[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Steve

For those blaming "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" for the severity of Hurricane Ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense Florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including Ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'Climate Change" or "Global Warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most Intense Hurricanes In Florida’s History
(From worldatlas.com)
Rank System Season Estimated Casualties
1 "Labor Day" 1935 400
2 Michael 2018 74
3 Andrew 1992 65
4 "Florida Keys" 1919 600-900
5 "Okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "Great Miami" 1926 372–539
7 Donna 1960 438
8 Irma 2017 134
9 "Florida" 1948 13
10 Charley 2004 35

The warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "Ice Age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

Science is NOT dogma. Religion is. Good science is nothing more than a theory that may change as new or more data becomes available.

[EastCoastDawg]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

No, because we listened to the vast majority of scientists who believed in the seriousness of it and the World got together and severely limited the use of chlorofluorocarbons which were causing the hole so, since then, the hole has significantly reduced in size.

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer to take my climate advice from the 80+% of scientists who now believe that climate change is a result of mankind's actions than from some rabid TV news program. Act now and we can reverse it. Keep kicking the can down the road and your grandchildren will look back in 20 years and think what selfish idiots we were when all of the evidence was telling us exactly what we needed to do to start cleaning up our mess but we opted to ignore it just so we could continue to live our wasteful lifestyles.

Yes, it is sad that the internet is littered with posts from oldies bemoaning the fact that kids of today can't find Kamchatka on a map, yet when our generation is asked to face up to an existential threat those self-same people are falling over themselves to deny the facts and belittle those who are taking it seriously just so that they don't have to change their lifestyles.

[Davonu]

Climate has always changed and will always change. How much man contributes to that change is the real point of contention. And there is science to support “very little “ and “quite a bit”….which means that area of science has a long way go before either position is truly proven.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself.

Our climate IS changing, it has done so many, many times. For example, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, it was about 10-12 degrees warmer world wide. Twenty thousand years ago, half the northern hemisphere was covered in 2 miles of ice and it was 7-8 degrees colder on average. This is just fact, it would be illogical to deny it.

However, NONE of that has anything to do with humans burning fossil fuels. I again challenge those who believe that is the cause to tell me what model of SUV Fred Flintstone drove. To date, none of the "humans caused climate change believers" have even attempted to answer that question.

The last 4 million years have seen a cycle of repeated periods of glaciation and interglacial thaws that last not decades, not centuries, but 80-100,000 years. For anyone to make any assumptions based on the last 50 years is a joke. After all, Uncle Al said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2010, instead they are actually growing slowly. In the 1970's, the great fear was another ice age was imminent.

Unless we nuke ourselves into oblivion or the big asteroid comes to get us, we will be just fine in 2122---because "the rate at which we are changing the planet" is just about nil in comparison to the forces that drive climate change (the sun, variations in Earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis)

well said

[BlueStarAirlines]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

What bothers me is the logic of climate change deniers.

I don't think there are very many climate chain deniers. What most note is that most climate chain proponents deny normal climate cycles. If one ignores the normal heating and cooling of the earth and focuses on a narrow amount of time instead of the whole the only conclusion is man is creating/influencing the change.

As with everything in this world, one needs to follow the money. People are becoming very rich peddling climate change....look at who the leaders of the movement are and where their investments are. Very illuminating.....

[MartinSE]

Didn't we just go around this tree a few days ago and the tread got locked.

I don't see anything new to discuss. The deniers continue to deny - base3d on their logic, and the beleivers continue to believe based on scientists that actually committed their lives to researching it.

And the wheels go round and round.

If the deniers are right and we clean up our kids will have a cleaner healthier world, if the climate change believers are right and we don't clean up, out kids may not have a livable world. Hmm. Let's go with the 80 year old experts with no degrees and no expereicen in the field. After what's the worst that can happen.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Didn't we just go around this tree a few days ago and the tread got locked.

I don't see anything new to discuss. The deniers continue to deny - base3d on their logic, and the beleivers continue to believe based on scientists that actually committed their lives to researching it.

And the wheels go round and round.

If the deniers are right and we clean up our kids will have a cleaner healthier world, if the climate change believers are right and we don't clean up, out kids may not have a livable world. Hmm. Let's go with the 80 year old experts with no degrees and no expereicen in the field. After what's the worst that can happen.

The worst thing is we spend tons of money we do not have and everyones standard of living goes down, govt goes into bankruptcy and it is determined that global warming is just another cycle our planet goes thru and we have little way to influence the changes and the money spent is up in smoke.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

The worst thing is we spend tons of money we do not have and everyones standard of living goes down, govt goes into bankruptcy and it is determined that global warming is just another cycle our planet goes thru and we have little way to influence the changes and the money spent is up in smoke.

Exactly. But some people get rich and a political agenda is fulfilled

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by BlueStarAirlines

I don't think there are very many climate chain deniers. What most note is that most climate chain proponents deny normal climate cycles. If one ignores the normal heating and cooling of the earth and focuses on a narrow amount of time instead of the whole the only conclusion is man is creating/influencing the change.

As with everything in this world, one needs to follow the money. People are becoming very rich peddling climate change....look at who the leaders of the movement are and where their investments are. Very illuminating.....

Please show me ANY climate change believers that have said they do not think the climate historically changes. NONE that I know of and I know a lot.

It is not all or nothing. Yes, the climate varies over time. What climate theory says it is going to be MUCH worse this time BECAUSE of human activity.

Climate deniers DENY that humans can cause any significant change.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Exactly. But some people get rich and a political agenda is fulfilled

Can you provide a list of 1 or 2 people GETTING RICH?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by BlueStarAirlines

I don't think there are very many climate chain deniers. What most note is that most climate chain proponents deny normal climate cycles. If one ignores the normal heating and cooling of the earth and focuses on a narrow amount of time instead of the whole the only conclusion is man is creating/influencing the change.

As with everything in this world, one needs to follow the money. People are becoming very rich peddling climate change....look at who the leaders of the movement are and where their investments are. Very illuminating.....

Please provide me with a list of people getting VERY RICH promoting the climate change. Because I know several personally that are working several jobs ignorer to support their families while doing their research.

Of the 14,000 scientists that have signed a letter stating that we have an emergency how man y can you show are getting rich?

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Please provide me with a list of people getting VERY RICH promoting the climate change. Because I know several personally that are working several jobs ignorer to support their families while doing their research.

Of the 14,000 scientists that have signed a letter stating that we have an emergency how man y can you show are getting rich?

Show me that list of "14,000 scientists" who state explicitly that we have an emergency, or even state explicitly that climate change is due to man's activity. Good Luck. And then among those scientists who actually state that nonsense, how many are funded by government grants? Those climatologists who are either independent or recently retired tell a whole different story.

And once again, I'll ask:

2 researchers apply for a government grant

The first proposes a study with the intention of proving that climate change has nothing to do with human activity and requests $250,000

The second proposes a study that will show the world is in imminent danger due to fossil fuels and requests 50 million

I think we all know who will get the grant and who will be sent packing

[Petersweeney]

Plastic waste in the ocean in landfills and in our bodies is more of a immediate concern…

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by steve

for those blaming "climate change" or "global warming" for the severity of hurricane ian here is a listing of the 10 most intense florida hurricanes since record keeping of that nature began (not including ian, of course).

Six were in the years1919-1960, long before 'climate change" or "global warming" were today's hot topic. They just happened because conditions were right.

The top three as far as loss of life is concerned were in 1919, 1926 and 1928.

Most intense hurricanes in florida’s history
(from worldatlas.com)
rank system season estimated casualties
1 "labor day" 1935 400
2 michael 2018 74
3 andrew 1992 65
4 "florida keys" 1919 600-900
5 "okeechobee" 1928 2,500
6 "great miami" 1926 372–539
7 donna 1960 438
8 irma 2017 134
9 "florida" 1948 13
10 charley 2004 35

the warming of the earth has happened at least once before that we know of. I think they called it the "ice age" where the earth cooled to the point it covered most of the planet with a sheet of ice killing off the dinosaurs, etc. But then it warmed up again and the glaciers that covered the earth receded...and it wasn't because of "greenhouse gases". We are still in that warming cycle and there's not an electric car in the world that can change that.

category 3 hurricane made landfall 37 miles as the crow flies from the villages

[djplong]

I may get banned for this but...

How ignorant can you be? Measuring hurricane severity by CASUALTIES? Are you NUTS?

You know why there aren't many casualties in hurricanes these days? SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY - METEOROLOGY - STORM TRACKING.

We know DAYS in advance when a storm is going to hit and get the warning out to people. We fly airplanes INTO these storms to get precise measurements. What airplane could do that in 1926? NONE - that's what!

Dear lord - the people here should be old enough to remember when we did NOT have these tools! They only started coming into play in the 1960s and 70s!

Yeah, the "top three" were in the early part of the 20th century - when the population was a LOT less, there was almost NO mass media (certainly not compared to today - only a couple of 'worst' storms would even have RADIO).

We're documenting the warning of the oceans. We're getting historical climate information from everything from tree rings to ice cores. We've documented the warming properties of carbon. The oil companies have been CAUGHT in misinformation campaigns to protect their profits.

Look, I don't blame some people for not knowing the difference between "weather" and "climate". It's hard, for example, to be up here in New England and hear about global warming during a blizzard. And that's why it's "climate change" now. As science learns more, the definitions get refined. Yes, "on average" the temperatures are going up - but in some places that means more severe WINTER storms. We know this because of observations and models.

I used to be a skeptic, like many here. We'd learned, back in grade school, that it was VOLCANOES that put the carbon in the atmosphere that changed the climate - over millenia. Now? Humans are putting OVER SIXTY TIMES the amount of carbon into the atmosphere that volcanoes do, year over year. Still think we can't affect the climate? When we're 60x worse than the worst "natural" cause - that's the number that made me change my mind.

And that's what science is. When you find data that doesn't match up with what you thought was the answer, you do more testing. And that's how we've refined the models over time.

Science wasn't wrong. Science was being science. It's like looking into the sky and seeing something and thinking it's a star. Then you get a telescope and you see it's not a star but something spiral shaped. You get better optics and you start seeing that 'thing' is made up of many points of light - like stars are here. And you realize there are things called "galaxies". The word didn't exist not too long ago. But it doesn't mean that Galileo was wrong. It means that we didn't have enough knowledge. Now, because of our technology, we're seeing more galaxies further out in the cosmos than we ever imagined - in numbers that we can't wrap our heads around. We pointed the Hubble at some "empty space" and found THOUSANDS of galaxies. That's how science evolves.

We knew about the properties of carbon in the 1800s:

Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote

It was even in a New Zealand newspaper in August of 1912:

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ne...9120814.2.56.5

The data is OVERWHELMING. Ask yourself who stands to profit from the denial. You think there's a "Big Science" out there making a profit off of the 'alarmism'? Who was the last billionaire scientists you met? Take a good look at the balance sheet of fossil fuel companies.