ADVERTISEMENT

”Victims of Hurricane Michael Voted For Climate Deniers. Elections Have Consequences...”

ComradeRedBoilermaker

Sophomore
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2016
1,843
3,006
113


On the one hand, I agree that climate change deniers have to face the consequences of their 40 years of inaction. And those consequences are unfortunately going to be severe.

I just wish they weren’t dragging everyone else down with them. The selfishness of a few unfortunately harms us all.
 
Last edited:
Oh FFS, really?
These people laughed when Reagan tore the solar panels off the White House. These people called Al Gore an alarmist and a huckster for suggesting something be done about climate change. These people accused Barrack Obama of trying to back door communism into the United States for suggesting a carbon emissions tax.

Is it really so wrong to suggest that they might be partially responsible for the storm that laid waste to their communities? A storm, I might add, that was only possible at this time of year because the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is so unseasonably hot?

Aren’t conservatives the ones always taking about how actions have consequences?
 


On the one hand, I agree that climate change deniers have to face the consequences of their 40 years of inaction. And those consequences are unfortunately going to be severe.

I just wish they weren’t dragging everyone else down with them. The selfishness of a few unfortunately harms us all.

Completely juvenile, counterproductive, and lacking of compassion. You don't stand over the bed of a cancer patient and lecture them about the consequences of smoking.

You simply continue to teach the realities of climate change, the dangers of continuing to burn fossil fuels, and the magnitude of the problem if it isn't addressed. You don't spike the football after a catastrophe.
 
Completely juvenile, counterproductive, and lacking of compassion. You don't stand over the bed of a cancer patient and lecture them about the consequences of smoking.

You simply continue to teach the realities of climate change, the dangers of continuing to burn fossil fuels, and the magnitude of the problem if it isn't addressed. You don't spike the football after a catastrophe.
This isn’t about taking a victory lap. What’s happening is horrifying. This is about trying to get these people to finally snap out of it. The “owning the libs” schtick was never cute, and now people’s loves are being ruined.
 
These people laughed when Reagan tore the solar panels off the White House. These people called Al Gore an alarmist and a huckster for suggesting something be done about climate change. These people accused Barrack Obama of trying to back door communism into the United States for suggesting a carbon emissions tax.

Is it really so wrong to suggest that they might be partially responsible for the storm that laid waste to their communities? A storm, I might add, that was only possible at this time of year because the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is so unseasonably hot?

Aren’t conservatives the ones always taking about how actions have consequences?
If warm waters were the only factor in getting a strong a hurricane then the gulf would pump out CAT5s every month. You don't know the first thing about hurricanes or "climate change".
 
If warm waters were the only factor in getting a strong a hurricane then the gulf would pump out CAT5s every month. You don't know the first thing about hurricanes or "climate change".
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/P...ne-Michael-Nearing-Landfall-Florida-Panhandle


“Michael made landfall more than a month later than all of the historic storms that were stronger, and is the strongest landfalling U.S. hurricane so late in the year. One good reason for this is the exceptionally warm ocean waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico which powered Michael; Florida had its warmest September on record last month, and this helped heat up the waters of the eastern Gulf to 2 – 4°F (1 – 2°C) above average. Global warming makes record-warm Septembers like Florida experienced more likely to occur, and thus made a record-strong late-season hurricane like Michael more likely to occur.”

Try again
 
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/P...ne-Michael-Nearing-Landfall-Florida-Panhandle


“Michael made landfall more than a month later than all of the historic storms that were stronger, and is the strongest landfalling U.S. hurricane so late in the year. One good reason for this is the exceptionally warm ocean waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico which powered Michael; Florida had its warmest September on record last month, and this helped heat up the waters of the eastern Gulf to 2 – 4°F (1 – 2°C) above average. Global warming makes record-warm Septembers like Florida experienced more likely to occur, and thus made a record-strong late-season hurricane like Michael more likely to occur.”

Try again
LOL so what!? Do you have any inkling of how many conditions have to be present to get a hurricane of this magnitude? Shear and outflow conditions have way more to do with it than a couple degree change in water temp. Go read some nhc reports at a minimum.
 
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/P...ne-Michael-Nearing-Landfall-Florida-Panhandle


“Michael made landfall more than a month later than all of the historic storms that were stronger, and is the strongest landfalling U.S. hurricane so late in the year. One good reason for this is the exceptionally warm ocean waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico which powered Michael; Florida had its warmest September on record last month, and this helped heat up the waters of the eastern Gulf to 2 – 4°F (1 – 2°C) above average. Global warming makes record-warm Septembers like Florida experienced more likely to occur, and thus made a record-strong late-season hurricane like Michael more likely to occur.”

Try again

That paragraph is how responsible journalists should write, not by rubbing a catastrophe into the face of people who may or may not understand the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
LOL so what!? Do you have any inkling of how many conditions have to be present to get a hurricane of this magnitude? Shear and outflow conditions have way more to do with it than a couple degree change in water temp. Go read some nhc reports at a minimum.

Warmer water makes the type of strengthening this storm exhibited (46mb drop over the course the 24 hours up to landfall) more likely to occur. The folks at the NHC understand this. It's an issue that requires nuance and professionalism, which is why no scientist claims causation from a warmer world in a case like Michael, but they do claim that a warmer world contributes to the rapid way in which this storm strengthened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
Warmer water makes the type of strengthening this storm exhibited (46mb drop over the course the 24 hours up to landfall) more likely to occur. The folks at the NHC understand this. It's an issue that requires nuance and professionalism, which is why no scientist claims causation from a warmer world in a case like Michael, but they do claim that a warmer world contributes to the rapid way in which this storm strengthened.
"A storm, I might add, that was only possible at this time of year because the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is so unseasonably hot?"

The guy is a nitwit. Defend him if you want.
 
"A storm, I might add, that was only possible at this time of year because the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is so unseasonably hot?"

The guy is a nitwit. Defend him if you want.
The fact that you immediately resort to tedious nitpicking and pedantry is why I argue articles like the first one I posted even need to be written. I was clearly talking about a storm of this magnitude this late in the season, not any storm happening at all, and someone that was actually interested in a good faith argument would have inferred this.
 
Warmer water makes the type of strengthening this storm exhibited (46mb drop over the course the 24 hours up to landfall) more likely to occur. The folks at the NHC understand this. It's an issue that requires nuance and professionalism, which is why no scientist claims causation from a warmer world in a case like Michael, but they do claim that a warmer world contributes to the rapid way in which this storm strengthened.
They immediately go to deflection, distraction, arguing technicalities, and misdirection, and that should tell you this line of argumentation inadequate
 
I go canoeing on the Peace River in Arcadia, Fl - this is approximately 1 hour East of Sarasota (in the middle of the state). It is literally littered with sharks teeth (we’ll find 50 on a trip). When Florida was underwater, was it warmer or colder then? I think that it definitely had less temperature swings at that time since it was moderated by the Gulf/Atlantic Ocean flowing above it.
 
These people laughed when Reagan tore the solar panels off the White House. These people called Al Gore an alarmist and a huckster for suggesting something be done about climate change. These people accused Barrack Obama of trying to back door communism into the United States for suggesting a carbon emissions tax.

Is it really so wrong to suggest that they might be partially responsible for the storm that laid waste to their communities? A storm, I might add, that was only possible at this time of year because the surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is so unseasonably hot?

Aren’t conservatives the ones always taking about how actions have consequences?
What about all those storms which were worse...you know, those way back in the early years? Al Gore is a dollar whore....and his perception of global warming is just another way for him to get rich and never have a real job.
 
They immediately go to deflection, distraction, arguing technicalities, and misdirection, and that should tell you this line of argumentation inadequate

No line of argumentation will convince the "experts" on this board, but that doesn't mean you spike the football on people who have just gone through a catastrophe. The high road is still an option.
 


On the one hand, I agree that climate change deniers have to face the consequences of their 40 years of inaction. And those consequences are unfortunately going to be severe.

I just wish they weren’t dragging everyone else down with them. The selfishness of a few unfortunately harms us all.
So this hurricane wouldn't have occurred if Hillary were President?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinDegrees2
The fact that you immediately resort to tedious nitpicking and pedantry is why I argue articles like the first one I posted even need to be written. I was clearly talking about a storm of this magnitude this late in the season, not any storm happening at all, and someone that was actually interested in a good faith argument would have inferred this.
Lets be clear. I'm not interested in arguing with you about anything. Only pointing out your absurdity lest anyone come across here and try to take you even remotely seriously.
 
They immediately go to deflection, distraction, arguing technicalities, and misdirection, and that should tell you this line of argumentation inadequate
Do you even recognize that tens of thousands of the people affected by Michael are Democrats? Either way, it shouldn’t ****ing matter. JFC man, show some damn compassion.
 
Do you even recognize that tens of thousands of the people affected by Michael are Democrats? Either way, it shouldn’t ****ing matter. JFC man, show some damn compassion.
The videos, pics, and stories coming out of the Panama City area are heart-wrenching. They interviewed a guy from the Panama City area who was also in New Orleans when Katrina hit. In Michael, he and his family of 8 literally lost everything including clothes, shoes, medications. They barely escaped the house alive as the hurricane tore the roof off. They were smacked by debris. I can’t imagine the personal hell on earth this man and his family have faced. People are mobilizing to get aid down there to them. All grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, WalMarts are destroyed anywhere near to them. They have to go to Dothan, AL just to get anything. These people lost their car in the storm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
That is actually a very fascinating read. I spent about twenty minutes going through some of it (gotta stop now, technically I should be working....) and there is some really interesting data in there. It would take a full day to digest all the information in there though.

I had been wondering if precipitation had ben increasing lately as it seems that the area I live in has seen an increase in rain / snow over the past 5 to 6 years. Even though this study appears to have been done in 2012-ish, it still has a section that describes how precipitation has been increasing over the last 50 years.
 
That is actually a very fascinating read. I spent about twenty minutes going through some of it (gotta stop now, technically I should be working....) and there is some really interesting data in there. It would take a full day to digest all the information in there though.

I had been wondering if precipitation had ben increasing lately as it seems that the area I live in has seen an increase in rain / snow over the past 5 to 6 years. Even though this study appears to have been done in 2012-ish, it still has a section that describes how precipitation has been increasing over the last 50 years.
From the report:
"Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities."

Also

"No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin."
 
Is that directed at me? Because I am not arguing on the side of the "global warming is causing more / stronger hurricanes" front. This is a very good example of scientific research refuting a mainstream liberal talking point.

I was commenting on their data about overall rainfall increases, not specific to tropical storms. There is a ton of information in there about the data trends over the last 150 years, From my brief perusal of the info, they don't get into any causality of those trends, they are just stating the recorded findings and the trends of that data over various time periods. It's good info.
 
Is that directed at me? Because I am not arguing on the side of the "global warming is causing more / stronger hurricanes" front. This is a very good example of scientific research refuting a mainstream liberal talking point.

I was commenting on their data about overall rainfall increases, not specific to tropical storms. There is a ton of information in there about the data trends over the last 150 years, From my brief perusal of the info, they don't get into any causality of those trends, they are just stating the recorded findings and the trends of that data over various time periods. It's good info.
I replied to you but it wasn't necessarily directed at you. I was just agreeing with you that there is some good information in this report. Information that completely contradicts the notion of the OP that we're seeing more and/or stronger hurricanes.
 


On the one hand, I agree that climate change deniers have to face the consequences of their 40 years of inaction. And those consequences are unfortunately going to be severe.

I just wish they weren’t dragging everyone else down with them. The selfishness of a few unfortunately harms us all.

Yep, spending trillions more on windmills would definitely stop a storm.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT