R410a. So I only have to run it my A/C only 1/3 as much... saving electricity and wear and tear.

And since LPG is NOT an HFC there is not wear or tear on the Ozone and you don't even need an EPA licence to handle it.

Totally Legal... been doing it for 22 years...

But the DuPont Corporation has you by your your nuts only because you don't know no better...

#76 | Posted by Pegasus at 2018-10-12 02:32 PM | Reply

From the UN Report:

Human activity in the world emits 40 billion tons of CO2 per year , about 90 times the emission from volcanoes. At some point, there will be enough in the atmosphere where 1.5 degree rise will be a foregone conclusion. Best guess is about 12 years for that and 2045 to reach +2C. In the Arctic temperatures have already risen 3 degrees C. The Maldives in the Indian ocean are partly under water, and some Pacific islands have already disappeared as average world sea levels rise by 3 mm a year.

#77 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-12 09:56 PM | Reply

There is a vast scientific conspiracy to make our lives healthier and happier. I am part of it. I know some of the posters here are part of it. There are plenty of folks who are smart and creative and hard-working, who choose to turn their backs on more lucrative and easier careers in business to do this too.
The GOP fights every day to defeat that scientific endeavour.
Choose your side.

#8 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

To your average "Chreestian" righty, if you're not a greedy, self-centered SOB there's something wrong with you.

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 03:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I wish I had more than one NW flag to give per post.

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 03:11 AM | Reply

Pointing out that Di Caprio is a "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrite is not a fallacy.

#28 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

It's just a run of the mill cop out taken by intellectually lazy, dishonest hacks.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 03:16 AM | Reply

I'm not really that interested in number crunching, so I'll just repost this. Whether his numbers are correct or not I have no idea.
But, so far, nothing about hurricanes and global warming has come true. Since 1851, we've had an increase of 2.2 hurricanes per year with an avg. wind speed of 10 mph increase. But if you go by 50 year increments, the past 50 years shows a decrease in the number of storms and a very small increase in wind mph. If you go by 25 year increments, we are slightly higher in both measurements but 2 other 25 year periods in the same time had significantly higher increases in both the number of storms and the wind speed.
In fact, the avg wind speed from 2010 was 111.88mph and the average so far in 2011-2020 decade is 109.75. So, actually, wind speed has decreased in the same time period that global warming scientists have said it will be a dramatic increase. The number of hurricanes in the 2000-2010 decade was 75. So far in the 2011-2020 decade there have been 50 (as of 2017 numbers). That gives us three years to have 25 storms which is on par with the average.
So, tell me again how a warming climate has any relation at all to the Atlantic hurricanes. Go ahead, I'll wait. I actually did all of the numbers in my own Excel sheets from Wunderground's hurricane archive. What have you done to prove climatologists right or wrong?
Posted by humtake at 2018-10-10 12:09 PM

#34 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

LOL that's quite the scholarly rigor.

If I told you Stalin or Lenin supported global warming would you suddenly find yourself motivated to not be an intellectual slouch?

#81 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 03:28 AM | Reply

#81 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 03:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

#noArgumentNoFacts

#82 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 08:46 AM | Reply

More people eating, poking, excreting, building, leveling forests, poisoning and driving cars is why the planet is warming. The most casual observer can't help but notice that the last decade has seen islands disappear, cancers increase, traffic jams till the cows come home, some progress on pollution control which is being suspended, vanishing fisheries, radical changes in rainfall and increased damage to human development from earthquakes, hurricane and tornadoes. The later as much because there is so much more to damage in the coastal areas than there was in the past. The dutch are preparing for these changes while Republicans continue to deny. They will look stupid when New York City is underwater, but it will be too late. Anybody that has seen what Sandy, Irma, Maria and Michael did and thinks there is no problem is an idiot. The Government's job is to keep us safe. Republican continued denial is going to cost millions of people their lives at some point.

#83 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-10-13 09:52 AM | Reply

#noArgumentNoFacts

#82 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

You reposted information with no citation for where the numbers were drawn from.

You can't call that having "facts".

#84 | Posted by jpw at 2018-10-13 12:02 PM | Reply

--You reposted information with no citation for where the numbers were drawn from.

I posted Humtake's post, in which he said:
"I actually did all of the numbers in my own Excel sheets from Wunderground's hurricane archive."

You are free to go to Wunderground yourself, if you're interested.

#85 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-13 12:28 PM | Reply

Since 1924 there have been 33 category 5 hurricanes recorded in the Atlantic. Of these 11 have occurred in the last 14 years. In the same period there were 6 hurricane seasons with more than 1 category 5 hurricane, with 3 of these being in the last 14 years. Statistical anomalies or a sign of things to come?

#75 | POSTED BY FOREIGNER AT 2018-10-12 01:41 PM | REPLY

The IPCC study says hurricane energy is trending downward.

"The new report further notes that global "streamflow trends are mostly non-statistically significant" and confirms the AR5's finding that "there is low confidence due to limited evidence ... that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods." What about hurricanes and typhoons? "Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy," the new report says. In fact, the 40-year trend in accumulated cyclonic energy (roughly, the amount of energy released by all tropical cyclones each year) is downward. Noting the proliferation of contradictory studies, the report also observes that there is low confidence in the studies reporting increasing trends in the global number of very intense cyclones."

#86 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-10-13 01:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort