Hurricanes

Hurricane Matthew and the Politics of Climate Change

Everybody please just stop politicizing the weather

|

MatthewWeatherChannel
Weather Channel

Weather disasters bring out the worst partisan instincts nowadays. It's happening now with Hurricane Matthew. Two days ago, a Huffington Post headline read: "Hurricane Matthew's Strength Is Yet Another Climate Change Indicator." In fine reactionary mode, Matt Drudge tweeted his doubts: "The deplorables are starting to wonder if govt has been lying to them about Hurricane Matthew intensity to make exaggerated point on climate." Drudge further darkly suggested that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has a monopoly on data and could be cooking the books about just how high Matthew's wind speeds are. I, too, am skeptical of government agencies, but Drudge and other weather conspiracists provide no evidence for such claims in this case.

So what can be said about the relationship between climate change and hurricanes? The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment report noted:

Current data sets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (very high confidence). However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated with different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the record providing mixed conclusions. No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.

More recent research by climate modelers suggests that as the oceans heat up and the atmosphere becomes more saturated with moisture, hurricane numbers may decrease but they may become stronger and produce more rainfall.

On the other hand, empirical researchers in an article in the Journal of Climate recently observed:

Ten years ago, Webster et al. documented a large and significant increase in both the number as well as the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for all global basins from 1970 to 2004, and this manuscript examines whether those trends have continued when including 10 additional years of data. In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend while the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant upward trend between 1990 and 2014. Accumulated cyclone energy globally has experienced a large and significant downward trend during the same period. The primary reason for the increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes noted in observational datasets from 1970 to 2004 by Webster et al. is concluded to be due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centers, primarily in the first two decades of that study.

In any case, the latest bulletin from the NOAA's National Hurricane Center notes:

At 200 PM EDT (1800 UTC), the eye of Hurricane Matthew was located near latitude 29.7 North, longitude 80.7 West. Matthew is moving toward the north-northwest near 13 mph (20 km/h), and this general motion is expected to continue today. A turn toward the north is expected tonight or Saturday.

On the forecast track, the center of Matthew will continue to move near or over the coast of northeast Florida and Georgia through tonight, and near or over the coast of South Carolina on Saturday. Maximum sustained winds are near 115 mph (185 km/h) with higher gusts. Matthew is a category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale.

Although weakening is forecast during the next 48 hours, Matthew is expected to remain a hurricane until it begins to move away from the United States on Sunday. Hurricane-force winds extend outward up to 60 miles (95 km) from the center and tropical-storm-force winds extend outward up to 185 miles (295 km).

A wind gust to 84 mph (135 km/h) was recently reported at Ponte Vedra, and a coastal marine observing station at St. Augustine recently measured a wind gust of 85 mph (137 km/h). A tidal gauge at Fernandina Beach reported a storm surge inundation of 3.11 feet above mean higher high water.

The latest minimum central pressure reported by an Air Force Hurricane Hunter plane was 947 mb (27.97 inches).

Whatever the relation between Hurricane Matthew and climate change may or may not be, I personally would evacuate to higher ground.

NEXT: Does the Theory of 'Broken Windows Policing' Apply When Police Are the Ones Breaking Windows?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. hrmm… You okay Ron? I didn’t trip over an overt reason to go arguing with you.

    (Quibbles are a different matter)

    1. When you have lost UnCivil Servant’s grumpiness…

      1. UCS was born 60 years old and complaining about how cold the maternity ward was.

        1. Yet if I had to sum up his books (the three I read) in one word it’d be “fun”. Yes, even the “kid superhero has to present budgets and plans for his team’s secret lair to a committee for approval” bits.

    2. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am evacuating to higher moral ground.

  2. “Whatever the relation between Hurricane Matthew and climate change may or may not be”

    There is no relationship, ffs. Every climate alarmist prediction is based on changes decades in the future. The fundamental premise of AGW is that we have to take action now to prevent the temperature from rising to challenging levels in the future.

    The single biggest reason to laugh at alarmists is the quite recent trend for them to point to current weather events as evidence of AGW. The very models they love point to the future, not now, as the issue.

    Whether coordinated scare-mongering, or just scientific stupidity, I wouldn’t presume to say. Perhaps both.

    Folks like Drudge are doing a good service by pointing out the fallacies in the argument. Idiots in weather have been grossly exaggerating weather events for the past few years.

    1. Yeah, I thought that “may or may not be” was a little too equivocal.

      I think at this point the utter lack of any correlation between hurricane frequency/strength and “global warming” pretty much puts paid to the idea that my SUV is spinning up hurricanes. Its science, so yeah, there’s always a little hedge, but c’mon. This makes it sound like the issue is pretty much a live issue, which I can’t imagine it would be. You don’t even get to causation until you have correlation, and there is no correlation.

    2. Mike, the problem is they have been pointing to the future ghosts, crying ‘the sky is falling!’ and ‘wolf!’ for over fifty years. They have been wrong every time and there is no reason to believe they aren’t wrong now.

      When someone screeches “The sky if falling! Quick! Give me your money!” the proper response is to hold onto your wallet and kick them in the knee.

      1. ‘and kick them in the balls’ – listening, Ron?

    3. Yeah, people generally don’t realize how sharp the future curves are supposed to be. We could set temperature records most years between now and 2100 and still not even come close to the preferred IPCC projections.

      Sea level rise is even worse, they are extrapolating a linear trend into an exponential projection.

  3. WEATHER ISN’T CLIMATE!!!!*

    *Except when we say it is because it confirms our biases.

  4. Chaotic systems produce chaotic results which include localized extremes. See also weather.

    1. See also today’s selection of Reason articles.

  5. The accompanying photo has gone from hurricane Skeletor earlier this week to hurricane Mohawk now

  6. Fun fact: Chris Landsea, who was for a long time one of the senior forecasters at NHC (not sure what his title is nowadays) is on record as believing there’s no connection between hurricanes and global warming. There are other very prominent hurricane researchers who believe the same.

    That being said, they’re not exaggerating the strength of the storm, even if no land stations or buoys ever record the reported wind speeds. The strength of a storm is the strongest point of it. Even if it’s only one tiny part of the storm that’s so strong. They report the measurements from the recon missions (either Air Force or their own scientific plans from NOAA) when they run them.

    1. The strength of a storm is the strongest point of it. Even if it’s only one tiny part of the storm that’s so strong. They report the measurements from the recon missions (either Air Force or their own scientific plans from NOAA) when they run them.

      This is on the journalists for fucking up, just like it is for most scientific/social “scientific” matters they cover.

  7. The disciples set the movement up for this by declaring ten years ago an imminent uptick in catastrophic hurricane activity that never came to fruition.

    1. How many falsifiable claims have to be falsified before people stop paying attention?

      1. It’s unlimited. They’ll just come up with newer, less falsifiable ones. Like that claim about ice ages in 10,000 years.

      2. How much money is involved?

        1. How much do you have?

      3. More. Thats how many.

        See: Venezuela’s Bolivarian Socialism.

      4. All of them, all the falsifiable clams need to be falsified before they’ll give you a totally different falsifiable claim…

    2. The disciples set the movement up for this by declaring ten years ago an imminent uptick in catastrophic hurricane activity that never came to fruition.

      And this really throws the whole situation into stark relief for those who understand something of the history of science and how erroneous conclusions get formed, accepted, questioned, and rejected.

      Ten years ago the thinking was “storms are manifestations of the energy in the atmosphere, and since global warming adds energy to the atmosphere, it only stands to reason that storms will intensify and become more frequent as the planet warms”

      The trend of storms at the time happened to correlate, at least a little bit.

      10 years on we now realize that there are other factors mitigating the amount of energy in the atmosphere that we didn’t account for.

      Likewise, Mann, Hansen, et al., have drawn a little circle around the handful of things they think are factors in driving climate change. The fact that the resulting models are almost universally inaccurate should lead one to the conclusion that it’s likely that all factors have not been accounted for.

      Which doesn’t mean it’s not potentially a problem, it just means we are still somewhat far from understanding it, and it’s certainly not yet time to take drastic, global-level-disaster style panic-driven actions because of it.

      But Kuhn, standard paradigms, yada, yada . . .

      1. There’s a lot of three-card monte about what they actually predicted. For instance, in 1988 Hansen went before Congress and predicted hat unless emissions increases were immediately halted, temperatures would rise several degrees by now. They try to claim his model was accurate if you input the actual GHG concentrations and not the ones his model calcuated would be associated with “business as usual” emissions.

        Then they claim the new models are much better anyway. In 2046, the flaws in the 2016 models will all be explained away and the new models will predict doom is once again just around the corner.

  8. Absence of hurricanes points to climate change. More hurricanes than usual points to climate change.

    It’s nice gig this climate change.

    1. Any change in the frequency, speed, number, or duration of hurricanes points to climate change.

      If there is no change at all, climate is not weather.

  9. Look, Her Hillary-ness SAID the fucking hurricane was due to climate change.

    Ergo, all of you who disagree are misogynists, and that includes the purveyors of any so called “scientific” data that does not add up [to our foregone conclusions].

    Classic progressive reasoning, because you know our intentions are good.

    1. If you say Hillary is wrong on this, what you are actually saying is that women can’t do science.

      And you aren’t saying it in the progressive way that wants a more inclusive, less patriarchical “logic-driven” science that goodthinkers do. No, you are saying it in the sexist way.

  10. 2005 was named the most active Atlantic hurricane season of all time, with 28 named storms. This crushed the old record of 21 in 1938.

    Of the 28 storms in 2005, 21 of them made it west of at least 60 degrees west longitude. Of the 21 storms in 1938, all 21 made it west of at least 60 degrees longitude.

    When we talk about hurricanes and tropical storms, we only have about 50 years of records, because anything before the satellite era is useless. in the past we have no clue about how many storms may have been missed because they didn’t hit land and didn’t pass close enough to any ships (or sunk any ships they passed by).

    We know interesting things from the historical record. There’s geological evidence of a Category 5 (or 4, but probably 5) hitting New Jersey around the 14th century, give or take a hundred or so years. There’s also the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635, which hit Long Island as a Category 4 and then into New England as a Category 3. There’s the eventuality that a hurricane similar to the 1821 Norfolk/Long Island Hurricane (came ashore near Jamaica Bay as a Cat 3) will hit NYC on a path coming up Hudson Bay, which would leave JFK Airport and lower Manhattan under 20 feet of water.

    tl;dr: Lots of hurricanes in the past have been a hell of a lot worse than what we’ve seen in recent years, and when they happen again (and they will) it will surely be blamed on global warming.

    1. When we talk about hurricanes and tropical storms, we only have about 50 years of records, because anything before the satellite era is useless. in the past we have no clue about how many storms may have been missed because they didn’t hit land and didn’t pass close enough to any ships (or sunk any ships they passed by).

      Exactly.

      1. You’re also quite right that Sandy was not an unprecedented event.

        But, then, neither was Hurricane Katrina.

        The thing that is making these storms so deadly and destructive is the fact that development has placed a lot of people to kill and buildings to destroy in coastal areas.

        1. It is actually how low US death tolls are considering how many more people live in threatened coastal zones so some sort of revision is needed on my third para above. New Orleans was an outlier.

    2. There’s a great documentary about the 1938 New England Hurricane. I’ll see if I can dig up a link.

      Basically, they were monitoring the storm in Florida, and then lost track of it until it was too late to evacuate New England.

    3. Those 1938 satellites weren’t very good.

  11. I, too, am skeptical of government agencies, but Drudge and other weather conspiracists provide no evidence for such claims in this case.

    I’m pretty sure my mother-in-law would be willing to send you some picture of cloud formations with arrows and diagrams scrawled on them via MS Paint that “prove” the weather is being manipulated by the HAARP system….

  12. If global warming is supposed to warm the poles faster than the tropics and hurricane strength and frequency depends on the temperature difference between the tropics and the poles, then how the hell is global warming supposed to do anything but decrease hurricane strength and frequency?

    1. You know who else warmed the Poles?

      1. Milankovitch?

      2. Jenna Jameson?

      3. “Sarah Jackson”?

        1. Or was it Johnson? I don’t know, something generic.

      4. Strippers?

      5. Carolus Gustavus? Bohdan Khmelnitski?

      6. Frank Costanza?

    2. And as I asked Jackand Ace in this morning’s thread, does this mean that we owe oil companies a credit for all the hurricane damage they’ve saved us from?

    3. Actually, hurricane strength depends on the difference between low level (which is largely dependent on ocean temperature) and upper level temperature. AFAIK none has demonstrated that that difference has changed.

  13. The proggies new thing is to throw feces at “climate refugees” from red states who they see as bible-thumping, xenophobic, denialists.”

  14. Weather disastersEverything brings out the worst partisan instincts nowadays.

    FTFY

  15. “More recent research by climate modelers suggests that as the oceans heat up and the atmosphere becomes more saturated with moisture, hurricane numbers may decrease…”

    So, is this an admission that they were wrong when they said there would be more frequent, and more powerful, storms when last we checked in?

    …but they may become stronger and produce more rainfall.”

    Oh, no. They were right that things are of course going to be worse. They were merely wrong on the how it would be worse. My faith is restored. They are still correct overall, even though every prediction they make is wrong except in the consistent idea that things are getting worse and we’re all going to die. Noted.

    1. Have you heard about the reforestation crisis in Africa?

      1. “Although some might view an increase in desert plant growth as positive, an expansion of woody vegetation in savannas and grasslands could have serious negative effects, Midgley cautioned. It could threaten and wildlife populations and water supplies, as trees and shrubs use more water than grasses. It could even amplify global warming, since trees, being generally darker than grasses, can absorb more solar radiation.”

        1. I just can’t resist emphasizing that last part:

          “It could even amplify global warming, since trees, being generally darker than grasses, can absorb more solar radiation”

          Fucking trees.

        2. Umm, if we are reforesting, doesn’t that mean we’re going back to the historical norm for forest cover?

          And now the environutters say that’s bad?

          1. We have come full circle.

            20 years ago the concern about global warming was exactly desertification, which was supposedly accelerating due to deforestation, among other things.

            Now this asshat is telling us that trees are fucking causing global warming and that we’re losing our precious deserts because of it.

            How long before we have a government-run deforestation program conducted in the name of fighting climate change?

          2. Everything is bad. That is why we must surrender complete control over our lives to the EPA.

        3. It could even amplify global warming, since trees, being generally darker than grasses, can absorb more solar radiation.

          So, let me see if I get this right. Too much CO2 is causing the growth of plants that consume CO2. And that’s a problem?

  16. Listen: if you don’t politicize the weather, then you’re flat earth science denier.

    If you do politicize the weather, then your down with the consensus, and you FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!

    And that’s all you need to know.

  17. Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, I was assured by climate alarmists, watermelons, and other political opportunists that, thanks to manbearpig climate change, we should expect that sort of disaster to be commonplace, that massive Category-5 hurricanes would be, at least, an annual event, and that the uniquely high hurricane activity of the summer of 2005 would be the new normal.

    Since 2005, there has yet to be a single Cat-5 hurricane to make landfall in the U.S., and Matthew is no exception. In fact, we are currently looking at the longest stretch without a major hurricane in over a century.

    But I’m sure that somehow just proves that the climate change alarmists were right all along. Somehow.

    1. There wasn’t a Cat 5 hitting landfall in the US in 2005 (Wilma and Katrina hit at Cat 3, Rita hit at Cat 4). There are 3 hurricanes we know about that have hit the US at Cat 5 intensity: Andrew (1992), Camille (1969) and the Labor Day Hurricane in Key West in 1935.

      The last major hurricane to make landfall in the US is still Wilma, assuming Matthew doesn’t make it onto land.

      1. Some of the storms that hit the US before we really started keeping records sounded truly horrifying. Several Category 5’s likely hit pretty far up the coast. We have too few records to see a long-term pattern, but we very well may be in store for a huge hurricane increase regardless of climate change.

    2. If Katrina had hit anywhere else, it would have caused far less damage. But it hit a city that was below sea level (which I blame on global warming).

  18. I must say, I find the vicious cynicism being displayed by the commentariat recently very gratifying.

    1. FUCK YOOOOOOU

  19. I posted this on this morning’s warming thread, but it suits here, too:

    25 years ago I was a young and idealistic environmental activist, going door-to-door with CalPIRG telling people about global warming, among other environmental issues (because there used to be other environmental issues).

    An old guy I worked with who had been involved in environmental causes since the 60s sadly said he knew the whole thing was about to end because the government was about to get involved.

    I was 20, so I was deeply confused, as I thought getting the government involved was the whole point.

    But he went on to explain that the government doesn’t actually care – the government just needs a crisis to get people organized around. Government pointedly doesn’t solve problems. Doing so is counter to its very nature. Thus, as Brian says, “It’s one of those “this is a job only the government can do!”, that, by it’s very nature in that, ends up being a job no one does.”

    So, as my old environmentalist colleague said, the government picks one issue, subsumes all other issues to that one issue, and then convinces everybody that it is addressing the problem, thereby distracting individuals from taking any action, while not actually doing anything to address the problem.

    Thus, we now have a whole wing of our political system claiming to be addressing “climate change,” while there simply is no such thing as an environmentalist movement anymore.

    1. Well, when the “Environmental Protection Agency” causes the biggest toxic waste spill of the year and nobody gives a fuck…..

      1. That’s my Exhibit A on unaccountable government.

        The EPA causes a toxic waste spill that poisons miles of pristine rivers, including water sources for the Navajo Nation, and not one single person is fired.

        1. To be fair, it wasn’t covered on the news for very long, so Obama probably never even heard about it.

        2. They made up for it by shipping tankers full of water to the Navajo… water that “had an oily sheen or was discolored.” The Navajo are understandably suing the EPA, and i wish them luck.

          Bonus from the link: CNN complaining about how “vacuous” media coverage of the presidential election has been.

      2. They were just trying to save us from the evils of Capitalism, dontcha know.

        1. That’s their primary mission. Seriously.

          1. Oh believe me I know.

            I’m in the aggravating position of having been an environmentalist for a long, long time. I registered Green in 1991 when the party started in CA, and back when local control was still part of their thing. In those days there weren’t even that many issues on which Greens and Libertarians disagreed, and that stayed the case through the 90s. Both were intensely skeptical of government and centralized solutions.

            After 2000 the Green Party completely atrophied, and as the science on a number of environmental issues got ambiguous, and a number of problems got actually solved, environmentalism degenerated more and more into a faith-based movement, and the socialists realized its potential as a cudgel against capitalism.

            That’s when I parted company with them and registered Libertarian.

            I haven’t seen a Green Party candidate stump on any environmental issue but climate change in 16 years. And they don’t even usually bother with that – it’s only been the last year or so when temps actually started rising again that they’ve started talking about again. In 2012 you couldn’t find an environmentalist plank in the Green Party platform to save your life. Even their current VP candidate has shown no awareness of environmental issues whatsoever at any point in his career – he’s an SJW through-and-through.

            Yet I find myself enduring smug lectures from my formerly-socialist-recently-Green friends on what the proper views on environmental issues are.

    2. Here is the thing.

      You might not have noticed it because you were a true believer but the simple fact of the matter is the environmentalist movement has NEVER actually been about protecting the environment.

      Even in it’s earliest days of the late 1960’s it had already been co-opted by a collection of marxists, socialists, luddites, and other assorted anti capitalists and collectivists who were just using the useful idiots such as yourself and your older friend as tools to tear down capitalism and the united states

      1. I wouldn’t call it quite so unified, but the “impure” foundations of the environmentalist movement go way further back than the 1960s.

        In City of Quartz socialist historian Mike Davis pointed out that the Sierra Club was founded in order to preserve property values against increasing immigration to the state, and had some seriously racist overtones in its early days. He (writing in the early 1990s) saw the environmental movement as fundamentally bourgeois and in basic conflict with the socialist ideal of an industrial society of worker-owned factories.

        Like most things, it has been used by many different groups and movements for many different purposes.

  20. The primary reason for the increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes noted in observational datasets from 1970 to 2004 by Webster et al. is concluded to be due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centers, primarily in the first two decades of that study.

    Also known as “moving the goal posts.”

  21. “Hurricane Matthew’s Strength Is Yet Another Climate Change Indicator.”

    Except, there is no way in which this an abnormal hurricane.

    1. Our completely routine state of drought in CA is also, according to Gov. Brown, an indicator of climate change.

      One of my favorite CA headlines of the last year or so was something to the effect of “Scientists Say Drought Effects Related to Climate Change,” while the article itself quoted a climate scientist saying “while of course drought is the natural state of CA and is not only unsurprising but is certainly not being caused by climate change (since it’s the normal historical climate of CA), if the weather were a little warmer on average, that would make the dry conditions more harsh.”

  22. Zero fucks given. Have a nice weekend, Florida.

  23. But muh settled science!

    1. Take heart! Science being settled means you can ignore weird, contrary-seeming “facts” in good conscience.

  24. There is a large difference between the HuffPo article and Drudge. The HuffPo article quotes climate scientists who now say that we can expect new developments in extreme weather events, like but not limited to hurricanes, due to climate change. Here is a study from Nature that says the same

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate…..e2657.html

    And in fact it only makes sense with hurricanes…they gain strength from warmer waters, and the oceans are indeed warming. Note in the study they particularly reference Sandy.

    Drudge and Rush, on the other hand, are just conspiracy theorists.

    1. The HuffPo article quotes climate scientists

      I.e. Michael Mann, whose work is far from uncontroversial.

      Drudge and Rush, on the other hand, are just conspiracy theorists.

      The point of the article being that there are good reasons for that, even if you aren’t that familiar with the science.

      The thing that the faithful don’t notice is how often the goalposts get moved. The Bill Nye exhibit down at my local science center still has the exhibit saying “Global Warming is leading to fewer storms and precipitation events, causing more aggravated droughts and threatening human agriculture.”

      I take note of this display whenever I see it because I was alive in 2005 when we were being told that global warming was going to mean a constant onslaught of category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

      After 6 or 7 years of no hurricanes, the narrative changed to “OMG, no hurricanes, we’re all going to die!!!”

      Now that a hurricane is back, the narrative changed back to “look, a big hurricane – that’s because of global warming!”

      But actually, just like drought in CA, there is NOTHING abnormal about hurricanes coming out of the Gulf.

      This is why environmentalists are currently engendering a counter-reaction among people who don’t just automatically believe whatever they’re told.

      1. You following me?

        1. Yes – you’re fun to poke.

        2. Shit, it’s a global warming thread, it’s not like you idiotic drivel would be hard to find….

      2. By the way, environmentalists don’t care what you think anymore. Everyone is moving on to solutions. Not only are you late, you haven’t arrived.

        1. environmentalists don’t think anymore

          a more succinct summation of the situation

          1. Speaking of people who hang on my every word, how goes it kbo?

        2. Ima go out on a limb and say I’ve been an environmentalist far longer and in far more meaningful ways than you ever have. So I don’t grant you permission to tell me what “environmentalists” do or don’t care about.

          What I’m suggesting to you is that the current crop of assholes calling themselves “environmentalists” are doing more harm than good precisely because of the attitude that says “environmentalists don’t care what you think anymore.”

          Do you think that you’re little crowd has already achieved such total dominance that you can so blatantly tell the rest of us to fuck off and there won’t be any kind of anti-environmentalist backlash?

          In 20 years people will be lighting coal bonfires in their front yards just to spite people like you.

          1. Yeah, you’re an environmentalist. You’re an ignoramus. Enjoy you’re evening.

            1. I love when you get so frustrated you have to call people names and then pretend you’re being pleasant.

              Have a wonderful weekend!

              1. Will do…already on my way! I’ve been waiting for someone here to return the sentiment, and you’re the first! Thanks!

        3. Re: Jackass Ass,

          By the way, environmentalists don’t care what you think anymore.

          As if they cared before. An environmentalist is an ideologue by DEFINITION.

          Everyone is moving on to solutions.

          Sure. And everyone is on the same page about it:

          Electric Cars Eat Children!

          Sure they want “solutions”. Right.

    2. Re: Jackass Ass,

      There is a large difference between the HuffPo article and Drudge. The HuffPo article quotes climate scientists who now say that we can expect new developments in extreme weather events

      NOW??? NOW we can expect NEW developments? NOW??????? What do you mean “NOW”, you mountebank?

      As in “Any time now! You’ll see! And then who will be laughing now, huh?” or what do you mean when they say “now”?

      And in fact it only makes sense with hurricanes…they gain strength from warmer waters, and the oceans are indeed warming.

      Yeah, we’ll see! Any time now! Just you wait!

      I don’t give credence to Drugde when it comes to scientific research, but knowing how grant money tends to favor more “bang for the buck” research, especially if results are ‘positive’, the current scientific scene is filled with fraudulent research meant to garner as much grant money as possible. I wouldn’t put my money on those Volcano God priests the HuffPo quoted any more that I would trust phrenologists.

      http://www.thenewatlantis.com/…..ng-science

  25. Funny how the CAGW folks only get their predictions right when they predict something that has already happened….

    1. Just like biblical predictions were mostly written after the fact.

  26. What is perfectly predictable is that every time there is a weather event that looks like global warming stuff – a hurricane, a drought, a flood – the alarmists will loudly proclaim that it is evidence of global warming.

    And every single time there is a contrary weather event – a blizzard, a cold month, a pause in a warming trend, a late snow – the alarmists will loudly proclaim “weather is not climate!” and declare all “climate science deniers” to be idiots because they point out that it is cold outside – even if nobody actually does that.

    They have done this with every weather event at least dating back to “An Inconvenient Truth”. Remember Katrina? Remember how it was proof of global warming and just the first salvo in what was to be a regular thing? Remember how we were going to see several Katrina level hurricanes every year? (And remember how they tacked on ‘you can’t say any one hurricane is linked to global warming, but….)

    And remember all those winter deep freezes and polar vortexes that were definitely not evidence against global warming? In fact, wasn’t the polar vortex evidence for global warming?

    As pointed out above, this stuff is pretty silly, since the effects they are talking about are slated to begin 50-100 years out. Not now. So if they show up now, it doesn’t exactly validate their models. It kinda does the opposite.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.