Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 16    Average: 2.9/5]
39 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8316
Rating: 2.9
Category:
Date: 11/01/12 08:43 AM

39 Responses to Bloomberg Businessweek On Hurricane Sandy [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18499 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 8:48 am
    Link: Bloomberg Businessweek On Hurricane Sandy - The mag used this headline for its cover story this week. The editor says, it`s controversial, only among the stupid.
  2. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 8:56 am
    These storms have happened before, you know.
  3. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 8:59 am
    OMGZ A HURRICANEZ IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMINGZ!!
  4. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:00 am
    Damn right.
  5. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:04 am
    `These storms have happened before, you know.`

    Of course they have. But the severity of it was unprecedented. It was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record.

    Look, the sea level is clearly rising. Even if you don`t accept the anthropogenic nature of this, you have to admit that rising sea levels will only keep making the effects of these storms worse.
  6. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:05 am
    Hey they`re talking to you OldOllie! You self proclaimed genius.
  7. Profile photo of Quackor
    Quackor Male 18-29
    2856 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:16 am
    i hope they provided evidence, otherwise every little deviation from normal weather its going to be gobal warming for the stupid from now on
  8. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:18 am
    I know the sea level is rising by 1-2mm a year last source I checked. I also don`t deny that the climate could be changing. I just am not a fan of pointing to global warming every time a storm happens. It`s just like Katrina all over again.

    This is exactly what would happen under any circumstance when a Hurricane and Nor`easter both happen at the same time at New York city. The Hurricane wasn`t even strong, it was a category 1. It`s hardly the "Supercanes" that were promised, at least Katrina was a Cat 5. But with Katrina, what happened is exactly what would happen with a below sea level city in a hurricane zone.

    This is what hurricanes do. And the more advanced our society gets, the more expensive the damages will be. The most expensive hurricane will always be `just a few years ago` for that reason.
  9. Profile photo of faustsshadow
    faustsshadow Male 30-39
    418 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:30 am
    @FoolsPrussia - not disagreeing, but can we source that rising sea levels will only make storms worse? Why is that so instead of the opposite? It`s not like this is something that can just intuitively be known.
  10. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:36 am
    `can we source that rising sea levels will only make storms worse? Why is that so instead of the opposite?`

    I probably should have explained myself better, but I was trying to make a very simple point that the storm surge will be worse for coastal areas. I`m not sure I need to cite anything, since it`s just logical that the inundation will be worse.
  11. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:38 am
    Yes, storms have happened before. Floods have happened. Droughts have happened. And they will always happen. But for some reason they are happening more frequently and with increasing severity. Allow me to borrow a chart from FoolsPrussia:

    Bloomberg is right. Anyone who doubts that GCC is happening, and that man`s actions are contributing to it, are simply stupid. Period.
  12. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:44 am
    @Chalket: Nice. I wasn`t sure anyone noticed that chart when I posted it.
  13. Profile photo of chalket
    chalket Male 50-59
    2712 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:18 am
    and I made sure to give you credit o:-)
  14. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:21 am
    @chalket

    We had more earthquakes in the 80`s does that mean cocaine conmsumption radically affects fault lines!!! OMGZ FAULT LINES!! DON`T SNORT DA LINES!!
  15. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:22 am
    ...and some of the 90`s
  16. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:32 am
    The Great September Gale of 1815 (the term hurricane was not yet common in the American vernacular), which hit New York City directly as a Category 3 hurricane, caused extensive damage and created an inlet that separated the Long Island resort towns of the Rockaways and Long Beach into two separate barrier islands.

    I blame the horse poopies!!
  17. Profile photo of tatripp
    tatripp Male 18-29
    1196 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:43 am
    I have not studied climate change so I am no expert, but i`m guessing it`s not as severe as everyone keeps making it out to be. I think things are blown out of proportion by the media because the media is a business and they are looking to make money. More people will watch the news if they report that climate change is man made and is going to destroy the world if we don`t stop compared to something as simple as a natural part of nature. Even if it is influenced by people, I don`t think it is anywhere near as significant as these crazy studies tell us (Al Gore!!!).
    People love to believe that humans are destroying the environment. Does anyone remember how the hole in the ozone would grow bigger if we used hairspray or burnt plastic/styrofoam? People at one point were super worried about cutting down too many trees. I think all of these environmental issues are blown out of proportion.
  18. Profile photo of JXS
    JXS Male 30-39
    90 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 11:08 am
    The editor intentionally used a headline which he knows can be inflammatory and then goes to say something that is also inflammatory which will only stir up controversy.
    Hypocritical? Yes, but that isn`t the point nor the most important question.
    Why? To sell a magazine and get press coverage.
    It`s working.
    The fact people are arguing over the statement is proving that people are thinking of the magazine more then they were which is what was the intention.
    Please stop acting like sheep being lead around...
  19. Profile photo of emmettyville
    emmettyville Female 40-49
    4345 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 11:29 am
    what a bunch of f uckwits
  20. Profile photo of spanerbulb
    spanerbulb Male 30-39
    1244 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    Like you said tatripp, you are no expert.
  21. Profile photo of MasterJedi79
    MasterJedi79 Male 30-39
    16 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 1:22 pm
    I AM an expert in the field. And my comment is: "WELL DUH"
  22. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    The climate change debate is idiocy. There should be no debate.... what is wrong with people, even if climate change is completely fake there is no reason NOT to cut emmisions etc, it is good housekeeping.
  23. Profile photo of Grendel
    Grendel Male 40-49
    5869 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    madduck-"there is no reason NOT to cut emmisions"

    Agreed.

    But forcing `green` energy that is not viable is lunacy. (look at the hybrid cars that exploded during Sandy).
    Enforcing a `Sin Tax` (i.e. `carbon credits`) onto business is just another way to regulate them out of business.
  24. Profile photo of avail9988
    avail9988 Male 18-29
    700 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 3:52 pm
    Its called Climate Change now silly...
  25. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 4:21 pm
    "The editor says, it`s controversial, only among the stupid."

    Indeed. To anyone with any scientific education or knowledge of the facts and statistics, it is a ridiculous headline. It is not even fit to create controversy, it should be immediately discarded.
  26. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm
    madduck

    "there is no reason NOT to cut emmisions etc, it is good housekeeping. "

    So condemning billions of people to harsh, brutal lives of grinding poverty, and then killing them in their 40s is "just good housekeeping"?

    That is sick!

    Without abundant, cheap energy life is nasty, brutish and short. That is what self-satisfied people like the Bloomberg editors fail to grasp - because of course they do not advocate any drop in their own lifestyle of wealth. They will not die, they will condemn others to die.

  27. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 4:33 pm
    Castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually.
  28. Profile photo of skullgrin
    skullgrin Male 18-29
    937 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 5:02 pm
    i feel bad for those who fall for this stuff
  29. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 5:41 pm
    Chalket

    "Anyone who doubts that GCC is happening, and that man`s actions are contributing to it, are simply stupid."

    But almost no-one disputes that. The stupid people are the ones that believe the warmist lie that sceptics don`t think the climate is changing, or that carbon dioxide influences this. The stupid people believe the climate was once stable.

    Climate has always changed and always will. Any atmospheric change will have some influence.

    What is at dispute is the degree of influence, in particular temperature feedback. The warmists` models are written to assume strong positive temperature feedback, because without that CO2 cannot explain late-20th-century warming, and is benign or more likely beneficial.

    Empirical evidence, on the other hand, indicate weak or negative feedback in temperature.

    As for hurricanes being caused by CO2:

  30. Profile photo of JXS
    JXS Male 30-39
    90 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 8:37 pm
    The magazine is TROLLING YOU!
    Their personal opinion on global warming is moot because their main goal is to stir controversy by flashing a BIG ASS TROLL STATEMENT IN RED!

    The editor himself says something intentionally inflammatory to get people to rage.

    Stop being trolled and see this for what it is, a magazine trying to make money.
  31. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 8:48 pm
    10 major hurricanes hit the eastern seaboard between 1950 and 1960. That`s an average of 1 per year.

    This was not even a major hurricane.

    One does not simply explain global warming with weather patterns.
  32. Profile photo of JXS
    JXS Male 30-39
    90 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 8:54 pm
    The color red is used to psychologically evoke anger combine with a statement which is an insult.

    The editor further re-enforces focus on the magazine by way of social anger at the cover statement by issuing another insult to the intelligence of people, that "it`s controversial, only among the stupid."

    The key word "stupid", insulting the IQ of the reader can overshadow the overall meaning of the entire statement. This entices the very thing "smart" people are not suppose to have; controversy.

    It`s a magazine which is a business that knows how to push buttons to get attention. Nothing more.

    Personally, I believe global warming is a real thing but that is my opinion. I will not be manipulated by such an obvious troll.
    Neither should anyone else.
  33. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:03 pm
    Of course global warming is real.

    The median temperature of the Earth is getting higher.

    The average temperature on Earth is 59 degrees Fahrenheit.

    The average temperature on Earth during the Cretaceous period was 62.9 degrees Fahrenheit. JUST SAYING! JUST SAYING!
  34. Profile photo of AvatarJohn
    AvatarJohn Male 30-39
    1059 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm
    Doomberg needs to get his head out of Obama`s butt and concentrate on helping the morons who actually voted for his Socialist, tyrannical, freedom-hating ass before they all drown.
  35. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:14 pm
    The average temperature on Earth during the Cretaceous period was 62.9 degrees Fahrenheit. JUST SAYING! JUST SAYING!
    I know. PhD geologist here blah blah blah. Rate of change, Auburn. Rate of change.
  36. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:20 pm
    I know you are davy lol.
  37. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    November 1, 2012 at 10:22 pm
    I wasn`t referring to the rate of change. I was just saying, we will survive.

    Food will still grow. It`ll just happen in different places.

    It`ll be 125f in Arizona in the summer. DON`T GO OUTSIDE! ;)
  38. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    November 2, 2012 at 5:19 am
    If we hit another mini ice age will that also be global warming?
  39. Profile photo of dirtysteve00
    dirtysteve00 Male 30-39
    373 posts
    November 2, 2012 at 9:34 am
    `Doomberg needs to get his head out of Obama`s butt and concentrate on helping the morons who actually voted for his Socialist, tyrannical, freedom-hating ass before they all drown.
    `

    Too right! Damn Obama bringing in the Patriot Act!


Leave a Reply