Climate Name Change

[Fulcrum29]

I support this view.

You have a pretty low IQ not to be able to see that humans are the major cause of co2 emissions but changing the names to that of the deniers will add extra confusion and is not necessary.

Low IQ? Pretty much, reading and believing twak will lower your IQ.

You know that zones is attached to geographical areas???

I also said nothing about denying any cause related to co2 emissions…

 

[bot]

Low IQ? Pretty much, reading and believing twak will lower your IQ.

You know that zones is attached to geographical areas???

I also said nothing about denying any cause related to co2 emissions…

I never said you did, i was making an observation based on other comments in this thread. to you i was just agreeing with your view that it would be confusing to change the names. I am sorry if it came out wrong. You are too smart to deny all the evidence that humans are raising co2

 

[Bar0n]

Yeah, you have made it obvious you dont wanna test if you are right and wrong Thats sad. Thats what creationists do

Not biting.

Unlike you I think about more than these nutshell explanations on websites, I think about the numbers too. I know how inaccurate it can be to model even simple systems. With all the complexity of our current weather models, we cannot accurately predict whether it will rain tomorrow or not. How many times have you been told it would/wouldn't rain and then the opposite occurred? Since our models are so great, why can't I tell you what tomorrow's stock prices will be?

The scientific method relies on questioning what we know. I question the accuracy of the current predictions, not the existence of climate change.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I never said you did, i was making an observation based on other comments in this thread. to you i was just agreeing with your view that it would be confusing to change the names. I am sorry if it came out wrong. You are too smart to deny all the evidence that humans are raising co2

No problems,

I support various causes, but a cause must be within reasonable expectation.

The US Air Force and Navy started plotting storms since World War II, they named cyclones according to their loved ones back home, which changed when the National Weather Bureau was introduced in 1945, introducing a system based on the military phonetic alphabet, naturally the available options got exhausted and they moved the inventory to woman names which was later challenged by the Feminists. At this stage they declared woman are not disasters, so a more appropriate approach to alter the inventory to include both men’s and women’s names was brought into action, same stage where they wanted it to be named on a senator-based plan.

Today (since 1979) the names is recognised per region where tropical cyclones strike, cycled every 6 years and omitted (retired) when rarely severe, although this happened in 1992 and in 2005.

 

[Unhappy1]

Perhaps I am too opinionated on the subject (its accuracy, not its existence), but I believe there is reason to question some of the current assessments that people so regularly quote and refer to.

Well sure we are constantly questioning its accuracy, heres the thing though and Stephen Schneider puts it well:

Typically 1-2% of people in California are effected my house fires yet 99% of us have fire insurance.We do not need 95% certainty.
People frame this problem by looking at exceptions to the conventional wisdom and claim until the exceptions are resolved, it isn't proven and it's premature to act. Yet we're acting on a one percent risk and paying fire insurance and here we're talking about 50% risk to the planetary life-support system, and they're telling us that's not certain enough."

 

[Swa]

Can't support the theory with sound science so try to use a petition instead. Typical.

Because these retards are holding the whole world back by denying reality. It's not just some random hicks in bumfsckville, Alabama. If Congressmen in the States refuse to even acknowledge reality then we've got a problem on a global scale.

We've got a problem when people start calling their beliefs reality.

 

[w1z4rd]

Can't support the theory with sound science so try to use a petition instead. Typical.

Theyre not trying to support a theory with a petition, the petition is to change the name of hurricanes. :erm:

 

[OrbitalDawn]

so we bully them?

mocking someone and degrading someone is not making a point.

Bully them? Congressmen, Senators and a Governor? :erm:

These gormless twats do not value reason, logic or evidence. What do you propose should be done?

 

[Swa]

Yeah right...

 

[Swa]

Bully them? Congressmen, Senators and a Governor? :erm:

These gormless twats do not value reason, logic or evidence. What do you propose should be done?

Support it with unambiguous evidence. Models are not evidence.

 

[bot]

Support it with unambiguous evidence. Models are not evidence.

derp

 

[STS]

Bully them? Congressmen, Senators and a Governor? :erm:

These gormless twats do not value reason, logic or evidence. What do you propose should be done?

you're turning this around to me asking me what should be done when i'm criticising the harmfulness in the action taken. it's like clubbing puppies to death and when i tell you that it's inhumane, you ask me "well, what SHOULD we do with these puppies then?"

clearly naming politicians after hurricanes is meant as an insult. you cannot institutionalise discrimination and victimisation. hurricanes are a fact of life, we can all see hurricanes and people suffer because of them. it's as insensitive as telling someone their cancer cells are now called an Obama Tumor due to him screwing up healthcare

deal with the issues, keep petty squabbles out of it

 

[Unhappy1]

you're turning this around to me asking me what should be done when i'm criticising the harmfulness in the action taken. it's like clubbing puppies to death and when i tell you that it's inhumane, you ask me "well, what SHOULD we do with these puppies then?"

clearly naming politicians after hurricanes is meant as an insult. you cannot institutionalise discrimination and victimisation. hurricanes are a fact of life, we can all see hurricanes and people suffer because of them. it's as insensitive as telling someone their cancer cells are now called an Obama Tumor due to him screwing up healthcare

deal with the issues, keep petty squabbles out of it

Have you never heard of Hoovervilles?

 

[STS]

Have you never heard of Hoovervilles?

Did they sign petitions to call them that?

 

[Techne]

From the latest IPCC report (from here):
Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low.


Silly idea this. Looks like a bunch of people that don't like Republicans and is just alarmism that will desensitize people.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

you're turning this around to me asking me what should be done when i'm criticising the harmfulness in the action taken. it's like clubbing puppies to death and when i tell you that it's inhumane, you ask me "well, what SHOULD we do with these puppies then?"

No, it's not even remotely the same.

clearly naming politicians after hurricanes is meant as an insult. you cannot institutionalise discrimination and victimisation. hurricanes are a fact of life, we can all see hurricanes and people suffer because of them. it's as insensitive as telling someone their cancer cells are now called an Obama Tumor due to him screwing up healthcare

deal with the issues, keep petty squabbles out of it

That would be preferable, obviously. But as I mentioned, these dullards are incapable of doing that. They're holding back any kind of progress that can be made for completely irrational and illogical reasons. I ask again, what should be done? Your accommodationism towards idiots that proliferate harmful ideas is a tad concerning.

 

[Swa]

That would be preferable, obviously. But as I mentioned, these dullards are incapable of doing that. They're holding back any kind of progress that can be made for completely irrational and illogical reasons. I ask again, what should be done? Your accommodationism towards idiots that proliferate harmful ideas is a tad concerning.

Again, support it with unambiguous evidence rather than call people you disagree with idiots or dullards.

 

[Unhappy1]

Did they sign petitions to call them that?

In the context of your last post i fail to see how that's relevant?

 

[STS]

No, it's not even remotely the same.



That would be preferable, obviously. But as I mentioned, these dullards are incapable of doing that. They're holding back any kind of progress that can be made for completely irrational and illogical reasons. I ask again, what should be done? Your accommodationism towards idiots that proliferate harmful ideas is a tad concerning.

They aren't remotely the same, I was trying to tell you that I offer criticism based on ethics and you ask me what to do, and assuming that I cannot tell you what to do, by default we resort this argument of bullying and intimidating.

Secondly, "accommodating" these arguments falls under free speech, not tolerating their view points. You can not have free speech when YOU want it and make it go away if you don't agree with someone. So by accusing me of "concerning behaviour", you are forgetting the point of freedom and the principles of freedom. It's annoying when you have both sides of the argument acting like children

There is a list of reasons this isn't a good idea:

1.) people who want this done make it clear that it is for political reasons, not scientific reasons. As people have mentioned above, the current system is fine

2.) Not everyone who supports bettering this planet agrees with this petition. It has bad intentions. You will end up doing more harm to the cause and people that were on the fence will see this as a reason to remain skeptical

3.) Bully and intimidating are not acceptable. There is no proof that it is effective either in the form of naming hurricanes after politicians. Try bully someone on mybb to change their point of view and see how long it takes you to get banned

4.) People will immediately dislike this due to the amount of limelight it gives to politicians. I've seen arguments on other forums that it may not change the politicians outlook, just that it will encourage interest in a politician and their fight against da evil creeping socialism

 

[OrbitalDawn]

They aren't remotely the same, I was trying to tell you that I offer criticism based on ethics and you ask me what to do, and assuming that I cannot tell you what to do, by default we resort this argument of bullying and intimidating.

Secondly, "accommodating" these arguments falls under free speech, not tolerating their view points. You can not have free speech when YOU want it and make it go away if you don't agree with someone. So by accusing me of "concerning behaviour", you are forgetting the point of freedom and the principles of freedom. It's annoying when you have both sides of the argument acting like children

There is a list of reasons this isn't a good idea:

1.) people who want this done make it clear that it is for political reasons, not scientific reasons. As people have mentioned above, the current system is fine

2.) Not everyone who supports bettering this planet agrees with this petition. It has bad intentions. You will end up doing more harm to the cause and people that were on the fence will see this as a reason to remain skeptical

3.) Bully and intimidating are not acceptable. There is no proof that it is effective either in the form of naming hurricanes after politicians. Try bully someone on mybb to change their point of view and see how long it takes you to get banned

4.) People will immediately dislike this due to the amount of limelight it gives to politicians. I've seen arguments on other forums that it may not change the politicians outlook, just that it will encourage interest in a politician and their fight against da evil creeping socialism

I'm not attacking their right to hold these opinions. I'm saying they should pay a social and political price for it. Same as vehement racists and anti-vaxxers. They can have their opinion, but I'd hope society can punish them for their stupidity harm they're doing by not elevating them to positions of authority and major influence.

I'm also not sure the goal of this petition won't be counter-intuitive, but coddling people who perpetuate harmful nonsense is also not helping. As I said, they don't value reason, logic or evidence. And these people suffer from crank magnetism. I'm not just referring to their position on climate change, but on a whole host of issues.