Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ID70ulTkusQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtxqvAlIpo
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ID70ulTkusQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtxqvAlIpo
Yeah. I am sure I have had disagreements with Vegas in this thread (and others) but I have no recollection of him being particularly rude towards me or insulting me.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369LOL... Not even close to accurate, but that's standard for you apparantly. I only started busting his balls when he started whining in our fantasy league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
Why don't you tell everyone here how you agreed to a bet on the board and then tried like a scumbag to change the dynamic of it behind the scenes?
Now kindly get off my jock you whiny bitch. You've been following me around on here like a lost puppy for weeks now. Sorry for hurting your precious feelings. It's all going to be ok.
Broadly, the field I work in is Immunoloy, but like I said the exact stuff I work on is very esoteric and narrow. I probably won't get into it much more than that cause I don't really want people from this forum messing with my personal life. I have no concerns with you personally (if I did I would't have given you my PayPal info and you seem like a standup guy anyways), but there are some pretty unstable people on these forums who can get pretty mean and I don't want to get involved with all that.
I know what you mean...lol. Kind of like the nutjob that accused me of being mean to you for months and then followed it up with some insane drivel.Quote:
Originally Posted by verminaardYeah. I am sure I have had disagreements with Vegas in this thread (and others) but I have no recollection of him being particularly rude towards me or insulting me.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Broadly, the field I work in is Immunoloy, but like I said the exact stuff I work on is very esoteric and narrow. I probably won't get into it much more than that cause I don't really want people from this forum messing with my personal life. I have no concerns with you personally (if I did I would't have given you my PayPal info and you seem like a standup guy anyways), but there are some pretty unstable people on these forums who can get pretty mean and I don't want to get involved with all that.
I respect you not wanting to explain any further. Sounds like it's most likely very interesting work though. Kudos.
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.
• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.
None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.
None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.
im going to take exception with one of these and one only; the tax plan was 200% paul ryan. its basically his tax plan, with some shit thrown in to make trump and his friends richer of course. but its basically ryantax.
the vast number of orphans we created in the most recent ISIS campaign will grow up with the tools to destroy entire american cities a download away, and gorsuch is a fuckin burger but we arent here to debate merits, you rose to the challenge and succeeded.
Did you notice how that NYT URL has "/opinion/" in it?Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.
None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.
In summary, the vast majority of Republicans, when presented with the unanimous findings of every climate scientist, say "nah, you're probably wrong". Saying they "Don't believe in climate change" is true and accurate on every level. The reason the issue makes the right look stupid is because denying the unanimous findings of thousands of scientists is a stupid thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Al Gore's book was written 25 years ago. A 25 year old book about semiconductor manufacturing would sound really stupid because we've learning a lot in the quarter century since. In many ways, the current situation is worse than Gore's book predicted.
[QUOTE=DirtyB;734010]Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyB
From my understanding and I've watched and read a lot of debates on the topic, other than agreeing that man definitely contributes to climate change there is still debate to what degree and to what detriment within the scientific community.
I care about the planet and I believe in man made climate change but rhetoric like this from the left isn't helpful. All the 97% bullshit and the fear mongering. In the scientific community opinions to what degree man contributes to the expected consequence seem to vary and there are wonderful debates and discussions on the topic.
There are also climate change scientists and professors who don't agree with the politicized left's presentation of the facts but most stay out of the public eye. Generally if you come out against climate change in anyway you're shouted down and accused of being paid off etc, it's a shame because the dialogue is very important.
The 97% number is also misleading when used by the media and politicians. 97% agree that man contributes to climate change and in the opinion of the pollster to at least a 50% degree. A few scientists have come forward and said that their position isn't 'at least 50% of climate change or more is man made' but rather man contributes to a currently unknown degree.
As always politics fuck these important debates up and reasonable and meaningful discussion is hard to find.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...global_warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneil
speaking of reading, start with the link you just posted:
thats awesome, lets get some sihk boxers in the mix and get their opinions on record as well.Quote:
This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. Very few are climate scientists.
jesus christ man, and you wonder why people flash on the 'voices of dissent' when a) they lack any appropriate scientific background and b) they relentlessly quote shill data from koch brother mcscientists, and c) the entire civilized world is rushing to meet this challenge except of course God's America, which is currently being run by evangelists.
Right, I was just refuting that ALL agree as dirtyB stated. In that list I linked there are a few climate scientists. As I said it's fair to say pretty darn close to all agree that man contributes, but to what degree and what consequence is where some debate begins. Most agree that man causes more than 50% of current climate change on earth, a few believe it's less than 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneilRight, I was just refuting that ALL agree as dirtyB stated. In that list I linked there are a few climate scientists. As I said it's fair to say pretty darn close to all agree that man contributes, but to what degree and what consequence is where some debate begins. Most agree that man causes more than 50% of current climate change on earth, a few believe it's less than 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
i think that if the ones arguing <50% were more aggressive in preventing their opinions from being leveraged by republicans as an excuse to harvest more money from fossil fuels, they would probably catch a lot less flak.
speaking of which, france ftw
I think that's true. It's also true if they are a professor and not tenured they risk their career or at a minimum a peaceful life on campus if they are more aggressive with their opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatineQuote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneil
i think that if the ones arguing <50% were more aggressive in preventing their opinions from being leveraged by republicans as an excuse to harvest more money from fossil fuels, they would probably catch a lot less flak.
speaking of which, france ftw
I also don't think any climate scientists or other experts on the topic agree with the general Republican opinion and neither do I. The closest might be an atmospheric physicist from MIT who doesn't seem shy to share his opinions and views on TV and in debate.
http://www.telegram.com/news/2017012...climate-change
Here's a difficult perspective I personally face. I live in oil and gas country. Calgary Alberta Canada. I believe in man made climate change but my ability to earn an income is directly related to the health of the economy in Calgary which is most closely tied to oil and gas. When federal and provincial policy is passed that reduces our ability to compete with the Americans in the oil and gas sector I am bothered in a big way, even though I know it's very good policy long term.
Recently I've had a handful of high net worth oil and gas clients sell off their homes and move to the USA. Most of these guys moved here during the boom years and have stuck it out since 2014 when the price of oil bottomed out but are now giving up and getting the hell out of dodge. Canada can no longer compete with the Americans in the oil and gas sector.
Regarding France and I'm purely speculating because I have no clue. Is much of their GDP derived from the oil and gas sector? It's very easy to implement policy like that if they don't face much economic consequence.
#3 was literally him undoing Obama’s pick. It is shamelful what Republicans did by not allowing Obama’s SCOTUS pick. If Democrats had done this to a republicans pick they would have cried bloody murderQuote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.
None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.
It is just bullshit denial. Just because the nature of science and complexity of the issue doesn't mean people who understand stuff are in disagreement with a few key facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneil
It is like smoking. Do you ever see any dumb motherfuckers sit around talking about how it isn't proven to cause cancer anymore? Yet many many people took this view for many many years. Enough generations have died that it is just sorta known cigarettes cause cancer. This took many many years to get to that point. Generations had to die off.
Global warming is far far more complicated. Much like Tobacco money spreading FUD, global warming had oil companies etc spreadng the same. The only problem is that it effects people for the forseeable future in ways we do not comprehend. (unlike global warming)
It is only consistently Republicans who argue against the consensus by most everyone with any actual scientific background.
Republicans are the neo-n-words of the USA. They are anti-science. They are anti-education. This can be demontrated readily by polls and policy.
I've yet to meet someone who argues against climate change being real that doesn't have some sort of weird rightwing politics going on. Doh.
i think that at the end of the day, even the scientists who dont subscribe to the theory that climate change is a man made issue agree that we need to pivot to ways of life that greatly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.
and the tragedy of it is that republicans exploit this rift to do the exact opposite, because they genuinely believe that this world does not matter as long as they are right with god when they die, so they might as well get rich and fuck over their children because as long as they are super sorry about it on sunday, fuck it, saul goodman.
I agree. Other people who stick their head in the sand and I'm exposed to them daily where I live are people who earn an income from the energy sector. A lot of these people are also lefties in nearly every other way but climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonedied
I think it's easier to ignore the facts and make your money than to work a daily job that is harmful to the environment and admit that fact to yourself.
While we debate logic, China and India are polluting the planet at a rapid pace, who cares how hot the planet will be in ten thousand years if the ocean won't be habitable for marine life in a hundred years.....priorities people......
All the best people...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/26/politi...ort/index.html
Quote:
"He grabbed me very boisterously, unexpectedly," Villa said, adding that she thought he was "acting like a clown" and that after the photo was taken he "smacked my ass really hard, almost violent in nature."
Villa said that after she told him she could report him for sexual harassment, Lewandowski said, "I work in the private sector" and slapped her again.
Then he "laughed and walked away," she said, adding that his behavior was "boorish and over the top."
There is far more agreement among actual climate scientists than you seem to think. As Sonatine wrote, some right wing lobbying group organized a bunch of economists to sign a letter disputing climate change. The press released called them "scientists", which is technically sort of true.Quote:
Originally Posted by peter mcneilRight, I was just refuting that ALL agree as dirtyB stated. In that list I linked there are a few climate scientists. As I said it's fair to say pretty darn close to all agree that man contributes, but to what degree and what consequence is where some debate begins. Most agree that man causes more than 50% of current climate change on earth, a few believe it's less than 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
Well when you're an owner of a medical marijuana dispensary they just let you fuck with out a condom
:lol4
So what's a little grab ass
:lol4
Joy villa can have my baby....
The effects will be quite severe within a couple hundred years. You already see huge disruptions in weather patterns. Always the bullshit "well look at X, that makes it ok what we do/believe". (favorite argument of the right)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
I don't think China or India produce near the per capita carbon that the USA does. So basically you couldn't be more wrong. They may pollute in other ways (byproduct of all their exports) but they don't expend near the per capita in energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkdowndonediedThe effects will be quite severe within a couple hundred years. You already see huge disruptions in weather patterns. Always the bullshit "well look at X, that makes it ok what we do/believe". (favorite argument of the right)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
I don't think China or India produce near the per capita carbon that the USA does. So basically you couldn't be more wrong. They may pollute in other ways (byproduct of all their exports) but they don't expend near the per capita in energy.
So a country with 1 billion plus creates LESS carbon per capita than a country with 370 million people? ..........right.......
Also, way to neglect the fact that China buys most of the recycling materials from around the world only to remanufacture those materials in a way that wouldn't even meet current epa standards...
So this thwarted terrorist attack really didn't get much coverage...
http://abc7news.com/fbi-man-planned-...er-39/2812473/
You would think Trump would have been all over this, especially considering any little terrorist attack involving a Muslim even in Europe gets a mention.... BUT.... not one tweet, not a fucking peep. Gee, wonder why? Oh, right, we're all for law enforcement until they are trying to uncover our crimes... Nope, cant have that...we need to discredit the fuck out of them and NEVER give them praise, even when they are heros who just stopped another horrendous act by a fucking wannabe ISIS member trying to commit mass murder in the United States! #MAGA
people are small and insignificant. the exhaust coming out of my Mercury Cougar XR7 is as natural as honey. if you believe humans can save the world by raising taxes on energy consumption, you are probably not a hip, with-it enlightened white man like me and George Harrison. you are a bigoted egotist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2dMSfmUJec
George Harrison also knows who is behind the push for climate change action by the new world order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G64PkqMfgg
this triggers the anti-warmth icefag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxRrF4dHH5M
"An Inconvenient Truth" was written in 2006. You're thinking of his similar "The Earth in the Balance" from 1992.Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyBIn summary, the vast majority of Republicans, when presented with the unanimous findings of every climate scientist, say "nah, you're probably wrong". Saying they "Don't believe in climate change" is true and accurate on every level. The reason the issue makes the right look stupid is because denying the unanimous findings of thousands of scientists is a stupid thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Al Gore's book was written 25 years ago. A 25 year old book about semiconductor manufacturing would sound really stupid because we've learning a lot in the quarter century since. In many ways, the current situation is worse than Gore's book predicted.
Did you read the report at the link I posted? As I said, it's nonbiased and gives factual data regarding where Gore was mostly wrong, where he was partially/mostly right, and where the dangers he mentioned actually got worse than expected.
On the "not nearly as bad as predicted" side was the hurricane situation.
Admittedly, this article was written in 2016. before the horrendous 2017 hurricane season. However, the article pointed out that hurricanes actually decreased in both frequency and intensity since the book was written, which was contrary to the doomsday scenario presented by Gore.
Note that Gore's book was written in 2006, which followed the terrible 2005 hurricane season -- the Katrina one.
Many on the left were insisting that 2005 was the new normal, and that we should expect Katrinas every year from now on. Anyone who doubted that was shouted down as a climate change denier.
Then 2006 had a calmer than average hurricane season. And just in case you thought that was variance, the entire following decade of 2007-2016 had a cumulative lighter-than-average hurricane incidence.
Sure, this year was bad, but so were various other individual years, long before climate change was occurring.
The problem was that, in 2005, the rhetoric from the left was, "See, we told you so! Here are the hurricanes we've been warning you about! Get used to them!", rather than a more calm, reasoned, "This was a bad season, and there's a chance it had to do with global warming, but clearly we need to wait to see the following years before determining they're related."
The article does state that rising sea levels -- honestly the main danger of global warming -- will be the actual culprit for additional damage from hurricanes. With higher sea levels, coastal damage will be worse, and the damage will extend farther inland.
So what's my point here?
It is impossible to have a discussion with most leftists about climate change unless you 100% agree with all their points. If you could go back to 2005 and tell a leftist that the next 11 hurricane seasons would overall be below average, you would get lambasted for your ignorance and stupidity.
This is an example of how we really DON'T know all that much about climate change, and it is both arrogant and dangerous to assume that we do.
That's not to say we should ignore the problem. That's not to say we shouldn't set sensible policies to mitigate the possible damage and worsening of the situation. However, just as stubborn people on the right need to acknowledge the climate change which exists, the left needs to concede that they don't know everything (no one does), and that histrionic sky-is-falling claims for political purposes will simply hurt the cause in the long run.
..... and that's the other problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
Environmentalism can only work if it's a cooperative effort.
If the US takes care of the environment for the sake of the planet, but huge third world countries pollute badly and don't give a shit, then our efforts are mainly feelgood with little actual utility.
Unfortunately this issue is rarely addressed by the left, who will sometimes quietly lament it, but they don't let it affect US policy.
They have taken more of the position of, "We'll set the example, and eventually everyone else will follow", which simply isn't true when it comes to the third world.
The problem -- one which is very difficult to solve -- is the fact that it's much easier to care about the environment when enjoying a high standard of living. When large portions of your population are poor and struggling to get by, everyone's mind goes to what's best for right now, rather than what's best for the planet decades or centuries down the line.
I was born in Galveston and grew up on the Gulf Coast. Hurricanes are just weather. They aren't caused by climate change or white people. it's completely irrational and ignorant to think people cause hurricanes. How many people are on Jupiter? Fun fact: Galveston would have been Houston if it weren't destroyed by a hurricane in 1900. Hurricanes fucked up that region long before cars and will continue to fuck up that region long after cars. It's so weird to see left wing atheists whose religion is science spouting irrational shit like "Katrina was caused by global warming and the government can save the Gulf Coast from hurricanes if they introduce new taxes"
Never knew how that Lewandowski clown rose to the position he did. This fucker must be one smooth talker.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
He managed exactly one major political campaign prior to Trump -- Robert C. Smith, a US Senator from New Hampshire -- in 2002. This campaign ended in absolute failure, with Smith losing by 7 points in the primary, which was the first time since 1992 that a sitting US Senator lost re-election in the primary phase.
So how you go from that to managing a Presidential campaign 14 years later... I have no fucking clue.
The left also loves to deny science and hard numbers, if it suits them.
They deny the innate differences between males and females. Many on the left insist that there is little difference between the male and female brain, and that the differences we witness are simply a case of socialization.
That's what a lot of that flap involving James Damore at Google was about. He was suggesting that PERHAPS there are innate differences between men and women which are at least partially responsible for the vast differences in interest in tech between men and women. He stated that he felt that studying these differences and trying to make the best use of them, rather than artificially forcing equal numbers of coders down gender lines, was better for the company. He was fired for distributing a memo stating this opinion.
The left will not even entertain the POSSIBILITY that this could be the case. Imagine if the typical male brain actually WAS typically more suited to careers like coding and engineering than the typical female brain. OMG OMG OMG!! The world would end, right? And while we have a long way to go to prove such a thing, you must concede that this is a realistic possibility -- that males and females are (on the whole) born with different strengths and weaknesses, and that some may be politically incorrect to acknowledge. The left will fight tooth and nail to avoid ever acknowledging that this is possible, and will work to discredit any studies which could establish it.
If your science doesn't mesh correctly with the left's identity politics, then it's science they can't acknowledge.
What about hard numbers?
We all know that black men are incarcerated at a far higher level in this country than men of other races. Why is that?
Ask the typical leftist, and the answer will be "systemic racism".
No matter what truthful and factual data you throw at them, they will rarely admit that, yes, black males ACTUALLY COMMIT FAR MORE CRIMES PER CAPITA than other races in the US. In the rare case you can get a leftist to acknowledge these hard numbers, you are told that these black males committing crimes are growing up in poverty, and therefore this is the expected result. When you show the leftist poor, rural white towns with almost no violent crime, you rarely get any kind of answer at all.
I actually believe that there is some racism in the justice system, but that racism has sprung somewhat from the true fact that black men are committing violent crimes at a disproportionately high rate. So anyone exposed to that obvious fact (police, judges, etc) will often develop a bias, even sometimes unintentionally, because the human brain is wired to notice patterns. I'm not defending this bias, but I'm stating that "eliminating racism" will not do very much to reduce the violent crime committed by black men in this country.
The left will not acknowledge any of this. It's the white racist's fault. The numbers do not matter. It's all a grand conspiracy to lock up black men and make money for privatized prisons.
And then there's the transgender thing.
I won't even get into all of that right now. Plenty of science denial going on there, as well.
The left only loves science when it seems to proves the claims behind their pet causes. When it contradicts their rhetoric, that's when science goes out the window, and the irrational excuse-making starts.
Druff, I'm sorry I weaken conservative positions on your site by sometimes being openly racist and sexist and giving ammo to the opposition
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369Thank you for proving to me that you are insane. Appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellafriend
Oh, and can't wait.
I am going to be refreshing FS all day for this. The one thing I know from my dealings with tellafriend is that there are several screws loose.
Please regale us with some juicy facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Lurker
I have posted it all you clumsy imbecile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Lurker
You really are a bitch. go find something else to fall off of today. or, go find someone else to commit adultery with. either way, first expound on how my screws are loose a little........
druff, i'm curious. considering your rant is about how liberals are "science deniers" when it suits them, you appear to be outright saying that black people are genetically prone to criminality. but you didn't actually say those words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
can you please confirm that your actual position is that black people are genetically prone to criminality or did you just "misspeak" and, upon further reflection, would like to completely reverse your position and say that the black crime rate is a product of external factors.
Blake's thug children have already robbed 2 people today
you somewhat acknowledged this, but the fact that we just had a couple countries get literally leveled by hurricanes a year after the article was written really does fuck up a lot of the author's points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
but the bigger counterpoint to what you are arguing is that the majority of scientists are basically saying that "the sky is falling" and that if something is not done immediately, we are all doomed.
if you accept that the scientists are not participating in a global conspiracy and if you accept their premise as true, we can't have a "civil discussion" about it, as the scientists are telling us that our world is literally doomed.
the reason that people aren't more freaked out about climate change is because it takes a long time so people won't think it will affect them. if even 10% of astronomers said that an asteroid is coming that will wipe out the earth next year, 100% of the people on earth would believe that we should be devoting all of our efforts to some sort of asteroid defense contingency.
it's not their fault, it's geneticsQuote:
Originally Posted by lol wow
Al Gore isn't a climate scientist. The right wing is just obsessed with him because he was promoting the science of climate change in the 1980s while you guys called him a crazy moonbat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff"An Inconvenient Truth" was written in 2006. You're thinking of his similar "The Earth in the Balance" from 1992.Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyB
Did you read the report at the link I posted? As I said, it's nonbiased and gives factual data regarding where Gore was mostly wrong, where he was partially/mostly right, and where the dangers he mentioned actually got worse than expected.
On the "not nearly as bad as predicted" side was the hurricane situation.
Admittedly, this article was written in 2016. before the horrendous 2017 hurricane season. However, the article pointed out that hurricanes actually decreased in both frequency and intensity since the book was written, which was contrary to the doomsday scenario presented by Gore.
Note that Gore's book was written in 2006, which followed the terrible 2005 hurricane season -- the Katrina one.
Many on the left were insisting that 2005 was the new normal, and that we should expect Katrinas every year from now on. Anyone who doubted that was shouted down as a climate change denier.
Then 2006 had a calmer than average hurricane season. And just in case you thought that was variance, the entire following decade of 2007-2016 had a cumulative lighter-than-average hurricane incidence.
Sure, this year was bad, but so were various other individual years, long before climate change was occurring.
The problem was that, in 2005, the rhetoric from the left was, "See, we told you so! Here are the hurricanes we've been warning you about! Get used to them!", rather than a more calm, reasoned, "This was a bad season, and there's a chance it had to do with global warming, but clearly we need to wait to see the following years before determining they're related."
The article does state that rising sea levels -- honestly the main danger of global warming -- will be the actual culprit for additional damage from hurricanes. With higher sea levels, coastal damage will be worse, and the damage will extend farther inland.
So what's my point here?
It is impossible to have a discussion with most leftists about climate change unless you 100% agree with all their points. If you could go back to 2005 and tell a leftist that the next 11 hurricane seasons would overall be below average, you would get lambasted for your ignorance and stupidity.
This is an example of how we really DON'T know all that much about climate change, and it is both arrogant and dangerous to assume that we do.
That's not to say we should ignore the problem. That's not to say we shouldn't set sensible policies to mitigate the possible damage and worsening of the situation. However, just as stubborn people on the right need to acknowledge the climate change which exists, the left needs to concede that they don't know everything (no one does), and that histrionic sky-is-falling claims for political purposes will simply hurt the cause in the long run.
Would you go to a doctor who agreed with the medical establishment on everything except homeopathy?
If you want to deny the conclusions of the science community, that's fine. You have the right to do that. But it's pathetic to watch you deny climate change science while also complaining about the mean liberals calling you climate science deniers.