Opinion Debunking the so-called Polar Vortex (1 Viewer)

Interesting that you put forth an ad hominem argument, instead of citing rationale for the reasons why you may disagree with my article.

To be fair, your post is an OP-ED (you said so yourself) which, while it resembles an article, is not an article. And your OP-ED, from my perspective, is an ad hominem argument with a blog poster of unverified credentials who may not be as articulate as you believe yourself to be.

But I digress....
 
To be fair, your post is an OP-ED (you said so yourself) which, while it resembles an article, is not an article. And your OP-ED, from my perspective, is an ad hominem argument with a blog poster of unverified credentials who may not be as articulate as you believe yourself to be.

But I digress....

To your point, an OP-ED is, in fact, an article.

An opinion piece is an article, usually published in a newspaper or magazine, that mainly reflects the author's opinion about a subject.

Opinion piece - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Opinion_piece




Now... exactly what scientific rebuttal to my article did you contribute?
 
Now... exactly what scientific rebuttal to my article did you contribute?

If you read my initial response in this thread (https://saintsreport.com/threads/debunking-the-so-called-polar-vortex.444429/#post-8368670) you will see that I provided two official sources that describe and verify the polar vortex and its effect on climate. I have been offline for the weekend, but I see that others (@guidomerkinsrules and @SystemShock) have also posted well written and factual refutations of your assertion of hyperbole.

Refutations from more than one source and each of those sources peer-reviewed and acceptable to the general scientific and meteorological communities.

I stick by my assertion (which is being peer-reviewed by others here) that you launched an ad hominem attack on someone who might not be as articulate as you because you, at best, disagreed with their terminology. Additionally, I pointed out where you took certain of that blogger's words out of context so that you could prove you know science and the author did not. There is no science in your "article" that refutes the polar vortex responsibility for "Arctic outbreaks" or that saying it does is hyperbolic.

I ask you now, please provide peer-reviewed scientific paperwork which supports your position. I have searched for support to your assertion, but cannot find anything, including agreeable opinion, to bolster your position.
 
Last edited:
I don't have a strong opinion on climate change one way or another but I can believe that humans are effing up the atmosphere because that's what we do: destroy stuff.

Additionally, I think it'd be deserving if we fried ourselves into extinction. We're, literally, good for nothing.

But what does it matter to 'non-believers' if climate change doesn't exist; how does it affect your life one way or the other?

It's not like the back of our money says 'In Ozone We Trust." Are your relatives asking you to bow your head and thank Ozone before you're allowed to eat, then shake their head in disgust when you forget that saying grace is a thing?

Can you send your grandma into cardiac arrest a la Fred Sanford if you tell her you don't believe in climate change?

Like, what is your issue with it, either way? How is it impacting or inconveniencing your life? I seriously want to know.

I've pretty much ignored the entire conversation since it began and have no idea what the counter-arguments are.
 
Like, what is your issue with climate change, either way? How is it impacting or inconveniencing your life?

Here is just a partial list -
  • It affects the air we breathe.
  • It affects the water we drink.
  • It affects where we get fuel from and what that fuel is and the pricing of the fuel.
  • It affects the food we eat.
  • It affects where we can live.
  • It affects every aspect of the supply chains for thousands of products.
  • It affects our health.
I could go into more detail but I believe you can see the picture based on what I have just posted. A lot of people are just like you - they have ignored the entire conversation and therefore are contributing to the problem and passing it down to generations.
 
Here is just a partial list -
  • It affects the air we breathe.
  • It affects the water we drink.
  • It affects where we get fuel from and what that fuel is and the pricing of the fuel.
  • It affects the food we eat.
  • It affects where we can live.
  • It affects every aspect of the supply chains for thousands of products.
  • It affects our health.
I could go into more detail but I believe you can see the picture based on what I have just posted. A lot of people are just like you - they have ignored the entire conversation and therefore are contributing to the problem and passing it down to generations.
I was asking people who don't believe in climate change ('non-believers').

Why does it matter enough for them to try and debunk it. And if it's debunked, then what does that mean for them. What changes in their lives either way (if it's real or not real)?

Even though I've ignored the conversation, I've done more to further the cause than most - simply by not having kids.
 
I don't have a strong opinion on climate change one way or another but I can believe that humans are effing up the atmosphere because that's what we do: destroy stuff.

Additionally, I think it'd be deserving if we fried ourselves into extinction. We're, literally, good for nothing.

But what does it matter to 'non-believers' if climate change doesn't exist; how does it affect your life one way or the other?

It's not like the back of our money says 'In Ozone We Trust." Are your relatives asking you to bow your head and thank Ozone before you're allowed to eat, then shake their head in disgust when you forget that saying grace is a thing?

Can you send your grandma into cardiac arrest a la Fred Sanford if you tell her you don't believe in climate change?

Like, what is your issue with it, either way? How is it impacting or inconveniencing your life? I seriously want to know.

I've pretty much ignored the entire conversation since it began and have no idea what the counter-arguments are.

being wrong about something factual isn't the same thing as having an opinion and people should be called out for it
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom