I'd have to wonder if Windows 10 is helping to cause this slump.
Yes. Most people know how the bend over and take ut up the backside updates are screwing their computers up. People have Windows 7 computers that work. Why upgrade to a computer that shits it's pants every update?
So the market for poorly made crapware infested lenovo machines dropped AND the over priced apple workstations?
well i'll be damned.
I'm buying a new Apple this year, either a full blown iMac, or if the wife lets me, a PowerMac. I want to but a new PC laptop too, but it has to run Win7, because just like W8, I won't own another with shitware on it. Been out looking, but of course, no one local is selling a new laptop with an actual working operating system, like W7.
Wanna watch PC's sell again? Rework Windows 7 into a new and working OS, one that you control the updates on, and one that you control the telemetry.
I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
We're all also going to die. I guess we better kill ourselves off now, the ride's been set in motion after all.
You just look for shit to make smartass comments about? Or are you intellectually challenged, in which case I pologize because my mamma taught me to not pick pn retarded people.
Since it is not possible for you to comprehend what I wrote, it is this. Whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, and we are going to have to live with whatever happens. Shit happens.
Go troll someone else, you bore me, kid.
All else is indeed interesting discussion is analysis, without any hard analysis.
And I cannot tell the a*holes from the sincere apologists.
Which specific data do you want?
And should I [present it in as concise a form as you have? Either answer the question, or decline the challenge.
SO far, you have said:
For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
Where do you want me to begin? The beginning with the retention of energy by substance? That the Coriois effect is th eprime mixer of atmospheric energy? I can go to elementary physics if you care, but you need to give me a level you want to operate at. Or you could at least say which exact data was manipulated. But I've discussed with your ilk before. You're getting challenged again. At this point, I'm calling you out as a true denialist, full of assertations and preciousl little to go on.
What data has been manipulated? Talk the big boy talk - I will understand it.
With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.
As a person who has great confidence that AGW exists, the same as I have confidence in the speed of light, or any other scientific law, the existence of Hurricane Andrew has nothing to do with AGW.
If you have evidence that hurricane frequency or landfall is increasing, please share it with NOAA, for they have none.
If your argument is that the intensity is somehow increasing, kindly share that data also.
For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
Bring it on.
Challenge accepted.
First, although altogether too many slashdot users claim strawmen when there was none, your claiming that AGW advocates are claiming that this hurricane is the result of global warming is a complete and total strawman. There are some assholes who might claim that, just the same as there are assholes who claim that the world was entering a new ice age back in the mid 1970's, but those are whacky outliers.
Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon, and fueled by temperature gradients (read energy) brought about by the rotation of a spherical object (the earth) and it's changing insolation on various regions. The weather created is a way to bring the energy level into balance. The same happens with thunderstorms and snowstorms. Can we agree on that much?
Next we have the energy retention properties of the atmosphere on earth. There are some chemical compounds that retain or lessen energy retention. Water vapor is a biggie. It's the most potent Greenhouse "gas" we have, generally. Carbon Dioxide is another. It's a lot weaker in terms of energy retention, but we've released a lot of it lately, from sequestered sources like coal and oil. Then there is methan, which is now being released as normally frozen areas warm. It's not clear at present how much of this will be released, but it is a pretty potent greenhouse gas. There are other greenhouse gases, most are not as important to the discussion.
There are also anti-greenhouse gases, such as Sulfur Dioxide, which tend to allow the atmosphere shed energy much more quickly, so not as much buildup is possible.
The effect of this increase of atmospheric energy is that there ia a general warming trend, and the possibility of a larger energy exchange during storms.
No one storm is the result of this process. It is possible for damage to be increased when an area where sea level has risen when a storm surge of X feet ingresses X miles inland because of that rise. That might be attributable to AGW as a peripheral event, but the existence of the energy balancing effect AKA hurricane, is not. It's just a hurricane.
Okay. There's the start. Ball's in your court now. Be aware however, name calling or silly pejoratives like libtard or wingnut is an automatic disqualification, as is personal attacks on researchers involved. I often use the term denialist. Its a descriptive, not a pejorative. But since we're talking about science, no need to say that anywhere. And strawmen are most definitely not allowed, so game on?
Let me point out there is a huge gap between "basic laws of physics" and global warming is severe enough that we should consider it our only priority.
Let me point out that I never said it should be our top priority.
I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
My concerns at the moment, are that the rapid release of methane we've been experiencing lately are a wild card that wasn't mentioned nearly enough in the past several decades. While methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, it is much more powerful an energy retention substance then CO2.
But even then, we're going to witness whatever we've put in motion without being able to do much about it.
You assume a space industrial complex won't be producing things that can be used for war when that is entirely false. Objects being dropped onto peoples' heads from space is a very big concern. You think people are worried about terrorism now, what about when a bunch of entities have the means to gravitationally nudge the course of a Near-Earth Asteroid?
I know "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a fun read and all, but the force and calculations of landing an asteroid on a precise place are shall we say - interesting. Direction and velocity of the object, rotation of the earth at time of impact, and will the object retain physical integrity to point of contact, or will it go kablooey in the atmosphere.
Computationally, sure, it can be done pick the asteroid and modify the orbit, then increase or decrease velocity so that it hits the earth at the right time. One miscalculation might have the thing hit you.
Good luck with the incredible amount of resources needed to do that though, and carrying them out in secret.
The problem of making your enemies go away with kablooey things has long been solved. For much less than spending half a world's fuel resources on 1 strike.
Even in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" storyline, they were using railguns to accelerate their rocks, not already orbiting asteroids, so fuggidaboudit.
That's a nice story, but I'll believe this when you figure out a way to remove the warmongering gene from the human race.
The real and final stumbling block for humanity, and one I fear we might not survive. We were blessed with prodigious brains, and great curiosity, and cursed with an innate desire to kill others and the aggression to do it.
So now our technical ability to completely destroy the planet is in direct conflict with our almost irresistible desire to employ it. My money is on we'll gleefully provide extinction, or darn close to it.
If that were the case I would have said 'as much as anyone going to Mars'.
Or if you were, you'd have said what you were doing. Allow me to show you the way....
I serve as technical adviser and leader to groups that provide emergency communications. I teach classes and help them gain proficiency in their work. All volunteer work on my part.
See - it's not too difficult to say what we are doing to help others.
Your television is not a general purpose computation device.
A computer is, and it does what you tell it to. If what you tell it is to let someone else give it orders, then it will do that. If the other party gives it malicious orders, well, it will obey.
It's not a difficult concept.
Whooshes for pretty damn big whooshes.
The point you apparently don't get isn't about how software is written, or what Lda Lovelace or the abacus ever had to do with Windows 10 or the Intel line of microprocessors is that television ads don't screw up your television, that the "ads" served up mandatorily by websites do screw up your computer.
To attempt to take your silly missing of the point to it's logical conclusion, that makes television much superior to the intertoobz and the machines used to access them.
Stop blaming the goddamned users, it's the AD NETWORK that infected everyone.
THIS! A million times this.We don't watch ads on Television that screw up our Televisions.
Your computer is not supposed to be fucked up things that presumably reputable websites serve you. If a person's computr is bitched up that way, they aren't the guilty party.
Ol, you've gotten into the single-malt again, haven't you? You better save a taste for me.
Almost. I'm enjoying Resin, a really hoppy beer brewed by Sixpoints Brewery in of all places Brooklyn NY. An amazing brew that is both ultra hoppy and balanced. 9.1 percent alcohol as well Yummy stuff. SO good.I'll keep typing until my spelling goes away.
Do NOT allow untrusted sources to run javascript (or any similar thing) on your computer. Sure, block ads too if you want, but the real problem here is letting totally unknown entities run scripts on your machine,
Yeah, but bullshit. You're saying something like yeah, Jack in the box sold tainted hamburgers and it killed some people bgut hey - itwas their fault because they ate them. Sorry, you arent supposed to get that shit in the first place.
You are begging for problems if you do that.
Everything is the customers fault, eh? How bout this? Don't go to the sites that serve up this shit, or better yet, kill your computer. You can't get malware if you don't have a computer. If you have one and have a problem it is always your fault. Jerk
But unless the advertisements cann ot be a disease vector, the fuck your advertisements. I Want you to go out of business, and I wnat your CEO's to b in jail, and your stockholderd to lose every cent.
So we have Forbes? Fuck you and go out of business, the world will celebrate
Imagur? Fuck you and go out of business, the world will celebrate
Spotify? Fuck you and go out of business, the world will celebrate
Unyil you clean up your act, and quit fucking people's computers up, Fuck off, assholes. You're the problem, not the solution. Goout of business already.
Sorry for the late reply. Metrics are problematic within themselves. If I manage exclusively by metrics, then I have to explain why. Eventually, you will have to explain why your metric based program is causing substandard performance, discrimination against another group, and the flight of employees who see previous potential. You set requirements, put in outreach programs, and check point your processes and policies. That is the actual law and serving it protects you better in the Affirmative Action space.
There's nothing wrong with testing - but when the test becomes the ultimate end goal, you just - and this is at the very luckiest best, produce people who don't have much else giong for them but they are good at taking tests.
And then there is common core math. Making the simplestst forms of math difficult. We are not suposed to philosophize about 1 plus 1, it seldom has ant other answer than 2.
p>The best you can come up with is Queen Mary, who killed some 200-something four hundred and sixty-three years ago and is still compared unfavorably to "Bluff King Hal" who killed 72,000.
The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale.
And why is that a problem for the "denialists" and not for the people actually making the extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence?
1. There are some extremely basic laws of physics going on here. It's like denying Ohm's Law I make the claim that the laws of physics hold true. You do not. You need to prove they don't.
DEspite your protesttions to the negative, the measurements hold up. So you have to prove how the measurements are either incorrect, or don't hold up using real science, not way outdated denials.
I point to the dat. You say it is wrong. You have th eextraordinary claim, you need to supply your proofs. And the proof isn't Michal Mann is an asshole, or long discredited (but unfindable on denialistwebsites - correlation between an Alabama university study and SAtellite data. If you are going to do that, you might as well pull out a T-O map, or claim that fossils are put there by Gawd to tempt people. It's in your court, and it is not my job to do your work for you. Good luck!
This crap has literally been going on for centuries.
There is a saying "When your god just happens to hate everything you do, its a safe bet you're making him in your own image. the soulds of fundamentalists are rotten and corrupt indeed.
Yes, hurricanes never happened before evil humans got in their cars and started using electricity. Never. Not once. No hurricane has ever happened until now.
What a bizzare statement. The nature of a complex atmospheric system like the one on earth inherently leads to energy imbalances. So storms are just the way these imbalances try to even out
Clearly the only solution to this is for all of humanity to die.
Nooo! You are wrong and silly, but we need you around as long as possible, if just to have someone to laugh at. Live long and prosper, and buy mountain land.
Though I believe the evidence of for global warming, this hurricane is not a part of it. Claims such as yours belong with those which claim that people not flying off into space is proof that the world is flat.
It's pretty difficult to claim that any one day's weather is the result of the 800 terawatts of radiative forcing that humans have pumped into the air. You simply have to look at trends.
As well, a lot of people forget the "global" part of AGW. It's the sort of thing that causes deniers to bray "So much for global warming!" As well, there are some folks who declare every hot day or weather related disaster on AGW.
Both are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
Given that hurricanes and tornadoes and other storms are nature's way of dumping excess or imbalanced energy, and its obvious that we've always had these events, no one event can conclusively be laid at the feet of AGW. The nature of nature is that imbalances happen and need taken care of.
The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale. To date, they've done nothing of the sort. This puts them squarely in bed with creationists. Otherwise all they have is looking out the window when its cold.
noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
The only ones that count are the ones that hit the USA. All others are irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have to wonder if Windows 10 is helping to cause this slump.
Yes. Most people know how the bend over and take ut up the backside updates are screwing their computers up. People have Windows 7 computers that work. Why upgrade to a computer that shits it's pants every update?
So the market for poorly made crapware infested lenovo machines dropped AND the over priced apple workstations?
well i'll be damned.
I'm buying a new Apple this year, either a full blown iMac, or if the wife lets me, a PowerMac. I want to but a new PC laptop too, but it has to run Win7, because just like W8, I won't own another with shitware on it. Been out looking, but of course, no one local is selling a new laptop with an actual working operating system, like W7.
Wanna watch PC's sell again? Rework Windows 7 into a new and working OS, one that you control the updates on, and one that you control the telemetry.
First, the temperature records are adjusted to somehow account for errors or influences. This leaves me suspicious.
I asked for data.You have none.
I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
We're all also going to die. I guess we better kill ourselves off now, the ride's been set in motion after all.
You just look for shit to make smartass comments about? Or are you intellectually challenged, in which case I pologize because my mamma taught me to not pick pn retarded people.
Since it is not possible for you to comprehend what I wrote, it is this. Whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, and we are going to have to live with whatever happens. Shit happens. Go troll someone else, you bore me, kid.
Somehow I missed your data.
All else is indeed interesting discussion is analysis, without any hard analysis.
And I cannot tell the a*holes from the sincere apologists.
Which specific data do you want?
And should I [present it in as concise a form as you have? Either answer the question, or decline the challenge.
SO far, you have said:
For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
Where do you want me to begin? The beginning with the retention of energy by substance? That the Coriois effect is th eprime mixer of atmospheric energy? I can go to elementary physics if you care, but you need to give me a level you want to operate at. Or you could at least say which exact data was manipulated. But I've discussed with your ilk before. You're getting challenged again. At this point, I'm calling you out as a true denialist, full of assertations and preciousl little to go on.
What data has been manipulated? Talk the big boy talk - I will understand it.
With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.
As a person who has great confidence that AGW exists, the same as I have confidence in the speed of light, or any other scientific law, the existence of Hurricane Andrew has nothing to do with AGW.
If you have evidence that hurricane frequency or landfall is increasing, please share it with NOAA, for they have none.
If your argument is that the intensity is somehow increasing, kindly share that data also.
For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
Bring it on.
Challenge accepted.
First, although altogether too many slashdot users claim strawmen when there was none, your claiming that AGW advocates are claiming that this hurricane is the result of global warming is a complete and total strawman. There are some assholes who might claim that, just the same as there are assholes who claim that the world was entering a new ice age back in the mid 1970's, but those are whacky outliers.
Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon, and fueled by temperature gradients (read energy) brought about by the rotation of a spherical object (the earth) and it's changing insolation on various regions. The weather created is a way to bring the energy level into balance. The same happens with thunderstorms and snowstorms. Can we agree on that much?
Next we have the energy retention properties of the atmosphere on earth. There are some chemical compounds that retain or lessen energy retention. Water vapor is a biggie. It's the most potent Greenhouse "gas" we have, generally. Carbon Dioxide is another. It's a lot weaker in terms of energy retention, but we've released a lot of it lately, from sequestered sources like coal and oil. Then there is methan, which is now being released as normally frozen areas warm. It's not clear at present how much of this will be released, but it is a pretty potent greenhouse gas. There are other greenhouse gases, most are not as important to the discussion.
There are also anti-greenhouse gases, such as Sulfur Dioxide, which tend to allow the atmosphere shed energy much more quickly, so not as much buildup is possible.
The effect of this increase of atmospheric energy is that there ia a general warming trend, and the possibility of a larger energy exchange during storms.
No one storm is the result of this process. It is possible for damage to be increased when an area where sea level has risen when a storm surge of X feet ingresses X miles inland because of that rise. That might be attributable to AGW as a peripheral event, but the existence of the energy balancing effect AKA hurricane, is not. It's just a hurricane.
Okay. There's the start. Ball's in your court now. Be aware however, name calling or silly pejoratives like libtard or wingnut is an automatic disqualification, as is personal attacks on researchers involved. I often use the term denialist. Its a descriptive, not a pejorative. But since we're talking about science, no need to say that anywhere. And strawmen are most definitely not allowed, so game on?
Let me point out there is a huge gap between "basic laws of physics" and global warming is severe enough that we should consider it our only priority.
Let me point out that I never said it should be our top priority.
I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
My concerns at the moment, are that the rapid release of methane we've been experiencing lately are a wild card that wasn't mentioned nearly enough in the past several decades. While methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, it is much more powerful an energy retention substance then CO2.
But even then, we're going to witness whatever we've put in motion without being able to do much about it.
You assume a space industrial complex won't be producing things that can be used for war when that is entirely false. Objects being dropped onto peoples' heads from space is a very big concern. You think people are worried about terrorism now, what about when a bunch of entities have the means to gravitationally nudge the course of a Near-Earth Asteroid?
I know "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a fun read and all, but the force and calculations of landing an asteroid on a precise place are shall we say - interesting. Direction and velocity of the object, rotation of the earth at time of impact, and will the object retain physical integrity to point of contact, or will it go kablooey in the atmosphere.
Computationally, sure, it can be done pick the asteroid and modify the orbit, then increase or decrease velocity so that it hits the earth at the right time. One miscalculation might have the thing hit you.
Good luck with the incredible amount of resources needed to do that though, and carrying them out in secret.
The problem of making your enemies go away with kablooey things has long been solved. For much less than spending half a world's fuel resources on 1 strike.
Even in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" storyline, they were using railguns to accelerate their rocks, not already orbiting asteroids, so fuggidaboudit.
That's a nice story, but I'll believe this when you figure out a way to remove the warmongering gene from the human race.
The real and final stumbling block for humanity, and one I fear we might not survive. We were blessed with prodigious brains, and great curiosity, and cursed with an innate desire to kill others and the aggression to do it.
So now our technical ability to completely destroy the planet is in direct conflict with our almost irresistible desire to employ it. My money is on we'll gleefully provide extinction, or darn close to it.
If that were the case I would have said 'as much as anyone going to Mars'.
Or if you were, you'd have said what you were doing. Allow me to show you the way....
I serve as technical adviser and leader to groups that provide emergency communications. I teach classes and help them gain proficiency in their work. All volunteer work on my part.
See - it's not too difficult to say what we are doing to help others.
Your television is not a general purpose computation device.
A computer is, and it does what you tell it to. If what you tell it is to let someone else give it orders, then it will do that. If the other party gives it malicious orders, well, it will obey.
It's not a difficult concept.
Whooshes for pretty damn big whooshes.
The point you apparently don't get isn't about how software is written, or what Lda Lovelace or the abacus ever had to do with Windows 10 or the Intel line of microprocessors is that television ads don't screw up your television, that the "ads" served up mandatorily by websites do screw up your computer.
To attempt to take your silly missing of the point to it's logical conclusion, that makes television much superior to the intertoobz and the machines used to access them.
Ad networks ARE infection vectors.
Stop blaming the goddamned users, it's the AD NETWORK that infected everyone.
THIS! A million times this.We don't watch ads on Television that screw up our Televisions.
Your computer is not supposed to be fucked up things that presumably reputable websites serve you. If a person's computr is bitched up that way, they aren't the guilty party.
Ol, you've gotten into the single-malt again, haven't you? You better save a taste for me.
Almost. I'm enjoying Resin, a really hoppy beer brewed by Sixpoints Brewery in of all places Brooklyn NY. An amazing brew that is both ultra hoppy and balanced. 9.1 percent alcohol as well Yummy stuff. SO good.I'll keep typing until my spelling goes away.
Do NOT allow untrusted sources to run javascript (or any similar thing) on your computer. Sure, block ads too if you want, but the real problem here is letting totally unknown entities run scripts on your machine,
Yeah, but bullshit. You're saying something like yeah, Jack in the box sold tainted hamburgers and it killed some people bgut hey - itwas their fault because they ate them. Sorry, you arent supposed to get that shit in the first place.
You are begging for problems if you do that.
Everything is the customers fault, eh? How bout this? Don't go to the sites that serve up this shit, or better yet, kill your computer. You can't get malware if you don't have a computer. If you have one and have a problem it is always your fault. Jerk
So we have Forbes? Fuck you and go out of business, the world will celebrate
Imagur? Fuck you and go out of business, the world will celebrate
Spotify? Fuck you and go out of business, the world will celebrate
Unyil you clean up your act, and quit fucking people's computers up, Fuck off, assholes. You're the problem, not the solution. Goout of business already.
Sorry for the late reply. Metrics are problematic within themselves. If I manage exclusively by metrics, then I have to explain why. Eventually, you will have to explain why your metric based program is causing substandard performance, discrimination against another group, and the flight of employees who see previous potential. You set requirements, put in outreach programs, and check point your processes and policies. That is the actual law and serving it protects you better in the Affirmative Action space.
There's nothing wrong with testing - but when the test becomes the ultimate end goal, you just - and this is at the very luckiest best, produce people who don't have much else giong for them but they are good at taking tests.
And then there is common core math. Making the simplestst forms of math difficult. We are not suposed to philosophize about 1 plus 1, it seldom has ant other answer than 2.
Except for extremely large values of 1.
Not "suggesting" anything. Just stating that mass murderers are all men.
Come on now, we need to give the ladies a chance.
Father forgive me, it's been a looooong day, and I'm puckish.
Come on. You can do better than Biljana Plavi.
Hell, I can't even pronounce that.
p>The best you can come up with is Queen Mary, who killed some 200-something four hundred and sixty-three years ago and is still compared unfavorably to "Bluff King Hal" who killed 72,000.
.
Ahh miss, those were good times.
The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale.
And why is that a problem for the "denialists" and not for the people actually making the extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence?
1. There are some extremely basic laws of physics going on here. It's like denying Ohm's Law I make the claim that the laws of physics hold true. You do not. You need to prove they don't. DEspite your protesttions to the negative, the measurements hold up. So you have to prove how the measurements are either incorrect, or don't hold up using real science, not way outdated denials.
I point to the dat. You say it is wrong. You have th eextraordinary claim, you need to supply your proofs. And the proof isn't Michal Mann is an asshole, or long discredited (but unfindable on denialistwebsites - correlation between an Alabama university study and SAtellite data. If you are going to do that, you might as well pull out a T-O map, or claim that fossils are put there by Gawd to tempt people. It's in your court, and it is not my job to do your work for you. Good luck!
This crap has literally been going on for centuries.
There is a saying "When your god just happens to hate everything you do, its a safe bet you're making him in your own image. the soulds of fundamentalists are rotten and corrupt indeed.
Yes, hurricanes never happened before evil humans got in their cars and started using electricity. Never. Not once. No hurricane has ever happened until now.
What a bizzare statement. The nature of a complex atmospheric system like the one on earth inherently leads to energy imbalances. So storms are just the way these imbalances try to even out
Clearly the only solution to this is for all of humanity to die.
Nooo! You are wrong and silly, but we need you around as long as possible, if just to have someone to laugh at. Live long and prosper, and buy mountain land.
Though I believe the evidence of for global warming, this hurricane is not a part of it. Claims such as yours belong with those which claim that people not flying off into space is proof that the world is flat.
It's pretty difficult to claim that any one day's weather is the result of the 800 terawatts of radiative forcing that humans have pumped into the air. You simply have to look at trends.
As well, a lot of people forget the "global" part of AGW. It's the sort of thing that causes deniers to bray "So much for global warming!" As well, there are some folks who declare every hot day or weather related disaster on AGW.
Both are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
Given that hurricanes and tornadoes and other storms are nature's way of dumping excess or imbalanced energy, and its obvious that we've always had these events, no one event can conclusively be laid at the feet of AGW. The nature of nature is that imbalances happen and need taken care of.
The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale. To date, they've done nothing of the sort. This puts them squarely in bed with creationists. Otherwise all they have is looking out the window when its cold.
noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
The only ones that count are the ones that hit the USA. All others are irrelevant.