You rednecks don't want to hear this

[cwtcr hokie]

Man made hurricanes.
LMAO

Glad you think that is funny, but nobody says that this was a man made hurricane. This was made clear in the article. It would seem obvious, though, that warmer waters will make hurricanes worse. Obvious to all except this crowd apparently.

you do realize that the damage in this hurricane not all of it but a major portion of the dollar damage is going to be due to the flooding, the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water, it has to do with the unfortunate circumstance of having two high pressure systems parked on either side of TX at the exact same time as the hurricane came on shore. It if was not for that FACT the hurricane would have done the damage to the immediate area it came on shore at and then fallen apart as it moved north or NW or NE. There have been plenty of more powerful hurricanes before with less temperature in the waters of the gulf.... katrina ring a bell? or Hugo?, etc etc

That is simply incorrect, cwtcr. Warmer waters most definitely increase the water that is added to any hurricane.

wow, I am not sure how you missed the point so completely, let me capitalize for you IF THE TWO HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEMS HAD NOT BEEN PARKED WHERE THEY WERE AT THE EXACT TIME THE HURRICANE CAME ONSHORE THE STORM WOULD HAVE MOVED ON SATURDAY OUT OF THE AREA AND THE RAIN TOTALS WOULD BE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LESS.....GET IT?

The high pressure systems have zippo to do with global warming... get it????

You said " the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water." That is incorrect.

You are correct that the high pressure systems kept the storm in place. High water temperatures contributed to there being so much rain with the storm.

Incorrect, the rain in the hurricane was normal with any hurricane of that category, the duration it has sat on south TX is what caused all the rain in it and the damage. AGAIN, if the storm would have moved like a normal one then the rain would have been over by Sunday at the latest and it would be perfectly clear skies as hurricanes scrub out the skies as they pass by. It is the DURATION that caused the issues, which is very abnormal but was not caused by global warming

[ip_law-hokie]

Glad you think that is funny, but nobody says that this was a man made hurricane. This was made clear in the article. It would seem obvious, though, that warmer waters will make hurricanes worse. Obvious to all except this crowd apparently.

you do realize that the damage in this hurricane not all of it but a major portion of the dollar damage is going to be due to the flooding, the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water, it has to do with the unfortunate circumstance of having two high pressure systems parked on either side of TX at the exact same time as the hurricane came on shore. It if was not for that FACT the hurricane would have done the damage to the immediate area it came on shore at and then fallen apart as it moved north or NW or NE. There have been plenty of more powerful hurricanes before with less temperature in the waters of the gulf.... katrina ring a bell? or Hugo?, etc etc

That is simply incorrect, cwtcr. Warmer waters most definitely increase the water that is added to any hurricane.

wow, I am not sure how you missed the point so completely, let me capitalize for you IF THE TWO HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEMS HAD NOT BEEN PARKED WHERE THEY WERE AT THE EXACT TIME THE HURRICANE CAME ONSHORE THE STORM WOULD HAVE MOVED ON SATURDAY OUT OF THE AREA AND THE RAIN TOTALS WOULD BE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LESS.....GET IT?

The high pressure systems have zippo to do with global warming... get it????

You said " the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water." That is incorrect.

You are correct that the high pressure systems kept the storm in place. High water temperatures contributed to there being so much rain with the storm.

Incorrect, the rain in the hurricane was normal with any hurricane of that category, the duration it has sat on south TX is what caused all the rain in it and the damage. AGAIN, if the storm would have moved like a normal one then the rain would have been over by Sunday at the latest and it would be perfectly clear skies as hurricanes scrub out the skies as they pass by. It is the DURATION that caused the issues, which is very abnormal but was not caused by global warming

I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[awesome guy]

you do realize that the damage in this hurricane not all of it but a major portion of the dollar damage is going to be due to the flooding, the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water, it has to do with the unfortunate circumstance of having two high pressure systems parked on either side of TX at the exact same time as the hurricane came on shore. It if was not for that FACT the hurricane would have done the damage to the immediate area it came on shore at and then fallen apart as it moved north or NW or NE. There have been plenty of more powerful hurricanes before with less temperature in the waters of the gulf.... katrina ring a bell? or Hugo?, etc etc

That is simply incorrect, cwtcr. Warmer waters most definitely increase the water that is added to any hurricane.

wow, I am not sure how you missed the point so completely, let me capitalize for you IF THE TWO HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEMS HAD NOT BEEN PARKED WHERE THEY WERE AT THE EXACT TIME THE HURRICANE CAME ONSHORE THE STORM WOULD HAVE MOVED ON SATURDAY OUT OF THE AREA AND THE RAIN TOTALS WOULD BE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LESS.....GET IT?

The high pressure systems have zippo to do with global warming... get it????

You said " the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water." That is incorrect.

You are correct that the high pressure systems kept the storm in place. High water temperatures contributed to there being so much rain with the storm.

Incorrect, the rain in the hurricane was normal with any hurricane of that category, the duration it has sat on south TX is what caused all the rain in it and the damage. AGAIN, if the storm would have moved like a normal one then the rain would have been over by Sunday at the latest and it would be perfectly clear skies as hurricanes scrub out the skies as they pass by. It is the DURATION that caused the issues, which is very abnormal but was not caused by global warming

I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can disagree, that just shows your pathetic comprehension of the event.

[ip_law-hokie]

That is simply incorrect, cwtcr. Warmer waters most definitely increase the water that is added to any hurricane.

wow, I am not sure how you missed the point so completely, let me capitalize for you IF THE TWO HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEMS HAD NOT BEEN PARKED WHERE THEY WERE AT THE EXACT TIME THE HURRICANE CAME ONSHORE THE STORM WOULD HAVE MOVED ON SATURDAY OUT OF THE AREA AND THE RAIN TOTALS WOULD BE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LESS.....GET IT?

The high pressure systems have zippo to do with global warming... get it????

You said " the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water." That is incorrect.

You are correct that the high pressure systems kept the storm in place. High water temperatures contributed to there being so much rain with the storm.

Incorrect, the rain in the hurricane was normal with any hurricane of that category, the duration it has sat on south TX is what caused all the rain in it and the damage. AGAIN, if the storm would have moved like a normal one then the rain would have been over by Sunday at the latest and it would be perfectly clear skies as hurricanes scrub out the skies as they pass by. It is the DURATION that caused the issues, which is very abnormal but was not caused by global warming

I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can disagree, that just shows your pathetic comprehension of the event.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[awesome guy]

wow, I am not sure how you missed the point so completely, let me capitalize for you IF THE TWO HIGH PRESSURE SYSTEMS HAD NOT BEEN PARKED WHERE THEY WERE AT THE EXACT TIME THE HURRICANE CAME ONSHORE THE STORM WOULD HAVE MOVED ON SATURDAY OUT OF THE AREA AND THE RAIN TOTALS WOULD BE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH LESS.....GET IT?

The high pressure systems have zippo to do with global warming... get it????

You said " the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water." That is incorrect.

You are correct that the high pressure systems kept the storm in place. High water temperatures contributed to there being so much rain with the storm.

Incorrect, the rain in the hurricane was normal with any hurricane of that category, the duration it has sat on south TX is what caused all the rain in it and the damage. AGAIN, if the storm would have moved like a normal one then the rain would have been over by Sunday at the latest and it would be perfectly clear skies as hurricanes scrub out the skies as they pass by. It is the DURATION that caused the issues, which is very abnormal but was not caused by global warming

I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can disagree, that just shows your pathetic comprehension of the event.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really

[ip_law-hokie]

You said " the reason the flooding occurred has absolutely zero to do with global warming or warm water." That is incorrect.

You are correct that the high pressure systems kept the storm in place. High water temperatures contributed to there being so much rain with the storm.

Incorrect, the rain in the hurricane was normal with any hurricane of that category, the duration it has sat on south TX is what caused all the rain in it and the damage. AGAIN, if the storm would have moved like a normal one then the rain would have been over by Sunday at the latest and it would be perfectly clear skies as hurricanes scrub out the skies as they pass by. It is the DURATION that caused the issues, which is very abnormal but was not caused by global warming

I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can disagree, that just shows your pathetic comprehension of the event.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[awesome guy]

Incorrect, the rain in the hurricane was normal with any hurricane of that category, the duration it has sat on south TX is what caused all the rain in it and the damage. AGAIN, if the storm would have moved like a normal one then the rain would have been over by Sunday at the latest and it would be perfectly clear skies as hurricanes scrub out the skies as they pass by. It is the DURATION that caused the issues, which is very abnormal but was not caused by global warming

I disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can disagree, that just shows your pathetic comprehension of the event.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with science you inbred single toothed simpleton.

[RiverguyVT]

Man made hurricanes.
LMAO

Glad you think that is funny, but nobody says that this was a man made hurricane. This was made clear in the article. It would seem obvious, though, that warmer waters will make hurricanes worse. Obvious to all except this crowd apparently.

Oh? Maybe I misunderstood the title of the article, then. And the comparison to lung cancer & drunk driving.

It was a stupid article. I do not accept their underlying premise

[USN_Hokie]

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The entire proposition at that link is absurd. Were these scientists saying that global warming was a myth when we were on a multi-year tropical storm lull after 2005? No, of course not...because they're full of shirt.

You should read the black swan or study probability analysis.

[Major Kong]

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather

Two problems:
#1 the headline:

How Climate Change Likely Heightened Harvey’s Fury

And it could be said it Likely didn't. Likely is a weasel word meaning hey I don't have a clue but I'm going to run with it.

#2 relates directly to #1

And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, two centuries of human fossil-fuel burning has altered temperatures just enough to almost certainly make this particular storm worse.

So he starts off that scientist maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change he then gives his own journalistic opinion it almost certainly does.

So IP are you going with the scientist...And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change or the journalist almost certainly

[ip_law-hokie]

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather

Two problems:
#1 the headline:

How Climate Change Likely Heightened Harvey’s Fury

And it could be said it Likely didn't. Likely is a weasel word meaning hey I don't have a clue but I'm going to run with it.

#2 relates directly to #1

And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, two centuries of human fossil-fuel burning has altered temperatures just enough to almost certainly make this particular storm worse.

So he starts off that scientist maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change he then gives his own journalistic opinion it almost certainly does.

So IP are you going with the scientist...And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change or the journalist almost certainly

I don't find the two to be inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USN_Hokie]

IP is almost certainly full of crap.

[HokieHam]

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather

Two problems:
#1 the headline:

How Climate Change Likely Heightened Harvey’s Fury

And it could be said it Likely didn't. Likely is a weasel word meaning hey I don't have a clue but I'm going to run with it.

#2 relates directly to #1

And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, two centuries of human fossil-fuel burning has altered temperatures just enough to almost certainly make this particular storm worse.

So he starts off that scientist maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change he then gives his own journalistic opinion it almost certainly does.

So IP are you going with the scientist...And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change or the journalist almost certainly

I don't find the two to be inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How can we make a bet out of this?........

Let's see.......in 20 years, if Al Gores predictions come true I'll owe you $1million dollars.

[ip_law-hokie]

IP is almost certainly full of crap.

Are you a climate change denialist, or do you refute that climate change is occurring due to human activity.

It's fine to suggest I'm full of crap, but it seems only fair to elaborate on your position here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HokieJoe]

But it doesn't make it any less true.

Harvey, the Storm That Humans Helped Cause
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opin ... cause.html




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meh these environmeddling ecoloons were writing the same thing after Katrina...We haven't had an hyperactive ACE season in the Atlantic since 2010, there hasn't been an individual hurricane ACE over 70 since Ivan in 2004. Harvey so far has registered a 10.7.

To make matters more telling the loon author only focuses on the US in his diatribe but as in classic liberal racist nitwittery doesn't say a word about the global cyclone season. Noru so far is the leader at 34.57 worldwide...it affected Japan. He's a ½witted economics editorial writer he needs to stick to that genre.

Apparently, that wasn't paying the bills, so he's diversifying.

[Major Kong]

I don't find the two to be inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK

[HokieJoe]

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather

Two problems:
#1 the headline:

How Climate Change Likely Heightened Harvey’s Fury

And it could be said it Likely didn't. Likely is a weasel word meaning hey I don't have a clue but I'm going to run with it.

#2 relates directly to #1

And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change, two centuries of human fossil-fuel burning has altered temperatures just enough to almost certainly make this particular storm worse.

So he starts off that scientist maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change he then gives his own journalistic opinion it almost certainly does.

So IP are you going with the scientist...And while scientists maintain that no single weather event can be attributed to climate change or the journalist almost certainly

I don't find the two to be inconsistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Said with the understanding of a teenage boy who loves arguing with his Dad.

[USN_Hokie]

IP is almost certainly full of crap.

Are you a climate change denialist, or do you refute that climate change is occurring due to human activity.

It's fine to suggest I'm full of crap, but it seems only fair to elaborate on your position here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a great idea. Linking to disingenuous articles is not an argument, by the way.

I've been pretty consistent on this. The first step in an honest conversation on the topic is establishing the scope of the disagreement:

Q: Do humans influence climate? A: Sure.

Q: Is the earth warming? A: Sure.

Q: Are humans the primary drivers in the warming of the earth? A: I'm very skeptical.

Q: Does the risk that AGW is real outbalance the US and Western economies? IE - is the situation critical enough to warrant crippling our economy as these measures undoubtedly would by placing us at a disadvantage against economies like China? A: No.

Q: Does the threat that AGW is real outbalance the right of people in emerging countries to have access to things like electricity, heat, and clean running water? A: That's not my place.

Q: Do AGW researchers benefit from research which supports the theory of AGW? A: Absolutely. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or an idiot. There's big research $ in finding the the Loch Ness AGW monster.

Most importantly:

Q: Is global warming a political issue? Those on the left like to pretend it isn't - or shouldn't be, but it is. AGW couldn't have been better tailored to pursue central government control of economies, wealth transfer, etc. A: its absolutely a political issue. There's a funny nickname for AGW believers like ManBearPig/Uprising(RIP) : "Watermelons." Why? Because they're green on the outside, and red on the inside.

Famous quote in statistics: "All models are wrong, some are useful, some are deadly" (many derivatives / variations, but you get the point). Whenever someone tells you "the model says... ", run away.

[USN_Hokie]

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The entire proposition at that link is absurd. Were these scientists saying that global warming was a myth when we were on a multi-year tropical storm lull after 2005? No, of course not...because they're full of shirt.

You should read the black swan or study probability analysis.

Right on cue. I love this guy.

[cwtcr hokie]

IP is almost certainly full of crap.

Are you a climate change denialist, or do you refute that climate change is occurring due to human activity.

It's fine to suggest I'm full of crap, but it seems only fair to elaborate on your position here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everybody agrees the planet is changing, do you disagree that this was happening way before industrialization but even if humans are 100% to blame, in order to stop it don't you have to stop all emissions from every source? How do you get the planet to agree to that?

Yes the planet is changing and weather and natural events can be a terrible thing to deal with

[HokieFanDC]

IP is almost certainly full of crap.

Are you a climate change denialist, or do you refute that climate change is occurring due to human activity.

It's fine to suggest I'm full of crap, but it seems only fair to elaborate on your position here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everybody agrees the planet is changing, do you disagree that this was happening way before industrialization but even if humans are 100% to blame, in order to stop it don't you have to stop all emissions from every source? How do you get the planet to agree to that?

Yes the planet is changing and weather and natural events can be a terrible thing to deal with

It's true. Other than the ones in Ice Age, the dinosaurs had brains too small to do anything about it. You sound a little like a dinosaur.

[cwtcr hokie]

IP is almost certainly full of crap.

Are you a climate change denialist, or do you refute that climate change is occurring due to human activity.

It's fine to suggest I'm full of crap, but it seems only fair to elaborate on your position here.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everybody agrees the planet is changing, do you disagree that this was happening way before industrialization but even if humans are 100% to blame, in order to stop it don't you have to stop all emissions from every source? How do you get the planet to agree to that?

Yes the planet is changing and weather and natural events can be a terrible thing to deal with

It's true. Other than the ones in Ice Age, the dinosaurs had brains too small to do anything about it. You sound a little like a dinosaur.

thanks for being a douche, try answering the question before you throw out the criticism of me. But I know, you have no answers, just the douche factor.......got it

[RiverguyVT]

Man made hurricanes. LOL!

[USN_Hokie]

I'll go with scientists here. You can go with Cleetus.

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nation ... ng-weather



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The entire proposition at that link is absurd. Were these scientists saying that global warming was a myth when we were on a multi-year tropical storm lull after 2005? No, of course not...because they're full of shirt.

You should read the black swan or study probability analysis.

Right on cue. I love this guy.

[USN_Hokie]

But it doesn't make it any less true.

Harvey, the Storm That Humans Helped Cause
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opin ... cause.html

This is a great response to the hysteria.