
Hope Obama handles this well or he'll lose votes! Since this happened on his watch, it's completely his fault.
Hope everyone on the East coast rides it out ok. Looks like a ton of rainfall already and the main storm hasn't even hit yet.
Bad stuff comes in threes. You experienced 911, Sandy..and around 2023 something really bad will happen. Leave the city!Chidoro wrote:In Jersey in my area, its a lot of older houses (1920's and earlier) with old trees around the lines. A ton of trees are down and it's all of the old, town planted trees near the street and guess where the wires are. We're w/out power and I have to drive a mile or so to get a cell signal but still have water. Probably won't have power for at least another few days. just too many damn trees fell.
it's better to be at work to be honest, if you can get there.
At least you can tell the raid team where the hell I've been this past week. Sun night is looking doubtful tooAslanna wrote:I am not sure "in threes" applies when the time span between the three items is ~22 years.
People piss and moan at the power company for trimming them way back from the power lines but we don't usually have too much of that causing problems.Chidoro wrote:....old trees around the lines.
Yeah, it was just a HOOKERWHORESLUT, really. It's not like a bunch of people have died so far or anything.Aabidano wrote:Not to understate/undermine/whatever the suffering, it wasn't that nasty a storm.
What does that have to do with the price of catshit in Romania? Are cause and effect utterly lost on you? All things considered they got off pretty light.Spang wrote:It's not like a bunch of people have died so far or anything.
Yes, except for all of the devastation, it was a pretty tame storm.Aabidano wrote:All things considered they got off pretty light.
Hey, buddy, you just lost your house and your wife, but look on the bright side: at least it wasn't a Category 5!Aslanna wrote:I think what he's saying is.. It was only a Category 1 hurricane so yes.. They did "get off light". Or got lucky. Call it what you want. Unless you want to be a dumbass as usual.
This could very well be the costliest storm in United States history, and Global Warming is largely responsible, given its late-October appearance. My bigger picture is bigger than your bigger picture, and a lot less insensitive.Funkmasterr wrote:Clearly, people are looking at the bigger picture, since most of us are looking in from the outside. Clearly that's lost on you.
Spang wrote:This could very well be the costliest storm in United States history, and Global Warming is largely responsible, given its late-October appearance. My bigger picture is bigger than your bigger picture, and a lot less insensitive.Funkmasterr wrote:Clearly, people are looking at the bigger picture, since most of us are looking in from the outside. Clearly that's lost on you.
This was a category 1 (weakest) hurricane that fell well within the normal range for hurricanes. It means absolutely nothing regarding "global warming". It's been a weaker than average year for hurricanes.Hurricane season in the Atlantic begins June 1st and ends November 30th.
Psst, no one says global warming anymore, it's climate change. While I don't think anyone that knows what they're talking about would deny there is an effect we are having on the environment, I don't know that there has been substantial research to back your claim. See, I'm actually curious from a scientific standpoint, you're just being dragged around by your vagina. The universe is a cold, violent place, and if you want to get involved in the science behind this shit, you better get comfortable with that fact, Marcia.Spang wrote:This could very well be the costliest storm in United States history, and Global Warming is largely responsible, given its late-October appearance. My bigger picture is bigger than your bigger picture, and a lot less insensitive.Funkmasterr wrote:Clearly, people are looking at the bigger picture, since most of us are looking in from the outside. Clearly that's lost on you.
You don't think that there's been substantial research on Climate Change and it's effect on the environment? Are you on drugs?Funkmasterr wrote:While I don't think anyone that knows what they're talking about would deny there is an effect we are having on the environment, I don't know that there has been substantial research to back your claim.
There absolutely is a lot of research being conducted, but to get a grasp on the exact effects we're having it's going to take decades more, at minimum. Do you have a grasp of the scale of time and how long things take to change on a large scale? If it takes a few decades to research and decide conclusively what effect a drug has on people, how long do you suppose it would take to research a entire global ecosystem, separating effects of solar activity and any other factors out of our control from the things we contribute to change we are seeing, and come to a sound conclusion on exactly how severely we are negatively effecting the Earth? Trust me, I know far more than you about this, don't try and peddle your emotion-based bullshit here.Spang wrote:You don't think that there's been substantial research on Climate Change and it's effect on the environment? Are you on drugs?Funkmasterr wrote:While I don't think anyone that knows what they're talking about would deny there is an effect we are having on the environment, I don't know that there has been substantial research to back your claim.
Yes, your ePeen is very large.Funkmasterr wrote:Trust me, I know far more than you about this...
It's funny how often I hear this line from people that deny climate change more than from people who support it. And it's almost always bullshit, they might read a lot of anti climate change articles, but actual research is zero.Spang wrote:Yes, your ePeen is very large.Funkmasterr wrote:Trust me, I know far more than you about this...
I realize I might as well be addressing my cat but when you build a house on sand right on the coast this is what you should expect to happen periodically. Especially if you don't evacuate. I intentionally live 26 miles inland and 43' up, close to a major substation and with buried power & phone on purpose.Spang wrote:Hey, buddy, you just lost your house and your wife, but look on the bright side: at least it wasn't a Category 5!
Not sure what you were responding to, since neither of the people you quoted are anti climate change. However one of us is very interested from a scientific standpoint and the other feels the way he does because of his irrational emotions that you can clearly see determine his stance on many things.Zaelath wrote:It's funny how often I hear this line from people that deny climate change more than from people who support it. And it's almost always bullshit, they might read a lot of anti climate change articles, but actual research is zero.Spang wrote:Yes, your ePeen is very large.Funkmasterr wrote:Trust me, I know far more than you about this...
I even had one of them show me an article from their favourite source, which given 5 minutes looking at the excutive summary of the source document showed that the "news" article claimed the exact opposite of what the authors of the study were claiming.
Not that a lot of pro-cc people aren't just as ill-informed, they just seem to be less likely to claim knowledge they don't have.