Roger, it doesn't matter what I think Sandy was. Go argue with the Gov of Jersey. The reason those folks are still in tents out there is that Sandy wasn't classified as a hurricane. I stand by what the reliable article say, not Wikipedia, come on, man, Wikipedia. Surely you can source better than that. Wikipedia? East Anglia. Anyone?


And another thing, you can't have it both ways when it doesn't suit you. You can't claim that science and Government are wrong when you disagree with their conclusions and turn around and cite them as authority when you do agree with them regarding the same related subject. That's a great recipe for losing a debate.

Of course you can. Both "science" and "Government" are abstract terms and are whatever you define them as.

No one has claimed that either are infallible. Therefore something that is "government" can be both right and wrong. Also science. You just have to say exactly what scientific source or what government source you are referring to.

My objection to your reasoning, Charlie, if I may respectfully say so, is that you do not really state your premises in such a way that that they can be verified or disproved.

It reminds me of a debate I watched the other night between https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

Ham never said anything that could be proved. When cornered he just fell back on his standard proof, the Bible. And of course for him that trumps everything else. As I think it does for you. So this thread is a pseuo-debate and leads nowhere.

Everybody go on an Easter egg hunt instead. Or eat some chocolate. Or write a poem. Or read the dictionary.

Best I think would be to read the dictionary while eating chocolate. That's what I'd do, but I don't have any chocolate in the house.

One dictionary definition. Hurricane - a wind of force 12 on the Beaufort scale (equal to or exceeding 64 knots or 118 m/h).

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf


Sandy was a classic late-season hurricane in the southwestern Caribbean Sea. The cyclone made landfall as a category 1 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale) in Jamaica, and as a 100-kt category 3 hurricane in eastern Cuba before quickly weakening to a category 1 hurricane while moving through the central and northwestern Bahamas. Sandy underwent a complex evolution and grew considerably in size while over the Bahamas, and continued to grow despite weakening into a tropical storm north of those islands. The system re-strengthened into a hurricane while it moved northeastward, parallel to the coast of the southeastern United States, and reached a secondary peak intensity of 85 kt while it turned northwestward toward the mid-Atlantic states. Sandy weakened somewhat and then made landfall as a post-tropical cyclone near Brigantine, New Jersey with 70-kt maximum sustained winds. Because of its tremendous size, however, Sandy drove a catastrophic storm surge into the New Jersey and New York coastlines. Preliminary U.S. damage estimates are near $50 billion, making Sandy the second-costliest cyclone to hit the United States since 19001. There were at least 147 direct deaths recorded across the Atlantic basin due to Sandy, with 72 of these fatalities occurring in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States. This is the greatest number of U.S. direct fatalities related to a tropical cyclone outside of the southern states since Hurricane Agnes in 1972.

*************
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/na.../11/239735.htm

HURRICANE? CYCLONE? TYPHOON? They’re all the same, officially tropical cyclones. But they just use distinctive terms for a storm in different parts of the world. Hurricane is used in the Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, central and northeast Pacific. They are typhoons in the northwest Pacific. In the Bay of Bengal and the Arabia Sea, they are called cyclones. Tropical cyclone is used in the southwest India Ocean; in the southwestern Pacific and southeastern India Ocean they are severe tropical cyclones.

STRENGTH: A storm gets a name and is considered a tropical storm at 39 mph (63 kph). It becomes a hurricane, typhoon, tropical cyclone, or cyclone at 74 mph (119 kph). There are five strength categories, depending on wind speed. The highest category is 5 and that’s above 155 mph (249 kph). Australia has a different system for categorizing storm strength.

etc.

*******

Beaufort wind scale HERE http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html
A hurricane is defined as 64+ kph.

My premise is exactly that GW/CC cannot be proved or un-proven as man-caused.You have a case for pollution, not heating and cooling of the earth that is caused by men.

Going back to the climate debate about global warming causing more intense hurricanes and more hurricanes in general, Global warming was blamed on Hurricane Andrew in 1992, along with every other hurricane since then. People went into hysteria over Katrina, but Rita was barely mentioned. And now, to cover their asses and their jobs, scientists and meteorologists claim Global Warming is deflecting hurricanes from our shores. If they don't make the claim, then they can't continue with the false science of it, which is where the East Anglia fiasco comes into play. They deliberately falsified evidence and cooked up models to reinforce untenable positions they took so that they could further a false agenda and keep their cushy jobs. It is clear no one here wants to talk about their (E.A.'s) deceit in an adult manner. It was minimized earlier in this thread and on down the road you guys trucked. Truth doesn't need to be manipulated. Lies do though. I haven't disparaged anyone here, just the lack of truthful, provable evidence that is missing from the conversation.

Bringing Christianity into the discussion to deflect from the debate is unhelpful, because you (some of you) seek to disparage me by doing so. It doesn't make sense, if you were being sincere, to do so. Throwing anti-Christian bombs doesn't bolster your position.

My advice to you would be to clean up your East Anglia mess before casting stones at Christianity. You won't do that though. I know why.

Tilt on.

Does Global Warming really exist or is it a fallacy? Even the so-called "experts'' can't agree on such a complex issue; there are so many variables. At this late stage in the thread I'm not going to start spouting my views... to be honest, I'm not even 100% sure what they are...

...but not having chocolate in the house is unthinkable.

It's nearly 1am and I'm much too tired to add any serious comment to this meandering thread so I'll go to bed instead, ...having just eaten 5 chocolates thanks to you, Janice :p

Jayne

Charlie, I haven't disparaged you for your faith. If you think I have, I will unreservedly apologize. You know I don't share those beliefs but that isn't important. What is important (to me) is that your arguments (IMO) are statements of belief and not grounded in verifiable argument.

I can't clean up something I am not responsible for. I hadn't even heard of it until now.

I can't say if this is a reliable source or not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy
but I've always been wary of conspiracy theories.

Proof at last.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/mel...es=og. shares

:D

I hate to be *that* guy, but Irene and Sandy were both pretty bad. I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up after each of them. The damage on Long Island Sound was spectacular. All that water came sweeping through our row of beach cottages. Some of them will never be rebuilt.

If anyone wants to do some fact checking, here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_o...tic_hurricanes

Best,

Bill

PS: Pics here, here, and here.

I don't understand why such reliance on Wikipedia. Why do such intelligent, thoughtful, reasoned people whom I like and admire personally, keep sourcing with an unreliable information vehicle?

The NWS and NOAA stepped on their own morning wood explaining Sandy.

I am not calling them reliable, mind you, but their sourcing is from the horse's mouth.

I cannot begin to shovel the buckets of irony here.

Climate Central, Feb 12th, 2013. —Check it out.

I don't know how to ref. this info to the discussion. I'm not qualified.