Idalia is the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Florida in 125 years. Clearly, it is influenced by climate change which is making hurricanes intensify at a faster rate. In 24 hours, Idalia went from category 1 to 4 because of warmer waters. Normally major hurricanes require days to develop.
@thirdperson
With maximum winds of 125 mph, Idalia was the strongest hurricane to make landfall in Florida’s Big Bend region in more than 125 years.
NOT in FLORIDA; JUST THAT REGION.
Many other hurricanes intensify that quick. Explain Camille, right about the same time you radicals were calling for an ice-age to start.
Without proof, conspiracy theorists allege the science behind global warming has been distorted for ideological or financial reasons. They manufacture controversy disputing scientific consensus on man-made global warming and reducing carbon emissions. After years of failing to deny the truth, climate skeptics now try to delay climate action.
@thirdperson
Absolutely 100% true! 
And that event is just another sign of times to come because of mans' wilful ignorance.
@thirdperson
Plenty of proof. I have told you to go research it instead of just parroting the Leftist's propaganda you keep posting. You are posting nothing new that has not been adequately addressed. You simply are denying the science you do not agree with. That is the standard Leftist plan when they want to promote their scam agenda.
You need to use critical thinking and research skills and find out why reasonable scientists use the same data and come to different conclusions.
@thirdperson
For example, you can retract this obvious and intentional misleading statement.
@thirdperson
That's it precisely, thirdperson, as I also made not of that earlier. The "hotub" waters surround large portions of seas around Florida and Cuba were and still are unprecedented for the degree of warmth those seas are sbsorbing as a result of accelerated global warming caused by human activity.
It's going to recur. Often. In our lifetime.
Glacial ice and icepacks at the poles are receeding at unprecedented speeds and this is causing sea levels to rise. Add in more unprecedented hot waters and this is a recipe for more storms and more intense storms as you pointed to.
In America it has become empirically evident that most of the climate denier fools in government and various media are also 2020 election deniers. Most.
Keep up with your reporting, thirdperson! 
Climate science deniers promote the myth that scientists disagree. 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on cause of climate change at 100%. 2021 study concludes over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change. The few papers that disagree contain errors or cannot be replicated. According to wikipedia, over 90% of papers skeptical of man-made climate change originate from right wing think tanks funded by fossil fuel industry to attack climate science.
@thirdperson
Climate science deniers
What does this mean? Define this phrase? No climate scientist that I know denies 'climate science' and no person I know denies 'climate science'. I am interested in what you think you mean when you say this.
promote the myth that scientists disagree
Absolutely they disagree and you can find this with a bit of research. This is true in any scientific field. That is why you study things and try to 'replicate them in a lab' as they say.
I would encourage you to start doing additional research.
@thirdperson
Still sticking with this one? Or do you want to retract or amend this false statement? 
I would be interested in seeing a study into the political affiliations of Wikipedia editors. How would they even be tracking such a thing?
Idalia was the strongest to hit the BIG BEND AREA, not all of Florida as you stated. It was downgraded to Cat-3 before making landfall.
So the question to ask is how did a hurricane hitting The Big Bend like this one ever exist in 1896 without climate change, without warmer waters*? How is it the biggest to hit Florida was in 1935?????
* Gulf of Mexico water temp history only dates back to the 1980's.
Meanwhile, when the earth has never been hotter in over 120,000 years, hurricanes are now forming faster than ever, code red everybody!!!!!, here is what happened in August in mid-Michigan;
MBS Airport data obtained from WeatherUnderground show a COOL August for mid-Michigan. Average daily temp of 67.08 was the 23rd coolest August in last 53 years of recored data. In fact, the first three years of data, 1973, 1974, and 1975 all had warmer Augusts than 2023.
Ask most Michiganders and they will say, "Oh yeah, very hot summer! Climate change is killing us!!!"
In reality June was 23rd hottest in 53 years, July was 20th, and August was 30th. Averaged out it would be a 24. And 26.5 would be dead center average. 
Glad I took the time to continually research this. Most don't have the time or the will.
@thirdperson
Climate science deniers disagree with overwhelming consensus among top climate scientists on man-made global warming. Scientific consensus is overwhelming because scientific evidences are overwhelming. But deniers see no crisis and oppose solutions. They deny, deceive and delay climate action. No national academy of science in the world reject findings from United nations IPCC.
The few scientists who disagree tend to be long retired or non-experts working in other fields, Since so few scientists deny the truth, fossil fuel industry hires non-experts to lobby against climate action. For example, lawyer pretending to be expert. For years, Fox news has been a leading source of climate misinformation by promoting non-experts with no or little peer reviewed research in climate science. Fox news viewers score worst in climate misinformation and policy beliefs according to survey by Climate action coalition of 50 international organizations fighting climate misinformation.
@StumpTownStu
That was sarcasm making the exact point that anyone can edit that source. Anyone can just state a number and use it to make a point if it cannot be verified or is taken out of context. It may not have come across that way. I was simply pointing out that it has its place, but there are better scientific sources to use.
@thirdperson
So that is your definition of the term? So, you do not understand how science, in general, works? There are always folks on both sides of an issue -- that is why there is constant testing and proving and attempts to reproduce data. Nobody is DENYING the science itself. They are DENYING that a segment of scientists think they have proven something IN THAT field. They do not deny the FIELD.
For example, if you cannot accurately predict with your modeling and are constantly tweaking the numbers and cherry-picking the data and constantly blaming everything on something that is unproven -- then, yes, YOU should be DENIED; but NOT the field itself.
@thirdperson
Also work on explaining Camille.
Work on explaining why you were wrong about how this was the strongest hurricane to hit Florida in 125 years. Work on why so many hurricanes, even recently, have been predicted to go in that area but swerved. Work on how this has always been a dreaded spot for hurricanes to hit.
Even though hurricanes tend to hit in somewhat of a cycle on locations, just because one finally hit in a rarely hit location does not prove anything. The next hurricane could hit the exact area and still not prove anything; you need more data than just an isolated hit.
Hurricanes being used to attempt to prove man-made global warming does not work at all. They are too fickle. You would do much better predicting hurricanes with El Niño and La Niña cycles; then trying too prove those cycles with the scam. That would work better.
You should do way more research yourself, because if you are just going to repeat the radical money-grabbing agenda you are going to keep running into problems where you trip yourself up like you have done here.
That is why very respected experts in the field question this nonsense. They see the data being misused and cherry-picked. This is not a united issue at all. You are very wrong about it being old and retired guys disagreeing also. If you researched it you would know this. But even that would not prove anything -- you could argue the older guys have more experience and are more respected in nearly any scientific field.
@thirdperson
The few scientists who disagree tend to be long retired or non-experts working in other fields, Since so few scientists deny the truth, fossil fuel industry hires non-experts to lobby against climate action. For example, lawyer pretending to be expert.
This is untrue. This is a classic case of what, in logic, we call 'an appeal to authority' or 'arguing from authority'. This has always been known as a logical fallacy.
Simply because an expert or group of experts say something does not logically follow that it has to be true.
When papers are looked at and reviewed you do realize that is is not necessarily just experts in that particular field that review it. A lot of these fields are very easily relatable and can be crossed over. Even an expert in a non-related field, but in a field that studies data, can review data and interpret it.
Even in your example of a lawyer, any smart and trained person can review data independently and draw conclusions. A lawyer could easily be seen as trained in reviewing data and could very easily have a math/science background.
Obviously, an expert in any advanced field is a fairly smart person and can understand other fields somewhat.
To say one group uses experts to make their point is useless; both sides do this. Go look at the amount of money even in the research fields that are involved. So, by your logic it would follow that there is a huge incentive to keep getting money for these grants. The Man-Made Global Warming group has put a HUGE amount of money into this.
So, just because an expert or a group of experts assert something does not make it true. There are many, many examples in science where the majority has been wrong.
Do not argue from authority, it not only is a weak argument but always makes the expert(s) seem arrogant for no reason.
@thirdperson
That seems to be the pattern, yes.
@StumpTownStu
Just for kicks I looked this up. This is sort of interesting reading actually:
This map shows the percentage of households editing by county. It contains a number of distinct patterns, the most striking of which is the span of very low editing activity across the Plains, from the Dakotas through West Texas, and in the South, excluding the Carolinas and Florida, and cities such as Jackson, Mississippi; Birmingham, Alabama; Nashville, Tennessee; and Atlanta.
This pattern appears to closely and inversely resemble religious adherence: Counties with high religious adherence also have a low level of Wikipedia-editing activity, and counties with low religious adherence have high levels of editing. Of course, the modern encyclopedia is a largely secular project: The first large-scale one, Encyclopédie, did emerge from the Enlightenment after all, and took the then-radical approach of organizing its contents according to reason, not theology.
Meanwhile, though many of the low-editing-density areas are Republican-heavy counties in the Plains and the Rockies, the areas of high activity do not follow such clear voting patterns. Some swing states exhibit lots of editing across the state; in others, the activity isn’t distributed evenly. Likewise, states with histories of internal political divisions, such as California and New York, also have high overall editing activity that does not conform to political boundaries. (In California, notice the strong participation of historically Republican Orange County and San Diego.) Households in conservative upstate New York are as likely to contribute as ones in New York City, except for the two upstate counties (Lewis and Hamilton) that are also among the most religious and politically conservative in the state.
Editing patterns also map onto other demographic lines: The pattern of editing activity in Appalachia and the South appears to match population density, income, education, and broadband access. Does proximity to other people make you more inclined toward collective action, or is it simply the fact that editing would be difficult without the income to purchase a computer, access to broadband, and education to feel comfortable with formatting citations? While idealistic Wikipedians might like to think it is the former, the persistent and well-documented poverty of the rural South seems the more likely cause. This area of low editing, from East Texas to Virginia, includes the highest concentration of African Americans in the country, raising the likelihood that income, education, and internet access intersect with racial inequity as factors that prevent participation.
The absence of participation from majority Native American counties, and rural, poor, black counties in the South, is troubling. This absence is not a choice—as it may be with the deeply religious—but an inability to contribute due to intersectional inequality. Furthermore, the Wikipedia community’s forms of outreach are ill-equipped to reach these rural regions, because in-person meetups, edit-a-thons, and university programs all require population density to succeed.
While the United States accounts for nearly half of the editors, looking at the data from an international perspective reveals the United States as just one part of the colonial legacy of the English language. The five largest contributors were part of what once was the British Empire, and account for nearly 75 percent of all editors.
Global editing patterns also trace specific geographic contours of the British Empire: While editing activity across Africa is orders of magnitude lower than all other inhabited continents, the more active countries are mostly former British colonies; Francophone West Africa is one of the regions with the lowest activity. India is the third-largest contributor to English Wikipedia. I spoke with the Indian regional organizer for Art+Feminism—the Wikipedia editing nonprofit I co-founded—about the importance of translating our training materials into Hindi, Bengali, and other languages of India; she said that it wasn’t a priority, because her participants are focused on editing English Wikipedia and have little interest in editing the Hindi or Bengali Wikipedias. This is a result of the colonial legacy of English and its contemporary role in social and economic mobility, but also because of the gravitational pull of English Wikipedia: 92 percent of all Wikipedia traffic in India is to the English version, and if you want to share your knowledge, for better or worse, you go to where the audience is.
The map of households editing Wikipedia shows other constellations of low editing activity, including in parts of Asia, the Middle East, and Central America, as well as the former Soviet countries (especially in contrast to their surrounding areas in Europe). In some cases, these patterns mirror income, broadband access and affordability, and education. In others, the cause seems more likely to be war (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen) or isolated, repressive regimes (Myanmar, North Korea).
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
