Science denialism: The problem that just won’t go away

Are you saying big storms never happened before industrialization?

I hope not...

 

Because you say it doesn't make it so. Seems like we're growing more food than ever. Just look at Al Gore. And that 30 tons, that's just what Al Gore uses each year. Life on earth has adapted to every climate on the planet. There's hardly an acre of planet that doesn't have life on it, or in it. The rest of what you say is just garbage, just more chicken little nonsense from the Legion of Doom. Forests burn down and rejuvenate themselves in just a few years, not thousands.

- - - Updated - - -

No, this is the very first one.

 

He brought it up. I was simply following his logic to its slippery slope conclusion.

 

List of previous recorded catagory 5 Pacific hurricanes:

1959 Patsy
1959 "Mexico"
1973 Ava
1994 Emilia
1994 Gilma
1994 John
1997 Guillermo
1997 Linda
2002 Elida
2002 Hernan
2002 Kenna
2006 Ioke
2009 Rick
2010 Celia
2014 Marie

I'm pretty sure they were happening throughout history...

 

So cyclones and hurricanes are down globally and you show me a picture of one storm and you think I am confusing weather with climate? LOL. Whatever Skippy.

 

Erm, that's 30 billion tons, and Al Gore has nothing to do with that fact. Life has adapted to specific environments. Rapidly change those environments (which is what we are doing), and they tend to die off. Cut down a forest, and you rid it of hundreds of species, leaving behind almost exclusively invasive species. Turn a grassland into a desert, and you likewise rid it of hundreds of species, and leave behind, at best, a handful of hardy but otherwise useless species. Forests do NOT rejuvenate themselves in a few years. Not even close.

Here is Mt. St. Helens before the 1980 eruption:



Here is Mt. St. Helens, for instance, after the eruption:



Here it is today (35 years later):



Erm, where are all the trees you said would rejuvenate in just a few years?

 

Do you notice a pattern in that list? I'll wait here for your response?

 

A preemptive strike.

Before anyone claims the sudden rise in 1994, I would like to point out that prior, only those that were measured on the land or sea were recorded.

http://www.osd.noaa.gov/download/JRS012504-GD.pdf

 

Do you mean that the bunched up years correspond with solar peaks?

 

And you have evidence, do you, that between 1974 and 1994, that category 5 storm were missed by the military, oceanographers, meteorologists, ships, etc., or anyone else out at sea? And dude, if they were not measured on land or sea, where else WOULD they have been measured? Nice try. The fact is that since 1994, the number of category 5 storms have increase significantly. I did a quick plot of your data:



As you can see, the number of category 5 storms has increased significantly. For each storm, I gave a number of 5, representing the storm's strength. On years where it goes up to 10, that means there were two category five storms.

 

Except that they don't. The mid-1990s saw the solar minimum. The mid/late 2000s saw another solar minimum. Not only that, but the sun was quite active from 1974 to 1994, and yet there are no category 5 storms on the list.

 

Do you really expect such events to follow so closely? Remember, in such a massive system there are always lags of time. The TSI peaked in 1991, and we say three catagory 5 events in the pacific three years later. peaked again in 2000, and two years later, another three in 2002.

Capiche?



So...

What correlation were you referring to?

 

That's right. Ignore the fact that we cannot monitor the globe 24/7 before properly equipped satellites, which wasn't until 1994.

You are a true denier of facts, reasoning, and science..

Jesus...

You want me to prove a negative.

Are you really that......

 

That wasn't a forest fire Skippy. Those seeds are buried under tons of ash. The volcano blowing had nothing to do with GW. Would you like me to post pictures of forests that have recovered from fires??????? Hmmmmmmmm??? Oh wait. I get it. GW is going to cause all the volcanos to erupt and bury all the forests. OMG the sky is falling.

 

It would also help to see the pictures at and below the original "timberline." Not above it.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/timberline

But....

Deception is their gameplay, 24/7.

Looks like the trees are doing fine to me:

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.1688466,-122.2042927,852m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e4

 

Forest fires rage through the trees, especially in drought years when the vegetation is very dry and fires can easily start. The burned areas are soon covered in lodgepole pine seedlings that sprout from seeds released by the cones as a result of the forest fire. The images above show an area in Yellowstone National Park in 1988 (left), when fires swept through the park's forest, and in 1999 (right), 11 years after the fires. An actively burning wildfire appears as bright red on the 1988 image. If you look carefully, you can even see the smoke from the fire. By 1999, eleven years after the fire, the forest was beginning to grow back. Compare the two images to find spots that look red or pink on the left image, but green on the right image. These are the places where the seedlings are beginning to create a new forest. Bright green areas are meadows and grasslands.

 

?
Wegener was questioned.
Science people questioned Wegener.

Wegener was attacked viciously by the scientists after he said that all the earth seemed to have once been together, surrounded by one immense panthalassic ocean.
He then spent the rest of his life proving the idea of Pangaea.

 

But raising Taxes indirectly, by charging our energy companies money is what is bad.
Climate may make governments do things as trouble starts, but a tax we can not thereafter see, which will be spent who knows where or why, that is the real issue here.

 

We couldn't monitor every square foot of the Earth before 1994, that's true (hell, we can't even do that today), but that is irrelevant to the fact that we were able to (and in fact, did) monitor shipping lanes far out to sea and coastlines long before 1994. Hurricanes are so large there it is virtually impossible to hide one, even without satellite monitoring. To suggest that we somehow missed detecting hurricanes in the Pacific from 1973 to 1994 is simply ludicrous.

 

My point was you said that forests recover in a few years, and that is simply false. You cut down a forest and then try to let it grow back naturally, and see what you get. In the Amazon, it doesn't come back, because when you cut down the trees there, the very thin soil washes away, and you get a virtual wasteland. Even here in the states, when we replant after cutting down a forest, we typically only plant trees that are harvestable. Which means that the a formerly very diverse forest region becomes a monoculture crop. You never get back the diverse forest you once had.

Forests such as the Eastern mixed deciduous forest in Kentucky took tens of thousands of years to develop. It is one of the most diverse forests in North America (about 300 species of trees). That forest has been cut on for over 100 years, and it a tiny fraction of what it once was. it would take thousands of years to get that forest back, if it ever came back at all.

 

What about what Patrick says here?

Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a Vancouver-based consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions, and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.
He is a founding member of Greenpeace and served for nine years as president of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a director of Greenpeace International. As the leader of many campaigns Dr. Moore was a driving force shaping policy and direction while Greenpeace became the world’s largest environmental activist organization.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

PATRICK MOORE
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

 

The Whole proxy thing seems to have passed you by like a freight train

Cat five storms are BIG - we should bloody know we are hit with enough of them - big storms leave evidence of destruction

 

Heartland = big oil shill


Let us see what Wiki says about Moore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)

Being an early member of an organisation and being a founding member are two different things - wonder who wins the "pants on fire" award

But really this is a ridiculous claim because he is ONE person and there are thousands of scientists out there who disagree with him

Greenpeace on Moore

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

 

So..?
He's on the other side now.
For you, that disqualifies him?

You made no comment on what he said, just that the people against his point of view need know all about him being on the other side.
That seems to be liberal answers to everything.

 

Where did you get this image because when I googled it it only matched to posts made by yourself, For all; I know this could have come from a Kindergarten crayon competition