# "Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 10, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982 "2013-05-10T12:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/61 "2013-05-11T19:00:54Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Alas, poor **yorick73** , not having good sources of information gives you ignorance. 🙂 > > [Global warming since 1995 'now significant' - BBC News](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510) That link doesn’t address what I wrote at all. The problem with the global warming crowd is that many of the predictions made by the alarmists did not happen. That’s what happens when you have a buffoon like Al Gore acting as high priest of the movement and putting out propaganda pieces instead of addressing the actual science. The public sees that the sky is not falling, reads that global warming has paused over the last 16 years, and starts to wonder if the whole thing is bullshit. Top that off with scientists like Jones saying things like ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ and admitting that we simply don’t understand all the variables involved, and I start to wonder how accurate their predictions will be. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/62 "2013-05-11T19:03:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What you are talking here is more weather than climate. No, I’m not and neither are the “climate” scientists discussing their “climate” model in the article. Weather is hours/days/months. Climate is of course the same thing over longer periods. A multi-decades long drought falls into the “climate” end of the spectrum as does the cycling of El Nino and La Nina. > [@](#): > > Once again, it is climate that they do better, the point that is missed is that the models do what they are supposed to do, the the climate of the past can be simulated on average, but not as precise as planners would want to, however it is silly to then dump the whole thing, because as one important point is missed: the simulations can and do work at replicating the number of droughts and intensities, there is still a problem on looking for more definition, but this complaint sounds like the creationists one and the intermediary fossils, it does not matter that we identified many intermediate fossils, “evolution is false if we can not find now the intermediate of the intermediate forms”. You are reading far more into my position than is either stated or accurate. My point: don’t predict stuff you can’t predict. As I asked before, you’ve asserted that the models are accurate, do you have an example of a climate model that basically matches historical records regarding temp, rainfall, number and intensity of storms, droughts, increase and decrease of desert areas, etc.? Edit: I see you’ve posted and provided a link, unfortunately it’s “skepticalscience” which didn’t appear to have anything substantial, but I will check it again. Edit 2: Ok, I checked those graphs. Was hoping for something that was more substantial (more data points) and over much longer periods, not just 100 years. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/63 "2013-05-11T19:17:54Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > That link doesn’t address what I wrote at all. Just putting some perceptive, it is clear that you were saying about Jones was a misrepresentation of that he actually said. > [@yorick73](#): > > The problem with the global warming crowd is that many of the predictions made by the alarmists did not happen. That’s what happens when you have a buffoon like Al Gore acting as high priest of the movement and putting out propaganda pieces instead of addressing the actual science. Really, the Skeptical Science climate myths page has been up, updated constantly and cites the science and the debunked to death points, yours here is # 19: > **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)** > > \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\ > [@](#): > > While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science. > [@](#): > > Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. > [@yorick73](#): > > The public sees that the sky is not falling, reads that global warming has paused over the last 16 years, and starts to wonder if the whole thing is bullshit. Based on bullshit from very few scientists and usually non-experts in league with powerful interests. > **[Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong | William D. Nordhaus](https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/?pagination=false)** > > The threat of climate change is an increasingly important environmental issue for the globe. At a time when we need to clarify public confusions about the science and economics of climate change, skeptics have muddied the waters. I will describe... > [@yorick73](#): > > Top that off with scientists like Jones saying things like ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ and admitting that we simply don’t understand all the variables involved, and I start to wonder how accurate their predictions will be. And just repeating that I did not address what you said is really a sad opinion. Clearly the context shows that he had very good reasons to say that, as he already has reported that there was already significant warming, we should now wait more years to see where the trend will go, so far it continues to go up, as even statistician experts report. > [@](#): > > "Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880. > > Saying there’s a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers." > **[Statisticians reject global cooling](https://grist.org/article/statisticians-reject-global-cooling/)** > > A terrific story by the AP’s Seth Borenstein, “Statisticians reject global cooling,” not only debunks that myth — it will make your head spin once again on error-riddled Superfreakonomics (coauthored by Levitt). Have you heard that the world is now... ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/64 "2013-05-11T19:35:23Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > My point: don’t predict stuff you can’t predict. That is nice, the climate scientists are not. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > As I asked before, you’ve asserted that the models are accurate, do you have an example of a climate model that basically matches historical records regarding temp, rainfall, number and intensity of storms, droughts, increase and decrease of desert areas, etc.? Once again, that inaccuracy on specific years has been granted, what the attempt here is to minimize what they are doing well now, and that is to come very very close on matching the number of past extremes. And the reason is that while there uncertainty on some extreme events like hurricanes and tornadoes (this was already explained, why this is asked again leads others to wonder something else) there is more certainty that more GWG emitted will lead to more droughts, extreme flooding in some areas, more forest fires, ocean rise and acidification, the evidence for that is so clear that we have a lot to do to prepare. Now as for the (already granted) uncertain numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes to come in a warming world, it remains a gamble that IMHO is not ok to also add to the most certain problems to come. So why do many continue to gamble that the sources they depend on are correct also regrading the the most certain ones to come? As for the “unfortunate” skeptical science, you should be aware that conservative scientists do link to it as it is a resource, [http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/about\_the\_program](http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/about_the_program) > **[Climate Asylum](https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/)** > > A Republican Scientist Advocates Sane Energy Policies The blue links on the cited papers in Skeptical Science go to the published science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/65 "2013-05-11T19:45:29Z")
Incidentally, Richard Alley is a Republican, but I wonder if he will go like Kerry Emmanuel after encountering all the nonsense from Republican Politicians. I mention that because Skeptical Science also relies on him: > **[Richard Alley's Escalator](https://skepticalscience.com/richard-alley-escalator.html)** > > In the latest video over at Climate Crocks, Richard Alley debunks the myth that global warming stopped in \[insert year\] with some excellent anecdotes. And here is a quick explanation from Alley on why we should act on the problem even if there is uncertainty with the timing of the extremes: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/a69_owv4jEE/maxresdefault.jpg ""We don't know enough..." How to talk to an OSTRICH") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a69_owv4jEE) > [@](#): > > It’s true that Earth’s a massive jigsaw puzzle, with lots of pieces intricately fitting together. But, Richard Alley argues, we already know enough to see the Big Picture. The missing pieces of scientific understanding - exactly how clouds work, how extreme weather will change with global warming - are important, but we can already see how Earth works. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/66 "2013-05-12T00:05:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > you’re making assumptions about what I’ve said. I started with a simple premise that the current cooling doesn’t fit the models. I’m not dismissing that the earth is warming but I am suggesting that the models of the rate are based on a great number of variables, all of which can skew the end result radically with very little change in the data.\ Sorry, me a culpa. I thought you were dismissing that the earth is warming with this post: > [@Magiver](#): > > [except that we’re now in a state of global cooling.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/) My mistake. > [@Magiver](#): > > We could cut co2 emissions radically with a few simple policy changes and focus of tax money. If we rolled back EPA diesel numbers we could be driving 65 mpg diesels right now. Nothing has to be invented. The cars already exist in Europe. If the federal government would focus on bringing down the cost of biodiesel we would drastically eliminate direct release of co2 from fossil fuels. The technology to do it already exists. The end cost needs to be dropped roughly in half and I have to believe that is doable with the proper focus of research funds. The benefits of this are many. Fuel costs would stabilize which would stabilize transportation costs. We would benefit directly from the taxes that would be generated from fuels created in our own country. We would be sending less money to countries that pose a terrorist threat to us. I agree that these would be good steps, but probably not sufficient. A lot of industries would od with some deregulation and we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels. I would also like to see more investment in biofuels, algae based especially. Cap and trade is just asking for corruption, do a straight up carbon tax and cut everyone’s income tax to compensate. ---
**Author:** ![April\_R](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@April\_R](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/April_R)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/67 "2013-05-12T00:40:18Z")
Is the climate change debate the new misogyny? This board gets bored fast! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/68 "2013-05-12T04:05:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Just putting some perceptive, it is clear that you were saying about Jones was a misrepresentation of that he actually said. I don’t know what you are trying to say here. Were you drinking when you typed that? If it is a misrepresentation then please point it out instead of building a straw man composed of something I did not quote. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Really, the Skeptical Science climate myths page has been up, updated constantly and cites the science and the debunked to death points, yours here is # 19: Pointing out the obvious about Gore is not something that can be “debunked” regardless of what your favorite website concludes. AGW proponents overstated their case and are now paying the price in terms of public perception. The sky is not falling. There have been many instances of respected scientists making overblown predictions that turn out to be completely incorrect. This is just another example. Seems humans have a need to fear something every 10 years or so. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Based on bullshit from very few scientists and usually non-experts in league with powerful interests. “Powerful Interests”…sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. I really do believe this climate change stuff has become a religion to you and others. I guess we all need something to believe in… > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And just repeating that I did not address what you said is really a sad opinion. Clearly the context shows that he had very good reasons to say that, as he already has reported that there was already significant warming, we should now wait more years to see where the trend will go, so far it continues to go up, as even statistician experts report. I agree we should wait a few more years. As Prof. Jones said: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’ Maybe a few more years’ time will help us figure all this out. All you True Believers want to act now even though we simply do not have all the facts. When pushed you will admit that there are a lot of things we do not understand about how the climate operates yet we should still act now. Sounds like a religion to me. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/69 "2013-05-12T04:28:02Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I don’t know what you are trying to say here. Were you drinking when you typed that? If it is a misrepresentation then please point it out instead of building a straw man composed of something I did not quote. Already pointed out, Jones had very good reasons to say that, chief among them that he already showed that indeed there is significant warming already, so in essence it was false to imply that he is incorrect. > [@yorick73](#): > > Pointing out the obvious about Gore is not something that can be “debunked” regardless of what your favorite website concludes. AGW proponents overstated their case and are now paying the price in terms of public perception. The sky is not falling. There have been many instances of respected scientists making overblown predictions that turn out to be completely incorrect. This is just another example. Seems humans have a need to fear something every 10 years or so. This is nonsense, if you were correct then the science would had changed and dropped the warnings, instead the warnings are still there, whereas you like it or not. > **[Climate Change](https://www.ucs.org/climate)** > > Climate change is one of the most devastating problems humanity has ever faced—and the clock is running out. > [@yorick73](#): > > “Powerful Interests”…sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense to me. I really do believe this climate change stuff has become a religion to you and others. I guess we all need something to believe in… Nope, this is not a belief, it has been documented. > **[Merchants of Doubt](https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/)** > > How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming > **[Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt Australian tour](https://skepticalscience.com/Naomi-Oreskes-Merchants-of-Doubt-Australian-tour.html)** > > A must-read book for anyone following climate science is Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. If you're at all familiar with the arguments of global warming skeptics, you'll have many a sense of deja vu as you read through the... > [@yorick73](#): > > I agree we should wait a few more years. As Prof. Jones said: > ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’ > > Maybe a few more years’ time will help us figure all this out. All you True Believers want to act now even though we simply do not have all the facts. When pushed you will admit that there are a lot of things we do not understand about how the climate operates yet we should still act now. Sounds like a religion to me. Nope, the ones using religion are on the other side, and in positions of government. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/09/441515/inhofe-god-says-global-warming-is-a-hoax/) > **[Climate Myths from James Inhofe](https://skepticalscience.com/skepticquotes.php?s=30)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... Once again, not knowing how many hurricanes or tornadoes are coming thanks to the future warming is uncertain, but chances are that they will be worse in a warming world. **Even forgetting about that** , science still is telling us that all other much very likely items like ocean acidification, ocean rise and harsher heatwaves with the resulting crop loss are more than enough reasons to do something now. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/70 "2013-05-12T04:34:41Z")
Good reason to say what? That we should be worried if the “no upward trend” continues for more than 15 years. Yes, I agree he had good reason to say that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/71 "2013-05-12T04:40:17Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Good reason to say what? That we should be worried if the “no upward trend” continues for more than 15 years. Yes, I agree he had good reason to say that. Irrelevant and moot when we take into account the context. And you need to check the sources that have misled you: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/_PWDFzWt-Ag/hqdefault.jpg "8a. Climate Change - Phil Jones and the 'no warming for 15 years'") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag) > [@](#): > > The Internet was abuzz with a quote from Professor Phil Jones that there has been no global warming since 1995. > But is that what he actually said? Once again, we need to go to the source – Jones’s own words – rather than Internet gossip based on an interpretation of what he said. If we check the primary source, it’s a very different story. In fact, Jones and his team did detect warming since 1995. In this video I go to the source, and find out why the tabloid press got things so wrong. I have to correct part of the video where I gave an example of what an 80% statistical significance would mean (for the statisticians out there, this is a p-value of 20%). I said this would mean 80% confidence that global warming was a real, underlying trend, and not the result of background fluctuations. > While some statisticians accepted this as a broad explanation for the layperson, others felt it deviated too far from the precise meaning, which is this: =If global warming was not happening, there is only a 20% chance we would see this result.= A 90% statistical significance (if that’s what Jones achieved) of the 1995-2009 temperature data would mean If global warming was not happening, there is only a 10% chance we would see this result. The attempt at discrediting Jones has been debunked many times already, and this latest “15 years” item is just continuing to repeat out of context words only demonstrates that the attention paid is not to science but to McExperts, fake skeptics and clueless sources. ---
**Author:** ![Quimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/22d042/32.png) [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/72 "2013-05-12T05:01:52Z")
I never understood what was actually “Conservative” about denying Global Warming. Is it really nothing more than the fact that Conservatives and Republicans are shills for Big Business? And this strange Conspiracy they posit. They always say the motive is money (you know those huge Science Grants everyone is itching to get their hands on) but ignore the fact that the beneficiaries of the Status quo are literally the most profitable entities in the history of our civilization. It really just makes no sense at all. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/73 "2013-05-12T05:30:27Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > I agree that these would be good steps, but probably not sufficient. A lot of industries would od with some deregulation and we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels. I would also like to see more investment in biofuels, algae based especially. Cap and trade is just asking for corruption, do a straight up carbon tax and cut everyone’s income tax to compensate. we need energy to survive economically. Trying to tax co2 out of existing is likely going to hurt the economy. If you hurt the economy you hurt the tax base. If you hurt the tax base then we have less money available to actually do something useful about GW. Natural gas is the obvious replacement for aging coal plants because of the reserves in North America. By default we will be reducing co2 as this occurs. There is growth potential for wind generation and we’re not too far off from seeing solar cells in some useful form. These are not idle thoughts, it’s happening right now in my state. We’ve shut down quite a few coal plants and we’ve been using natural gas for peak-use generators for many decades. We’ve also just built a solar-cell facility. But back to the bio-fuels discussion. It’s just common sense to use the infrastructure we have now as an interim step to future developments. We already have a gas station on every corner. We already have diesel cars that outperform hybrids. I suspect the winner in the hybrid market is going to be an extended range vehicle using a micro-turbine as the ice engine. It’s a lighter/smaller footprint in the engine bay which allows for more batteries and can run at it’s optimum speed all the time. Micro-turbines would represent a considerable reduction in parts and complexity over the current atkinson cycle engines. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/74 "2013-05-12T05:48:06Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > we need energy to survive economically. Trying to tax co2 out of existing is likely going to hurt the economy. If you hurt the economy you hurt the tax base. If you hurt the tax base then we have less money available to actually do something useful about GW. The experience we got when modern cities finally dealt with getting clean water and controlling sewage, shows that this point ignores the economical benefits. In the past the gains came from not dealing with cholera or other diseases, and new industries came out of it, (So, why do you hate Joe the Plumber? 🙂 ) Today, many new industries are poised to make huge gains in the near future. And even the old fossil fuel industry is making moves to take advantage of that. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/V7bmg65SS20/maxresdefault.jpg "How to Talk to an Ostrich: "We can't Afford Clean Energy"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20) > [@](#): > > Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - “leave it to future generations.” In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/75 "2013-05-12T05:56:25Z")
GIGObuster, your posts are very hard to follow, particularly your use of the quotes function. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/76 "2013-05-12T06:13:09Z")
Uh, I would think the quotes are ok, but I have indeed trouble with my lines. What I tried to say is: The experience we got when modern cities finally dealt with getting clean water and controlling sewage shows that your point ignores the economical benefits. In the past the gains came from not dealing anymore with cholera or other diseases, indeed, back then many said that the economy was going to suffer because of the cost of all those pipes and treatment plants, but not having people die and suffer other problems is a priceless thing, and new industries came out of getting clean water and controlling sewage. (So, why do you hate Joe the Plumber? 🙂 ) [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/V7bmg65SS20/maxresdefault.jpg "How to Talk to an Ostrich: "We can't Afford Clean Energy"") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20) > [@](#): > > Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - “leave it to future generations.” In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. As pointed before, it is when one considers the huge costs of dealing with disruptions in the future (as a result of not doing anything to control emissions) when one can realize how shortsighted is the idea of concentrating just on the economical well-being of an industry that should not get subsidies at least. There are indeed benefits from doing the right thing and new industries that will keep the economy going after the change. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/77 "2013-05-12T10:06:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, I would think the quotes are ok, but I have indeed trouble with my lines. What I tried to say is: > > The experience we got when modern cities finally dealt with getting clean water and controlling sewage shows that your point ignores the economical benefits. I’ve never read any objection to cost regarding clean water or sewage nor am I objecting toward spending money to alter the temperature. I’ve stated quite simply that spending money to reduce co2 is not based on any attempt at the best return for money spent . Regardless of co2 the planet is going to warm. At some point we risk releasing a great deal of methane and that’s going to be a huge problem. It may end up being much cheaper to simply block the sun with the release of reflective particles at high altitude. That would affect the temperature directly instead of trying to mitigate just one of the GH gases. What we should be doing is leveraging the assets we have and not trying to reinvent the wheel. There is no excuse for keeping 65 mpg diesels out of the US. It makes no sense. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/78 "2013-05-12T13:40:31Z")
> [@Quimby](#): > > I never understood what was actually “Conservative” about denying Global Warming. Is it really nothing more than the fact that Conservatives and Republicans are shills for Big Business? > > And this strange Conspiracy they posit. They always say the motive is money (you know those huge Science Grants everyone is itching to get their hands on) but ignore the fact that the beneficiaries of the Status quo are literally the most profitable entities in the history of our civilization. It really just makes no sense at all. For the record I don’t deny global warming exists. I don’t even deny that man has a part in the warming. The difference is degree. Are we responsible for the level of warming seen over the last X years due to burning fossil fuels, etc. The problem is that there is _so much_ about the climate that we don’t understand. The models developed so far have not been that predictive of current trends and the experts admit that we simply do not understand all the variables involved. Throw in a big dose of “big oil” funding anyone, including scientists, who disagree in degree with AGW and the hysteria of those non-scientists trying to push an agenda because of ideology and you basically have a religion. As a scientist (though not one in any way familiar with climate science) I’m always skeptical when scientists make outrageous claims and the media hypes them. This has happened more times than I can count and they are usually, if not always, incorrect. The difference here is that we may need to wait decades or centuries to see if the current batch of alarmist scientists are correct. People like **GIGObuster** are so committed to the religion that they will defend it at all costs. You can see how quick they are to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as quacks, tools of “big oil” etc. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/79 "2013-05-12T13:44:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Irrelevant and moot when we take into account the context. > > And you need to check the sources that have misled you: > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_PWDFzWt-Ag](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag) > The attempt at discrediting Jones has been debunked many times already, and this latest “15 years” item is just continuing to repeat out of context words only demonstrates that the attention paid is not to science but to McExperts, fake skeptics and clueless sources. That’s _still_ not the quote I referenced. I have not attempted to discredit Prof. Jones. I was using a quote from his climate gate e-mails. If it is out of context please point it out. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/80 "2013-05-12T15:08:08Z")
Is it time for anecdotal evidence yet? 😉 There seems to be more, bigger, and longer lasting hail dumping (rather than tornado spawning) t-storms in my area than in years past. But, that could also be confirmation bias on my part because of the insurance claims I’ve had to file in the past 5 years. Yes, smack dab in the middle of tornado alley I am. Any real data about that? (curiosity only, no dog in fight) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=5)