Changes in Tropical Cyclone Intensity & Track

[bstreep]

Real quick - on the way out. But I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Here's the offer.

If you have participated in this thread, go buy/download "Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us". READ the entire book. If you don't think you got your money's worth, PM me and I'll send you a check to cover it.

The author is a self-professed tree-hugger, Sierra Club founding member, winner of the Green Book Award, etc. He's "been fighting for a greener planet for decades". I found this book to be enlightening. (Remember, you folks think of me as a "head in the sand denier). "Well-crafted and evidence-based" says the former CEO of the Nature Conservancy.

Obviously, from the title, the author believes the world is warming, but that's it's not the huge problem some believe it is.

So, instead of beating on keyboards (those on both sides), go get educated, and come back. Maybe we should start a thread for those who have actually read it? Have a great weekend, folks.
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Ne...srpt=ABIS_BOOK

[Don C L]

I'll be happy to read it. And I will keep an open mind. But my father was on the board of directors of the Sierra Club. It was not so green as one might think and probably still isn't. My father battled (in a way) with none other than Ansel Adams to get the Sierra Club to actually stand up for protecting the places they claimed to love. At times it was an uphill battle, and it resulted in Dave Brower leaving the club and founding Friends of the Earth. They were not interested in bringing down western civilization, or as they used to say not blind opposition to progress, but opposition to blind progress. As one who volunteered as a kid in save the whales and dolphins protests, I really doubt that purse seine tuna fishing would have changed on its own without public outcry. And I doubt whaling nations would have given up whaling on their own without political and economic pressure, which came as the result of public awareness.
In 1983 I took Econ 101. The first thing the professor said was "Do you know why the whales are going extinct?" Of course we all rattled off different theories. He said, "No. It is because no one owns the whales." It was quite enlightening. But the public outcry, in a way, established that ownership was being asserted in a new way.
That was the same year I took the class called "Human Ecology" taught by Garrett Hardin. Some may know the name. It was a very interesting year.
And before I go, are sure Michael Shellenberger has no agenda?

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I presume that is meant to prove the fallibility of scientists or science and hence we should not listen to them? Or worse, we should be suspicious of their motives?



It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt... and they run to a... doctor.

It’s not meant to prove anything. It’s a political cartoon.

[bstreep]

Don,
Funny how parts of lives can be similar. Completely unrelated to my biology major, I took Economics of Marine Fisheries. Now many, many years later, I often say it was one of the best classes I ever took - along with Econ 101.

No, I'm not sure Shellenberger has no agenda. Everyone does. Like me, he's concerned with the "Boy who cries wolf" syndrome that "science" has fallen into. They have been so wrong, about so much, that 1/2 the population no longer believes the. My problem with Covid shots is the same (yes, I've had 2 and I'm contemplating a booster - and I recommend them to everyone): It's become so political that you can't sort the real from the sensational, and 1/2 the folks don't believe what the "experts", who have been so wrong, so often, say. It's no wonder.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by bstreep

Don,
Funny how parts of lives can be similar. Completely unrelated to my biology major, I took Economics of Marine Fisheries. Now many, many years later, I often say it was one of the best classes I ever took - along with Econ 101.

No, I'm not sure Shellenberger has no agenda. Everyone does. Like me, he's concerned with the "Boy who cries wolf" syndrome that "science" has fallen into. They have been so wrong, about so much, that 1/2 the population no longer believes the. My problem with Covid shots is the same (yes, I've had 2 and I'm contemplating a booster - and I recommend them to everyone): It's become so political that you can't sort the real from the sensational, and 1/2 the folks don't believe what the "experts", who have been so wrong, so often, say. It's no wonder.

Bill, perhaps, but do you think so many people would be suspicious of science if they had had a better science education... and if there were fewer "experts" on TV being presented as experts when in fact heir claims are not supported by peer-reviewed data? Real experts know that as new data comes in, conclusions, and recommendations, will change. Folks need to know that is normal in science, not evidence for incompetence or a nefarious agenda. When people demand quick, simple and always accurate explanations for things, science and scientists, and authentic experts, are likely to disappoint them... and their conclusions, deemed faulty, become fodder for those who really do have an agenda and a desire to discredit scientific conclusions and recommendations.
Look how Fauci has been demonized.
One of many human weaknesses is the craving to see only see what we want to see and disregard the rest... apologies to Paul Simon...
Thanks for the discussion.

[mjscottinnc]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I presume that is meant to prove the fallibility of scientists or science and hence we should not listen to them? Or worse, we should be suspicious of their motives?



It's all fun and games until someone gets hurt... and they run to a... doctor.

It’s meant to illustrate the absolute arrogance of those who believe that the predictions based on computer models are in any way absolute…

Let’s stick to the scientific method, if something is predicted it must be 100% accurate with every prediction otherwise it’s just an approximation to be used or rejected at will. No life changing laws or policies based on an approximations, they are proven wrong too many times.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by mjscottinnc

It’s meant to illustrate the absolute arrogance of those who believe that the predictions based on computer models are in any way absolute…

Let’s stick to the scientific method, if something is predicted it must be 100% accurate with every prediction otherwise it’s just an approximation to be used or rejected at will. No life changing laws or policies based on an approximations, they are proven wrong too many times.

I don't think you'll find many scientists who will argue "that the predictions based on computer models are in any way absolute…" And the scientific method does not make any claims about anything, it is just a method. No scientist will assert predictions must be 100% accurate, but that is not to say we must relegate them to mere approximations. I don't want to sound like I am arrogantly defending computer models, but most folks will pay attention to those models, as fallible as they may be, when a hurricane is approaching, because it is the best info we have right now. Next year, maybe the models will be better. Perhaps the problem is when folks assume the models are predictions that are presented as 100% accurate. But then we all know what happens when we assume.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by Don C L

... do you think so many people would be suspicious of science if they had had a better science education ...

I know you weren't asking me, but I'm going to give my answer to that one anyway:

Yes, I do think as many people would be suspicious - even with a better science education. You see: I don't think it's the facts that the climate is changing or that viruses can be deadly that people have a problem with.

I think the real problem is what bstreep mentioned above: "the 'Boy who cries wolf' syndrome". Climate change 'advocates' [for lack of a better word] have been saying the sky is falling for so long that I can't blame anyone for thinking they're completely full of it. And some people might remember the swine flu scare in the late 70s that turned out to be nothing but a disaster for the CDC. If you don't remember, here's a refresher:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bOHYZhL0WQ

How soon we forget.

Also, I believe people are generally distrustful of politicians [as they should be]. It's one thing for a doctor or climatologist to get up and say "Situation X is a serious problem and we should do something about it." It's quite another when a politician says "We are now mandating that people do Y to stop X." Politicians aren't known for their compassion for the masses (or their intelligence). What they are known for is making lots of money for doing not a whole lot of good for the people. I don't think I need to list examples of politicians getting caught taking kickbacks for terrible deals which ended up hurting their constituents. Who knows how many never get caught. And as for Fauci, well ... [click me]

I think people want measured, reasonable responses. Instead, it seems that lawmakers are trying to pass legislation that many think is throwing the baby out with the bath water. And for what? A little digging almost invariably turns up some not-so-well hidden connections between the politicians and the money being made from these mandates. It took me about a nanosecond to find an article which claims:

Originally Posted by the Intercept

Many leading figures in Biden’s administration, including key White House advisers, State Department leaders, and health care officials have financial stake in or professional ties to vaccine manufacturers, which are now lobbying to prevent policies that would cut into future profits over the vaccine.

The link in that last sentence is even more telling. And it doesn't even matter if it's true - what matters is if people believe it's true. As I've said before: what really amazes me is how quickly so many people did a complete 180° when it comes to pharmaceutical companies. Just a couple of years ago, "big pharma" was the devil incarnate. It was no secret that they were profiting massively while millions suffered. But suddenly now they are our benevolent saviors? C'mon, man.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who claims that the climate is exactly the same as it was 100 or even 50 years ago - or that the Coronavirus isn't a real threat to some people. But can you really blame anyone for not trusting the fox to guard the hen house?

[Don C L]

When it comes to the science of health preparedness, I am sure there are 700,000 families in the U.S. who would agree we could have been better prepared, we should have been better prepared, and we would have been better prepared, had we listened, to those who were warning us. To be sure, some were, but they got ridiculed for listening to the cries of wolf when there had been no plague. To say COVID was no problem for me so it must not be such a big problem is really not excusable. This book came out in 1995. COVID won't be the last pandemic. Would you say that is a case of crying wolf or just a call to be prepared?

[Bycrick]

With regards only to Gord's initial post, it’s hard for me to accept as "settled science" an article which contains.:
Likely …. Could ….. IF the planet …. Probably … hard to be certain …. Lack of historical data … difficult to say.

That’s doesn’t appear to me solid support for their assumption that the sky is falling.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

With regards only to Gord's initial post, it’s hard for me to accept as "settled science" an article which contains.:
Likely …. Could ….. IF the planet …. Probably … hard to be certain …. Lack of historical data … difficult to say.
That’s doesn’t appear to me solid support for their assumption that the sky is falling.

The article[s] I've cited, don't claim to represent absolutely "settled" science.
I suppose, had they used terms such as "surely ... will ... when the planet ... certainly ... etc, you'd have criticized their presumptive religiosity.


In ant case, it did provide the basis, for a discussion.

[Bycrick]

Gord. I know that you know that. One of the problems with the whole discussion is that, if one folllows the entire thread, you find speculative stories like this one, intermixed with people who say things like "settled science," "we know enough," if the other party doesn’t agree, them they’re a "denier," or just a "skeptic," or "in the pay of the fossil fuel people.

A "News story" that uses nothing but conditionals and the subjunctive isn't news. It’s at best opinion, maybe just a press release and at worst propaganda.

Maybe methane and NO2 are up since 1750. But you couldn’t prove it by this story. Nor can you draw any rational conclusions about the effects, or lack thereof. Or worse, what we might do about it.

[Dave_S]

I have come to realise, people act on perceptions not truths. Once they have formed a perception it is extremely hard to change. Also they can go to unreasonable lengths to protect those perceptions.

That is true for both sides of this argument.

My words of wisdom

[Bycrick]

Dave S. You just found that out??? )

Gord — If your original post had been written in declarative and indicative case, I would not have simply declared it "religiosity." Rather, I might have looked at the links or footnotes, to see what sources they referenced, what methodology they used, in what journal it was published (ie not one where the only requirement is a fee), and who paid for the study. I won’t pretend that I read everything, but I usually check somebody’s work before I comment on it.

[Thumbs Up]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

I know you weren't asking me, but I'm going to give my answer to that one anyway:

Yes, I do think as many people would be suspicious - even with a better science education. You see: I don't think it's the facts that the climate is changing or that viruses can be deadly that people have a problem with.

I think the real problem is what bstreep mentioned above: "the 'Boy who cries wolf' syndrome". Climate change 'advocates' [for lack of a better word] have been saying the sky is falling for so long that I can't blame anyone for thinking they're completely full of it. And some people might remember the swine flu scare in the late 70s that turned out to be nothing but a disaster for the CDC. If you don't remember, here's a refresher:

How soon we forget.

Also, I believe people are generally distrustful of politicians [as they should be]. It's one thing for a doctor or climatologist to get up and say "Situation X is a serious problem and we should do something about it." It's quite another when a politician says "We are now mandating that people do Y to stop X." Politicians aren't known for their compassion for the masses (or their intelligence). What they are known for is making lots of money for doing not a whole lot of good for the people. I don't think I need to list examples of politicians getting caught taking kickbacks for terrible deals which ended up hurting their constituents. Who knows how many never get caught. And as for Fauci, well ... [click me]

I think people want measured, reasonable responses. Instead, it seems that lawmakers are trying to pass legislation that many think is throwing the baby out with the bath water. And for what? A little digging almost invariably turns up some not-so-well hidden connections between the politicians and the money being made from these mandates. It took me about a nanosecond to find an article which claims:



The link in that last sentence is even more telling. And it doesn't even matter if it's true - what matters is if people believe it's true. As I've said before: what really amazes me is how quickly so many people did a complete 180° when it comes to pharmaceutical companies. Just a couple of years ago, "big pharma" was the devil incarnate. It was no secret that they were profiting massively while millions suffered. But suddenly now they are our benevolent saviors? C'mon, man.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who claims that the climate is exactly the same as it was 100 or even 50 years ago - or that the Coronavirus isn't a real threat to some people. But can you really blame anyone for not trusting the fox to guard the hen house?

Since you bring up swine flu 1976, I can't help but bring up the redux of 2009.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7087555/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swine-f...overestimated/
And the Zika scare in 2016:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0xxBIypnNU