Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Inconvenient Truth watch: Hurricane activity hits a 30-year low
Notwithstanding the Gorebot's "big storm" propaganda, Northern Hemisphere hurricane and cyclone activity is at a 30-year low. The screaming question: If more big storms were evidence of anthropogenic global warming, what are fewer big storms evidence of?
13 Comments:
By 
rjhidaho, at
Wed Nov 05, 07:14:00 PM:
It means anthropogenic global warming. Up? Down? It doesn't matter. Everything means that global warming is occurring. Even the hot air out of Al Gore's mouth!
By davod, at
Wed Nov 05, 07:29:00 PM:
TH:
"If more big storms were evidence of anthropogenic global warming, what are fewer big storms evidence of?"
I am shocked that you would try to mitigate the seriousness of this information. Surely, this shows that man-made global warming has so overwhelmed nature that the normal global warming expectations have been turned around.
The sooner we stop mining for coal, drilling for oil and gas, the better off we will be. Shutting down all coal and gas powered power plants is the first order of business to reverse this serious change.
Heaven help us.
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Wed Nov 05, 07:31:00 PM:
what are fewer big storms evidence of?
That the press will have to go elsewhere to find "evidence" of AGW.
I'm a believer (broadly speaking) in (loosely called) global warming and that, at least at the margins, human activity is contributing to it. Or has.
But I'm not sure what is going on. And I simply don't have the expertise to dig through the technical papers and research to figure it out on my own.
Whom to trust?
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Nov 05, 08:15:00 PM:
Lest readers get the wrong idea, I, too, believe that human activity has had some impact on the climate. However, I am a "consequences skeptic," meaning that I do not buy the dire forecasts. Furthermore, I think the devotion of leftists for one remedy and one remedy only -- a 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions -- is a fraudulent attempt to rein in capitalism under the excuse of environmentalism.
By Stan/Tx, at
Wed Nov 05, 08:21:00 PM:
Since GWB was responsible for Global Warming and hurricane Katrina, we have to offer a thank you to Mr. Obama for calming the weather down. We were fortunate that he was elected when he was or just think what may have happened.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Nov 05, 08:31:00 PM:
Whom to trust, indeed!
As far as AGW goes...I would trust my thermometer.
Isn't it fascinating that the speculation regarding the effects of progressive global warming continues in the media and the environmental movement despite hard evidence that the temperatures have not substantially increased, the ice burden at the poles has not regressed and the coastal cities of the world are still on dry ground??
Eisenhower warned us of the "Military-Industrial" Complex. McLuhan told us all the "The Medium is the Message"....and now we have graduated to the "Liberal-Media" Complex...which, of course...IS the message.
FActs may be stubborn things...but only if pay attention to them. What the mind knows the eye sees.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Nov 05, 09:13:00 PM:
what are fewer big storms evidence of?
Republican conspiracy.
By 
, at
Wed Nov 05, 11:08:00 PM:
There is indeed a ludicrous aspect to much of the global warming hysteria.
Thermodynamics is the science of heat flow, energy conservation and entropy. With regards to such tripe as "The Day After Tomorrow", how does the Earth spontaneously lose such a huge amount of heat in the oceans, land and atmosphere that an ice age occurs, in literally a matter of hours? Where did we pump all the heat to? It would be like opening your refridgerator door in the morning and coming home at night to find your house a winter wonderland. But your refridgerator simply could not pump that much cold out (besides the fact that the waste heat from a fridge exhausts into the air around the fridge).
The Big Answer to the mysteries of climate variation is the variation in solar output. Sure, mankind can affect local ecologies by farming the prairies, cutting down forests, creating the 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico.
But human beings cannot change the basic heat flows into and out of the atmosphere and oceans. The numbers are just too stupendously large; they dwarf the combined output of all our technologies, even if directly applied to the problem.
Bad science (BAD!) has deliberately mislead people for years regarding this phenonmenon of Global Warming.
-David
By , at
Thu Nov 06, 12:59:00 AM:
That the press will have to go elsewhere to find "evidence" of AGW.
Didn't you get the memo? Nobody talks about AGW anymore. It's all about Climate Change now. Both warming and cooling can now be blamed on humans, whichever is politically expedient.
By Brian, at
Thu Nov 06, 02:30:00 AM:
TH asks, "what are fewer big storms evidence of?"
Always helps to read the link in the original post:
"This cyclone activity is consistent with continued colder conditions in the Pacific Ocean and the previous strong La Nina last spring."
The answer is La Nina, the same reason why this year is only a warmer than average year.
By davod, at
Thu Nov 06, 05:32:00 AM:
In the same speech, Eisenhower also warned us about
"The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations,
and the power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert
to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.."
He closed this setion of his speech with "It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new
and old, within the principles of our democratic system--ever aiming toward the supreme goals
of our free society."
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Nov 06, 07:03:00 AM:
Again, Brian, I am not trying to disprove the AGW hypothesis. Yes, I am a "consequences skeptic," insofar as I do not believe the case has been made that we are on some catastrophic path that can only be averted by upending the global economy, but I certainly do not believe that dumping more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a great thing. My issue is with the activists and their toadies in the media. The climate activists and the press use hurricanes or drowning polar bears to make a political point. That is intellectually dishonest, as you implicitly admit in your comment. Well, if the activists and the press are being dishonest about this stuff, what else are they being dishonest about?
By BrendaK, at
Thu Nov 06, 08:04:00 AM:
what are fewer big storms evidence of?
Weather. Rovian weather.
