Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

A fully implemented CO2 global tax could reduce human emissions to ZERO.

@Noflaps said in #101:

I favor the data that I presented and tend to view with some of that cautious skepticism I mentioned any "simulated" data or any reliance upon modeling. Especially when I can make reference to data that appears to me to be pretty carefully aggregated, over many decades, by an apparently objective source.

Show the sources of this data!

@Noflaps said in #101: > I favor the data that I presented and tend to view with some of that cautious skepticism I mentioned any "simulated" data or any reliance upon modeling. Especially when I can make reference to data that appears to me to be pretty carefully aggregated, over many decades, by an apparently objective source. Show the sources of this data!

@celinofj

Please note at your convenience that there is a greater than zero chance that there are people in this thread engaged in bad-faith arguments for the sole purpose of burning you out and destroying your passion for these issues.

They may be professional or amateur propogandists but, either way, they are not herrre to have an honest discussion. They are either operating with rigid ideology or are getting paid to not care, in which case you will never change their minds or otherwise influence their thinking on these issues. They are essentially polite intellectual vampires whose sole goal is to suck up your attention span and emotional energy in an attempt to burn you out or otherwise increase your spiral towards depression.

My recommendation is to keep this in mind as you operate on the internet and consider operating in an exclusively hyperlocal and real life fashion, as much as possible.

Good luck!

@celinofj Please note at your convenience that there is a greater than zero chance that there are people in this thread engaged in bad-faith arguments for the sole purpose of burning you out and destroying your passion for these issues. They may be professional or amateur propogandists but, either way, they are not herrre to have an honest discussion. They are either operating with rigid ideology or are getting paid to not care, in which case you will never change their minds or otherwise influence their thinking on these issues. They are essentially polite intellectual vampires whose sole goal is to suck up your attention span and emotional energy in an attempt to burn you out or otherwise increase your spiral towards depression. My recommendation is to keep this in mind as you operate on the internet and consider operating in an exclusively hyperlocal and real life fashion, as much as possible. Good luck!

@spidersneedlovetoo Thank you!

They both look to be from the United States, and the current leader is mocking Global Warming.

I believe that the passion for the truth must come, before anything else! If you have any ideology in mind, even patriotism, you'll tend to defend your country, even when it's wrong, and bury yourself and others instead of fixing a wrongdoing. A terrible one, actually.

Global warming is the biggest threat that most life forms on earth have already faced, even the ones that are not intelligent enough to understand.

@spidersneedlovetoo Thank you! They both look to be from the United States, and the current leader is mocking Global Warming. I believe that the passion for the truth must come, before anything else! If you have any ideology in mind, even patriotism, you'll tend to defend your country, even when it's wrong, and bury yourself and others instead of fixing a wrongdoing. A terrible one, actually. Global warming is the biggest threat that most life forms on earth have already faced, even the ones that are not intelligent enough to understand.

I have myself been an environmentalist and a denier. I focus on the truth now, instead. Try to reach it. And I think the biggest charity on earth is providing it for others. Truth saves us, and keep us moving on.

Yeah, I'm tired, and I can only debate without being worn-out with truth lovers!

I have myself been an environmentalist and a denier. I focus on the truth now, instead. Try to reach it. And I think the biggest charity on earth is providing it for others. Truth saves us, and keep us moving on. Yeah, I'm tired, and I can only debate without being worn-out with truth lovers!

"There are much more recorded hurricanes in 2025 than in 1925."

Has the argument really been reduced to picking out a single year and clinging to that in order to support a preferred conclusion? I hope not.

Is that how statistics is really used, validly? I think not.

The LONG-TERM trend using SIGNIFICANT comparable time periods doesn't make such a "convenient" selection. And the numbers (without "simulation") are what they are. And they seem to show a slight DECLINE in frequency and a slight INCREASE in severity.

We MUST try to avoid straining to find preferred, preconceived outcomes.

The goal here is not to get a good grade on a term paper graded by some sociology major. The goal is to really see what's true and what isn't.

Nevertheless, thanks for all good faith responses, even if they disagree with me. We learn by intelligent interaction.

"There are much more recorded hurricanes in 2025 than in 1925." Has the argument really been reduced to picking out a single year and clinging to that in order to support a preferred conclusion? I hope not. Is that how statistics is really used, validly? I think not. The LONG-TERM trend using SIGNIFICANT comparable time periods doesn't make such a "convenient" selection. And the numbers (without "simulation") are what they are. And they seem to show a slight DECLINE in frequency and a slight INCREASE in severity. We MUST try to avoid straining to find preferred, preconceived outcomes. The goal here is not to get a good grade on a term paper graded by some sociology major. The goal is to really see what's true and what isn't. Nevertheless, thanks for all good faith responses, even if they disagree with me. We learn by intelligent interaction.

@spidersneedlovetoo , if you mean to imply (in #113) that I am making "bad-faith arguments" or being paid to be a propogandist, I certainly am not. And I am not "mocking" global warming, @celinofj -- indeed, I have openly accepted in this forum that the planet seems to be slowly warming, and that humans are likely to be at least partially responsible.

Furthermore, I state it without reservation: I am not remotely a "paid propogandist" and nothing I've written about the matter was written in "bad faith." Furthermore, I am actually excessively educated and no stranger to math and science, either by education or actual experience.

I've used aggregated numbers of hurricane count over a long, long period of time, appearing from an apparently serious, official website on which the names NOAA and the names of two hurricane centers appear, as I carefully stated before.

Some might not LIKE the numbers presented above, because they are inconvenient for THEIR preferred narrative -- but the numbers are what they are, and don't seem to be in any way "simulated." I didn't make them up -- I merely took them, in good faith and hopefully without error, from the website. But don't merely rely on my belief -- we can all find the actual numbers for ourselves, I believe. It's not rocket science just to find them.

I've admitted that the numbers I presented seem to show, long term, a slight increase in severity (a paid "propogandist" would hardly do that), BUT they also seem to show a slight decline in frequency.

Rather than attack the messenger, shouldn't we instead try to THINK about the numbers, unaided by math tricks and personal disparagement?

Sometimes I feel like I am disagreeing with somebody's religion whenever I try to calmly discuss what can be seen without too much effort. It's not necessary to get personal and construct reassuring tales about the evils of those who disagree with us. Let's just stick to real numbers and reflect.

BOTH of the opposite positions A) "there's nuthin' to see here, folks, go back to sleep" and B) "OMG OMG OMG the world is ending soon and every weather event is due to global warming!!!" seem incorrect to me.

And since the danger of making wrong decisions is very real -- in BOTH directions -- we have to avoid dogma and emotion and self-serving, profitable narratives and instead try to find what actual truth lies in the middle of the two possible extremes of viewpoint. Just because we hear something over and over, from people that we like or feel at home with, doesn't automatically render it accurate.

I'm not joking when I point out that if petroleum and fossil fuels disappeared tomorrow, it would be a CATASTROPHE not just a challenge that we could quickly get past with enough spunk and a can-do attitude. It scares me that many young people don't seem to realize that and think petroleum and fossil fuels hang around only because some people are stubborn luddites or lackeys of fat cats.

But it's NOT that simple. Indeed, the people supplying us with power are typically NOT fools and NOT beholden to industry.

As food for thought, notice some of the countries which are building COAL PLANTS and burning lots of coal. Hint: I'm talking about some countries OTHER than the United States. Countries that some young people seem to feel are quite "green" and "progressive." But those countries are also typically realistic and practical.

Don't just miss that last paragraph while trying to think of counter-arguments. The situation is NOT as simple as many hope or think.

@spidersneedlovetoo , if you mean to imply (in #113) that I am making "bad-faith arguments" or being paid to be a propogandist, I certainly am not. And I am not "mocking" global warming, @celinofj -- indeed, I have openly accepted in this forum that the planet seems to be slowly warming, and that humans are likely to be at least partially responsible. Furthermore, I state it without reservation: I am not remotely a "paid propogandist" and nothing I've written about the matter was written in "bad faith." Furthermore, I am actually excessively educated and no stranger to math and science, either by education or actual experience. I've used aggregated numbers of hurricane count over a long, long period of time, appearing from an apparently serious, official website on which the names NOAA and the names of two hurricane centers appear, as I carefully stated before. Some might not LIKE the numbers presented above, because they are inconvenient for THEIR preferred narrative -- but the numbers are what they are, and don't seem to be in any way "simulated." I didn't make them up -- I merely took them, in good faith and hopefully without error, from the website. But don't merely rely on my belief -- we can all find the actual numbers for ourselves, I believe. It's not rocket science just to find them. I've admitted that the numbers I presented seem to show, long term, a slight increase in severity (a paid "propogandist" would hardly do that), BUT they also seem to show a slight decline in frequency. Rather than attack the messenger, shouldn't we instead try to THINK about the numbers, unaided by math tricks and personal disparagement? Sometimes I feel like I am disagreeing with somebody's religion whenever I try to calmly discuss what can be seen without too much effort. It's not necessary to get personal and construct reassuring tales about the evils of those who disagree with us. Let's just stick to real numbers and reflect. BOTH of the opposite positions A) "there's nuthin' to see here, folks, go back to sleep" and B) "OMG OMG OMG the world is ending soon and every weather event is due to global warming!!!" seem incorrect to me. And since the danger of making wrong decisions is very real -- in BOTH directions -- we have to avoid dogma and emotion and self-serving, profitable narratives and instead try to find what actual truth lies in the middle of the two possible extremes of viewpoint. Just because we hear something over and over, from people that we like or feel at home with, doesn't automatically render it accurate. I'm not joking when I point out that if petroleum and fossil fuels disappeared tomorrow, it would be a CATASTROPHE not just a challenge that we could quickly get past with enough spunk and a can-do attitude. It scares me that many young people don't seem to realize that and think petroleum and fossil fuels hang around only because some people are stubborn luddites or lackeys of fat cats. But it's NOT that simple. Indeed, the people supplying us with power are typically NOT fools and NOT beholden to industry. As food for thought, notice some of the countries which are building COAL PLANTS and burning lots of coal. Hint: I'm talking about some countries OTHER than the United States. Countries that some young people seem to feel are quite "green" and "progressive." But those countries are also typically realistic and practical. Don't just miss that last paragraph while trying to think of counter-arguments. The situation is NOT as simple as many hope or think.

@Noflaps said in #116:

they seem to show a slight DECLINE in frequency and a slight INCREASE in severity.

Because small hurricanes weren't measured in the past! But big, destructive ones can't be ignored. That's why you see an increase of severity, and a decrease of numbers!!

@Noflaps said in #116: > they seem to show a slight DECLINE in frequency and a slight INCREASE in severity. Because small hurricanes weren't measured in the past! But big, destructive ones can't be ignored. That's why you see an increase of severity, and a decrease of numbers!!

@celinofj , if small ones weren't measured and were instead "ignored" in the past that would mean THERE WERE EVEN MORE hurricanes in the past than the numbers I showed.

Which would tend to confirm what I said, not refute it, when it comes to the data NOT supporting an increase in frequency. I discussed this in detail above.

And what I am saying about that appears to be pretty straightforward and not easily refuted.

@celinofj , if small ones weren't measured and were instead "ignored" in the past that would mean THERE WERE EVEN MORE hurricanes in the past than the numbers I showed. Which would tend to confirm what I said, not refute it, when it comes to the data NOT supporting an increase in frequency. I discussed this in detail above. And what I am saying about that appears to be pretty straightforward and not easily refuted.

@celinofj said in #118:

Because small hurricanes weren't measured in the past! But big, destructive ones can't be ignored. That's why you see an increase of severity, and a decrease of numbers!!
How does this make any sense?
If there were more small hurricanes in the past than were recorded, then hurricanes were more common in the past, which would lead to an increase of proportional severity and decrease of numbers in the statistics for the PAST (compared to reality), not the present.
Which would mean that the numbers for the hurricanes of the past are actually lower than they should be, and according to @Noflaps's statistics even the recorded numbers are bigger than the present numbers, and they were proportionally even less frequent than they are now.
So, as @Noflaps said before, fewer weak hurricanes, (proportionally at least) more powerful ones.
Who are you arguing against exactly?

@celinofj said in #118: > Because small hurricanes weren't measured in the past! But big, destructive ones can't be ignored. That's why you see an increase of severity, and a decrease of numbers!! How does this make any sense? If there were more small hurricanes in the past than were recorded, then hurricanes were more common in the past, which would lead to an increase of proportional severity and decrease of numbers in the statistics for the PAST (compared to reality), not the present. Which would mean that the numbers for the hurricanes of the past are actually lower than they should be, and according to @Noflaps's statistics even the recorded numbers are bigger than the present numbers, and they were proportionally even less frequent than they are now. So, as @Noflaps said before, fewer weak hurricanes, (proportionally at least) more powerful ones. Who are you arguing against exactly?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.