Global warming :: is it just a 'chinese hoax' like trump told us or is it serious?

@UNIMAN

@thirdperson

Nevertheless, the frequency of North Atlantic hurricanes has been essentially unchanged since 1851, as seen in the following figure. The apparent heightened hurricane ac­tivity over the last 20 years, particularly in 2005 and 2020, simply reflects improvements in observational capabilities since 1970 and is unlikely to be a true climate trend, say a team of hurricane experts. As you can see, the incidence of major North Atlantic hurricanes in recent decades is no higher than that in the 1950s and 1960s. Ironically, the earth was actually cooling during that period, unlike today. 

Claims that hurricanes are becoming more frequent are similarly wrong. “After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era,” writes NOAA, “there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts. The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s.” What’s more, NOAA expects a 25% decline in hurricane frequency in the future.

What about intensity? Same story. Explains NOAA, “after adjusting for changes in observing capabilities (limited ship observations) in the pre-satellite era, there is no significant long-term trend (since the 1880s) in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes.“ Bottom line? “We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in:  frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major.”

@thirdperson

Yes, and evidence is mounting every week. 

THIS is the KEY thing with how these guys misinterpret and present this data:

Is it possible journalists are just ignorant of current climate science? Perhaps some are. But mainstream news media outlets have been covering climate change and hurricanes for the last 20 years. And the information on hurricane costs, frequency, or intensity is hardly hidden away. It’s been summarized in the IPCC reports, most recently in 2021. And NOAA even boldfaces its key conclusions.

Consider four of the main ways the media mislead the public about climate change and hurricanes. They:

1. Misrepresent data showing improved observations of hurricanes (thanks in large measure to satellites and other hurricane detection technologies) as evidence of more frequent hurricanes;
2. Misrepresent hypotheses (e.g., that some hurricanes may become more intense by 2100) as facts in the present without mentioning that median projections suggest a decrease in all categories of storms;
3. Cherry-pick data to present trends in a relatively recent period since the 1980s and ignore the fact that there is much longer-term data available;
4. Confuse increasing damage with increasing incidence or intensity, even as there is a strong understanding that what and where we build explains all escalating disaster damage.

Is it possible that the Financial Times reporter Aime Williams and her editors pulled the data from the NOAA website to make their graph, and mistakenly claimed that it shows more frequent hurricanes, but didn’t happen to read the website and its explicit warning that “After adjusting for a likely under-count of hurricanes in the pre-satellite era, there is essentially no long-term trend in hurricane counts”?

If that is indeed what occurred, then Williams and FT are guilty of journalistic malpractice of the highest order. But there is little reason to think that’s what happened. NOAA makes its warning relatively early on its web page and repeats it several times. And FT, like everyone else, has been covering this issue for decades not years.

I asked Williams in an email why she reported that hurricanes were increasing in frequency and intensity, against the best available science, and she did not respond. Whatever the case, FT should issue a retraction or a correction.

@thirdperson

Man made global warming making them even more dangerous.  

People aren’t going to acknowledge until they’re the ones actually suffering It’s one thing for a climate-change denier to read about deadly heat in Louisiana and Texas. It’s another thing for him to be a worker actually sweltering in that organ-wrecking heat themselves . Sadly, most climate-change deniers - just like deniers of other things - aren’t going to be in those shoes.

The real question is when MAGA and Ultra Rightists accept the climate changes, How will they blame Democrats!

Propaganda powers I’ve soured and now I’m lemon , squeezing into your eyes as your cries drown out your shouts and then sound eleven , on a scale of fucking ten , cuz everyone’s “ the best “ till the stress wrecks them at the breath , and crumbles their construction , and then that’s where I come in cuz I’m the number one with that function……

@Raiders22

 I respectfully have to disagree, You can find someone with degree or let’s say just Iin the field experience and misinterpret and then present this data to back a agenda! It happens a hundred times every day of the week in the House & Senate on both sides of the isles  ! There called lobbyists “ professional influencers with large checkbooks”

So because the deck is staked I don’t think there will ever actually be a point when anyone has to accept that climate change is real. People’s memories are so short and the actual process so slow that all we’ll ever see is a continual “It’s always been this way” mentality. We’re already seeing it when “100 year storms” happen every year or so and more and more coastal cities getting flooded out by hurricanes. There won’t ever be a singular event, just worsening conditions for most people over the next century, and deniers will drift from “It’s not happening” to “Whatever might be happening isn’t our fault” That’s always the out.

But let it be said you hear every step of the way from the vast part of the GOP flock with absolutely no experience in what they are clucking about is that… Forest fires are caused by too many trees - the Democrats have been preventing logging. Droughts are caused by lack of dams - the Democrats cancelled all new water storage projects - look at all the water getting wasted by flowing out to sea, just to save a bunch of fish! It’s always been this hot/cold/wet/dry - only the Democrat-controlled media is whipping up headlines about “climate change” while we all know it’s just “weather”. I don’t need some egghead in D.C. telling me what’s going on - look, it’s a beautiful day! - the Democrats are just trying to scare people into downgrading their lifestyle and destroy America with this climate change hoax!”……All the way to the bank

! I can’t believe Hunters laptop hasn’t caught some of the blame yet!

@joe pockets

 You are talking about a lot of things at once.  Some I agree with.  Absolutely you can have folks take the same data and come to different conclusions.

But you can go look at the charts and data for yourself.  The issue is how they extract and take a certain portion of it.  Like in this example, why go back to 1980 and not 1970, or 1990.

Like in the example I quoted the reporter will not even answer why they purposely did this.

I do not know any reasonable person or, for sure, scientist that deny climate change.

The 'hundred year' storms is another misused term.  You can look further into this if you like. 

Of course, more cities are flooded in storms and with more damage simply because more folks are building and living in flood-prone areas and storm-prone areas.

I would say if you are sincere and earnest and not just read the mainstream media, you can find out these things yourself about why some folks are saying they are hyperbolizing these things for their agenda.

It seems as if you are simply quoting the stuff you read or hear without research.  That is the very thing the guy was complaining about in the article.

In this reply to the post, I am mainly concerned about the misinformation he is posting about hurricanes.  If you want to address other aspects about the agenda, I am fine with that as well.  I can do that and have done it elsewhere.

But, as for the hurricanes go to the very same source that he is quoting and look at the charts and data for yourself.

@joe pockets

Unfortunately (and unjustly) in today's MAGA MADNESS *that* is precisely the bottom line agenda.

And it is clearly evident.

@Raiders22

Yes you are right there were multiple thoughts in my thread portion’s we’re to others feelings before your’s! I have hard time believing that as the planet warms many species of trees, plants, animals and insects will not move or adapt and will become rare or extinct and yet it’s a political football being punted and the punters will not have to pay for their paid for ignorance and the cost could be vastly more than a deficit they worry so much about! 
So keep in mind the Earth as it is now can barely support the number of people we have now. A warmer world couldn’t either, nor could a colder one. We are too many and living on borrowed resource's.

There has always been deadly heat in Louisiana and Texas.

@joe pockets

Even in this small paragraph there is still a lot.  Much of it is built on presuppositions. 

I have hard time believing that as the planet warms

There are several in this phrase.  You assume it is warming AND that it will continue unabated to warm further.  You imply that this warming is worse than other warmings.  Then you seem to want it to be inferred that man is causing it and, thus, could stop it.

I have to assume that you have done no independent research on your own.  I assume you are just going off of what you have heard and read in the news.

There have been many warm spells.  Have you researched any of those?  How long they lasted and what the affects were?  

many species of trees, plants, animals and insects will not move or adapt and will become rare or extinct

What do you base this on?  Have you studied animal and plant behaviors and adaptations due to shifting longterm weather patterns?  It does not seem so.

Why not read up on what some of the experts in these fields have written on this?  Do you realize how much better a lot of animals fare in warmer weather?  There is more area to spread out and reproduce.  There is more to eat because there is more area to grow things and longer growing seasons.

There are many, many evidences of the movement of animals and plants during shifts in weather patterns.  Even the scam crowd use this as part of their cause by saying animals are being forced out of their habitats and are being found in places they normally are not found.  Is this what happened in previous warming patterns?

What happens if the warming turns to cooling?  How does that affect the animals and plants?  Is it worse or better if there is a smaller area that is fertile and warm enough to live?

yet it’s a political football being punted and the punters will not have to pay for their paid for ignorance and the cost could be vastly more than a deficit they worry so much about! 

Is is NOT political if you look at it scientifically, it is just science.  But the Liberals are the ones that have turned it into a political issue and a huge money grab.  It is their overwhelming number one issue.  But it is not the everyday guy's main issue.  But they are trying to make it everyone's top cause.  

Have you researched how much good the money that is spent on 'preventing man-made global warming' could do in the world?  What if you take that money and start a vaccination program in Africa or schools or to teach them how to grow crops better, etc., etc.?

There is also no reason you cannot multi-task and work several issues at once.  It is not an either/or situation.  You can work on the deficit along with other issues.  One person's top cause does not mean it has to be everyone's top cause.

@joe pockets

So keep in mind the Earth as it is now can barely support the number of people we have now.

This is completely incorrect.  This is, again, just parroting what you have heard from the Liberal media and activists.  People have been saying this forever.  These folks that say this today are not saying anything new and yet the population has more than doubled since they started saying this and the people are MUCH better off than the folks were, on average, back in the 1960s and 70s.

They used to say that we would soon run out of food and there would be a world-wide famine due to too many people to feed.  But now with better technologies and advancements the USA could feed the world if they had to.  No chance at all of their starving from there being too many people. 

Now imagine a longer growing season and a larger growing area to use.

I do not know how much traveling you have done.  But there are vast, vast unoccupied areas in the world.  Do you realize how small of an area you could actually fit all of the people in the world into?

Now imagine a warmer area and some of the vast tundra-type areas becoming more habitable.

A warmer world couldn’t either, nor could a colder one. We are too many and living on borrowed resource's.

If you research it and think about it, and were to be honest -- a very good case could be made that a slightly warmer world is better overall for humans and animals and plants.

Look at history and how mankind's advancement stagnated during the colder times and grew in the warmer times.

I do agree with your point about resources.  Surely we should be diligent and advancing in the regard.  We have done so much on this area that it would be silly to think will not become more efficient and selective on our resources.

Think about it.  Who decided the Earth's average temperature should be 55f and not 56f?  Why not 53f?   Why not 58?

It is very arrogant of us to think we can control the weather to that extent when there are so many dynamic variables that affect it.

No one disputes that we should be diligent about having a nice, clean planet.  But to use the weather as a reason to promote a money-making scheme is wrong and does a disservice to a world that could be largely helped in areas that we have proven we can affect.

@joe pockets

  absolutely true !          we can but just barely like u said    we r teetering on overpopulation being totally unable to sustain itself over the longterm

Where are you guys getting that we can barely sustain the population we have?

This has been propaganda by environmentalists, usually promoted by the Media and Liberals for decades, at least since the '70s and before.  There is much reading material on this that exposes this as admittedly a scam that never panned out and likely will not.

It started even before the threat of the 'next ice age' but now has been tied very closely to the man-made global warming scam agenda.  

All of these radical Liberals have jumped on board this again.

Politicization of climate change is denial of scientific consensus that the world can slow man-made global warming and prepare for climate change. But republican leaders call climate change a hoax. Trust in climate science is low among republicans but higher among democrats.    Unlike most countries, this phenomenon is strongest in the US.  Fossil fuel industry spend millions on lobbying to protect profits.  Polls show most Americans want governments to do more to fight climate change.  Apparently,  deniers who want to delay climate action are unconvincing.

@thirdperson

No.  It is not.  It is political when you are trying to spend all the money possible to try to stop something that you cannot even parse out what you might be able to control and how much of it and whether you even are doing what you are trying to stop.  Especially when the money could be way better spent helping needy folks around the world in methods that are proven to have results.

 That is the very definition of politicizing something.

@thirdperson

 But republican leaders call climate change a hoax

Name one...

"So Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and the-a lot of it's a hoax,it's a hoax," he said in a December 2015 speech in South Carolina."I mean,it's a money making industry,okay?It's a hoax,a lot of it."

He also tweeted "Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee_I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing.Global warming is a total,and very expensive,hoax!"

Trump, Carlson and Ramaswamy are known for calling climate change a hoax.  Contrary to overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide on man-made global warming.  National science teachers association urge teachers to emphasize to students that no scientific controversy exists regarding facts of climate science.  Center for American progress reveals most climate change deniers in congress are republicans who receive millions in donations from fossil fuel industry.  GOP is the world's only major climate change denial party in politics. 

MSNBC reports GOP deranged policy is to oppose solutions to climate change problem.  Republicans want to shred regulations to curb greenhouse gases, dismantle clean energy programs in government and boost production of fossil fuels. 

@thirdperson

Show quotes where they have said this.  They have not said this.  No reasonable person has said this. 

@MrWhatsItToYa

No sir.  They are calling the Man-Made Global Warming Money Grab a hoax.  @thirdperson Knows full well this is what people are saying when they say things like this.  He is doing like most Leftists and the Media do -- they are absolutely taking the quotes out of context.  They do this to promote their money-grabbing agenda.

Just like they do like he did above by cherry-picking certain dates and numbers to try to make the data say what they want.

The "HOAX" part is the scam to get money into this and to get everyone in a frenzy and to support MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING agenda-- THIS IS THE SCAM PART!

No reasonable person or scientist denies climate change -- I know and have dealt with a lot of them.  You can read all of this stuff online (outside of the mainstream media sources).

They all know the climate changes.  They question the extent of the man-made part of it and how much man can control the weather and whether it is worth spending extraordinary amounts of money on something that is very unproven.  A LOT of VERY GOOD things could otherwise be done with this money.