How does a Tropical Storm become a Cat 5 Hurricane in less than 9 hours?

Are you trying to say that science gets it wrong a lot? If so, then I agree.

 

Except it is.The current amount of CO2 increase since leftist first began the caterwauling in the early nineties is 3 parts per million.

 

"...science gets it wrong a lot..."?? I don't even know what that means. Science is a tool. Like a hammer. It's not right or wrong. If you use it correctly, it's useful, if you don't... you get a swollen thumb...

 

What isn't? What totally unique unpresedented occurrence are you talking about? Emphasis on "actual occurrence" not the result of some computer simulation. A one-time "record" isn't indicative of climate change.

 

LOL. You're funny. First you guys say that the facts of science should be accepted then you turn around and say it's just a tool, not facts.

 

If you do not bother reading the links I supply do not be surprised if your comments remain unanswered in the future
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10...st-recorded-category-five-explainer/103019720

 

Once again

 

Ironic you'd use this picture.

 

Why? Seems that using pictures with simple texts is far more effective than using citations that are not opened or read

 

Because you continually substitution bad journalism and claim it's "good science".

 

Do l? Since you did not bother even click on the last link……….

BTW the term is BAD journalism. ABC Australia is our version of the BBC. It has an extremely high level of good journalism and if you had clicked you would have noticed it embeds links to research in its articles

 

So?

 

See - that was news to you that it used citations again showing that you commented without clicking the link

 

I advise reading your citations, not just the headline. If you expect others to read your links you must demonstrate that they are relevant.

From your link.

 

What exactly did I claim this proved?

 

You posted it in response to someone asking….

You responded with a link supporting the premise of the other member. You tell me? What’s the point of doing that?

 

Follow back the conversation because you are inferring something that was not there

 

LOL. I did. That’s why I understand what’s going on here.

I can’t believe you were sarcastic.

https://www.wordscoach.com/dictionary/Snarky#google_vignette

Your link doesn’t support your argument. Quite the contrary.

3,2,1….

 

The journalism is quite good, being directly based on peer-reviewed research. Your deflection fails.

 

So, let’s look at this site’s pedigree

Ooopsie! Seems it is funded by the Koch Bros favourite denialist sinking fund
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13032020/heartland-instutute-climate-change-skeptic/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
ahhhh! The Heartland Institute!

 

And it isn’t something we have seen happen before or did you miss reading this but in the frantic effort to attempt to “score. Point”?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10...st-recorded-category-five-explainer/103019720

Now ABC Aus is good journalism and will present both sides because with stories like this we MUST take into account random chance. It would take analysis of random chance event statistics to determine if it was correlation or causation


However IF a you had read further instead of cherry picking one section you would have seen this

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10...st-recorded-category-five-explainer/103019720
the linked article from Nature is here
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06544-0

 

Once again you attack rather than engage the data. Even in that you are unsurprisingly wide of the mark. Heartland replies:

Is The Heartland Institute funded by the Koch Brothers?
No. Neither Charles Koch nor David Koch – nor any Koch family charitable foundation – is a current or regular contributor to The Heartland Institute. Koch Industries has never funded The Heartland Institute.

The Charles G. Koch Foundation in 2012 donated $25,000 to Heartland to support our work promoting free-market health care solutions, not climate issues. That is a paltry sum (0.36 percent) in our organization’s $7 million budget. That single donation – to support our work on health care issues – was the only Koch-connected contribution to Heartland in nearly two decades. [Important note: Heartland didn’t begin to support and promote scientists who are skeptical of human-caused climate catastrophe until 2008.]

The “Koch Brothers” generously support many nonprofit organizations that promote free markets and individual liberty. The Heartland Institute is not among them. Our policy positions, at any rate, are based on principle. We are not a “pay to play” organization.

 

If the site is suspect, and this one is, why would I bother going any further? I have better things to do with my life than waste my time with Brandolinis law. Oh! And Koch has a more circuitous funding for places like Heartland

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/figh...David Koch used,working to delay policies and

https://www.newyorker.com/news/dail...ade-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-neg...t-his-climate-change-disinformation-campaign/

 

You have been led to water. Whether you drink is up to you.

 

Yes and you are basically wasting your time - how many “converts” have you had with posting your links? Meanwhile I have seen many many posters drop out of the denialist mindset over the years. If you think this is lively debate then you should have seen the debates of yesteryear. We had soooooooo many leaping on these threads. Mind you some of the misinformation was hilarious! “CO2 is heavier than air so the the measurements are wrong” “the ocean cannot get deoxygenated because water is H2O so there is always oxygen” and my all time favourite “Earth is warming because the solar system just moved into a warm spot in space”. Hate to tell you but most of the Bull from Heartland is not much better than this.