Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Denies Climate change: house destroyed by hurricane (Patreon)

Published:
2017-09-12 20:19:13
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

Its really as simple as it get:

Heat from the oceans is the key driver of hurricanes.....

The oceans are hotter than they used to be......

a HELL of a lot of people are in denial about the consequence of what that means.


16 out of the 17 hottest years on record were in the last 17 years... and you STILL get people 'skeptical' about climate change!


It amazes me that there are still people in denial about this, when you can get in a car and drive for mile after mile through rocky mountain national part and see nothing but dead pine trees, killed by pine beetle because the winters are not as cold as they used to be.  Its not some hypothetical scare of what could happen in the future.  Its there for anyone who cares to go and see it!



Files

Previews only

Denies Climate Change: house DESTROYED by hurricane!

Fact..... hurricanes are driven by warm oceans. Fact..... the oceans are warmer than they used to be Fact..... theres a LOT of people in denial about this! The sad thing is this is the new normal. We have a hotter planet than we used to. This is only the beginning. To support media like this: https://www.patreon.com/Thunderf00t

Comments

Anonymous

No, I am not buying this argument. I totally agree that climate change is happening, and agree (based purely on the advice of climate scientists) that human activity is contributing to it. Unfortunately, our blame does get lost in the data. The planet is too complex, and the processes involved too difficult to actually define the problem. But I'll take the word of those who spend their days actually working with the data. But to blame the current spate of hurricanes on climate change is simply unsupported, even by those same scientists. We are talking about long term impacts on the climate, VERY long term in human terms. The fact that we have more hurricanes this year does NOT mean that climate change is to blame. There is simply too much noise in the data to even begin to make that claim. Worse, perhaps, is that those who DO make that claim are adding even more noise to the mix, giving the deniers more ammunition. If you blame an extra strong hurricane on climate change, how then can you deny that a low hurricane year is not equally the result of the same conditions? Or that major hurricanes in the past were what, imaginary? And of course, while pine beetle infestation might be exacerbated by warmer weather not killing them off each year, the issue is only tangentially linked to the problem, and it's not worth mentioning.

Anonymous

No love for Pewds, but I'm pretty sure he was *parodying* climate change deniers there, y'know? This looks rather bad -- it kinda sorta undermines credibility of the rest of what you say here. As in "Tf00t has no idea what he's talking about, since he misinterpreted Pewds". And while I'm pretty sure climate change is a thing myself, for those who need convincing, this would be an easy way to dismiss the whole thing.

Anonymous

I saw the same horrifying sight on a trip to Yosemite; half the trees or more below 7,000 feet were dried up kindling. The people I was with had such a hard time seeing it, they quickly changed the topic to the relative sizes of their RV's anytime I mentioned it. SMH! I've heard that denial is the first step of grieving. I am curious how we can counter that because the facts and reality don't seem to be convincing these people. It wouldn't be a problem normally but, unfortunately, they vote.

Anonymous

When I was recently on my US road trip from North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and finally Texas, I saw something similar. Especially when doing the Diamondback Route in the Appalachians. There are dead trees everywhere. not as many as what you have seen, but a fair few.

Anonymous
>>7184123

I don't blame the frequency or the current spat of Hurricanes on climate change, I blame their *intensity*. Warmer waters will amplify hurricanes, making them stronger than they would otherwise be. It's like steroids for weather. It's that simple.

Anonymous
>>7189596

Right, because they get their funding from a divided government and don't want to be under the cross-hairs of an administration that is already hostile to the EPA. Science moves slowly, and it's smart for them to take a neutral stance. However, I'm here to say that it's 'likely' that we will see stronger storms, stronger hurricanes, and erratic weather patterns as a result of global warming. Key word: likely.

Galen Thurber

Louder with Crowder crowd does not approve of this video

Tien Boonen

I just don't understand why their are people who seem to have problems with the reality of climate change on what seems to be an emotional level. Why do they feel so uncomfortable with this that they try to deny it and why is the line between excepting reality and denying it so strongly correlated with the political leaning of people?

Anonymous

Unit of Measure Question: Joules can also be thought of as WattHours, hence the direct conversion of 4e18 J to 1 Trillion kWh. But.... would that not mean that the energy of the hurricane (adding up to 4e18 J) would be the result to the hurricane churning energy for some period of time? If so, what period of time did you assume for the calculation. If not, what concept am I not grasping? Thanks - Jim

Anonymous

If I said we are headed toward Ice Age because Finland has just this year had a record cold summer, you would (rightfully) say that it is bullshit and just an anecdote. You cannot determine global warming to have stopped or turned into cooling by a single year's statistic one a specific location. You need global data and a trend... which you do have, and it proves global warming is in effect.<br><br>However, you cannot take one year's hurricane damages in a limited area (USA's Atlantic coastline) and declare out of two anecdotes (i.e two hurricanes) that stronger hurricanes are a proven fact. They are still anecdotes. You cannot accept anecdotes in favor of your theory, and deny anecdotes against it. That shit just isn't going to fly. But I know you, along with the leftwing media are going to try to make it fly.<br><br>For years the Finnish press made yellow journalism on global warming alarmism, record warm December, record low number of subzero days in December, record low number of very cold days in December, repeat everything for Jan and Feb, for year after year. Then comes summer and record high temperatures for June, record number of days above 25 deg C for June, record number of rainy days for June, record rainfall for month, or record rainfall on one day, number of lightning strikes, etc. and repeat for all summer months. And they split it to a thousand categories so every month had a record of something very specific (temperature records weren't just average temperature but number of hot days, maximum peak, warmest nights, longest consecutives, etc). And the world was going to end, more likely sooner than later. News about all future winters being cancelled were published (without any scientist daring to protest out loud).<br><br>Then came summer 2017 to break the trend and suddenly very little noise about record cold average temperatures, record low number of over 25 deg C days, snowfall in June, rinse and repeat for 5 consecutive months, and peak temperature lower than in any year for the last 40 years over the entire summer, reduced thunderstorm activity, etc. ... and now, <b>finally</b>, rather than panicking about statistics and preaching doomsday, they get people actually involved in the field to tell the truth that you cannot use anecdotes to declare global warming stopped. Good on them for calling out bullshit but where were they when anecdotes were pointing the other direction?<br><br>And because some parts of world have peak heat instead of cold anomalies, it's expected that you get to use anecdotes against conservative ... much like conservatives used few statistically anomalous cold years before that to "prove" their bullshit. Congrats. The world just goes round and round like a washing machine filled with piss, shit, blood and sperm in Kiasma's (Helsinki's modern art museum) basement.<br><br>Also, congrats on being about as sympathetic toward conservatives losing their homes, as conservatives were about people killed by tsunami in rather secularized Japan. Oh, wait, it was moved from Poe to a confirmed troll. But at least with tamtampamela, you recognized the danger of Poe rather than buying into it, hook line and sinker. With pewdiepie, you not only took the parody at face value. And PDP wasn't even making the point that global warming is a hoax, he was ONLY arguing against politicization of an anecdotal disaster and blaming everything on Trump. And you don't even link the target of your attack, because you know that the context of those satirican PDP remarks make it clear that A) it's satire, B) satire is targeted against politicization, rather than trying to politicize it from the other direction. You are fucking dishonest. <b>What a fucking nigger!</b><br><br>For those who haven't seen the <b>CONTEXT</b>, here's a link thundercuck refuses to give you:<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH7wMFrWYoA" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH7wMFrWYoA</a>

Anonymous

Also, dead tree killed by pine beetle is not Trumps fault. PDP's video was about celebrities blaming everything on Trump. When you bring this into a video taking potshots on PDP, you are implicitly thus claiming pine beetles to be Trump's fault. Congratulations.<br><br>When Jennifer Lawrence blamed Trump for the hurricanes, PDP called her out. You called PDP out. Either you think PDP should be held to the standard of scientists (despite being a letsplayer and ADHD comedian), or you side with a person who really should stick to having semen on her face. Not that the leaked porn pictures of her in Fappening was even worth downloading but she's still better as a cum receptor than as an environmental analyst. Trust me.<br><br>I honestly don't think you either assumed PDP to be scientifically literate, or that his comedy needs to be perfectly accurate to prove the point that Jennifer was off the tracks, nor that you genuinely defend the retarded comments of Jennifer... you just want to attack everyone who has defended Trump in any way, even if it was for the most blatantly retarded accusations. Trump has been in office for <b>less than a year</b>, he is by no means the causality for those hurricanes (something that Jeffifer claims and PDP makes a mockery of). Trumps disastrous environmental policies with "clean coal" will be seen in next decades... and centuries, but they are not measurable today. These hurricanes are no the hurricanes you are looking for... <b>you flaming bell-end</b>. I know you have Trump Derangement Syndrome but <b>please</b> an hero already if you aren't willing to seek treatment for it. Your queen has been taken. Hillary is out of the game. Deal with it or topple yourself but you need to stop whining already. Rules of chess don't care about your feelings.

Anonymous
>>7184567

There's that parodic element that thundercuck completely ignored, but there's also the fact that the clips are taken from a video where PDP takes a piss on Jennifer Lawrence for blaming Trump on the hurricanes. While Trumps policies are disastrous for the environment, his presidency has lasted less than a year, and these hurricanes couldn't have been prevented or alleviated by choosing Hillary as the president. Trumps disastrous environmental policies will show result in decades and centuries to come.... but not yet. Global warming is a gradual process that cannot be immediately stopped (or worsened) by merely choosing a different president.<br><br>This is just thundercuck in full narrative spin. Please check the original video from PDP's own channel to get the context of his comedy:<br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH7wMFrWYoA" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH7wMFrWYoA</a>

Anonymous

Oh crap. Now the trolls have to invade your Patreon account too? You know, sometimes I wish climate change was just a liberal issue. Then I wouldn't have to work in this movement with some of the feminists who want to police and control what I say. Worse yet, the vegan feminists who want to control my life! Sigh. Your patience is a virtue T but, go ahead and delete these troll posts. They can go back to Youtube.

cyrus

Thanks TF. People with influence need to debunk the multinational extractive resource industry's disastrous propaganda efforts and the political parties and governments that benefit from their dark money support. For the sake of a rational and well informed population, the future of Earth's irreplacable ecology, and the well being of humanity as a whole. Ignore the naysayers, keep fighting the good fight for our future.

Anonymous

I would like to see more climate change discussion that goes beyond the matter of the climate warming up. I feel like everyone misses the bigger picture here. Evidence seems to indicate that humans have succeeded in driving the climate to warmer temperatures however... We are in an ice age, an interglacial period of an ice age. What seems to be lacking in most popular discussion is this: what happens if we stop adding CO2 into the atmosphere and this interglacial period ends and the next glacial period begins. Instead of rising oceans, volatile weather and hot temperatures, we would be faced with entire countries or portions of countries being destroyed by sheets of ice. Crop production could plummet and mass starvation could occur. Can we modulate our climate simply by adding or not adding CO2 into the atmosphere?

cyrus
>>7262346

The problem with AGW isn't necessarily how much heat energy was stored in the oceans and atmosphere an arbitrary number of years ago compared to today, but rather the present, extraordinary rate of change of that heat content going forward, which only human activity can account for. We've still got a lot of work to do in reducing greenhouse gas emissions before we see that change in heat content over time level off, until its consequences are once again manageable in the long-term for humanity and for Earth's precious ecology.

Anonymous
>>7256191

Everyone who disagrees is a troll. No need to even check the source link where from he took PDP clips he used. Links are trolls too.

Anonymous

We are in an ice age. How about before posting a response we all gather facts and work from there.