MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

What Happened at the House Science Committee Hearing on the State of the Climate, and Why It Matters

Extreme weather events around the globe have tripled since the 1980s, but what's happening in the U.S.?

USTempsEPAThe House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held its first full committee hearing Wednesday titled, "The State of Climate Science and Why It Matters." One of the experts who testified before the committee was Dr. Jennifer Francis, who is an atmospheric scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts. Francis testified, among other topics, on how climate change is affecting natural disaster trends.

"It's not your imagination: extreme weather events have become more frequent in recent decades," she declared. As evidence she cited data from the reinsurance giant Munich Re, whose analysis finds that the occurrence of extreme weather events around the globe have nearly tripled since the 1980s.

MunichReDisastersMunich Re

Those data are the data. But something else interesting is going on, too. First, people are becoming more resilient to natural disasters, and particularly to weather disasters. Globally speaking, far fewer people are dying from natural disasters. As the invaluable Our World in Data reports, around 500,000 people per year use to die in droughts and floods back in the 1920s and 1930s, while fewer than 100,000 per year died (chiefly of earthquakes) in the 2000s and 2010s.

AnnualDeathsOur World in Data

Also using Munich Re data, University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr. calculates that the trend of weather disaster losses, as a percentage of global GDP, trended downward from 1990 to 2018. As global GDP rises, absolute losses may increase even as percentage losses decline. In other words, people seem to be building more stuff faster than worsening weather can destroy it.

PielkeGlobalDisasterRoger Pielke, Jr.

Since this was testimony in Congress, what do the disaster trends in the United States show? Let's stick with Munich Re's meteorological, hydrological, and climatological events categories.

Meteorological events chiefly refer to storms. The biggest and most damaging storms to hit the United States are hurricanes. A 2018 article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) reported that the U.S. hurricane landfall frequency has been trending slightly downward since 1900.

LandfallingHurricanesKlotzbach

The BAMS article also normalizes losses by estimating direct economic losses from a historical storm as if that same event were to occur under contemporary social conditions, and finds no significant trend since 1900.

NormalizedHurricaneDamageKlotzbach

On the other hand, rising global temperatures means in general that the atmosphere can hold more moisture, and that moisture eventually falls as rain or snow. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that 2018 was the wettest year in the past 35 years, and the third wettest year since the modern record began in 1895. Hydrological events, such as heavy rainfall over the continental U.S., have been increasing. In these instances, a greater-than-normal portion of total annual precipitation has come from extreme single-day precipitation events. In other words, spring showers now have a greater tendency to become spring downpours.

ExtremePrecipitationEventsEPA

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes, increased river flooding is associated with heavier rainfall. Overall, the agency notes that large floods have become more frequent across the Northeast, Pacific Northwest, and northern Great Plains, and have decreased in the Southwest and the Rockies.

Climatologically speaking, temperatures in the lower 48 have been trending up. The EPA reports two satellite data trends showing that since 1979, average temperature in the 28 contiguous states is rising at a rates of 0.29 to 0.46°F per decade. As a result, the number of record high temperatures is increasing while the number of record lows is declining.

USTempsHighLowEPA

In addition, as a consequence of warmer temperatures, the growing season has lengthened by an average of more than 12 days since 1970.

GrowingSeasonEPA

The Palmer Drought Severity Index, averaged over the entire area of the contiguous 48 states, shows no clear trend since 1895. The 1930s and 1950s saw the most widespread droughts, while the last 50 years have generally been wetter than average.

DroughtIndexEPA

The vast majority of climate researchers have concluded that man-made climate change due to loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is changing the weather. Unabated emissions could make it much worse by 2100.

Interestingly, a 2016 article in Nature concluded that climate change so far has actually improved the weather for most people in the United States. "We find that 80% of Americans live in counties that are experiencing more pleasant weather than they did four decades ago," reported the researchers. "Virtually all Americans are now experiencing the much milder winters that they typically prefer, and these mild winters have not been offset by markedly more uncomfortable summers or other negative changes."

However, as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase and boost temperatures over the course of this century, the weather may become significantly less pleasant for many Americans. Using some worst-case assumptions, the 2050 Weather team over at Vox created an intriguing interactive map which shows how much hotter your city is projected to become in 2050 by comparing it to another American city generally further to the south. Whether a generation from now the folks in Scranton, Pennsylvania, will find it disastrous to be living with weather now current in Loudoun County, Virginia, is not entirely clear.

In any case, let's acknowledge that unaddressed man-made global warming could well become a big problem. But other than noting that the recently proposed Green New Deal is the wrong way to fix it, we have a long way to go in terms of figuring out the right mix of policies to deal with climate change.

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.

  • Longtobefree||

    "In addition, as a consequence of warmer temperatures, the growing season has lengthened by an average of more than 12 days since 1970."

    So climate change is also responsible for the obesity epidemic by letting us grow and eat more food?
    Sure, why not?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    No worries. You will shed those pounds when you walk to your shift at the hemp farm.

  • Brandybuck||

    The problem is that "extreme weather event" is defined by damage done, not by a measured force of the weather. And the damage done is based on populations and economics. When you see a news report that a hurricane is the worst ever because it caused XX billions of damage, its' very very rarely adjusted for inflation, and NEVER adjusted for population.

    I'm not saying that extreme weather events are less common. I'm saying that the metrics used, at least by most of those presenting the numbers to the public, are not measuring what you're being told they measure.

  • Rich||

    I'm saying that the metrics used, at least by most of those presenting the numbers to the public, are not measuring what you're being told they measure.

    Oh, come on! Next you'll be claiming that about, say, GDP numbers!

  • Greg F||

    "It's not your imagination: extreme weather events have become more frequent in recent decades," she declared. As evidence she cited data from the reinsurance giant Munich Re, whose analysis finds that the occurrence of extreme weather events around the globe have nearly tripled since the 1980s.


    The graph "Number of relevant natural loss events worldwide 1980-2017" does not support the claim that "extreme weather events have become more frequent". What it does report is the number of events that claims were paid on. World population in 1980 was a bit less then 4.5 billion, today it is 7.7 billion. It is rather silly to believe that people are not living in places that in 1980 were undeveloped. A place that was undeveloped having an "extreme weather event" would not generate an insurance "natural loss event" while the same place after development would.

  • Sigivald||

    I was gonna say, what defines these categories?

    (And what's a "climatological event" that isn't weather? Or does weather only mean storms and wind, not other stuf the atmosphere does?)

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I'm saying that the metrics used, at least by most of those presenting the numbers to the public, are not measuring what you're being told they measure."

    Ron: Those data are the data.

  • Don't look at me!||

    It might be more convincing if all the charts covered the same time frames. This has the appearance of cherry picking.

  • some guy||

    Pretty sure the range of each chart is determined by the available data. Putting them all on the same range would be cherry picking because you'd be literally hiding data that was available.

  • Ron Bailey||

    Dlam & sm: Yes, just used the available data. I do agree using the same time frames for each would have been illuminating too, but longer time scales do better capture climatological trends.

  • markm23||

    "longer time scales do better capture climatological trends"

    Except when you average a sharp climb in temperatures in 1978-1999 with nearly flat temperatures since then to claim that temperatures are still rising steeply.

  • JFree||

    It wouldn't matter.

    Regression lines and time-series charts are mostly geared to show trends

    Everything I've seen about climate changes indicates that what will happen is far more volatility and extreme events and outlier events. That is the sort of stuff that just looks increasingly messy over time.

  • Rich||

    Whether a generation from now the folks in Scranton, Pennsylvania, will find it disastrous to be living with weather now current in Loudoun County, Virginia, is not entirely clear.

    "You kids don't know how good you have it! Why, before climate change we had to shovel *three times* as much snow!"

  • Don't look at me!||

    Up hill both ways!

  • Teddy Pump||

    With a spoon!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Not a straw?

    "You kids don't even know what a straw is!"

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Everything is awesome and there's nothing you or anyone like you can say to make me believe otherwise.

  • Don't look at me!||

    No charts had a hockey stick shape.

  • Dillinger||

    zzzzzzzzzzz.

  • ||

    "Virtually all Americans are now experiencing the much milder winters that they typically prefer, and these mild winters have not been offset by markedly more uncomfortable summers or other negative changes."

    And, somehow, Al Gore and other climate wonks *still* manage to deliver landmark treatises on the topic in the middle of nationwide snowpocalypses...

  • Sigivald||

    I was not aware we "preferred" colder winters, myself.

    Everyone around here complains when it's snowy or cold.

    (What actual change there is, of course, is unrelated to that ... in every way.)

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    "...while fewer than 100,000 per year died (chiefly of earthquakes) in the 2000s and 2010s"

    Chiefly of earthquakes; I'm sorry, but WTF do seismic events have to do with climate?

  • NashTiger||

    All the soldiers on Guam, if they don't ti it over, their Jeeps heat up the Pacific and make the faults slippery

  • Ron Bailey||

    QUT: Nothing, but just pointing out that the bulk of folks killed in natural disasters in the last couple of decades died in earthquakes, e.g., Haiti and Indonesia. Main point, lots fewer people are dying in natural disasters than used to do so.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    True, a lot of that is due to a combination of safer building standards coupled with emergency services, plus improved medical treatment. Places like Haiti are worse off, as they are indeed shitholes.

  • Gordito||

    Nothing. That's the point when he says people are more resilient. And he states the full number to show that even when accounting for non-Climate Natural Disasters, far fewer people (nominally or as a percentage) die now than previously from Natural Disasters.

    Also, the picture he's discussing literally has the words "Natural Disasters" in the title.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Gaia is angry and she is punishing mankind (oops, people-kind) for transgressions against Her. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.

  • Tony||

    All you assholes remember when Halloween, more often than not, was a freezing shitstorm of pain, but you were young and having fun and getting candy and didn't care. Now it's always mild or even hot. Don't deny it.

  • Don't look at me!||

    I can tell you that there were some warm Halloween's and some cold Halloween's.
    But since when are anecdotes evidence?

  • Tony||

    But you don't care about evidence being evidence, do you?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Weather is not Climate Tony.

    Weather makes up the numbers for Climate but whatevs.

    Most Americans ignore your nonsense now, so that is the silver lining of those scary clouds.

  • Don't look at me!||

    The only thing in evidence is that you are a very angry and unpersuasive person.

  • Tony||

    If you can't educate yourself on current science in the age of Google, that is a problem that really has nothing to do with me or my mood.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Did you google the temperature of various Halloween evenings ?

  • Tony||

    Try "what is climate change" and let's talk with a common baseline of understanding of core facts.

  • Tu­lpa||

    It was a simple question, why did you dodge it?

  • Libertymike||

    He fancies himself to be White Goodman.

  • Nardz||

    "let's talk with a common baseline of understanding of core facts."

    Okay, Tony.
    Can you tell us the annual average energy output of the Sun for each of the last 25-50 years?
    It's a good place to start

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, I think this sums things up nicely.....


    http://directorblue.blogspot.c.....imate.html

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "But you don't care about evidence being evidence, do you?"

    And your side wants to use the "worst-case scenarios" to remake society in a way that will reduce liberty for everyone. What did some famous guy say about the plank from your own eye?

  • Tony||

    A radical change in the habitable environment of the only planet we are currently capable of inhabiting is not without its effects on individual liberty. You're just mouthing bullshit you read on a blog or something. We don't really have a choice but to solve the problem, and the longer assholes like you make us wait, the more draconian the measures will have to be.

    And nobody wants to reduce anyone's liberty or standard of living. Nature will do that all by itself. The whole fucking goddamn point is to retain as much liberty and standard of living as we possibly can.

  • I Used To Be A Democrat||

    But how do we do that without air travel to move goods and services, Yulee heat peoples home, and cars to get people to and from work, to make our society work?

    As Batman one said, people come first. That's why I can't say on the Democrat plantation anymore.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "You're just mouthing bullshit you read on a blog or something."

    LOL. You're parroting stuff you're hearing from a fucking 29 year-old bartender and a group of pandering lawyers. I've got an actual STEM degree heavy in Physics and Chemistry and Geology and Statistics even the history of the Earth. And >30 years of applying that education, including a lot of actual numerical modeling of complex systems. But you go ahead and go ad hominem on anybody that disagrees with you.

    "A radical change in the habitable environment of the only planet we are currently capable of inhabiting is not without its effects on individual liberty."

    Hysterical much? "I'll take the worst-case and overreact to it, even though the models to date have been total bullshit" Oh, and the obligatory fuck off, slaver.

  • Tony||

    All of you assholes have a "STEM degree." All the "STEM" people I knew in college were, to a person, creationists. Except the ones who actually studied real sciences.

  • Lowdog||

    Hahahahahah

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    STEM - College and university degree programs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) are considered STEM degrees, and they are in high demand across many industries

    Real sciences? Haha the sciences he listed aren't real huh? You are such an idiot. I'm sorry it's not the science of gender studies or your mom's basement

    I'm also STEM - I have a Physics, and Master's in Space Science. Guess what idiot, I don't believe in creationism.

  • Brian||

    "All the "STEM" people I knew in college were, to a person, creationists."

    It's not our fault you went to a shitty religious college, but it explains a lot.

  • Tony||

    I guess I should call them TEM students. Why numbers geeks tend to be religious conservatives (and libertarians) is a mystery to me, but I'm sure it has something to do with the autism spectrum.

    Real scientists of course are all proper, decent heathens.

  • Brian||

    Actually, you just went to Oklahoma Wesleyan University (or some equivalent) and don't really know much outside of that.

  • Tony||

    Guess again, Dartmouth. Or whatever.

  • Tony||

    Yikes. To clarify, I was calling you Dartmouth. I would never admit to going there.

  • Brian||

    I'm sure your college where all the STEM students are devoutly Christian Creationists is also in the Ivy League.

    You'll be dropping that name anytime. I mean, why not be smug?

    Unless it's embarrassing.

  • Tony||

    We make a habit of not dropping the name.

  • Brian||

    If I went to a school like that, I'd be ashamed, too.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Your inability to state even the simplest of assertions without including the word "assholes" makes everything you say not worth a hummingbird fart.

  • Lowdog||

    And tony ran away from this comment, because he is too stupid to do anything else. Just point and laugh at tony.

  • Sigivald||

    "Radical change"?

    What? We're going back to the paleozoic?

    "Radical change" isn't in the cards, even if you believe the worst-case IPCC models [which IIRC require things that ... just ain't happening, like much more energy use that is only coal?].

  • Penrose21||

    Your needless use of vulgarity and ad hominen attacks reveal your deficit of logical thoughts and responses. Please stop being so vulgar or go away.

  • Tony||

    Libertopia is gonna be rough for you, huh?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh Tony, you and your friends will be put down long before that is ever allowed.

  • Roger Knights||

    "A radical change in the habitable environment of the only planet WE are currently capable of inhabiting is not without its effects on individual liberty. ... WE don't really have a choice but to solve the problem"

    Tell it to Xi and other developing countries, which abv 541 coal power plants under construction (e.g., 80 in Turkey, over 20 in Indonesia and the Phillipines, hundreds in China and India, etc.), with even more being planned.

    As far as "we" in the developed world go, our reductions make no difference in comparison the the additions being made elsewhere, so it would be costly and futile to try to solve this global problem all by ourselves. I'm OK with nuclear, and mandated insulation, and even mandated awnings (both of which would personally benefit those impacted in the long run from lower fuel costs annor greater comfort). "Renewables" aren't a good solution, as experience in Spain, Costa Rica, Germany, Denmark, the UK, and Ontario has shown. Electricity costs have doubled, causing the poor to lose power and die more frequently in the winter. And economic competitiveness is being lost too, for a tiny gain.

  • uunderstand||

    This ^^^

  • some guy||

    The evidence in this article indicates that we shouldn't tank the economy, causing certain pain now, in order to prevent hypothetical pain in the future. The increased wealth created by a booming economy will be more than enough to compensate for losses due to climate change.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tony does not want to hear weather evidence that contradicts him.

    I remember warm and cold Halloween nights. Sometimes it was warm during the first part of Dusk and then got much colder.

  • Tony||

    How many times has Antarctica melted in your lifetime?

    Or should I mention Siberia so you have a more familiar frame of reference?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Antarctica had no snow on it at one time in Earth's history.

    Not a human in sight.

  • Tony||

    It's so cute how you think you're making a point.

    Even if it were dinosaurs from outer space causing the greenhouse effect, it would still be a problem for us to solve. Comprendes? Hola???

  • Tu­lpa||

    Why?

  • Tony||

    So if a volcano erupts on its own, everyone in the path of the lava is OK because a human didn't cause it?

    Are you retarded or what?

    Also, humans did cause the current climate change. But it's not like we're going to court over it, so it's only academically relevant, really.

  • Tu­lpa||

    You're not talking about damage control. You're talking about preventing the volcano from erupting.

    Did you not realize that? That would make you pretty fucking stupid.

    And you didn't answer my question. You paint it as a disaster, while this very article shows a series of tradeoffs, including longer growing season and fewer droughts (probably).

    So, you want action. Prove the juice is worth the squeeze or fuck off.

  • I Used To Be A Democrat||

    This is why I'm not a Democrat anymore: they used to be the party of science. Now, they're just the party of engineering: social, and global.

  • Tony||

    Prove that the status quo is the best possible option. It's a choice with consequences. As you idiots are fond of saying, it's not the utopia of liberty you long for.

    Except when it might affect some favored industry's bottom line, then suddenly the status quo is Galt's Gulch.

  • Tu­lpa||

    "Prove that the status quo is the best possible option. "

    No. YOU are the one demanding Trillions in resources. The burden is on YOu.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony has no understanding of how policy debate works. As the negative (status quo) has no case to prove. At most, the negative has only to refute any 'evidence' (a term used loosely in Tony's case) that he might puke up.

    I'm not surprised, Tony strikes me as too intellectuals lazy to have ever been on a debate team.

  • Don't look at me!||

    The status quo has lifted the worlds population from cave dwellings to space flight. I say we are doing fine.

  • I Used To Be A Democrat||

    Well sure, if you like working for a living.

  • Lowdog||

    Who wants the status quo, you fucking retard? I want the state, and it's sycophants, to fuck right off so that, through capital accumulation and free exchange, everyone is better off, and we can actually solve our problems. The gnd creates endless new problems, in contrast.

  • Tony||

    Fair enough. So how does laissez-faire capitalism deal with the externality of pollution?

  • ||

    So how does laissez-faire capitalism deal with the externality of pollution?

    The justice system. Ooh - that "gotcha" fell apart on you right away, didn't it?

  • Tony||

    Well you did wave that hand pretty hard.

  • ||

    I answered your question, did I not? Does the answer upset you? Why or why not?

  • Tony||

    Imagine how much larger and more expensive Big Government would have to be to have a court system that could handle torts from everyone claiming injury from pollution and other negative externalities. A rule in a rulebook seems like much smaller government.

    Of course you people who advocate for the tort system handling pollution are insincere goddamn liars and know full well the entire point is to let polluters get away with it for free. Either that or you're too stupid to realize that's the motive of the interests whose talking points you're gumming.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Charge fees for bringing suit and loser pays. That'll keep case loads managable...

  • ||

    Charge fees for bringing suit and loser pays.

    We already do that in CA - doesn't work.

  • ||

    Imagine how much larger and more expensive Big Government would have to be to have a court system that could handle torts from everyone claiming injury from pollution and other negative externalities.

    It's like you've never heard of "class action."

    A rule in a rulebook seems like much smaller government.

    Only to those who don't understand who writes those rules, how they get enforced, and how effective they tend to be. Tort is based on demonstrating damage, not on being a preferred lobbyist or someone who has enough clout to skirt the AHJs.

    Of course you people who advocate for the tort system handling pollution are insincere goddamn liars and know full well the entire point is to let polluters get away with it for free. Either that or you're too stupid to realize that's the motive of the interests whose talking points you're gumming.

    And here's the point where Tony decides he can no longer deal with the argument at hand and just pretends I'm being paid by the Russian TrumpOil Conspiracy and therefore he doesn't have to make a coherent argument.

  • Tony||

    All the rhetoric you're throwing around is free prostitution for polluting interests, almost none of which even deny climate change science like you guys still do.

    Dealing with negative externalities with courts is an obvious travesty of an idea. It's not something people argue with a straight face. Come the fuck on, please.

    If some reality (like negative externalities) exists that throws your economic and political worldview into illogic, then guess where the problem is?

  • ||

    deny climate change science like you guys still do

    Sure. Let's do this for the 100th time. What part of "The Science" am I denying?

    Dealing with negative externalities with courts is an obvious travesty of an idea. It's not something people argue with a straight face. Come the fuck on, please.

    Truly spoken like someone who has entirely run out of other arguments.

    Can you remind me what "The Global Consensus" is?

  • Tony||

    Humans are responsible for a vast increase of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, which as is expected by basic physics, is increasing the heat of the planet, mostly in the oceans, leading to average global temperatures and resulting climate disruptions unlike any seen since long, long before the human species evolved. Do you have a problem with any of that?

  • Greg F||

    Humans are responsible for a vast increase of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere, which as is expected by basic physics, is increasing the heat of the planet, mostly in the oceans, leading to average global temperatures and resulting climate disruptions unlike any seen since long, long before the human species evolved. Do you have a problem with any of that?


    Finest piece of misleading hysteria Tony has written in a long time.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tonys citation fell off...again.

  • Lowdog||

    Do you even know how little CO2 is I the atmosphere? To think it is the main driver is, per your usual, ignorance and hubris of the highest degree.

  • ||

    Do you have a problem with any of that?

    You forgot to mention what part of this is "Global Consensus" (not much of it is) and what your source for that "Consensus" is (i.e. Progressive propaganda).

  • Roger Knights||

    "Dealing with negative externalities with courts is an obvious travesty of an idea."

    And yet green NGOs have been bringing such cases worldwide, even in the name of children. They've had success in Holland.

  • Lowdog||

    You're just jumping to conclusions again. Actually, the courts used to be the place where externalities were addressed, but then the govt decided business was more important than property rights, and that went out the window.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one here like actual pollution. However Tony, CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    "So how does laissez-faire capitalism deal with the externality of pollution"

    I thought this was widely understood...

    The wealthiest societies in the world are the cleanest. Why? Because concern for the long term (like a century from now) future of your environment is the ultimate luxury good. People who worry about whether or not they are going to eat today don't give two shits about pollution. People who worry about freezing to death at night or getting eaten by a bear DO NOT CARE what someone guesses the temperature might be on the other side of the globe in 87 years.

    Yes, there are pain points during development (e.g. - 1800's London or most of industrial China right now) but at a certain point, the wealthier capitalism makes us, the cleaner it makes the environment.

  • some guy||

    Tony, Antarctica is not predicted to melt anytime in the foreseeable future. And you have the audacity to accuse other people of making stuff up.

  • Greg F||

    How many times has Antarctica melted in your lifetime?


    Zero Tony, the number is zero.

  • Roger Knights||

    "How many times has Antarctica melted in your lifetime?"

    The claim that Antarctica is melting has not been established—it's arguably mostly green alarmism. See:

    PAGES2K (2017): Antarctic Proxies
    By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, Feb 1, 2019
    http://tinyurl.com/y2jjubpn

    [SEPP Comment: McIntyre unveiling a black hole in climate research used by the IPCC, thereby showing claims of Antarctic warming over the past two centuries was largely man-made (artificial).] (I.e., man-made by green alarmists.)

    Antarctic ICE-loss story by Mooney / WaPo debunked.
    http://tinyurl.com/y2oqtgt3

    "Or should I mention Siberia so you have a more familiar frame of reference?"

    Siberian warming in post-Soviet decades is arguably partly accounted for by the practice in Soviet times of allocating fuel supplies to towns on the basis of their temperatures—so there was a local incentive to report colder-than-actual temperatures.

  • Billy Bones||

    I remember as a kid in the '70's my KISS make-up running from so much sweat. So, no, I don't remember that Tony.

  • blondrealist||

    I was born in 1959 and lived in Missouri, Michigan, and Indiana when I was young. I don't recall enduring any shitstorms of pain when I was getting candy on Halloween.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Just because you retired to Florida doesn't mean that the climate changed.

  • Brandybuck||

    My childhood Halloweens were in sunny California.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    I lived in Philadelphia and while it was a shitstorm it wasn't because of the weather.
    In fact, the first snow didn't occur usually till December.

    Please post your evidence. They have records that you can find for your area and show.

  • Tony||

    Since my area accounts for far less than 1% of the earth's surface, I'm not sure why it would be relevant.

  • ||

    Tony|2.14.19 @ 12:30PM|#

    All you assholes remember when Halloween, more often than not, was a freezing shitstorm of pain, but you were young and having fun and getting candy and didn't care. Now it's always mild or even hot. Don't deny it.

    Tony|2.14.19 @ 4:14PM|#

    Since my area accounts for far less than 1% of the earth's surface, I'm not sure why it would be relevant.

    Your combination of insufferable arrogance with being an utter dipshit who can't keep track of his own point from moment to moment is an endless source of entertainment. Never change.

  • Tony||

    I don't assume that everyone lives where I live either. The post was, of course, partly facetious, but also not, because everyone, if he's honest with himself, can tell that their local weather patterns have changed over the past several decades. They could be ass deep in an ice block on their front lawn and they'd still find a way to rationalize it for Daddy Oil.

  • ||

    You missed my point completely, which maintains your perfect track record.

    Please remind us what the "Global Scientific Consensus" is and what your source is for it. It makes you look like a bigger idiot every time, yet you keep coming back.

    I know, I know - all the morons here are Bible-thumping STEM people with no understanding of science, while you read that one Wikipedia article.

    Don't you get so sick and tired of all these Russians with their wild conspiracy theories?

  • Tony||

    TEM people with no understanding of science.*

    I am not pretending to be an expert. You guys should do the same. That means all we have is our capacity to discern reliable sources vs. bullcrap and the ability to read.

  • ||

    That means all we have is our capacity to discern reliable sources vs. bullcrap and the ability to read.

    Actually, some of us were involved in the movement that brought climate science into existence 30 years ago and have been following it ever since. We don't need to check the political loyalties of our sources to decide whether or not to have faith in them. We actually understand the issues.
  • Greg F||

    The post was, of course, partly facetious, but also not, because everyone, if he's honest with himself, can tell that their local weather patterns have changed over the past several decades.


    Tony seems unaware that "local weather patterns have changed over the" last 3.5 billion years.

  • Tony||

    Why don't you look up the times the global climate has changed in similar ways to what's happening now and see how it worked out for everyone.

  • ||

    Why don't you look up the times the global climate has changed in similar ways to what's happening now and see how it worked out for everyone.

    It's recurred about every 100,000 years for the about the last million years. They are called "interglacials." Those who know the first thing about climate science have heard of them.

  • Tony||

    No, what we're experiencing is independent of interglacials and is more on par with a couple of the bigger mass extinction events, of which only five or so are documented.

  • ||

    is more on par with a couple of the bigger mass extinction events

    Only if you go by the hypothetical worst-case deductive projections and ignore the empirical data. Which is not really how science is done.

    By the way, why are dodging my question about the Global Consensus? You know so much about this, you must have it all on the tip of your tongue, right?

  • Greg F||

    ... is more on par with a couple of the bigger mass extinction events, of which only five or so are documented.


    LMAO. Tony gets his science from places like the Guardian.

  • ||

    Tony gets his science from places like the Guardian.

    I.e. "reliable sources."

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No it isn't dummy.

    Tony, go drink your Drano.

  • Greg F||

    Why don't you look up the times the global climate has changed in similar ways to what's happening now and see how it worked out for everyone.


    I am sure it worked out fine. Unfortunately we don't have a temperature record that is long enough or has the spacial coverage to even know about it. The amount of change we have seen is less then the difference from when a furnace turns on and turns off. It is orders of magnitude less then you will experience in a year. It is at least an order of magnitude less then you will see in a typical day.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Did you wear your Obummy mask for Halloween 2009? Is that considered Half-Black Face?

  • BSL1||

    I grew up in a place known for some of the coldest winters in the U.S., but don't remember ever trick or treating in a freezing shitstorm.

  • ||

    That's because Tony is just repeating highly partisan propaganda divorced from actual science. Michael Mann (inventor of the original hockey-stick graph, and who has built his career on climate change alarmism, appears in virtually every film, video or long-form article on the topic) has said that if you think you notice the year-over-year temperature rise, then you are succumbing to hysteria.

    He recently called out New York Magazine for their climate hysteria and told them they were doing serious damage to the movement to mitigate climate change with their emotional exaggerations and doomsaying that was almost totally unmoored from the actual science (like the stupid "Antarctic methane bomb" people like Tony are freaking out about now).

    Recently the chair of the IPCC also spoke publicly and officially about the American media in particular going overboard with the doomsaying and expressed concern that it would result in backlash, but I don't have time to find that at the moment.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony is a Reason staff sockpuppet.

    Boosts web traffic dont ya know.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Even if it's true, that person needs to suck down a quart of Drano.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It varies. Where I live, a few years back the temperatures were in the single digits at night on Halloween and the whole week before. The end of October features very transitional tempurtrues anywhere in the US that has cold winters.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember that many of these climate "scientists" get paid via taxpayer dollars.

    Alarming predictions that turn out to be false still garner big bucks.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Good science is good regardless of who pays for it.
    Bad science is bad regardless of who pays for it.

    Getting derpy about who paid for some study or other is probably the worst way to prove your point.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You know all about derp, SparkY. Derp comes from you every day.

    Bias...derp derpy...doesn't....exist...derp.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Yes, I understand that you're dumb which is why you made your dumb post. I also understand the futility of trying to teach you anything.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor SparkY, the Reason intern troll.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So Sparky, I guess you decided not to off yourself. How is that working out for you?

  • Nardz||

    When there are financial and occupational rewards/dependencies for finding certain results, those motives absolutely need to be taken into account.
    You know the saying about figures/statistics and liars.
    Some positions and departments depend on "climate change" being an imminent threat, and subject to deliberate intervention, for their very existence.
    It is not just a single scientist here or there - entire fields/industries/professions exist only because climate change is a "problem"

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Good science is good regardless of who pays for it.
    Bad science is bad regardless of who pays for it.

  • Nardz||

    Ok.
    Not really the point.
    But if you want to take it that direction, climate science is shit. It's worse than bad.
    Why?
    Because its prosperity depends on getting the right results, not accurate results

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    And that's why bitching about who paid for it is entirely beside the point.

  • Nardz||

    Do you have a point, sparky?
    Climate science is more likely to be shit because of who pays for it.
    Are you disputing this, or just making a pedantic criticism?
    Lc says why climate science is bad.
    You respond: "good science is good, bad science is bad"
    Cool! Great observation!

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Lc says why climate science is bad.

    False.

    loveconstitution1789|2.14.19 @ 12:35PM|#

    Remember that many of these climate "scientists" get paid via taxpayer dollars.

    Alarming predictions that turn out to be false still garner big bucks.

    Bitching about who pays is the worst way to make the argument.

    Unless you want to go the "evil proggie" route. Argle bargle big pharma herp derp Monsanto...

  • Penrose21||

    Who's bitching? It's obvious that "research" can be manipulated to favor those who finance it in order to keep obtaining that financing. That doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes and should always be a consideration. That's not bitching. It's an admission of reality and an admonition to be skeptical of research that may be tainted by money. To do otherwise is foolish.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sparky never has a point, other than his head.

  • Nardz||

    For example, the conclusion that this article discusses is stupid.
    Extremely, mind numbingly stupid.
    Monkeys throwing shit at each other display a more intelligent thought process.
    Other posters have pointed out why it is so incredibly stupid.
    If there's more stuff to break, more stuff will be broken. If there's more expensive stuff that breaks, it'll cost more to replace.
    It has little to nothing to do with climate patterns. It has everything to do with development patterns.

  • $park¥ is the Worst||

    Do you want to argue the point or do you want to argue about who paid for it? Because only one of those things is worthwhile.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor SparkY doesnt read too well to know the point was about funding bias.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Funding bias is completely legitimate. Even if you say it isn't. Your proclamation doesn't make it so.

  • TJJ2000||

    That deserves a repeat, "Because its prosperity depends on getting the right results, not accurate results"

    As so are SO many things today in the "socialized"/monopolized science. Public Sector Teachers who's job REQUIRES support thereof, to climate science REQUIRING it to be an issue, to practically every "socially" funded entity of research.

    Even the Government itself seems to re-instill (spends more) to keep itself super-substantial in everyone's life enough to grow more-so every year.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    The problem is that when an agency or organization with an agenda pays for research, they usually get what they are looking for and discard what goes against what they are looking for, and dress the result up as good science because it touches all the methodological bases. There is very little of anything that passes for truly objective science these days, if indeed there ever was. The funding tends to dictate the results.with few exceptions

  • Tu­lpa||

    It has a section for "geophysical event." Mudslides I guess? The breakdown is interesting, I'm not sure what they include where.

  • Ron Bailey||

    T: Geophysical events are earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, etc.

  • some guy||

    Wouldn't a landslide be a hydrological event if cause by heavy precipitation? Presumably they take that into account, but then there does appear to be a slight positive slope in the geophysical data...

  • Sigivald||

    Why would quakes and volcanoes even be in the list if we're talking about climate change, though?

    Landslides are plausibly related, at least [if ... more likely caused by deforestation, maybe?].

    But I don't think anyone vaguely serious has claimed that humans cause volcanoes or [damaging, not handwaving-around-fracking-barely-noticed] quakes.

  • Tu­lpa||

    Exactly my thoughts, which is why I thought landslides.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Using some worst-case assumptions, the 2050 Weather team over at Vox created an intriguing interactive map which shows how much hotter your city is projected to become in 2050 by comparing it to another American city generally further to the south"

    Worst-case assumptions. That, and the "nothing to see here" from the extreme of the other side is why we can't get anything reasonable done.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Citing Vox.
    Hoo boy.

  • Ron Bailey||

    Dlam: Plenty caveats were used.

  • Nardz||

    We can't count on Vox to accurately describe what happened last week.
    We can completely dismiss their description of what will happen in 30 years.

  • awildseaking||

    Interesting how they never address that the change in temperatures falls within the error term. Are there any good statistical studies of climate research that examines the statistical bonafides of the regression analysis conducted? It's interesting how all the fear about climate change is based on regression analysis yet nobody ever discusses the analysis and instead focuses on the greenhouse gas effect.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They cannot just post the weather numbers and let the readers of the study decide.

    They need the models to match the agenda.

  • some guy||

    The hockey stick graph got debunked by people looking at the statistical methodology. The regression method used was guaranteed to generate hockey sticks, even out of pseudo-randomized data.

    Also, if you look back at prior IPCC reports you'll notice that the current level of warming is always at the lower end or even below the prediction error bars. The trend is positive, but no one should ever use the "worst-case scenario" prediction from the IPCC when the best-case scenario is the one that always plays out.

  • Sigivald||

    Yeah.

    I'll start believing their models when they start predicting anything, even past climate from past data.

    They're ... untenably bad at their only job, though.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Any discussion of policy on climate change that analyzes benefits and costs is vastly superior to the shit I see used to justify saving the world for future generations, etc. I don't care if we look at it in terms of risk--even if there weren't any evidence of problems with AGW now. You don't need to persuade me that my house is on fire before I'm willing to buy fire insurance. You just need to persuade me that the risk is sufficient enough to justify the cost of insurance. What I hear from environmentalists all the time is that the risk is such that unlimited costs are justified--and that's religious horseshit. If I hear much more of that, I'll start objecting to climate "science" being taught in public schools on the basis that it violates the separation of church and state.

  • some guy||

    Another big tell is an alarmists position on nuclear. If you really think climate change is an existential crisis for humanity, then nuclear must be #1 on your list of solutions. If you are also calling for phasing out nuclear then you are clearly using climate change alarmism as a stalking horse for something else.

  • Sigivald||

    Or are so bad at critical thinking that we should ignore you, anyway.

    ("If you're not pro-nuke you're not serious about climate change" is 100% true.)

  • Mr. Flanders||

    " If you are also calling for phasing out nuclear then you are clearly using climate change alarmism as a stalking horse for something else."

    I agree with this statement if we're talking about "experts," however, for the layman - I think we can attribute the position to ignorance rather than malice.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • some guy||

    Ron, question for you on several charts. I always wonder how careful researchers are to account for changes in the ability of the world to monitor and count such events. For example, nowadays every single tropical wave gets monitored by satellite and most depressions and storms get routine visits from aircraft. We know exactly if and when one crosses the threshold into being a storm or hurricane. In other words, the counts in 2019 are very accurate. There's no way they could count storms and hurricanes as accurately going back to the late 1800s. How could they possibly know if a depression happened to bump up to storm status for a few hours before dying off. It seems to me that this would lead to an inflation of modern numbers.

  • Ron Bailey||

    sg: Actually there is a nifty chart at EPA Climate Indicators that seeks to do exactly that.

  • some guy||

    This is perfect. Thank you for all your hard work and taking the time to answer questions.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Hilarious

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    In any case, let's acknowledge that unaddressed man-made global warming could well become a big problem.


    I worry that addressed man-made global warming means an increase in the number of bad ideas and in the number of dumbfucks who support those bad ideas.

    I will take my chances with unaddressed man-made global warming, thank you very much.

  • Libertymike||

    I see you weren't blinded by the Monsanto man's pseudo-science.

  • Benitacanova||

    Vox! Hilarious.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Of course climate changes. Any idea that it is static, ever, would be false.

    Remember the ice age? One of the biggest climate changes on record. No human involvement.

    What I push back on is the idea that wealth redistribution is a solution or even part of a solution. The idea that climate change is largely man made. That we are anywhere close to understanding of the dynamics where a truthful model can be produced.

    What if find annoying is people that thinks the science is settled. Such a claim is anti-scientific.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    As evidence she cited data from the reinsurance giant Munich Re, whose analysis finds that the occurrence of extreme weather events around the globe have nearly tripled since the 1980s...Those data are the data.

    They may be. But, they certainly aren't the data they're suggesting they are. Reinsurance data is incredibly valuable. For estimating expectations of the distribution of costs. What they aren't is particularly useful for is assessing the distribution of actual events. You've seen a host of confounding factors at play that almost certainly explain much of the trend. You have greater population concentration in disaster-prone locations (say, low-lying coastal areas), more physical plant and equipment to actually get damaged, etc. Even the first chart shows growth from nearly all causes.

  • M.L.||

  • GroundTruth||

    Regardless of the science debate, it would be great if the assumption that everyone enjoys warm(er) weather died out. There are plenty of people who are tired of pretending to love the heat and humidity of summer, and live for clear, crisp winter days when you can get outside without dissolving in a puddle of their own sweat.

  • Ron Bailey||

    GT: Humidity is just free moisturizer. Enjoy it. :-)

  • GroundTruth||

    Likewise, subzero nights are perfect for turning hard cider into applejack. ;-)

    [Woops, is the NSA recording this?]

  • Bob Meyer||

    I don't know which satellite data Ron is talking about but Roy Spencer at University of Alabama, Huntsville reports:

    "The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through January 2019 remains at +0.13 C/decade." which is 0.23 F/decade.

    No one need worry about 2.3 degrees because if CO2 is totally responsible for the increase further increases will be much smaller since radiative absorption is a logarithmic function of CO2 density.

    In any event, the temperature rise noted is far less than the smallest rise predicted by the 30 or so models that were run in 1998. The models are known to have been calibrated based on the temperature rise observed in the first half of the 20th century when the CO2 rise was comparatively small. In the second half of the 20 the century the CO2 increase was much greater. Using the first half century parameters, all of the models will necessarily over estimate future rises.

    I agree with Ron Bailey that the Green New Deal is not the way to deal with the climate. It's the equivalent of trying to stop a bleeding head wound by using a tourniquet around the neck.

  • ||

    Well, I for one welcome the warming. We have land up here we can convert into beach front property.

    Science: We see all these patterns and whoosh and pissshhh!
    Me: Cool. And?
    Science: On the other hand, we're getting better at living around it.
    Me: Awesome. And?
    Science: On the other hand's hand, it's getting complicated.
    Me: Not bad. And?
    Science (raises finger as if to say something important): I've got nothing.
    Me: Except these fancy charts.
    Science: They are smashing aren't they?

  • Greg F||

    The EPA reports two satellite data trends showing that since 1979, average temperature in the 28 contiguous states is rising at a rates of 0.29 to 0.46°F per decade.


    I suspect he means temperature in the 48 contiguous states. Doesn't say what "satellite data" they are using but the two most cited are RSS and UAH. They don't measure surface temperature. They measure layers in the atmosphere.

  • ||

    Ron, serious here.

    I was born in the very early 70s and grew up in the 80s. I distinctly remember the weather being, well, retarded. It was absolutely brutal up here in la belle province. One way I know is because of the activities we did outside. I distinctly remember playing shinny in wildly unpredictable weather or attacking our cross country skis for kicks to the back of a car because the weather would shift from hour to hour.

    Yet, back then, there was no real freak out. I know they were talking about global cooling but no one gave a crap about that. It was Acid rain....and Russians.

    So how is today any different? Maybe it's just Mother Nature. I'm extremely skeptical man contributes to it to the point illiberal idiots like that tart from the Bronx want to dismantle an economy over. Tickle my Elmo but....I'm not that worried about a turtle who's retarded enough to stick a straw up his nose.

    Your thoughts.

  • Tony||

    I'm not Ron, but since so many of you seem to have such extreme difficulty with this, allow me to help out:

    Global Warming

    You're very welcome!

  • Nardz||

    Still waiting for you to mention the Sun.
    At least answer this:
    Is its energy output static, or dynamic?

  • Tony||

    Since solar output has decreased since the 1980s yet warming has increased, it would seem that you're basically trying to sell Scientology to me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Poor Tony has no citations....again.

  • Greg F||

    I'm not Ron, but since so many of you seem to have such extreme difficulty with this, allow me to help out:


    The only one having difficulty is Tony as he has no knowledge of how science works. His linking to Wikipedia further underscores his ignorance.

  • Tony||

    I know that an article on such a high-profile topic is unlikely to be the product of a giant global conspiracy to make Al Gore money.

  • Greg F||

    I know that an article on such a high-profile topic is unlikely to be the product of a giant global conspiracy ...


    Like Eugenics that was also not a "product of a giant global conspiracy". Yet it happened. As I have said before, if it was the the early 20th century Tony would be making the same arguments in favor of Eugenics.

  • Tony||

    Maybe. People were dumbasses back then.

  • Greg F||

    Maybe. People were dumbasses back then.


    Tony proves that nothing has changed.

  • ||

    Hey. You're not Ron!

  • Tony||

    That's just what your mom said.

  • Roger Knights||

    Wikipedia's material on global warming is a party line enforced by a group of dozens of alarmists who instantly delete any material the doesn't "fit." William Connolly is the most notorious of these. It is not by any means a trustworthy source on this issue.

  • Tony||

    So try Encyclopedia Britannica. What the fuck?

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    As always, Tony inserts profanity where rational response is required.

  • LynchPin1477||

    the 2050 Weather team over at Vox created an intriguing interactive map which shows how much hotter your city is projected to become in 2050

    My city in central Virginia was predicted to have temperatures and precipitation typical of northern Texas. That was under the worst case scenario. I'll be 97 (or dead) in 2080, when those projections were supposed to come to pass.

    Now, I have a personal preference for a northeast climate with hot summers, pleasantly cool falls, cold snowy winters, and warm rainy springs. I already get less winter than I would like. BUT I'd be hard pressed to call it a catastrophe if I got a north Texas climate in the Shenandoah Valley. There could certainly be negatives (more ticks or other pests), but it's not a world-ending, mass-extinction-causing shift. It might even improve the fishing.

    Weather in my area is obviously not the only potential impact of climate change. It could be very costly and disruptive, if not catastrophic, for people leaving in low-lying coastal regions. Maybe some areas would get a lot drier and hotter and experience desertification.

    But if the purpose of that map was to drive home the personal cost of climate change for the average American, then I'm not sure it is going to have the intended effect.

    Of course, that assumes the models they are using will end up being accurate in the first place, something which I'm rather skeptical of (though the error could go in either direction).

  • DrZ||

    "In any case, let's acknowledge that unaddressed man-made global warming could well become a big problem. But other than noting that the recently proposed Green New Deal is the wrong way to fix it, we have a long way to go in terms of figuring out the right mix of policies to deal with climate change."

    Nuclear fission. There, fixed.
    Next problem.

  • Penrose21||

    Actually thorium salt reactors have already been manufactured and proven.

  • Penrose21||

    Actually there is currently no scientific proof that anthropogenic CO2 is a primary driver of climate change. That theory is based upon correlation studies (which do not prove cause and effect), non-standardized temperature readings (which we know have been manipulated by various "research" groups such as East Anglia), and computer modelings (which can also be easily manipulated as in GIGO).

    There's also no evidence that humans could do anything to effectively intervene in climate change. Spending $trillions to "solve" an unproven theory would be absurd, particularly when there are so many known problems facing humanity, including poverty, hunger, disease, violence, etc. This is primarily an effort to re-distribute wealth from the US to other countries and eliminating capitalism (which many high-profile climate alarmists have admitted), while enriching those in charge of carbon credits.

    Some would be inclined to call this whole thing a scam.

  • Tony||

    So much effort to memorize horseshit that could be put to reading reliable sources.

  • Enemy of the State||

    So much time spent posting shit proving how gullible you are...

  • ||

    So much effort to memorize horseshit that could be put to reading reliable sources.

    Where "reliable sources" = partisan Democrats.

  • Greg F||

    Where "reliable sources" = partisan Democrats.


    It was just a week ago that Tony was claiming Elizabeth Kolbert a journalist with a literature degree was a reliable source.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "So much effort to memorize horseshit that could be put to reading reliable sources."

    Them why do you do it Tony?

  • PG23COLO||

    The data is never the data. The data is twisted to serve talking points. The data depend on your assumptions, generalizations, interpolations, extrapolations, and other tricks of the trade.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    As I said above, there really is no such thing as objective science today, if indeed any such thing ever existed. This is especially true in this field where all data are applied for rhetorical and polemical purposes.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Lets admit that 100 years of data tell us nothing about the future climate of a 4 billion year old planet, and that all sorts of people whose incomes depend on finding evidence of global cooling/global warming/global climate change will do just that...

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Humans came to North America around 15,000 years ago, the same time as the end of the last glacial advance.

    Since correlation is causation, and since restoring mother earth to her pre-human state is a holy goal, we must undo climate change. All of it.

    Bring back the mile-thick continental glaciers over all of the northern US, including Chicago, New York, and New England!

    (Have to think of another way of "restoring" coastal California.)

  • Michael Ejercito||

    We were supposed to have 50 million climate refugees by 2010.

    Where did they go? Did they make a wrong turn and end up on the surface of Pluto?

    http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/0.....ity-again/

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Maybe they all made that same wrong turn at Albuquerque that Bugs Bunny always makes.

  • Fmontyr||

    That's terrific, Ronald! You have extrapolated the climate and climate events of the US to the entire globe where 95% of the people are, or did I miss something? You operate just as those silly climate scientists do.

  • Sevo||

    Fmontyr|2.14.19 @ 9:58PM|#
    "That's terrific, Ronald! You have extrapolated the climate and climate events of the US to the entire globe where 95% of the people are, or did I miss something? You operate just as those silly climate scientists do."

    Reading comprehension fail; try again ARTFA.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that 2018 was the wettest year in the past 35 years, and the third wettest year since the modern record began in 1895. "

    Warmer, wetter, greener, with longer growing seasons.

    Sounds better.

  • Jayburd||

    "HIDE THE DECLINE" Mikey " nature trick" Mann before he got his 2.2 million dollar grant.

  • Tony||

    Your horseshit propaganda is like 10 years out of date.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Oh Tony, such a silly bitch. So threatened by real facts.

  • Floozy||

    One thing to note is that on the graph of disasters, the largest increase seems to be in the hydrological events. I wonder how much of that is caused by other human activities. I have spent a lot of my life in the Midwest of the United States and I know that a some flooding is attributed to things like farmers tiling fields for drainage and paving. When you take hundreds of square miles of land that might normal hold water and cause it to rapidly shed that water, you increase the flooding events that will happen. I know in one town where I lived I had friends who had lived for a long time along a small creek. They said that as more of the area west of them had gotten paved, more runoff came down there and there was worse flooding in their development every year. At least with that, most cities have some requirement now for dealing with runoff when development happens. It would be interesting to know how development contributes, and perhaps also things like flood insurance subsidies that encourage building in flood prone areas. That raises the risk of life loss and increases the level of property damage for an area, both of which make the numbers larger for this sort of study.

  • CBrunei||

    In light of real atmospheric data - not faux data upon which the climate change movement has relied to push the hysteria - this has now reduced to an exercise in intellectual masturbation.

    Real atmospheric observations have now shown that man's emissions have virtually NO EFFECT on climate – because they don't even affect how much carbon is in the air.

    https://edberry.com

    "my poster presentation for the ams annual meeting jan 8 2019"

    "what is really behind the increase in atmospheric co2"

    So go right ahead: Keep chanting the mantra about having to reduce emissions…

  • ValVerde1867||

    Climate change caused by humans is purely fake and impossible. Climate change caused by changes in the sun are very real and on specific cycles. If there was really the probability that earthers are causing specific changes in the climate to occur, then the science to prove such events would not be based on political reverence and demagoguery. The earth has been cycling between hot and cold and all the in-betweens before man was ever here. Would Martians condone such nonsense?

  • ||

    If you like your weather, you can keep your weather. BHO

  • TGoodchild||

    "the 2050 Weather team over at Vox"

    *chuckles*

  • Longtobefree||

    This is from so long ago I lost the citation:
    Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public's attention.
    There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.
    "This could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit," he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."
    Wrong then (1969), wrong now (2019). "Widespread" agreement does not constitute truth; see flat earth.
    I was taught that carbon dioxide was necessary for plant life; has that changed?

  • ||

    hi everyone i have a new idea for a students and moms.. give you a basic pay to your home .. and you have a good option to do more and earn more. check this site.... www.2citypays.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online