Pretty obvious to see a trend there but I am not sure what you are questioning about what I have stated. As usual, you are just making up attacks using strawman arguments.
Average Names storms (Last 100): 10.475 Average Hurricanes (Last 100): 5.73 Average Major Hurricane (Last 100): 2.43 Accumulated Cyclone Energy: (Last 100): 95.87 Average Names storms (Last 20): 14.61 Average Hurricanes (Last 20): 7.42 Average Major Hurricane (Last 20): 3.38 Accumulated Cyclone Energy: (Last 20): 127.66 Average Names storms (Last 10): 14.00 Average Hurricanes (Last 10): 6.3 Average Major Hurricane (Last 10): 2.6 Accumulated Cyclone Energy: (Last 10): 93.8 Average Names storms (Last 5): 14.2 Average Hurricanes (Last 5): 5.8 Average Major Hurricane (Last 5): 2 Accumulated Cyclone Energy: (Last 5): 84.2 Last 20 vs Last 100: -Amount of named storms up almost 50% (irrelevant stat based on 100 year considering what storms didt named over time). Hurricanes are up in the last 20 years by appx 22% Major hurricanes are up in the last 20 year by appx 28% ACE is up by appx 25% in the last 20 years Last 20 vs Last 5: -Named storms are on par -Hurricanes are down about 25% -Major hurricanes are down about 69% -Ace is down by about 51% You're pulling **** out of your ass. The data does not suggest fewer but more intense storms. What the data does state is when there is more activity in storm patterns, more hurricanes lead to more major hurricanes which are on par with the last 100 years. The last 10 years are pretty close to what we have seen over the last 100 years.
The prediction is IN FUTURE there will be fewer storms but more intense. But you look at the PAST There's your problem right there. Maybe you should start to pay me to explain this stuff to you
Now you're just crawfishing with a 'gotcha'. Of course I looked in the past. Do you have a way I can look into the future? According to these amateurs, global warming has been happening since the 50's. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ How many more years do we need to collect to once again prove you wrong? I suspect the formula will be something like ... date.sweet.lou.going.senile - todays.date = sufficent.historal.data
everything proves global warming. more storms, less storms, it doesn't matter space ghost. Its all proof.
You got it, the folks with PhDs are all full of Crap. Some random people on a bball message board are supposed to know more than them though. It just makes so much sense doesn't it? For some reason those people are almost always conservatives. Which is one of the absolute weirdest dichotomies I can think of. It's almost like you people think you are posting scientific publications and refuting all of these idiot Doctors point by point. Between this bizzaro stance against science. Along with things like not wanting gay people to get married. Is why it's extremely difficult for me to vote Republican. People like Palin and Trump don't help either.
Do I need to show you those with PhDs who disagree? What would it prove one way or the other? Either way rly bad comment. But by all means , turn off your brain because someone told you there is a consensus. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle
"lol". I just proved Sweet Lou wrong on some very basic data. I didnt need a PHD to do it. Every since Katrina, liberals have been screaming that it is proof of climate change. I have shown historical data does not agree and now liberals are saying its not enough data. I agree. There will never be enough data until ones point is finally proven. We may need to go through a couple ice ages before then, but one day it will be right. Both liberals and conservative like to make everything black and white. However on this issue, I lean more conservative. I dont hear many conservatives denying the possibility of global warming. The very first thing liberals wanted to do was tax anything and everything. Carbon tax this. Carbon tax that. Grants and tax breaks for expensive, corrupt and failed solar companies, ect ... I hear more conservatives questioning how much man has contributed to global warming, what it will take to truly make a difference, and if anything can be done. Now quite frankly, I dont need an excuse to find reasons to go green and cut down on carbon emissions. Irregardless of climate change, we need to cut pollution across the board. We shouldn't rely on scare tactics to get popular support to start punishing those big evil corporations making billions of dollars. (who in turns offsets those losses on the poor and middle class)
That would be helpful to see the consensus on man not having an effect on climate. Which major scientific organizations (heck any scientific organization) does not believe man is having an impact on climate?
Frankly, we can't afford to be 100% certain. Even more frankly, combating air, water, and ground pollution helps with climate change. Denying the possibility... Interesting choice of words. We are giving tax breaks to failing coal companies (clean coal anyone?). What's wrong with a carbon tax? It puts a price on pollution as opposed to a more heavy handed approach.
Kinda makes the opposition to man's role in climate change look silly. I can find some phDs to agree with almost any topic so let's go with scientific consensus here. K thanks.
It's not a bad comment. It just shows you and your ilk are ridiculous. Of course I'm not saying to blindly follow anyone and everyone. There is no need to convince me though. Just keep patting yourself on the back. One last thing though. I'm curious what would happen to you and Mr. Rojo if you both dropped everything and went to school for the next 10 years for environmental science. How long would it take you to change your tune. Because my mind keeps going back to my professors at ACC and UT here in Austin laughing at the notion that humans don't have a vast impact on this planet.
I like how you conveniently left out the rest of the quote. Liberals think you can just reach into the corporations and the rich's pocket and take it out through 'taxes'. They dont get rich and successful by letting everyone that passes by them pick pocket them at every chance. In other words, these 'taxes' get passed on to the consumer. The poor and middle class are once again burdening these costs. Please, open your utility bill. Looks at the long list of 'taxes, fees and surcharges' that EVERY customer is paying. Utilities do not even bother to try to hide it. Expect a 'carbon emissions fee' to be added on the bill if this should ever happen.
Nothing convenient about it, I am completely aware of what taxes do. Doesn't the lower and middle by sheer numbers use the most energy on the residential side? That is electricity and gas. Pollution isn't free and putting a price on it gives consumers an opportunity to mitigate those costs. I think putting a price on pollution works better than a bunch of legislation trying limit and cap emissions.
Finally a liberal who admits it. They truly do not give a **** about the poor and middle class. Liberals: Hey corporations, we really do not care how much you pollute as long was we can get some revenue from someone. dmoney, would you be ok with me paying you a $100.00 if you allowed to to drop a deuce in your hot water tank? What a way to solve pollution and global warming.
Lol you are confused. I am pragmatic. If people are more efficient, then there will be less emissions. Not really sure what corporations have to do oth any of this. Why shouldn't those using the energy pay? How does that signify how much of a crap I give? I guess when you have a poor argument, like you do, you have to resort to putting words in my mouth and crap (pun intended) analogies. What's your idea for limiting emissions? Either way consumers, who are overwhelmingly middle and lower class, will pay so spare me your crocadile tears.
that mankind has some kind of affect on the temperature of the earth? good for you. Not sure you understand the global warming debate at all.
Has Ted Cruz, the chairman of the space and science committee, stopped denying man's role in climate change? Do you understand the political opposition to merely admitting man's role?
