More intense hurricanes? Based on records going back how many years??
100, 200, 250 years? Native Indians did not keep weather records. Since our planet is 5,000,000,000 years old, it is ignorant to make weather statements based on 0,0000001% of data.
As for current hurricanes, Katrina was the most destructive and that was during Bush years. So actually hurricanes are getting MILDER!
Katrina’s destructiveness was mostly corrupt Democrats siphoning off levee maintenance and building funds. The Hurricane had mostly passed by when the levees without proper footings failed.
Last year had an abnormally low level of hurricane activity and they said then (can you guess it?)... climate change was the reason.
The historical record shows that the hurricanes 50 - 100 years (1918 -1968) ago were much more intense than the hurricanes during the last 50 (1969 - present)years.
That research was published just recently, and the differences were dramatic.
Sorry I don’t have a link
But with the '05 season being one of the worst in history, they just couldn't resist. So late that year they re-wrote their computer models to retroactively predict an awful 2005 hurricane season, caused by global warming.
Furthermore, their new, updated, "more accurate" models now predicted that 2006 would be even worse than 2005. And all due to global warming!
But 2006 came and went, and it was one of the very mildest hurricane seasons ever. Not one hurricane had enough power to even come close to touching land, as opposed to a half dozen that "landed" in 2005. Oopsy-doodle.
But hey, no problema! They just rewrote the models again to retroactively predict both the killer 2005 season and the nonexistent 2006 season.
Aren't computer models grand? You just need 2 things:
1) Supply it with a sufficiently large number of data streams from all available sources, no matter how seemingly unrelated to climate or weather any of them are.
2) But the real magic happens behind the wizard's curtain, where you get to choose the "weighting options". You decide to attach a great weight to figures from sources #1 and 16 and 34-A, but only for certain months, and then attach negative weights to data from sources B-33 and XYZ and ZZTop .... but again, only from certain months which YOU get to select for whatever reason you deem right.
And you average them all together, and then keep tweaking & tweaking & tweaking until you get the exact result you pre-determined before you started.
Remember that expose on the "Hockey Stick" paper, the paper that was the Holy Grail / Great White Hope / Hallelujah Moment of the alarmists, that they giddily rejoiced in as finally & decisively shutting up the GW Skeptics?
Though the globull alarmists fought tooth & nail to hide the nitty gritty details of how that model had "proven" that the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age never actually happened, GW Skeptic scientists somehow eventually got hold of the raw data that the model was based on, and they found that the tree rings of one single solitary tree on Siberia's northern coastline was used to override all other data from thousands of other sources including written historical records that showed there really was a MWP + LIA.
All he had to do was assign a huge weight to that one tree, and zero weight to all other collected human scientific knowledge.