Why are deniers so stupid that they get their science information from investors. com?
Some moron that chose to be Anonymous linked to a bonehead article in investors. com claiming that "climate fascists" wanted to "redefine what a hurricane is" when no one wanted to do anything of the sort, but they were too stupid to realize that.
2016-10-17T18:04:01Z
Kano, you could check with the National Hurricane Center and see if there is any proposal to change the definition of a hurricane, and there is not. The whole premise of that article is based on a lie.
2016-10-18T07:09:09Z
The original article in Investors Business Daily was titled "Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them". The problem is that neither the person that wrote the article nor the person that asked the question about actually KNEW what the definition of a hurricane is. If they had, they would have known that there was no attempt to redefine it. When deniers turn to biased, non-science sources such as this one they actually know LESS after reading the articles.
2016-10-18T07:17:11Z
The motivation for the interest in a new measure of hurricanes' destructive power is just a realization that the Saffir-Simpson scale does a poor job of measuring this, since it doesn't take into account either the storm's size nor its accompanying storm surge.
graphicconception2016-10-18T06:25:40Z
Maybe if you had read the original article in Mashable you would see where the IBD article was coming from.
The Mashable article quotes such luminaries as Kevin Trenberth saying: "[the Saffir-Simpson Scale] has always been seriously flawed." It goes on to suggest using the "Cyclone Damage Potential" index.
This does look like an attempt to change the base of the headline figures used by the media and you can be sure that any revision will make things look worse than they are now.
OK, this is not the Hurricane Supremo saying: "We shall redefine The Hurricane" but it is a suggestion by an alarmist to change the system. The quoted article is merely a comment on that.
Political and environmental activists seem to be taking all of the headlines. We have environmental blogs like Christian Science Monitor (BS name), Vox, Mashable, Business Insider, Huffington Post, EcoWatch, The Atlantic, etc... that continuously flood the internet with manipulated and entirely bogus scientific stories. These stories are what people read on a daily basis.
It seems that you are too stupid and arrogant to understand a great many things that people tell you when it comes to REAL scientific information. Glad to see that you really don't understand how scientific information is passed on through the media. It clearly shows how biased you really are about climate change science.
"The size of a man can best be determined by the size of the things that make him mad."
Hmm Where are skeptics supposed to get information from? The media is totally biased as are science journals. If you want data, information and facts that don't conform to climate change your pretty much restricted in sources. The main source comes from blogs, which is why they are hated and detested by warmers, there are science papers that are interesting to skeptics, but you will never find them on your own, because the media shuns all such papers, it is only through blogs will you ever get to know about them. Most anti global warming blogs have integrity, they have to because they know how many will jump on them to expose the slightest mistake or exaggeration, The good blogs always post links when available, so everyone can double check what they say.
James, you do know that rob here has frequently said stuff like the world in ending in 20 years, because of AGW, right? Guess all alarmunists are that "stupid".
What's that you say? You can't generalize everyone by the action of one, you say??? Wow James, you are sooo right.
Also, James, I let's see the effect of trying to change the classification system for hurricanes. That's what I want to see.
If I see all cat 4s from earlier in history go to the equivalent of cat 3s and all cat 4s recently go to cat 5s, then I would suggest the article is right in its concern.