Pete says hurricanes prove "something is happening"

[NeuroCindy]

That's the thing about science... it's true whether you believe it or not.

Love,
A Neuroscientist (still waiting for that "Big Pharma" check to come pay me off like people say happens )

 

[WillJenDisney]

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)?

Pick a fight? He replied very nastily to me, so I'm hardly the one who tried to pick a fight.

Also, I clearly didn't say I'm confused that Pete said climate change is real. I said I'm confused when people cite individual events as proof of it.

 

[DisneyKevin]

Pick a fight? He replied very nastily to me, so I'm hardly the one who tried to pick a fight.

Also, I clearly didn't say I'm confused that Pete said climate change is real. I said I'm confused when people cite individual events as proof of it.

I responded to your post.

I didn't call you names or attack you.

You started your post with "I'm very confused."

I responded to your confusion.

Again, not sure where this anger is coming from.

 

[WillJenDisney]

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.

There's absolutely no anger from me. It's just disappointing when you reply the way you did. "Gosh I'm sorry you were confused," followed by telling me it was self-explanatory (obvious implication that you're foolish if you're confused by something so simple it was self-explanatory). Meanwhile you didn't even address my actual point of confusion (being why cite individual events as proof when they can be readily countered by opposite events).

You just wanted to mock me because you didn't agree and I took issue with something Pete said. The oozing condescension of your reply makes that perfectly clear. You don't have to directly attack someone to be doing it nonetheless, and you know exactly why you phrased your response the way you did.

Again, I'm not angry, and I have no interest in continuing to argue, so I'll stop with this post. Just disappointing a moderator here feels the need to talk down to anyone for no reason.

 

[k8Davies]

I'm confused when people cite individual events as proof of it.

Even though I'm not getting involved (I so am lol). But it's isn't an individual event.

As I did a bit of research (go me, I can look at other things apart from Disney website, who knew) and:

"Since 2006, 21 major hurricanes formed, some of them extremely powerful. Yet those storms stayed at sea, made landfall in Mexico or Central America, or weakened before coming ashore in the US."

Got that quote from the National Geographic website here:

http://relay.nationalgeographic.com...n-years-of-hurricanes-tropical-storms-graphic

 

[DisneyKevin]

There's absolutely no anger from me. It's just disappointing when you reply the way you did. "Gosh I'm sorry you were confused," followed by telling me it was self-explanatory (obvious implication that you're foolish if you're confused by something so simple it was self-explanatory). Meanwhile you didn't even address my actual point of confusion (being why cite individual events as proof when they can be readily countered by opposite events).

You just wanted to mock me because you didn't agree and I took issue with something Pete said. The oozing condescension of your reply makes that perfectly clear. You don't have to directly attack someone to be doing it nonetheless, and you know exactly why you phrased your response the way you did.

Again, I'm not angry, and I have no interest in continuing to argue, so I'll stop with this post. Just disappointing a moderator here feels the need to talk down to anyone for no reason.

Again, I responded to your post about being "very confused".

You read way more into it than what was written and then went on the attack.

its become clear that you were not confused and wished to state your opinion without anyone challenging it.

Unfortunately, I believed you were confused and tried to help.

Im sorry you felt the need to call names and make unfriendly and unnecessary nasty remarks.

 

[WillJenDisney]

Again, I responded to your post about being "very confused".

You read way more into it than what was written and then went on the attack.

its become clear that you were not confused and wished to state your opinion without anyone challenging it.

Unfortunately, I believed you were confused and tried to help.

Im sorry you felt the need to call names and make unfriendly and unnecessary nasty remarks.

I called no names and made no attacks. My pointing out your attacks on me hardly constitutes me attacking you.

Thank you for your genuine and helpful response to my initial question...

 

[DisneyKevin]

I called no names and made no attacks. My pointing out your attacks on me hardly constitutes me attacking you.

Thank you for your genuine and helpful response to my initial question...

Wow. We disagree on many fronts.

I responded to your confusion which you misinterpreted and instead of a discussion, you've called me snarky, disingenuous and condescending.

Apparently, we use these words differently.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Pick a fight? He replied very nastily to me, so I'm hardly the one who tried to pick a fight.

Also, I clearly didn't say I'm confused that Pete said climate change is real. I said I'm confused when people cite individual events as proof of it.

And again..that's not confusion. That's simply you not agreeing with their viewpoint. The thread got off on the wrong foot because you chose to use confusion when you really weren't confused. You got a response explaining the viewpoint to help clear up the confusion..because again you said you were confused...in reality you weren't confused you just didn't agree with their viewpoint and thus you responded by explaining your viewpoint. The way that you have phrased things and the way that you responds def. gives the vibe that you're probably not looking for an honest "I'd like to hear others viewpoints" discussion but more or less a way to prove others wrong.

And yeah it is about semantics here. Semantics have a way of completely altering the discussion.

 

[WillJenDisney]

And again..that's not confusion. That's simply you not agreeing with their viewpoint. The thread got off on the wrong foot because you chose to use confusion when you really weren't confused. You got a response explaining the viewpoint to help clear up the confusion..because again you said you were confused...in reality you weren't confused you just didn't agree with their viewpoint and thus you responded by explaining your viewpoint. The way that you have phrased things and the way that you responds def. gives the vibe that you're probably not looking for an honest "I'd like to hear others viewpoints" discussion but more or less a way to prove others wrong.

And yeah it is about semantics here. Semantics have a way of completely altering the discussion.

It's not merely disagreeing, it's genuine confusion as to why people cite individual events as proving climate change. It's confusing to me that you would argue a single event proves it, but then obviously don't find the opposite event proves the opposite. I am genuinely confused by that logical disconnect.

 

[WillJenDisney]

Wow. We disagree on many fronts.

I responded to your confusion which you misinterpreted and instead of a discussion, you've called me snarky, disingenuous and condescending.

Apparently, we use these words differently.

I said that the words you used against me were those things, not that you are. You also did not respond to my confusion at all. You just cited the storm facts, not why someone would cite those facts as proof of something if the opposite of those events doesn't prove the opposite.

If A proves B, then lack of A should disprove B. It's confusing to me when people ignore that logic because I don't see how you can.

And once again, you know exactly why you phrased your response the way you did. Stop pretending it was innocent when it's plain to anyone what kind of tone "gosh sorry you were confused" blatantly sets. Acting like you were simply being helpful and not attacking is insulting to anyone's intelligence.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It's not merely disagreeing, it's genuine confusion as to why people cite individual events as proving climate change. It's confusing to me that you would argue a single event proves it, but then obviously don't find the opposite event proves the opposite. I am genuinely confused by that logical disconnect.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree at this point. At this point I'm geniunely confused as to the point of this particular thread on the DIS boards; no offense meant I just don't see this as the avenue for changing of one's mind in this particular subject because I get the vibe that's more what it's about.

 

[Allison]

You have said twice now that you were done with this thread. You might feel better about things if you really did just let it die.

 

[WillJenDisney]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree at this point. At this point I'm geniunely confused as to the point of this particular thread on the DIS boards; no offense meant I just don't see this as the avenue for changing of one's mind in this particular subject because I get the vibe that's more what it's about.

I don't expect to change any minds, I just don't understand why people cite individual events for climate change, because when you do that, you allow the deniers to point to an April snowstorm to say it proves the opposite. Sorry if this was the wrong place, I thought the DisUnplugged page was the place to discuss things said on the DisUnplugged podcast.

You have said twice now that you were done with this thread. You might feel better about things if you really did just let it die.

You are correct, just frustrated when my words are twisted repeatedly. I'll try it a third time now!

 

[North of Mouse]

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.

I agree OP! Sure, climate change is real to a degree - could care less what supposed experts say! It's always been this way - cycles in weather. When I was a child in the '50's, we had ice storms in the winter in south LA. Been a 'long' time since that happened! Also, some years we had really bad hurricanes, then long stretches of relatively mild seasons, then a 10+ years ago, hit by a few bad hurricanes in one season.

Yes, this was a 'very' bad year for FL, TX, parts of LA and the islands. Yes, also a historical year. If you're in the paths of the very damaging ones, you will never forget.

Nature - disasters and all - do not follow a planned path - much more complicated than man can ever figure out.
Scientists can do a lot, I agree, in understanding storms, wind patterns, etc. then nature sends them a zinger!! It wasn't even a hurricane, and look what happened (the historical flood) in the south eastern parishes of LA a year ago. This will always be the case.

 

[jcb]

it's genuine confusion as to why people cite individual events as proving climate change.

I don't speak for Pete (or anyone but myself) but I didn't interpret his comment to mean that "only" two hurricanes prove the climate is changing. We are, after all, assuming (safely, I suspect) that Pete referred to climate change when he didn't mention it directly.

I understand the confusion. Listing two examples of anything is often taken as arguing that those two examples are the only proof of the event. I've been accused of this and argued that others have made that mistake. But really, listing two examples simply doesn't mean there are no other examples.

To avoid this, we write contracts and statutes to say: "including but not limited to" because if we don't we get into an argument over whether the contract or statute meant to be exclusive or inclusive.

English is such fun.

 

[NeuroCindy]

To avoid this, we write contracts and statutes to say: "including but not limited to" because if we don't we get into an argument over whether the contract or statute meant to be exclusive or inclusive.

English is such fun.

As a person who's recently spent hours working on a discovery packet to answer the defense's request, I've become more and more intimate with phrases like this.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

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.

I get what Kevin responded to you as I am not sure if "confused" is the right term -I think it is more you don't understand / disagree with Pete making the statement that he did in response to "just" the events for the past month or so

At the same time I do understand the larger point you are trying to make in that you can't prove/disprove something that shows itself over decades (if not longer) based on a relatively short time period (the risk of a small sample size)

I work in reinsurance and we weite covers that literally have billions of dollars of catastrophe protection/limit in them and we are aware that there had been relatively low levels of major storms the past decade globally - but particularly those that hit major insurance expose areas - the end result being that rates for catastrophe covers have been coming way down

My company also employs dozens of meteorologists and other scientists, etc that are very confident climate change is real and we are adjusting our pricing models and business accordingly - and the fact that we have seen some historically bad storms is evidence of that. Proof alone?? Absolutely not, but evidence of what is already believed and understood to be true? Definitely

So I took what Pete said more as that - this is a result or a sign or something pointing in the direction of climeate change being a reality - not that these storms and these storms app me prove it (more corroboration of what scientists have shown)

But I fully get and really do agree with what you are saying in that you can't take a small sample size in isolation as proof of something - just as you couldn't take a similarly small sample size as proof against it

 

[arminnie]

I really hate this stupid BS bickering over climate change. Of course climate changes - it has for thousands and thousands of years. In the late 70s we were all talking about the coming ice age - which never happened.

Do people not realize how climate has changed DRAMATICALLY over the past centuries? Anyone who thinks we can control the climate is a fool. We can affect it, but we will never control it.

 

[bdcp]

Climate is cyclical. But I do have to say, it is hurricane season, hence, we have hurricanes. Sometimes they hit land, sometimes they don't.

I also know a couple of meteorologists who were contracted by the Gov who were told they would report climate change a certain way. Do I think the climate has changed? Yes, but it's hardly "new" and there's really no way to prove that it's man made. I also have been around long enough to remember that we have been told so many different things over the last 40+ years about climate change that it's obvious, even the "experts" really have no idea. Also, sun spots play a huge role in our climate and man has zero to do with that.

I particularly love it when someone says this has "never happened" before. Well, maybe not since records have been kept for the last however many hundreds of years, but what about before records were kept? Also, temperatures have been taken in different spots over the years. Cities have more paved areas and less green so temps are higher. There are too many variables in too short a time.

I also think it's pretty arrogant of "man" to think they affect climate enough to change it.