I seem to recall reading a thread and a picture of a graph someone posted on here about hurricans and climate change blah, blah blah.... I'm not going to spend time searching for it (if someone else wants to, be my guest, my money's on the mental giant TT as being the one why posted it)  but since Irma was a bust from the point of view this was going to be the Mother of all storms, I say we rename this hurricane Hilary since it was never as strong as thought. Also. now that its done, I've been reading all the reasons why it wasn't  so strong. You see, climate change MUST be upheld in the sense the myth of Hilary's greatness must be upheld, regardless of the facts.

Well now I had to look it up and surprise, surprise.... it was our friend TT. Shocking....   Rush is a Moron is the title of the thread. Funny however, Rush turned out to be completely correct. I believe the crux of his statement was the trajectory of the storm could change dramatically. To which the big brain on TT replied "It's not ideology, it's a frikken category 5 hurricane!" Actually it wasn't a Cat 5 and it didn't hit Miami and the damage was dramatically less. No one disputes the need for preparation, but only an idiot would ignore the reality that the media over hypes weather events.

Leftist and TT in particular, have this idea that history is only as long as their feeble little minds perceive their reality.

There have been 300+ hurricanes since 1850 but these last two are caused by climate change....

In 1933, two major hurricanes hit the coast 23 hours apart. Was that caused by climate change?    There was a hurricane that hit the east coast in 1893 that killed 2000 back then in limited population density. It was estimated to be a Cat 4. Today, that could have killed 10x that many. In fact, I just read the 1893, there were 4 active hurricanes on the same day which only happened one other time in RECORDED history, in 1998.

Even in your stupidity, you've once again proven my point by pointing out in 1932, there was a hurricane as a Cat 5 as long as this one. Lot of SUV's idling back in 1932 I guess......

The fact the predictions were off as far as they were once again brings up the question; is the sheer number of variables involved with making a climate prediction too large to overcome?. This storm moved west further because of something called the Bermuda high, whatever that is. It was apparently at just the right pressure to deflect the eye further west. My guess is, there wasn't enough time for the climate scientist to get the data and make a new prediction perhaps because the pressure changed too quickly, but that's a guess. it's also just as likely even if they had that data, it wouldn't have been enough to change the computer projections. maybe in a 100 years if we store all that data and analyze it correctly, we'll be able to predict paths as accurately as we predict an eclipse.
But, each year, the IPCC's temp predictions have proven to be wrong, always overstated by the way. Doesn't this raise the question that perhaps preconceived bias is influencing their science?

Is the media and popular culture's preconceived bias that climate change is the most dangerous issue facing mankind today, making them look past logic and over-predict disaster? Seems like it.

WebsterMark wrote on 09/12/17 at 08:45:29:


You go ahead and bury your head a little deeper... see how that works for ya.

Hope you don't plan on buying any property in the Keys or South Florida - unless you want it underwater.

Nah... I'm sure it's all just fine.  DRILL BABY DRILL!!!

Guess what?  It ain't gonna get better.

There was this guy who ran for president and lost who has been preaching for years, "it ain't gonna get better...." yet for the past 12 years it was in fact, better.

Which is the point. You can't sit there and cry wolf over and over and when one finally shows up, you say see, I told you so. And now you're trying to tell me "yea, well, I might have been wrong those past 12 years, but trust me, it's coming....."

I've asked before with no answers; show me one climate change related example out of your own personal life that's different than what it was 40 years ago. The average temp of the planet is a miniscule percentage. Oh, and that miniscule % of increase took place the first half of that 40 years.

Climate change is one of the more minor issues facing the globe today. If we worked on industrializing some of the 3rd world $hitholes that dot our planet, we'd do more to stabilize green house gases than forcing the nation to go back to stone knives and bear skins.

WebsterMark wrote on 09/12/17 at 12:15:22:


BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

WebsterMark wrote on 09/12/17 at 12:05:31:


Colossal ignorance.  Well done webby.

WebsterMark wrote on 09/12/17 at 13:33:43:


RATE.  OF.  CHANGE.  These are NOT predictions - THEY ARE MEASUREMENTS.

How can anyone be that dumb????

(Well, of course, this is the same person who doesn't take into account communication on a global scale that helps save millions of people from natural disasters....something they didn't have in the 1800's....)

Like teaching calculus to a chair....

I beat your
Rate of change thing once.
You tucked tail and shut up about it.
Now you trot that crap out again.
You don't care to change the crap you say after it's been demonstrated wrong?

Who can blame a guy for believing the hurricane was the meanest one ever, when
The Nashunull Hurrahcane Center says it?
Well, unless you understand that the push to sell the hysteria about GW is a government goal, then you go hunting.

So, people can parrot the Bullshit,
Or
Learn calculus, instead of being a chair.