Soooooo, where is the Warming?

[Masterofreality]

I have no idea what you are arguing now. None of this makes sense. Inflation? Categories of hurricanes? If hurricanes don't hit land, who gives a shit?

I was pointing out that two big hurricanes have happened the last two years. Last year Sandy hit 24 states.

Look I don't care whatever your boner is with climate change. I think the entire argument from both sides is pretty silly, and your posts pretty much cement that opinion.

I guess that makes two of us. I don't understand what the hell you are arguing, DC.

I made it clear what my point was. Number of named storms below projections. It's not two sides, but you've attempted to make it so by bringing in the "most expensive storms" as if single occurrances cover an entire season. You cite one-offs. One offs that can happen in every year. It's apples and oranges.

Find someone else to argue with.

[muskienick]

The following is for the benefit of both sides of the issue:
The Climate of a region is determined by the average of all its weather factors over a thirty-year period of time.

People pointing to weeks of temperatures consistently in the 90's as proof of global warming are just as wrong as others who point to equally long periods of cool summer weather or a string of winter days with lows below zero as proof that global warming is a myth.

Climate changed many times before mankind was a significant factor of any kind on this planet. But that doesn't mean that mankind cannot have a significant effect on it now that there are over 7 Billion of us here. The human presence on Earth may not be the determining, or most important, factor of climate change. But to completely disregard mankind's effect on the earth's air, water, and other natural resources would be as incorrect as omitting poor play by special teams as a contributing factor of why football clubs have losing records in the NFL.

[DC Muskie]

I guess that makes two of us. I don't understand what the hell you are arguing, DC.

I made it clear what my point was. Number of named storms below projections. It's not two sides, but you've attempted to make it so by bringing in the "most expensive storms" as if single occurrances cover an entire season. You cite one-offs. One offs that can happen in every year. It's apples and oranges.

Find someone else to argue with.

I'm not arguing. If you are confused about what I wrote, it's probably because you didn't realize what you wrote. Re read your first post where you said this:

All I know is that here we are almost to Labor Day and there has barely been a smidgen of tropical storm or hurricane activity despite the doom and gloom claims of the "warming club" that there would be a more than active hurricane season.

So no hurricane activity in 2013.

Two sentences later you write this:

This will be at least the third year in a row where the alarmists have been dead wrong as to hurricanes and tropical storms, so why the hell should they be believed?

I merely pointed that that there was two big hurricanes in the last two years. One in fact did the second most damage in the history of country. That's a just a fact.

So like I said I'm not arguing anything. I'm not going in some other direction to tell you that climate change is real or whatever, because I don't care. I was merely pointing out that despite your claim of three years of inactivity of hurricanes, there were in fact two straight years of major hurricanes including one that went up the entire east coast.

If you want to "argue" the other side and say that there weren't two major hurricanes in the past two years, then go ahead. If you want to argue that hurricanes happen, so who cares, then go ahead, I don't care.

Just don't tell me there wasn't major hurricane activity, because there was. Unlike 2006, and 2009 when there wasn't.

[paulxu]

Global Warming for the Dems is used as a prop for the betterment of their social stature and pocketbook (just like everything else).

CSS85 made good points. Everyone in good faith should treat the environment with respect, global warming is just another Democratic initiative so they can control and receive kickbacks on another industry.

Well, that certainly explains all the credits to the oil/gas industries over the years that Dems have tried to stop.

[X-band '01]

Just remember that the entire planet was going to explode over Y2K also- as per the alarmists.

How about instead of worrying about the false temperature models, we worry about the spew of raw sewage into our lakes and rivers?

You haven't seen Asian Carp start to peer into your neck of Lake Erie, have you?

[Emp]

When that heat and phosphorus-driven bloom in Lake Erie reaches MOR's driveway, it will be the socialists fault.

[spazzrico]

Global Warming for the Dems is used as a prop for the betterment of their social stature and pocketbook (just like everything else).

CSS85 made good points. Everyone in good faith should treat the environment with respect, global warming is just another Democratic initiative so they can control and receive kickbacks on another industry.

Yeah, it's just a made up thing for the Democrats to get theirs........and of course every National Academy of Science from Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, and the good ol' USA. Oh and something like 18 other National Science organizations. Oh and 97% of climate scientists..........But yeah, it's the Democrats.

I'm all about questioning, and that is what science is supposed to be about. But the difference between what actual real trained scientists are questioning these days and what Senator Imhofe is questioning these days is pretty much night and day. One is based in reality (climatologists) the other is fantasy (Imhofe et al).

[Strange Brew]

Yeah, it's just a made up thing for the Democrats to get theirs........and of course every National Academy of Science from Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK, and the good ol' USA. Oh and something like 18 other National Science organizations. Oh and 97% of climate scientists..........But yeah, it's the Democrats.

I'm all about questioning, and that is what science is supposed to be about. But the difference between what actual real trained scientists are questioning these days and what Senator Imhofe is questioning these days is pretty much night and day. One is based in reality (climatologists) the other is fantasy (Imhofe et al).

your own data shows no warming since the late 90's (further only one of statements by "scientists" on the page was made within the last three years) but the models proposed (hypothesis) by climate "scientists" predicted a great amount of warming over the past 15 years with the amount of CO2 released over the same time frame. Thus, anyone who has a basic understanding of the scientific method would conclude that the hypothesis is incorrect and the warming of the 80s/90s may have been a result of something other than carbon. It's time for the "scientists" to adjust their theories and prove them correct using measurable data rather than shouting down "deniers" who can easily see that the models from the early/mid 2,000's are wrong.

[muskienick]

Your tagline, Strange Brew, tells the whole tale: ""In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat." - Leon Trotsky (1937)"

You simply refuse to grasp the science of climate and global warming. Instead, you seem to prefer the rantings of Rush and Glenn Beck. As stated earlier, mankind is almost certainly not the sole cause of any global warming indicated by the 30-year trend in the local climates of areas across the globe. But to completely downplay the harmful effects of over 7 billion energy-craving people on earth these days is like saying a person died of heart failure after being hit by a freight train.

[Masterofreality]

When that heat and phosphorus-driven bloom in Lake Erie reaches MOR's driveway, it will be the socialists fault.

No, it will be from garbage being dumped in the Great Lakes from the decrepit sewers from bankrupt Detroit.

Edit, so maybe you're right, Emp....since Detroit has basically been governed by socialists for quite a while.

"Power to the correct People!"

"
The story within the story is the serious infrastructure deficiencies afflicting Detroit's sewer system, a decrepit network of subterranean lines buried beneath the city in the early 1800s, some of the lines made of wood, brick and stone.

The city intentionally dumps sewage into the Detroit and Rouge Rivers.

The federal government is well aware of it, permits some of it and generates revenue via fines paid by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department whenever discharges exceed the permitted allotment, a common occurrence."

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in..._river_default

YEAHHHH. Rather than "HockeyTown" Detroit should call itself "HAAAAAAAACkeyTown" for all the gagging smells that emit from it.