Pete says hurricanes prove "something is happening"

[WillJenDisney]

I find this very confusing. If 2 significant hurricanes in a month prove something related to climate change, then how do 10 years of no significant hurricanes not prove the opposite? We ignore 10 years of nothing, but then draw dramatic conclusions after a single month of hurricanes. I'm not even denying climate change, I just find it absurd that a single month of terrible weather events is supposed to "prove" something, while more than a decade of nothing didn't prove anything.

 

[k8Davies]

Not going to get involved in this as I know there can be strong opinions on each side and this is the dis board fully of bunnies rainbows and Mickey.

But I just wanted to throw this point out there your saying 2 hurricane in 10 years and we're ignore when there wasn't a hurricane.

I want to say how do you know there wasn't any hurricanes, yes none have made landfall but that doesn't mean every year scientists haven't see an increase in the number of storms or the ferocity of them.

As not having storm on the news because they haven't wrecked people's houses and not having bad storms are two different things.

So next year like every year it will depends on the direction they're in and when they form. although if they are getting worse! It could be that countries won't get hit anymore than they do now; but when they do get hit it's a lot worse.

But as I said 5 paragraphs ago not getting involved or anything lol

 

[DisneyKevin]

I find this very confusing. If 2 significant hurricanes in a month prove something related to climate change, then how do 10 years of no significant hurricanes not prove the opposite? We ignore 10 years of nothing, but then draw dramatic conclusions after a single month of hurricanes. I'm not even denying climate change, I just find it absurd that a single month of terrible weather events is supposed to "prove" something, while more than a decade of nothing didn't prove anything.

Gosh, I'm sorry you were confused.

I would think this was pretty self explanatory.

Harvey brought approximately 60 inches of rain. This is historic.

Irma destroyed the FL Keys with historic sustained winds.

Maria destroyed Puerto Rico and other islands with historic sustained winds.

The smartest scientists in the world tell us that things are changing.

I hope this makes you less confused.

 

[WillJenDisney]

Gosh, I'm sorry you were confused.

I would think this was pretty self explanatory.

Harvey brought approximately 60 inches of rain. This is historic.

Irma destroyed the FL Keys with historic sustained winds.

Maria destroyed Puerto Rico and other islands with historic sustained winds.

The smartest scientists in the world tell us that things are changing.

I hope this makes you less confused.

Appreciate the wholly unnecessary snark.

So again, 10 years of no hurricane landfalls proved nothing, but a historically bad weather pattern for a couple weeks proves everything. I'm not a climate change denier, I absolute believe it's real and caused by people, but if you don't understand the lack of logic in the prior 2 sentences, I don't know what to tell you.

When you point to individual weather events as proof of climate change, you give the deniers fodder because they'll then point to individual events that "prove" the opposite. And thats why individual events are a poor way of trying to show climate change exists, hence scientists using temperature charts for hundreds or thousands of years, not month-to-month.

 

[DisneyKevin]

You stated that you were confused.

I tried to help make you less confused.

It seems you are not confused because you've stated your opinion clearly twice.

I think what you really meant was that you disagree and that's okay.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Appreciate the wholly unnecessary snark.

So again, 10 years of no hurricane landfalls proved nothing, but a historically bad weather pattern for a couple weeks proves everything. I'm not a climate change denier, I absolute believe it's real and caused by people, but if you don't understand the lack of logic in the prior 2 sentences, I don't know what to tell you.

When you point to individual weather events as proof of climate change, you give the deniers fodder because they'll then point to individual events that "prove" the opposite. And thats why individual events are a poor way of trying to show climate change exists, hence scientists using temperature charts for hundreds or thousands of years, not month-to-month.

Can I ask something though? It sounds like you've got a thought out explanation regarding the debate in so far that you don't agree with what was said by Pete because of ___.

So honestly what's the point in creating a thread saying you're confused by what was said. I mean it sounds like by the following comment "When you point to individual weather events as proof of climate change, you give the deniers fodder because they'll then point to individual events that "prove" the opposite." you're already well aware of how people (in general here not necessarily Pete) connect the dots to form their viewpoint on the subject matter so it doesn't sound like you're confused but more or less that you don't agree with the rationale used by Pete (or other people in general). By all means disagree it just sounds misleading to say you're confused by it.

 

[WillJenDisney]

wow...

What is confusing to me is how people can logically say 2 weeks of weather proves something, but don't draw any conclusions from the preceding 10 years. So I in fact both disagree with the premise, and am confused by how others wouldn't see the logical disconnect.

I'll refrain from discussion further, it's clearly very offensive for me to question anything Pete said (who I agree with 99.9% of the time he says anything). My apologies.

 

[DisneyKevin]

wow...

What is confusing to me is how people can logically say 2 weeks of weather proves something, but don't draw any conclusions from the preceding 10 years. So I in fact both disagree with the premise, and am confused by how others wouldn't see the logical disconnect.

I'll refrain from discussion further, it's clearly very offensive for me to question anything Pete said (who I agree with 99.9% of the time he says anything). My apologies.

I'm not offended. You are welcome to question anything.

I just didn't want you to be confused.

I'm always surprised when an opinion is expressed and people are surprised when others disagree.

 

[WillJenDisney]

I'm not offended. You are welcome to question anything.

I just didn't want you to be confused.

I'm always surprised when an opinion is expressed and people are surprised when others disagree.

The obvious intent of your reply was not to clear up confusion. No need to be disingenuous.

 

[DisneyKevin]

I find this very confusing.

I responded to your words.

Disingenuous?

Now I'm confused.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

wow...

What is confusing to me is how people can logically say 2 weeks of weather proves something, but don't draw any conclusions from the preceding 10 years. So I in fact both disagree with the premise, and am confused by how others wouldn't see the logical disconnect.

I'll refrain from discussion further, it's clearly very offensive for me to question anything Pete said (who I agree with 99.9% of the time he says anything). My apologies.

I'm really not trying to get into an argument here at all but I don't really think you're confused. You know how people think on the subject matter as you've already mentioned several times and just don't disagree with it which is totally fine.

Confusing really would mean you don't know how someone came to the conclusion they did not that you know how they came to the conclusion and just don't agree with them. When you say you're confused by how others wouldn't see the logical disconnect what you really mean is they are wrong in their opinion because of X,Y, Z..aka you disagree with their rationale and at least to me you're def coming off in that your viewpoint is right and others viewpoint is wrong. So again, no disrespect meant, but what is the point of creating a thread saying you're confused by __ when you already know the answer? Far easier to say "I don't agree with what Pete says along with others who have the same viewpoint".

 

[WillJenDisney]

I responded to your words.

Disingenuous?

Now I'm confused.

You know exactly what the intent of your reply was with the snark and condescension.

 

[WillJenDisney]

I'm really not trying to get into an argument here at all but I don't really think you're confused. You know how people think on the subject matter as you've already mentioned several times and just don't disagree with it which is totally fine.

Confusing really would mean you don't know how someone came to the conclusion they did not that you know how they came to the conclusion and just don't agree with them. When you say you're confused by how others wouldn't see the logical disconnect what you really mean is they are wrong in their opinion because of X,Y, Z..aka you disagree with their rationale and at least to me you're def coming off in that your viewpoint is right and others viewpoint is wrong. So again, no disrespect meant, but what is the point of creating a thread saying you're confused by __ when you already know the answer? Far easier to say "I don't agree with what Pete says along with others who have the same viewpoint".

I do find it confusing for either side of the argument to use individual events to say it proves their side. Because then it requires you to ignore the opposite events. So I continue to be confused by why people use individual events to say it proves anything on either side. My use of the word was not in error, though it's apparently caused this to become a purely semantic discussion.

 

[Tonyz]

You know exactly what the intent of your reply was with the snark and condescension.

Why are you trying to pick a fight with Kevin? Why are you so confused that Pete said climate change might be real (because, ya know, it is)?

 

[DisneyKevin]

You know exactly what the intent of your reply was with the snark and condescension.

It seems you really don't like it when people disagree with your opinion.

You said you were confused and I tried to help.

You've now called me snarky, disingenuous and condescending when all I did was respond to what you said.

At no point have I attacked you.

Not sure where the anger is coming from and now believe you just want to argue.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I do find it confusing for either side of the argument to use individual events to say it proves their side. Because then it requires you to ignore the opposite events. So I continue to be confused by why people use individual events to say it proves anything on either side. My use of the word was not in error, though it's apparently caused this to become a purely semantic discussion.

Unfortunately there are times where semantics is the reason for the discussion. Your use of the word confusing (when you are not confused) has a direct impact on the types of responses you'll get. If you wanted a discussion on if your position on the subject matter is the correct one then creating a thread with "I disagree..." would be far more suited. As it stands with all your comments it just sounds like a "I'm right others are wrong and I can't fathom how others can't see the error of their ways" type discussion-these don't tend to go down very well.

 

[UKYRob29]

If there is an issue X - expect the team to always side with whatever the far left thinks. Not sure why anyone is surprised by this. SO much has changed in the last 8 months! Everything was peachy for the last 8 years : )

 

[tcufrog]

So you're saying scientists are unanimously agreeing that climate change is real because of some far left agenda. I guess they're also making the glaciers melt too.

 

[DisneyKevin]

If there is an issue X - expect the team to always side with whatever the far left thinks. Not sure why anyone is surprised by this. SO much has changed in the last 8 months! Everything was peachy for the last 8 years : )

Im surprised that you think you know us well enough to generalize.

Should I conclude that I know what you think by this post?

 

[earfulofmagic]

Wait what? There have been lots of Atlantic hurricanes in the last 10 years whose strength and severity have been unusual for the region - they just haven't hit the US. They've made landfall in other unfortunate countries, though, or gone off on paths solely over the ocean. But there definitely hasn't been 10 years of "nothing."