Andrew "Crazy Ass" Cuomo: ‘We Didn’t Have Hurricanes’ Before Climate Change

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
Lol, go ahead and dog plie with posts from Skeptical Science, do you even know John Cook's history?

Other than the fact that he takes no ad money, has high integrity and uses reason and evidence?

I'm sure the science denialist flat earth/anti-vax/climate denialists have some kind of conspiratard theory about him.

Just like they do for Snopes.

How sad you cannot see you're in a cult. The first thing a cult tells you is everyone else is lying to you.

Climate change denialism is the same as anti-vax, flat earth and EMF fears. It's a cult of ignorance who's base belief is that virtually every expert in the field is conspiring to lie to them.

So back to the point. SC sourced everything they said on that page. Can you point to a single quote they misrepresented or fabricated?

No?

Whoops.

You're just like the Snopes deniers. Shoot the page owner so you don't have to address the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
My favorite part about the ‘untoward influence of money’ is the fact that this conspiracy theory presumes that colossal global oil corporations are cowering, powerless, in the face of the academic grant writing machine.

This. So much this.

What climate change deniers are too stupid to realize, is they are falling for the exact same type of propaganda campaign the tobacco companies waged to create the appearance of "debate," "uncertainty" and "controversy" over tobacco causing disease.

It is so amazingly funny how blindly stupid this all is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
My favorite part about the ‘untoward influence of money’ is the fact that this conspiracy theory presumes that colossal global oil corporations are cowering, powerless, in the face of the academic grant writing machine.

Exactly. They never question where the actual money related to "CC controversy" is coming from, and which side of "the argument" is aligned with.

They never fucking question this, they just invent their own assumption about it. The unquestionable truth is that the only reason there is a debate, is that vast amounts of $$$$$ have long been spent on denying the science, and creating the idea that controversy on this subject exists.

Just like evolution, there is no controversy. There never was. Not within science, anyway. The only controversy comes form the ignorant only ever believing what the ignorant always believe: their ignorance has equal weight to anyone else's expertise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
There's an old saying I'll adapt once again to the situation "You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think".

Whether one decides to avail themselves of the verifiable or not is an individual choice.

You have an opportunity to learn which you, like anyone else, can use or discard as you will, but never let it be said there wasn't a chance to be properly informed of the facts I've brought here.

You're welcome BTW.
Next time link to where you took it from, please. It's the right thing to do.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
I love how the same 3 scientists get trotted out by the denial crowd in attempt to confirm bias.

This is how it works.

1. Climate change is a liberal conspiracy
2. The overwhelming scientific evidence provided by the scientific community at large is suspect because "climate gate" confirms a belief I have about $$$ and influence
3. Ergo, whatever dissenting voices I find confirm CC is a hoax
4. Focus on gotcha moments related to CC (like this post)
5. Bonus points: argue minutiae on some of the science as an attempt to discredit the body of work (see weather station data)
1. Who in here is claiming climate change is a "liberal conspiracy"? Please show it.
2. No, there's plenty of scientific evidence that doesn't confirm the most outrageous claims of some people.
3. Dissenting voices have a perfect Right to be heard and to provide their evidence.
4. This "gotcha" OP is because a top Democratic Governor "Cuomo" said something idiotic and scientifically insupportable.
5. Data counts, facts count, science counts.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
There are four parts to NY state.

First is NYC, which pisses everyone off who lives elsewhere in the state. Google for something in "NY" and NYC pops up.

Second is Albany, or the ass scratcher of NYC and sometimes remembers that there is anther important area, that is,

Third- Langiland AKA Long Island, because it costs a lot to live there and that means people who can donate.

Fourth, everyfrigginwhereelse, AKA "the afterbirth" and unloved as much as one.

And now you have the geopolitical NY state :D
Shuffle off to Buffalo
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Next time link to where you took it from, please. It's the right thing to do.

You could always click on the hyperlinks and diagrams.

To summarize, at this time there is insufficient evidence that we have established a causal relationship although there's some correlation. This is pretty much what is demonstrated by the current state of climate science. This doesn't invalidate global warming science at all but demonstrates that models are improving. We don't see huge changes yet nor a decrease, but irregularities are beginning to pop up.

I'll be glad when Republican influence over NOAA is done so the bureaurcrats and politicians leave the scientists alone.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
You could always click on the hyperlinks and diagrams.

To summarize, at this time there is insufficient evidence that we have established a causal relationship although there's some correlation. This is pretty much what is demonstrated by the current state of climate science. This doesn't invalidate global warming science at all but demonstrates that models are improving. We don't see huge changes yet nor a decrease, but irregularities are beginning to pop up.

I'll be glad when Republican influence over NOAA is done so the bureaurcrats and politicians leave the scientists alone.

That last bit is something I don't think @imported_tajmahal gets. Even if you're skeptical of the broad scientific consensus on climate change, the fact is that the Trump administration is censoring scientists that are working to verify links between human activity and climate change. So if you want the real answers, as always, you must oppose Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
That last bit is something I don't think @imported_tajmahal gets. Even if you're skeptical of the broad scientific consensus on climate change, the fact is that the Trump administration is censoring scientists that are working to verify links between human activity and climate change. So if you want the real answers, as always, you must oppose Trump.
I've been observing the global cooling/warming/ climate change story for over 40 years. Do you even know where the whole consensus story came from? I do. I have never denied links between climate change and human activity, what I have disagreed with are the exaggerations and outright lies of people like Gov. Cuomo and other climate alarmists that are so frequently seen in this forum and in the "news".

This thread is a case in point. What Gov. Cuomo said is wrong, inaccurate and either a lie or a mistake and it's obvious and plain to anyone that knows the science or the history of New York State, hurricanes and tornadoes.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
I've been observing the global cooling/warming/ climate change story for over 40 years. Do you even know where the whole consensus story came from? I do. I have never denied links between climate change and human activity, what I have disagreed with are the exaggerations and outright lies of people like Gov. Cuomo and other climate alarmists that are so frequently seen in this forum and in the "news".

This thread is a case in point. What Gov. Cuomo said is wrong, inaccurate and either a lie or a mistake and it's obvious and plain to anyone that knows the science or the history of New York State, hurricanes and tornadoes.

So you're shocked a politician exaggerated and got science wrong?

So that means all efforts to combat climate change should be shelved? Or what?

What is the issue here for you, because for the OP, it was proof AGW is fiction. You accept the science, yet are still outraged a politician got the exact science wrong while supporting the consensus of science???

If a politician said something stupid in the support of vaccines would you be as similarly outraged so much that all efforts to vaccinate should be shelved?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
I've been observing the global cooling/warming/ climate change story for over 40 years. Do you even know where the whole consensus story came from? I do. I have never denied links between climate change and human activity, what I have disagreed with are the exaggerations and outright lies of people like Gov. Cuomo and other climate alarmists that are so frequently seen in this forum and in the "news".

This thread is a case in point. What Gov. Cuomo said is wrong, inaccurate and either a lie or a mistake and it's obvious and plain to anyone that knows the science or the history of New York State, hurricanes and tornadoes.

Yes, Cuomo is panicking. But my question is, if you accept the general scientific consensus, then why do you support an administration that censors it and otherwise pretends it doesn't exist?

Cuomo's alarm notwithstanding, the reality is that climate change could have some very serious repercussions like coastal flooding, permanent ecosystem damage, increased rates of natural disasters and (in the worst case) runaway greenhouse gas effects. The world might not end by 2030, but we should still support pro-environment politicians who recognize that we can't just ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
So you're shocked a politician exaggerated and got science wrong?

So that means all efforts to combat climate change should be shelved? Or what?

What is the issue here for you, because for the OP, it was proof AGW is fiction. You accept the science, yet are still outraged a politician got the exact science wrong while supporting the consensus of science???

If a politician said something stupid in the support of vaccines would you be as similarly outraged so much that all efforts to vaccinate should be shelved?
1. No, i expect politicians to lie and i've never been surprised when they do.
2.No, but if it doesn't work, or if the costs far outweigh the benefits we should look for other answers.
3.I accept that carbon dioxide and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change, but it's not proven that it is the only contributing factor.
4.What consensus are you talking about here?

I just got the 2nd of 2 Shingle vaccines, i've had a flu vaccine and a pneumonia vaccine and in the past have gotten more vaccines than i can shake a stick at. Including standing in line to get a polio sugar cube vaccine many years ago. So stop with the anti-vacc garbage already.
I also think that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and am happy that in scale it's smoother than a billiard ball.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Yes, Cuomo is panicking. But my question is, if you accept the general scientific consensus, then why do you support an administration that censors it and otherwise pretends it doesn't exist?

Cuomo's alarm notwithstanding, the reality is that climate change could have some very serious repercussions like coastal flooding, permanent ecosystem damage, increased rates of natural disasters and (in the worst case) runaway greenhouse gas effects. The world might not end by 2030, but we should still support pro-environment politicians who recognize that we can't just ignore the problem and hope it goes away.
Do you agree with 100% of everything the Democratic Party stands for/says/does ? I doubt it.

I don't agree with everything Trump says or does either. In fact i think that Trump is a narcissistic New York jerk, but i agree with some of what he does politically. Why would I support politicians that are doing and saying and support taking actions that are far more damaging to this country than climate change? In some cases their cure is far worse than the disease.


If you can show me a single scientific paper that makes any claim about the world ending in 12 years i'd love to see it.

There are plenty of papers that show sea level rise is still running at about 2-3.5 mm per year. If you care you can read about it that include 30 years of IPCC Assessments (1-5) in an easy to read format #1 of 7
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
Do you agree with 100% of everything the Democratic Party stands for/says/does ? I doubt it.

I don't agree with everything Trump says or does either. In fact i think that Trump is a narcissistic New York jerk, but i agree with some of what he does politically. Why would I support politicians that are doing and saying and support taking actions that are far more damaging to this country than climate change? In some cases their cure is far worse than the disease.


If you can show me a single scientific paper that makes any claim about the world ending in 12 years i'd love to see it.

There are plenty of papers that show sea level rise is still running at about 2-3.5 mm per year. If you care you can read about it that include 30 years of IPCC Assessments (1-5) in an easy to read format #1 of 7

I don't agree with everything Dems do, but here's the thing: there are some things that you shouldn't let slide.

Suppressing climate science and rolling back environmental regulations, things that could both affect the entire planet in serious and irrevocable ways... those should be immediate dealbreakers.

And think about what you're saying: you're literally arguing that short-term effects on the US economy could be "far more damaging" than an Earth-wide environmental crisis. I'm sorry, but even if we accept the claims about sea level rising at face value (which we shouldn't), there are other concerns like the ecosystem and natural disaster issues I mentioned. Your ability to buy the latest smartphone is not worth tipping the whole planet out of balance.

Besides, given that Biden the moderate still seems most likely to win the Dems' nomination, I'm not sure why you're panicking. Would you do the right thing and vote Democrat if Biden won the nod?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
Do you agree with 100% of everything the Democratic Party stands for/says/does ? I doubt it.

I don't agree with everything Trump says or does either. In fact i think that Trump is a narcissistic New York jerk, but i agree with some of what he does politically. Why would I support politicians that are doing and saying and support taking actions that are far more damaging to this country than climate change? In some cases their cure is far worse than the disease.


If you can show me a single scientific paper that makes any claim about the world ending in 12 years i'd love to see it.

There are plenty of papers that show sea level rise is still running at about 2-3.5 mm per year. If you care you can read about it that include 30 years of IPCC Assessments (1-5) in an easy to read format #1 of 7

Curry has already been debunked. You may as well be quoting Dr Mercola on Vaccines FFS. She's contradicting, without valid evidence, a clear consensus. She is to climate change waht Wakefield is to vaccines.

But you keep posting her because she says what you want to hear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi and Meghan54

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,511
16,225
146
1. No, i expect politicians to lie and i've never been surprised when they do.
2.No, but if it doesn't work, or if the costs far outweigh the benefits we should look for other answers.
3.I accept that carbon dioxide and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change, but it's not proven that it is the only contributing factor.
4.What consensus are you talking about here?

I just got the 2nd of 2 Shingle vaccines, i've had a flu vaccine and a pneumonia vaccine and in the past have gotten more vaccines than i can shake a stick at. Including standing in line to get a polio sugar cube vaccine many years ago. So stop with the anti-vacc garbage already.
I also think that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and am happy that in scale it's smoother than a billiard ball.

Climate change consensus denial is as absurd as vaccine denial or flat earth.

Just as posting the Wakefield of climate change, Curry is. She is in clear contradiction of the preponderance of the evidence and has a long history of being wrong on climate change and taking energy company money.

When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was Curry's response to the Scientific American:

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”
She's a hack and full of shit.

Posting her is like posting Mercola or Suzanne Humphries on vaccines. The only people listening to Curry are the deniers.

Here is a very complete breakdown of her clear pattern of misinformation propaganda and her ties to energy companies all starting, surprise surprise, when she started receiving finding from oil companies in 2007. Before that, not a peep.

Well, not exactly:

Curry actually entered the public eye in 2005, with a paper in Science magazine warning that hurricanes were likely to become more intense as a result of climate change. But in the years since then, she's soured on the scientific consensus about climate change. Her mantra now is, "We just don't know."

What changed??? Oh yeah, oil company funding starting in 2007.

Hmmm...


She is not an expert in climate change science. She is a paid industry contrarian shill using the same propaganda techniques used by the tobacco companies and climate deniers are stupid enough to fall for the SAME thing yet AGAIN.

Source Watch has a long list of her debunked propaganda:

 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,102
14,440
146
1. No, i expect politicians to lie and i've never been surprised when they do.
2.No, but if it doesn't work, or if the costs far outweigh the benefits we should look for other answers.
3.I accept that carbon dioxide and the burning of fossil fuels contribute to climate change, but it's not proven that it is the only contributing factor.
4.What consensus are you talking about here?

I just got the 2nd of 2 Shingle vaccines, i've had a flu vaccine and a pneumonia vaccine and in the past have gotten more vaccines than i can shake a stick at. Including standing in line to get a polio sugar cube vaccine many years ago. So stop with the anti-vacc garbage already.
I also think that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and am happy that in scale it's smoother than a billiard ball.
For number 3 CO2 role is absolutely proven.

However since you’re saying it’s not proven you must finally have that comprehensive peer reviewed theory to debunk the scientific community’s consensus on climate change. Link us up!

Oh and your wrong about the Earth. It’s an irregular oblate spheroid. Although I’ll give you an A- for your answer since it’s close enough. ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Curry has already been debunked. You may as well be quoting Dr Mercola on Vaccines FFS. She's contradicting, without valid evidence, a clear consensus. She is to climate change waht Wakefield is to vaccines.

But you keep posting her because she says what you want to hear.
Dr. Curry has been debunked? That is something i have to laugh at. I can see where your scientific arguments are coming from. Thanks for playing.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
For number 3 CO2 role is absolutely proven.

However since you’re saying it’s not proven you must finally have that comprehensive peer reviewed theory to debunk the scientific community’s consensus on climate change. Link us up!

Oh and your wrong about the Earth. It’s an irregular oblate spheroid. Although I’ll give you an A- for your answer since it’s close enough. ;)
So anthropogenic factors are the only contributing factor to climate change? I'd be surprised to see a paper making that claim. Post it if ya got it.

You got science wrong, i can't prove what doesn't exist. You claim it exists, prove it.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136

Right? Unless you want to make the claim that volcanoes are man made or that they don't release greenhouse gases? Are you making that claim?


and good god, the desmogblog?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,102
14,440
146
So anthropogenic factors are the only contributing factor to climate change? I'd be surprised to see a paper making that claim. Post it if ya got it.

You got science wrong, i can't prove what doesn't exist. You claim it exists, prove it.

I said CO2’s role in climate change is absolutely proven. I didn’t say anthropogenic factors are the only contributor to the climate.

Finally you are the one challenging the settled climate science without a supporting competing theory but as a reminder I’ll link you to the science.

Science on how the climate
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html

IPCC 6 Assement
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/

Climate Change Evidence from the fine folks at NASA
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And just because I care here’s a study that directly measured the energy imbalance caused by CO2 in the atmosphere.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240

So when will you have a competing comprehensive theory? Otherwise your position is simply your unsupported opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi