"An array of leading experts"?
Wacky Richard C. Hoagland was on with George Noory tonight. All the planets, including Pluto, are getting warmer. Even he had to admit that SUVs were not causing that.
one of these days, I'd really appreciate it if one of these Kyotoid Greenies would explain the mechanism by which human activity has strongly contributed to the last 30 year significant global warming trend...
...on MARS.
"...measured buildup of heat in the world's oceans, and oceanic heat is the fuel that powers hurricanes."
Michael Crighton pointed out in his recent speech to the Commowealth Club of San Francisco that the number of tropical cyclones has decreased in oceans other than the Atlantic.
Hmmm. I guess the author of this piece simply forget to mention this.
I'd say it's 90% junk science being sold to prop up a system of grants and public money supporting hack scientists without any original thoughts or motivation.
The other 10% indicates we're too puny to influence the globe on the scale they claim. We barely understand weather, and what causes it and influences it, so their claims of knowing for sure are hollow and without merit.
While I agree with anything that would help curb smog and air pollution is good (having lived in LA), the green fantatics (read babbling idiots) have pushed ther agenda so far to the extreme, in the name of furthering their grant money and socialists seeking to undermine Capitolism, that any rational discussion of the subject is impossible, and will have to wait until they retire, die off or find other things to meddle with, and a new generation of rational, clear thinking scientists can examine the issue.
I believe George Carlin (of all people) had a routine about plastic recycling, where he made the comment that thinking our waste will "destroy the earth!" is one of the most arrogant positions to take - the globe, in it's infinite majesty and granduer, regards us as fleas, and to think that we can "destroy" it is preposterous. We may soil our nest, but the planet will survive long after we're gone.
It's hysterical that people are blaming the hurricanes on Bush's failure to sign the Kyoto Treaty (gee, Clinton did'nt either...why is that?), even a VERY liberal woman in my office admitted that's just utterly ridiculous, that a few years of the changes the KT would force could even remotely turn back the centuries if not eons of global climate change. In fact, and it surprised me, she started talking about something she'd read that quoted a scientist who said that there's a lot of evidence that these hurricanes are ALSO a cycle, and that it's happened before.
It always catches me off-guard when a liberal talks sense. But, good for her.
Personally, I think the "global warming" crowd has it's roots in the "duck and cover" generation - they were raised amidst fear-mongering about nuclear war and more importantly - "nuclear winter". Remember that? How a nucear war would force the planet into an endless ice age? (Or whatever fairy tale was passed along). This influenced them, and made them prone to dealing with issues by fear-mongering, as I beleive we learn our problem solving skills unconciously at the feet of adults.
These people, who tend to be the neediest, most demanding, and most childish of the Boomer generation, are simply attempting to exorcise the ghosts of their childhood. "Nuclear Winter" morphed into "global cooling" (Remember when they used to say evil industry was forcing an ice age to occur?) into "global warming" (because they they grew up, became scientists, and the data did'nt support their ice age fantasy).
That's just my theory, from years of watching liberals in their own environment. They all seem to be caught in negative feedback loops with some real or imagined childhood issue, and because they have'nt matured emotionally, cannot escape the downward spiral into madness.
I heard Medea Benjamin on Laura Ingrahm today. "Daddy" issues a mile long - she's still pissed Daddy punished (or left) her, and we all get to pay for it.
There is an obvious and stupid error in the opening paragraph. The number of hurricanes which have developed in the Atlantic in this season HAS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP to the number which have struck the US. The Times has often and loudly complained about "ethnocentrism" on the part of the US. That we focus too much on what happens to us, and too little on what is happening elsewhere in the world.
Okay, let's apply the Times' lesson to what the Times published in this article. In EVERY hurricane season, a majority of the Atlantic hurricanes which develop do NOT make landfall in the US. It is luck of the draw, no more no less, as to which ones will hit the US. For instance, in terms of US hits, this season is half of the 2004 season. Big whoop. That's a meaningless statistic. But the writer and editor of this piece either don't know that (and are statistical dummies), or they do know that and are counting on their readers to be too dumb to catch the error.
Did I miss anything?
Congressman Billybob
Of course liberals will hang their hats on this one:
What's really interesting is what Kerry Emanuel has to say on his own web page:
A: Yes, it would be absurd.
wind.mit.edu
What a dunce! Was it a clear signal the other times this happened? Nightfall.
I personally believe that hurricanes are changing their tactics and are no longer causing random disaster but are seeking areas and industries where humans are causing global warming and purposely going there to destroy them.
The NY Times' "scientists" are ignorant.
1) The hurricane activity cycle spans a period that is greater than "several decades". Looking for a trend within a portion of one period of a cycle is bad math/science.
2) Measuring a build-up of heat in the earth's oceans does not automatically mean human actions are responsible.
3) Politicians' opinions have nothing to do with the cause and effect of the earth's warming/cooling cycles.
4) Attributing warming to humans because they "cannot think of anything else" is the funniest theory that the NY Times could have said.
Here is a clue for the "scientists" at the NY Times. When an oven is set to 350° and the actual temperature climbs to 400°, do not blame the casserole: Check the thermostat and the HEATING ELEMENT.
If the planet is warming up, let's look at the SUN first. (Then we can talk about the insulation...)
>>hard to attribute to anything other than overall warming of the climate from the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions.
Horseapples. This is the worst sort of advocacy journalism, in bed with advocacy "science", which by the way is to real science what professional wrestling is to real wrestling.
Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1488845/posts
If the NYT would quit digging up dirt long enough to look up into the sky, they might notice the answer in right in front of them. The Sun.
Then they can hire John Edwards and Al Gore to help them prove that SUVs, George W. Bush, and chocolate milk shakes are causing the Sun to get hotter.
Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.
| Decade | Saffir-Simpson Category1 | All 1,2,3,4,5 |
Major 3,4,5 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
| 1851-1860 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 19 | 6 |
| 1861-1870 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 1 |
| 1871-1880 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 20 | 7 |
| 1881-1890 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 22 | 5 |
| 1891-1900 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 21 | 8 |
| 1901-1910 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 4 |
| 1911-1920 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 21 | 7 |
| 1921-1930 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 5 |
| 1931-1940 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 8 |
| 1941-1950 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 24 | 10 |
| 1951-1960 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 17 | 8 |
| 1961-1970 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 6 |
| 1971-1980 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 4 |
| 1981-1990 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 5 |
| 1991-2000 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 5 |
| 2001-2004 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 3 |
| 1851-2004 | 109 | 72 | 71 | 18 | 3 | 273 | 92 |
| Average Per Decade | 7.1 | 4.7 | 4.6 | 1.2 | 0.2 | 17.7 | 6.0 |
1 Only the highest Saffir-Simpson Category to affect the U.S. has been used.
Source: National Hurricane Center
CO2 is only the third strongest greenhouse gas. The first is water vapor ( I'd like to see them tackle THAT one) and The second, methane. The two biggest sources of methane are: termites and cows. (According to my meteorology professor)
I am constantly amazed when the experts insist that there is one – and only one – reason for an occurrence. I do believe there is some global warming. It has happened several times in the past and will be followed by global cooling. Some is man made, most is a natural cycle. There is also a well documented cycle of hurricane activity.
This is the key to the entire article. It means, in effect, "All the other discussions in this article, about what we can/should do about global warming is DRIVEL, because we don't have a CLUE whether anything WE are doing is affecting variations in climate." We have known for a century that there have been climate variations on the earth - and the most dramatic changes, at that, occurred long before the human population did anything that amounted to a spit in the ocean. So what's the whole point of the article? Undoubtably to ignore this sentence!