Posted on 09/09/2005 7:18:22 PM PDT by nascaryankee
The deadly winds from Katrina had barely died down when the ill winds from the political left began to blow with Gale force. In a disgusting display of political opportunism, political hacks from Robert Kennedy, Jr., to Jurgen Tritten (Germany’s environment minister from its Green Party) to failed Presidential Candidate John Kerry, have all piped up in recent days, linking the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina to the Bush administration’s global warming policies.
Environmental alarmists have long argued that human-caused global warming is causing more more intense hurricanes and that this danger will only grow in the future absent a severe energy diet. Picking up on that theme, Kennedy, Tritten and Kerry among others are now claiming that because the Bush administration has not enacted policies like the Kyoto protocol – the international treaty for the reduction of greenhouse gasses – to restrict domestic energy use, it is partly to blame for the both the current crisis in the gulf coast and for all future storm related tragedies. Their arguments are flawed and, shamefully, they know it.
There is scant, if any, evidence linking human-caused warming to the frequency or ferocity of hurricanes.
At the 27th annual National Hurricane Conference University of Colorado atmospheric scientist, Dr. William Gray, explained that nature is responsible for hurricane cycles, not humans. Periodically changing ocean circulation patterns, he explained, led to the cycle of increasing hurricane activity that the world is currently experiencing. 2004’s above average hurricane season was part of a completely natural and normal cycle that scientists have monitored for more than 100 years. In fact, for about the past 25 years there has been a relative lull in hurricane activity in the U.S.
We have recently begun to emerge from that cycle into a more active cycle of hurricane activity like those from the 1930s through 1950s. Indeed, according to the National Hurricane Center, category 3,4 and 5 hurricane numbers peaked in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s with an average of 9 per decade. In the 1940’s alone, 23 hurricanes hit the U.S. mainland, 8 were category-3 or stronger storms. By contrast, since the 1980s when environmentalists first began to argue that humans were causing catastrophic climate change, the number of category 3 or higher hurricanes have averaged 5 per decade.
Recently, a paper by six noted tropical cyclone experts, Hurricanes and Global Warming, in the the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, made three main points. First, that no connection has been established between greenhouse gas emissions and the observed behavior of hurricanes. Second, the scientific consensus is that any future changes in hurricane intensities will likely be small and within the context of observed natural variability. And third, the politics of linking hurricanes to global warming threatens to undermine support for legitimate climate research and could result in ineffective hurricane policies.
Politics has already affected global warming research. In a publicly released “Dear Colleague” letter, Chris Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration resigned as an IPCC researcher. He felt – his words – that in his area of expertise, climate and hurricanes, the IPCC had become too politicized. In particular he cited a 2004 press conference at Harvard University – held at the height of 2004’s extremely busy hurricane season -- by Kevin Trenberth, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist, during which Trenberth linked the outbreak of intense hurricane activity to global warming.
Landsea noted that none of the speakers at the Harvard conference cited any new research in the field to support their claims. He could have gone on to point out that Trenberth’s claims contradicted the IPCC’s own findings that, “Changes in [hurricane] intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal to multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends over the twentieth century evident.”
Hurricanes are costly and often deadly natural phenomena. Scientists and coastal residents have enough to worry about without irresponsible politicians making unsupported claims linking federal global warming policies and the severity of hurricanes. Global warming alarmists should be ashamed of themselves for preying on peoples’ fears, and diverting attention from the real causes -- both political and natural – for the breadth of the devastation wrought by Katrina. The victims of this tragedy deserve better.
nature is responsible for hurricane cycles, not humans. Periodically changing ocean circulation patterns, he explained, led to the cycle of increasing hurricane activity that the world is currently experiencing. 2004’s above average hurricane season was part of a completely natural and normal cycle that scientists have monitored for more than 100 years. In fact, for about the past 25 years there has been a relative lull in hurricane activity in the U.S.
There was a guy at work this week blaming GWB for causing Katrina. He claimed that had he only signed Kyoto it could have been prevented. I asked him how a signature on a piece of paper could prevent a hurricane. He never mention Katrina for the rest of the week. I think I broke his brain.
I like that response Dutch Boy. I think I'll use it if you don't mind. We have plenty of liberal kooks here in florida.
Landsea? NOAA? You're kidding, right?
The authority for the relationship or lack thereof of climate change/global warming as the causal factor for more hurricanes is Kerry Emanuel from MIT. Here is his position paper on the subject along with an addendum to cover Katrina.
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/anthro2.htm
However, as he warns, the intensity of hurricanes may be a result of sea-levels and global warming. Couple this with Americans living close to hurricane prone areas and you have a formula for disaster.
Is there anyway to get copies of the articles referenced in this post, such as the Bulletin of American Meterological Society?
Or perhaps one could say. . .'political gas bags cause global warming'. . .
Whatever. . .this should be good news to a cow's ears. . .for sure.
What's in a name? (apparently, a great deal. . .)
Did he sound like this:
http://media.putfile.com/Greatest_Movie_Line_Ever
This is hilarious, perfect and timeless depiction of liberals.....
Your post is hilarious - thanks!!
There were no links with the article. I'm sure a search could find something........
The Global Warming Hype is nothing but a BLATANT Communist Power grab. It is an attempt to find a way to CENTRALIZE Government control over the means of production. I.e. Communism by definition is the control of the means of production...
Just consider it "Eco-Communism"
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=list_pages_categories&cid=7
The gas bags also voiced objections to cows farting because of the release of greenhouse gases....LOL
Yep, and I have had about all the hot air I can stand.
Good site; check out #7 above.
From http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm really surprised that there isn't a full-time board, dedicated to counter the global warming nuts....like a FreeRepublic site. There are thousands of facts out there that are simply disreguarded by these Eco-Communists. Everytime you turn to the Friday episode of Science Friday at NPR, and they have a Bio-geek on...it becomes a comedy of fictional science, laced with a few pieces of truth...and the public simply buys off on the discussion.
I sat down last year during one NPR episode, and caught the guy's name. I put it into google...and different speeches and bio bits begin to pop up. While this dude was a member of the science society he claimed...he also was a member of a Save the Amazon society, and some anti-global business groups. He had various agendas that he wasn't discussing on NPR...but they all blended into his master agenda...cutting out the global business environment with a socialist agenda.
The amazing thing with the vast number of their arguments over clean air...is that IF we all did plant trees and shrubs (by massive quantities)...then we would actually help our environment a great deal in the long run. And this would be a easy sell to almost everyone...but they never suggest such a feat. IF GW gave a one-time tax break for $1000 but you had to use the money for buying tree's or shurbs around your property...half the people in the US would take immedate advantage of that offer. And environmental image of GW would improve a notch or two.
No question that the rhetoric these Lib pols pass off. . .rates a methane level to that of the cows. . .
(I think it is methane. . .or somesuch that the gap-mouthed speak of re the cows; while giving no consideration to their own contributions. . ) ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.