Helping Bloomberg understand ‘stupid’

This cover today is making the rounds in the alarmosphere, where a single storm, a single data point in the hundreds of hurricanes that have struck the USA during its history, is now apparently “proof” of global warming causing bad weather. It is just another silly example of Tabloid Climatology™.

Hurricane expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. says:

The only accurate part of this Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover is “stupid”

There, I fixed it for you. 

 

The US Has Had 285 Hurricane Strikes Since 1850: ‘The U.S. has always been vulnerable to hurricanes. 86% of U.S. hurricane strikes occurred with CO2 below Hansen’s safe level of 350 PPM’

If there’s anything in this data at all, it looks like CO2 is preventing more US landfalling hurricanes.

Data from: www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/ushurrlist18512009.txt 

Source of graph, Steve Goddard.

In case you wish to tell Bloomberg about this fix:

Bloomberg Businessweek Editor
Patti Straus
+1 212 617 3279

UPDATE: from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Normalized US Hurricane Damage 1900-2012, Including Sandy

The graph above shows normalized US hurricane damage, based on data from ICAT, which applies an extension to the methodology of Pielke et al. 2008. The 2012 estimate for Sandy comes from Moody’s, and is an estimate.  The red line represents a linear best fit to the data — it is flat.

About these ads

162 thoughts on “Helping Bloomberg understand ‘stupid’

  1. As much as I agree with the point you are arguing, the above chart is meaningless because of the vast differences in years the earth was at the various concetrations of CO2.
    A more meaningfull chart would have the horizontal axis by years, and on the vertical axis plot both number of hurricanes and CO2 concentrations.
    ACE numbers might be even better than CO2 concentrations, though fewer people know what ACE is. Perhaps all three, though that might be getting a little busy.

  2. Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?

    If there’s anything at all in that data at all, it’s that you cannot come up with a scientifically sound interpretation at all.

  3. Actually, the LACK of hurricanes is about the only good correlation between CO2 and the climate I have seen.

  4. I’m “this close” from disengaging from this whole debate, the opponent has become too stupid and/or disingenuine to even have an argument with.

  5. I don’t use this term lightly, but Bloomberg is a fascist. He thinks he is right about everything and will break the law to his will and force his agenda on all of NYC come hell or, um, high water.

  6. Are hurricanes common in October?

    Is there any measure of energy in those hurricanes so that we can see whether they are more energetic?

    How long has CO2 been at 390 ppm and how long was it at 280ppm – I’d like to compare duration with duration?

    Just a few questions any skeptic could ask.

  7. It’s big, it’s scary, it’s incredibly destructive and disruptive! Therefore, it’s evil! What’s the most evil thing you can think of, people? Wait for it … “Climate Change!” … Let Forrest Gump have the last word on this – “Stupid is as stupid does”.

  8. Number of hurricanes by Saffir-Simpson Category to strike the mainland U.S. each decade.

    Decade Saffir-Simpson Category

    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

    Hurricane activity and the severity of them was worse during the 1930’s to 1960’s than post 1970’s. Even the decades 1851-1860, 1871-1880, 1881-1890, 1891-1900, 1911-1920 were worse than post 1970’s. The people that say yes to hurricanes caused by AGW, you clearly don’t have a clue what you are talking about. The scientific facts say you are wrong, but do any of you actually care about science?

  9. I love how LIberals mockingly berate Red States getting hit with natural disasters as God’s revenge and other nonsense. So what’s the metaphysical implications here? The ghost of George Washington smiting NYC for allowing some malevloent dictator to serve an illegal third term? Yep, that’s what I’m going with.

  10. Jesse Farmer says:
    November 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?

    If there’s anything at all in that data at all, it’s that you cannot come up with a scientifically sound interpretation at all.

    Is the CO2 ‘bin’ being confused with the loonie ‘bin’ here? Oh never mind. I’ll just say that your ‘critique’ basically makes no grammatical sense. At all.

  11. Maybe it would be a good idea to read the contents of the Bloomberg article before firing off an emails?

    Just a thought….

  12. Bloomberg is supposed to provide accurate data for investment banking, trading, research, arbitrage, attorneys, private investors and so on, from which it makes up to $6 billion a year. The managers of your pension and other investments frequently have to rely on the accuracy of Bloomberg’s data and journalism, such as that from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The headline implies that your money should be invested in renewable energy to save the world. Investors should not rely on tabloid investment advice.

  13. I can see it now! I’m just trying to sell a few magazines. But, I like your fix. . . very catchy!

  14. Gene Selkov –
    of course it’s the same Bloomberg who is now endorsing Obama because of Sandy/CAGW:

    Wikipedia: Bloomberg L.P.
    Bloomberg L.P. was founded by Michael Bloomberg with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, and Charles Zegar in 1981 and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch…
    Bloomberg L.P. was formed as a Delaware Limited Partnership in 1981 and has been in business since 1983. Michael Bloomberg owns 88% of the partnership. Bloomberg’s core business is leasing terminals to subscribers. It also runs Bloomberg Television, a financial Television network, and a business radio station WBBR in New York City at a loss…
    In 2009, Bloomberg acquired BusinessWeek, a consumer oriented business magazine and Web property, from McGraw-Hill…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_L.P.

    while WUWT concentrates more on the CAGW science, over at JoanneNova Bloomberg/Businessweek’s fanatacism for CO2 trading/renewable subsidies (under their Sustainability section particularly) is closely tracked in the comments. the catastrophic AGW stories are for the general public, but the real backing for CAGW aka “CO2 trading” can be found, more than anywhere else, in the specialist financial press, especially REUTERS POINT CARBON (which is now hiding most of its articles behind a subscription paywall) and Bloomberg/Businessweek.

    sceptics would be wise to keep watch on both media outlets, if they appreciate the axiom “FOLLOW THE MONEY”, after all, it is public money we are talking about here, such as pension funds, subsidies, etc.

  15. @Dodgy

    The cover provides a bold statement which anyone with even cursory knowledge of Pielke or Goddard’s work would contest. Sure, I could read the article, but then I’d never get those 5 minutes back.

    Why even waste the effort? Tabloid climatology indeed.

    I do agree however the Goddard graph above is not a well-formed rebuttal, too many holes to poke through it. All one needs do is look at MattG’s response above, or read any of Goddard’s guest posts on ACE versus CO2 rise on WUWT.

  16. @Bob Maginnis

    Later in warmer years?

    That makes sense, as these storms in this region seem to happen as the northern hemisphere COOLS towards winter.

  17. Cuomo also said he was talking to Obama about how NY gets “100 year storms every 1-2 years now.” I highly doubt Cuomo has a clue as to how many varieties of “100 year storms” there are in the first place.

    Interestingly enough, according to a source on wikipedia, the strongest hurricane to hit NY/NJ in this millenia was between 1278-1438.

  18. “It’s Global Warming, Stupid”

    Bloomberg’s message is only for stupid people (they say so themselves).

    Smart people know better–much better!

    Silly Bloomberg.

  19. Jesse Farmer says:
    November 1, 2012 at 1:44 pm
    “Bwahahaa you gotta be kidding me with that last plot. Gee, I wonder why there’s less hurricane strikes at the highest CO2 levels? Perhaps because CO2 is rising at an increasing rate and so the total amount of time spent within each CO2 “bin” becomes less and less?”

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:1000/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:1000/trend

    Looks like we had 320 ppm in 1960. Since that time CO2 concentration growth has accelerated 3fold; yet the bigger hurricane strike counts happen even before that time.

  20. MarkW says:

    November 1, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    As much as I agree with the point you are arguing, the above chart is meaningless because of the vast differences in years the earth was at the various concetrations of CO2.

    No Mark, It’s because there is soooo much CO² in the atmosphere that the weight of swirling around is doing more damage. All those years it has been increasing every year all over the planet because it’s well mixed. So you see the chart is probably rubbish as you say. ;))

  21. Jesse Farmer makes a fair point, although obnoxiously. You should normalize the data to have bins with consistent # of years. The graph would be more reasonable if the count of hurricanes was annualized. However, I don’t think it would change the conclusions, it just might not be as dramatic a drop at higher PPM.

  22. Bob Maginnis says:
    November 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    October is a fairly common month for hurricanes and since the 1850’s at least 50 have occurred then. (Roughly 1 in every 3 years)

  23. How is it that a Tropical storm hitting the east coast is proof of global warming, while most of Europe having it’s first snow of the season a month early isn’t proof of an incipient ice age? Same logic, right? http://english.cntv.cn/program/newsupdate/20121028/101286.shtml http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20107130 http://www.euronews.com/2012/10/28/cold-snap-hits-france-with-first-signs-of-winter/ http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Snow_catches_Swiss_unawares.html?cid=33830010

  24. “Bloomberg BusinessWeek Is Stupid”

    …. Or why circulation has dropped and people are subscribing to more objective business magazines.

    Also in this issue: Why Stalin got it right. Bloomberg talks with business leaders about his plans for the state to nationalize their companies. Spotlight on Hugo Chavez and the big success of Marxism in Venezuela.

  25. Matt G says:
    November 1, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    (At least 50 is referring to to number that strike the US mainland)

  26. I’m with “pull my finger”. The debate has got so stupid its not worth engaging anymore. The people are so ignorant they can’t see bloomberg is using the climate bogeyman for political gain. They can’t see greenpeace and the left use it to scare them into accepting social change. I give up, they will get what they deserve soon.

  27. Maybe Bloomberg understands that this superstorm wouldn’t have been so devastating without climate change (due to greenhouse gases we supplied). He might have spoken with scientists/climatologists?
    Referring to: “it’s just weather stupid!” I would like to remind you to the article placed here september 19th 2011 about early snowfall in the Alps. There was a tiny spell pf 2 days that the Alps were covered with snow in the middel of two months (Augus and September !!) that wer both on highest average temperature ever measured (OK since msm’s begon).
    That was really worth placing it in context: “it is just weather stupid!”
    See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/19/early-winter-in-switzerland/

  28. I read the article before I came to find it in WUWT. It is full of the same “talking points” that have long since been falsified – ever increasing temps, hotter oceans, more numerous and destructive hurricanes, droughts, etc. etc. with a quote from a German insurer that they have had to raise risk by a couple of hundred percent in US and even 50% in Africa (where, in the tropical band, the temps have been unchanged in a century). I believe Bloomy news has a comments string.

  29. David Thomas Bronzich says:
    November 1, 2012 at 2:47 pm
    “How is it that a Tropical storm hitting the east coast is proof of global warming, while most of Europe having it’s first snow of the season a month early isn’t proof of an incipient ice age? Same logic, right?”

    A German TV guy, Kleber from (warmist) public TV ZDF, explained it exactly the other way round: Hurricane Sandy was in his words just weather, but the early snow in Germany caused by climate change, via abnormal melting of arctic sea ice.

    But it’s not a contradiction – in each country, the local weather events are used by the local warmists as proof of climate change, while events abroad are just weather. It all fits together when one considers the first tenet of Warmism: The end justifies the means.

  30. This the same Bloomberg who has runs a window AC unit in his SUV and flies off to Bermeda every weekend in his private jet. Man, those green 1%ers are really starting to piss me off.

  31. Typical wealthy attitude: “If it happens to me, it MUST be uniquely bad.”
    Bloomberg should have spent less time obsessing over what size drinks New Yorkers choose, and spent more time paying attention to insurance company warnings that much of New York and Long Island are vulnerable to storms and storm surge.
    The industry was reducing its exposure in the storm vulnerable areas of New york for years. If people like Bloomberg were not so historically illiterate, they would not make the stupid assertions they seem to rely on.

  32. The reason for the desperation is failing investments and threats to the funding trough. Al Gore is dis-investing in Green. The BBC has put quite a lot of money into carbon schemes. Alleged climate scientists like M. Mann are being ridiculed. Oil funding for the likes of CRU and Stanford climate unit may soon dry up. Now it’s all falling apart thanks to a little help from skeptics, the weather and disaster fatigue. It will soon be over – THE END IS NIGH – again.

  33. At the tail end of the “Tropical Storm Sandy” thread I posted a list of ten things I’d do if I were mayor of NYC. I post a revised version below. Listen up, Bloomberg!

    1. Office buildings must be made flood-resistant with sealable doorways, first floor windows, shafts, etc. These measures mightn’t prevent some incursion of water, but that could be coped with by a sump pump, backed by emergency power, feeding into a hose whose outlet is above the first floor windows. This would prevent a flood of salt water from ruining electrical and electronic equipment (e.g., for elevators) in the basement. Even without a backup pump, sealing most openings would keep water incursion down enough so that, once the crest of the surge had passed, the basement could be bailed out.

    2. Where it is practical, similar flood-proofing measures should be implemented for residential buildings, especially large ones. This measure, and the one above, would still be worthwhile a expenditure even if there were some chance of total or partial failure, or even if it wouldn’t work in a worst-case scenario. If most buildings would be protected against most of the damage from most storm surges, the expense is justified.

    3. Instead of focusing primarily on evacuation to shelters, except as a fallback measure, superintendents of low-lying residential buildings should be required to stockpile some emergency rations and supplies (emergency lighting, for instance) for residents. These could be stored in newly added lockers or sheds on the roof, paid for by the city. The storage lockers on the roof should be resistant to break-ins and accessible by keys held by the superintendent and a few trusted residents on upper floors. A very loud alarm would sound when the shed or locker is opened. (This is the method used to protect emergency doors from being casually opened.)

    4. Such lockers would also stockpile hammocks to accommodate displaced residents of ground-level apartments. Attachment posts for such hammocks must be installed in the hallways of such residences.

    5. A bulletin board and/or whiteboard, with thumbtacks and pens, should be installed on the second floor where residents could post requests for help, or offers of assistance, for other residents to read. In large buildings, such boards could be installed on every floor, or every other floor.

    6. Local-area (two-block square?) phone booklets should be printed every six months by the phone company and distributed to superintendents for distribution to residents in case of emergency, so inter-building cooperation could be organized. Ditto for online lists containing the e-mails of local-area residents who volunteer to let that data be revealed in the event of an emergency.

    7. The population of low-lying areas should be encouraged to stockpile a little extra food, such as canned corned beef, tuna fish, etc., before the height of the hurricane season, or at least in advance of major approaching storms.

    8. Buildings should be required to install whole-building surge protectors to guard the sensitive electronics inside (even on appliances that are nominally “off” like TVs and microwaves) from being fried by surges preceding or following a blackout. And all residents and businesses should be encouraged to acquire HEFTY Uninterruptible Power Supplies for their computers.

    9. All buildings must have emergency lighting systems installed in their hallways and stairways.

    10. Superintendents, and perhaps “floor captains” in large apartment buildings, should be given bullhorns, stored in lockers, with which they could reach many residents at once.

  34. scientificintegrity says:
    November 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Hmmm. i thought it had been renamed climate change.

    Let me assist you. It’s called ‘climate change’ when there is no disaster. It’s called ‘global warming’ when there is a disaster. It’s called ‘climate disruption’ when they are talking out of their arses.

  35. @AlbertaEngineer

    “@Dodgy
    The cover provides a bold statement which anyone with even cursory knowledge of Pielke or Goddard’s work would contest. Sure, I could read the article, but then I’d never get those 5 minutes back. Why even waste the effort?

    No one ever said proper debate, or, indeed, proper science, was easy. I also suspect, with a headline like that, that the text of the article will be short on balanced judgement based on real data, and long on activist scares. But I wouldn’t want to stir up an editor before I had even read his piece. Note that Steve McKintyre famously does not comment in public that global warming is a scam, though he almost certainly thinks so. He confines himself to pointing out provable failures in the science, and, when this whole mess collapses, he will be in a much stronger position that those who make unprovable statements. I just think we should apply a similar measured approach here.

    Otherwise the editor could just turn round and say – “You didn’t even read the item before complaining…”

  36. There are lot of people in the New Jersey/New York area now getting a taste of living (temporarily) in a “low carbon” world. And they don’t seem to like it very much.

  37. I am actually glad to see such a statement on a widely-read publication. Years from now (if not now to many of us), it will be valid proof of how stupid our elected politicians can be. Which builds the case for LESS government, rather than MORE.

  38. To Pull My Finger, blackswhitewash.com, and others – You are quite right that the extreme warmists will never listen to reason or change their minds. Ever. But when you ‘argue’ with them on a site such as this, or at the dinner table for that matter, it isn’t them you should be trying to reach, it is everyone else. For all the domination of the MSM by the warmists, they are losing the battle for the public mind thanks to the likes of Anthony Watts and the scientific method. So instead of disengaging, keep arguing with the warmists but recognise who your real ‘audience’ is.

  39. People forget, and don’t want to be bothered with history. It’s THIS storm which is the biggest and baddest, and we keep hearing about all these terrible climate-related events world-wide, and when combine the two, voila, there has to be an explaination, and the default is manmade warming/climate change/disruption/chaos/etc. It’s an affliction particularly of the weak-minded. I call it Climnesia.

  40. Mike Jonas hit the nail on the head. It is tedious correcting alarmists like Jan Perlwitz, Joel Shore, Gary Lance and others. But with WUWT’s immense traffic, their pseudo-science must be countered with facts. The readership can then make an intelligent, informed decision. We cannot let the alarmist narrative go unchallenged. Ceding the battleground to the enemy is something I will not do. We have the facts and the scientific evidence. They only have their narrative.

  41. problem: The alarmists are flush with money and media coverage and we are not… no big oil checks, no ngos, no grants, no huge foundation donations, no cover pages, no government backing. bummer. By these factors alone, not the proper science, they will never learn and neither will a limited swatch of public mindless followers. Yet, nearly powerless, we are making huge dents in their pseudo-science armor, tearing up their collective propaganda, just keep plunking and talking to people about you that are intelligent enough to understand the various reasons in science as to why they are so wrong.

  42. Watts refers to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. as a “hurricane expert.” I’d just like to point out that Dr. Pielke’s doctorate is in political science and, last I checked, that doesn’t make him a meteorologist or authority on physical oceanography.

    REPLY: But his peer reviewed papers on hurricanes do. Here’s one with NHC scientist Chris Landsea:

    Pielke, Jr., R. A., Gratz, J., Landsea, C. W., Collins, D., Saunders, M. A., and Musulin, R., 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1900-2005. Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42.

    More:

    Klein, R and RA Pielke Jr. 2002, Bad weather? Then sue the weatherman! Part I: Legal liability for public sector forecasts. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 83:1791-1799. (PDF)

    Klein, R and RA Pielke Jr. 2002, Bad weather? Then sue the weatherman! Part II: Legal liability for private sector forecasts. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc. 83:1801-1807. (PDF)

    Here’s one more recent:

    Normalized Tornado Damage in the United States: 1950-2011

    in press, Environmental Hazards

    Kevin M. Simmons, Daniel Sutter and Roger Pielke, Jr.

    point is, he’s an expert on severe weather in general and damages caused by it. That’s germane to the issue Bloomberg cites of damage. – Anthony

  43. Pull My Finger says [at 1:52 pm]
    “I don’t use this term lightly, but Bloomberg is a fascist. He thinks he is right about everything and will break the law to his will and force his agenda on all of NYC come hell or, um, high water.”

    YES, but this isn’t new. Only the pandering opp for the “ex”Democrat to preen for more politically correct causes like this one, at this time – after a natural disaster – is new.

    And stats show that when wealth reaches $20 million and rises thereafter, people become Democrats by 80 to 90%. Why? Mostly because they are guilt ridden by their financial success.

  44. First I would like to say how very sorry I am to hear about the loss of life and damage to what is a beautiful part of the USA.
    Secondly I would like to ask Mr Bloomberg is he sure that it is Global Warming that has caused this hurricane?
    I think it is due to passive smoking, when people were allowed to smoke wherever they wanted to, storms like this never happened! Now smokers have to stand in the street and look at the result!
    Mr Bloomberg this disaster is your fault!

  45. Roger Pielke, Jr.
    Before joining the faculty of the University of Colorado, from 1993-2001 Roger was a Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

  46. Is there any way to combat the stupidity that comes with global warming theory?

    Can you convince a pro-AGW person to be objective and look at the actual hurricane record objectively?

    No.

    Only the people that were objective to start with, can be swayed and, theoritically, they were swayed long ago if they were truly objective to start with.

    So, its a battle that can’t be won. They will use every hurricane, every tornado, every flood, every perfectively normal weather day they can to score points.

    They just want people to agree with them and to score points. Its not like they are actually doing anything themselves to slow “global warming”. They have staked themselves to the theory of global warming and the objective people are just stuck with that.

    Perhaps we should just agree with them and make a pact that we will both use no electricity for the next 24 hours (to both do our own small part in helping forestall the hurricanes to come – Reverse psychology that is – and then we should extend that for a full year).

  47. Mr. Watts needs to return to West Lafayette and take some science classes at Purdue University.

  48. November 1, 2012 at 4:03 pm | John Brookes says:
    —————————————————————

    Ignore the troll, he’s just another [snip] from UWA.

  49. Louise says:
    November 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Are hurricanes common in October?

    Is there any measure of energy in those hurricanes so that we can see whether they are more energetic?

    I am assuming you are in NY/NJ and don’t have enough power to Google.

    You don’t have to look far to find more energetic hurricanes in October. Category 1 hurricane Nadine which became a non-tropical system on October 4th 2012 had an ACE (Accumulated Cyclone Energy) of 25.6 (10,000*kt²) which was more than twice as energetic as Category 2 hurricane Sandy which had an ACE of 12.5 (10,000*kt²).

    The difference between them is that Nadine didn’t make landfall at high spring tide and even if it did the storm surge would have been reduced because Nadine had a higher central pressure (978mb) than Sandy (940mb). The inverse barometer effect would make at least 3 feet difference between their respective storm surges.

    In fact Nadine never made landfall anywhere.

    Nothing to do with CO2. A lot to do with luck, or the lack of it.

  50. For those of you who dont turn in to Huffington Post, this is pretty standard stuff. Stupid is used frequently. But then it cuts both ways.

  51. It also says in the copy: “Climate deniers exploit scientific complexity to avoid any discussion at all,” Amazing theses people have short memories, remember when they refused to debate with us? Josh Tyrangiel is the stupid one as they are going to lose a heap of money here, really mate call me a stupid denier “I want my money back”!

  52. Apologies for sounding like an irritating a**, let me rephrase.

    The point is, the last plot is meaningless. In order to make a rigorous comparison of US hurricane strikes vs. CO2, you need to normalize to the number of hurricane seasons spent within each CO2 bin (e.g. time). The growth of CO2 in the atmosphere is non-linear, which would tend to bias the above plot toward showing less hurricane strikes with higher CO2 even if the number of hurricane strikes was constant thru time. To say that that suggests decreasing hurricane strikes with increasing CO2 is a misleading logical fallacy and sweeps all the known variability in hurricane activity (ENSO, etc) under the rug.

    I agree that the AGW-Sandy link is totally overblown. Though SSTs on the East Coast were ridiculously warm and the track it took was ridiculously weird…

  53. No, Bloomberg Businessweek is right – not about the science, but about the economy. Global warming really has screwed up Wall Street, Main street, and most streets in nations where socialism has taken root. As we know, climate hysteria is used as a ploy for government to increase its power over citizens. That stupid, or more accurately, evil tactic destroys economies and lives. Mayor Bloomberg uses it effectively.

  54. In referring to hurricanes, the cause seems to be usually associated with warm sea-surface temperatures which are then attributed to CO2 in the atmosphere. I see no mention of the fact that mankind has been polluting the ocean with flotsam and jetsam which now includes a layer of hydrocarbons, underlain by a layer of micro-plastic particles underlain by all manner of crates, shipping containers, thongs, hard-hats and what-have-you. Beneath that is salt water contaminated by sewerage, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and other man-made chemicals. Yet there is no mention as to how these may be warming the oceans.
    For a start, the surface layer of hydrocarbons and micro-plastic chips must inhibit wave action which, in turn, will reduce evaporation and increase the sea-surface temperature. Add to this the film reducing the ability of water molecules to evaporate from the ocean and there is more than enough cause for a warm ocean.
    Large areas of each of the world’s oceans have been reported as suffering this pollution so I do not see any need to incur CO2 as the source of warming. Mankind’s distain for the purity of our oceans is a sufficient source of warming but that does not appear to attract doomsday scenarios from climate scientists and journalists. Too hard or not enough money in it ?

  55. CD (@CD153) –
    anthony should begin a new thread with your link to Fox – Eco-Taxes? Study Financed by U.S. Treasury Will Link Tax Code to Carbon Emissions.

    however, the Fox piece is wrong to single out this lot:

    “A major tax study currently being sponsored by the U.S. Treasury will give environmental activists a powerful new weapon in their campaign to alter the entire American economic and social landscape in the name of halting “climate change”—including the possible levying of new carbon taxes.”

    INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT WE NEED TO GO VIRAL TO COUNTER THE YEARS OF PROPAGANDA CLAIMING BIG OIL IS BACKING THE CAGW SCEPTICS:

    28 Oct: Forbes: BP: Renewables Growing Fastest But Can’t Compete Without Help
    Renewable forms of energy are growing far faster than any other form of energy, a BP economist said in Chicago last week, but are unlikely to significantly impact the world’s reliance on fossil fuels without continued government interventions, such as a price on carbon…
    “The other big issue of course is climate change, and a price on carbon, all else being equal, seems like it would help the cost competitiveness of most renewable forms of energy. We do believe that there will be continued government policy action to deal with climate change—haltingly, and maybe not as coordinated as we would have thought ten years ago—but we do continue to believe that there will be some action on the climate front…
    Another corporation in the business of economic forecasting, Lloyd’s of London, has predicted different criteria for the success of renewables: energy demand in the Third World will bring the price of oil far higher than the price of renewable energy…

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/10/28/renewables-growing-fastest-but-cant-compete-without-help-bp/

    28 Oct: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: Shell attacks ‘ridiculous’ effects of European energy policy
    Royal Dutch Shell has attacked the “ridiculous” impact of European energy policy, warning that governments are erasing the environmental benefits from expensive renewables by allowing coal use to increase.
    “You have this ridiculous situation where cash-strapped Europe is putting a lot of money into renewables to reduce CO2, meanwhile allowing … the power generators to take much more coal and back out gas,” he said.
    All the benefits you’re getting from the renewable energy are being counteracted by far too much coal.”
    Mr Brown said the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS), designed to reduce emissions by placing a price on carbon, “doesn’t work”. “CO2 is priced at such a low level it’s meaningless,” he said. “We want a higher CO2 price…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9639356/Shell-attacks-ridiculous-effects-of-European-energy-policy.html

  56. I emailed this:
    Patti Straus:
    Guess what, I will NEVER buy Bloomberg Businessweek again. Your Stupid headline did it. You are very stupid as you just lost lost a shit load of cash.

    Below is the correct headline. So get lost forever.

    (Not I sent her the, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr proper headline)

  57. What’s sad is that assuming that North/South Hemisphere to equator temperature deltas play a significant role in storm frequency/severity, then in the coming years (with cooling) their predictions will possibly occur. Of course there will not be any mention of the cooling, especially with rigged temperature data.

  58. The onslaught of GW spin is upon us. I just reviewed some stats on this storm and they now state the pressure was 945.5 mb at landfall.

    Why,,,,, because they can now say it exceeded the 1938 storm (946) in the same area.

    How many times, in the current records, have you ever seen pressure readings stated in that form for Hurricanes?

    Never!

    .

  59. Weather is not climate, unless it helps the CAGW Gravy Train. Nom nom nom.

    Most “news bias” is simply selecting stories that conform to your worldview.

  60. I want to know about Kevin Trenbeth’s 10%. He’s reported all over the mainstream media saying that Sandy’s energy could be 10% from global warming.

    How can he let that stand? How does he expect to ever be considered credible again?

  61. Roger Knights says:
    November 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Holding back storm surge from buildings, subways, etc is impractical. There are very strong hydrostatic pressures involved.

    In South Louisiana we have learned to place electrics and anything else that can be damaged by salt water on an upper floor. The ground floor typically is reserved as a garage/storage and “things you can afford to lose”. Ground floor walls are designed to break away to allow the hydrostatic pressure to flow through the pilings.

    If they had tried to keep the surge out of the subway system, the walls would probably have collapsed. Flooding them equalized the pressure.

  62. This kind of stuff arises from the human tendency to want to attribute cause and attach blame to everything. Once upon a time Sandy would have been called an “act of God”. It isn’t regarded as cool to blame God any more. But the desire of people to blame someone hasn’t gone away. Hence the finger gets pointed at CO2 instead.

  63. Daniel says:

    November 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Watts refers to Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. as a “hurricane expert.”………..
    =============
    Daniel, didn’t deserve the respectful response received, IMHO.
    But then again, Anthony runs a classy joint.

  64. People who live in big cities I think don’t really ‘get’ how nature works or how big it is. Think about it, their whole life is spent in man made buildings, on man made roads in man made cars, walking on man made sidewalks… When something goes wrong or someone gets hurt the first instinct is to look for who screwed up, who the blame can be placed on (who has to pay up). CAGW is just that same mindset writ large. You know? That’s why CAGW has such resonance. ‘We can blame these natural disasters on the lifestyles of the affluent.’ Little dollar signs light up in their eyes. Anyhoo that’s my slightly inebriated rant for the night.

    Raising a finger in salute to you, Bloomberg.

  65. Bloomberg is far from being stupid. He does exactly what is necessary for the ruling gang to suppress competition and stay in power. In Bloomberg’s world, there are no such things as “truth” or “lie,” there are no facts, nothing needs to be proven or falsified. Anything and everything is just a perception, a tale to be told, a sale to be sold. Anything and everything either serves or doesn’t serve a purpose. The most effective way to manipulate people is to instill guilt and fear, while leaving no time, no space, no money, no health, no opportunity for any dangerous competition to rise.

    Bloomberg never asks himself if what he is doing is right or wrong. The only question Bloombergs, Clintons, Reids, Obamas, Gores & other assorted gangsters-in-law ask themselves, the only thing they absorbed completely and unquestioningly with heir mothers’ milk is: “Can we use it and get away with it?” If the answer is “Yes,” anything goes: global warming, New Deal, printing trillions of dollars backed up by nothing, insider trading, making deals with dictators and terrorists, “disappearing” a bunch of people — you name it. They make one big mistake, though, a fatal mistake in the long run. But I am not going to explain it to them here or anywhere else.

  66. That is pretty silly to plot CO2 level vs hurricane strikes. On par with warmista misleading nonsense. Hardly the way to counter them by being just as illogical.

  67. Sandy was a reversal of the longterm success of human influence on climate, in sharply reducing the number of landfalling hurricanes. Excess pollution controls and reductions in CO2 output are the probable culprits, and the Precautionary Principle demands that those trends be reversed.

    It’s only logical.

  68. Don Worley says:
    November 1, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Roger Knights says:
    November 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Holding back storm surge from buildings, subways, etc is impractical. There are very strong hydrostatic pressures involved.

    In South Louisiana we have learned to place electrics and anything else that can be damaged by salt water on an upper floor. The ground floor typically is reserved as a garage/storage and “things you can afford to lose”. Ground floor walls are designed to break away to allow the hydrostatic pressure to flow through the pilings.

    If they had tried to keep the surge out of the subway system, the walls would probably have collapsed. Flooding them equalized the pressure.

    Why would there be catastrophically more hydrostatic pressure on a subway tunnel that runs under a river if the water level above it is temporarily eight feet above the normal maximum? These tunnels are circular, a form that resists stress, and are presumably “over-engineered” to resist much greater stress. The surge from last year’s hurricane Irene was only three feet less than that from Sandy, but the tunnels were nowhere near their breaking point. I.e., no cracks or seeps developed, AFAIK.

    The Lincoln Tunnel’s entrances were above the surge level, so it didn’t get flooded. But the tunnel didn’t collapse. Ditto with the subway tunnels under the Harlem River into the Bronx (although the surge was lower there, about eight (??) miles north of the Battery).

    Regarding buildings, none of them in NYC collapsed from hydrostatic pressure, although none were designed with break-away walls. It seems unlikely to me on the face of it that the pressure on the walls of a stone-and-metal office building or brownstone residence in NYC from a few feet worth of water would collapse them. (If the water overtopped their windows, the windows would likely serve as safety valves, collapsing before the walls did.) The lessons learned in Louisiana regarding the sort of buildings found there, which are brick or wood, don’t automatically apply to the buildings in NYC.

    NYC’s situation differs also in that the flooding to be expected would not be accompanied by strong wave action (except for buildings on the waterfront) or flowing water (the Hudson and East Rivers move at a leisurely pace).

    Certain engineers and architects, who have studied the matter, surely know the answer as to the vulnerability of NYC-type buildings to collapse from flood waters, so I hope one of them will weigh in.

  69. Dont try and argue with John Brookes.
    Wasting time and energy.
    jHe is an Australian school boy of about 14 years old.
    Kids eh :)
    .

  70. Alexander Feht says:
    November 1, 2012 at 8:09 pm
    “They make one big mistake, though, a fatal mistake in the long run. ”
    ____________

    Great comment. Would their big mistake be- they forgot what PT Barnum said?

  71. [snip . . hi Dave, you must be new to these parts. Profanity is a no-no here. Try again without profanity and let’s see how it goes . . mod]

  72. The Mean Sea Level near Hobart Tasmania as carved in stone at the shore in the 1820’s has not varied to this day. They either do things differently in Tasmania or this hyper-terror is all bull[snip]. I lean towards the bull[snip] explanation.

  73. The only legitimate reasoning goes the opposite way.

    Storm have been strongest during the little ice age. Without the little warming, the storm might have been much stronger.

    And Piers Corbyn expects more such storms with cooling temperatures in the coming years.

  74. Manfred says:
    November 2, 2012 at 12:36 am
    “It is disturbing how a billionaire owner of a mainstream media outlet has total control over journalism.”

    Well, there’s competition (WSJ, FoxNews, blogs). BTW, a trillionaire government owner ain’t much better, see the public media dominated landscape in Germany.

  75. John Brookes says:
    November 1, 2012 at 7:36 pm
    “Maybe the “skeptics” can just be quiet for a few years, until the weather returns to normal?”

    You must have your history knowledge from the wikipedia. (Which, for every famine in the history of Europe, blames everything but the weather…)

  76. This is a Zero Hedge article regarding Bloomberg.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-01/mike-bloomberg-vote-obama-vote-climate-change

    This is a Zero Hedge article regrading Bloomberg. I discovered in the comments that the Mayor had a really nice compound in the Bahamas. One of his neighbors is former Italian PM Berlisconi and we know how the Mafia in Italy loves wind (and has ties to Boston based First Wind). Also, his his other neighbor would be Angus King, former governor, senate candidate and wind speculator from Maine who has really good deals going on with First Wind (His son is a VP there), King also sat on the board of a Bahamas’ based bank. Bloomberg has been contributing huge money for King re-election.

  77. I don’t have time to put the two together right now but compare envelop of the bars on Pielke’s graph to AMO:

    The earlier surge in damage was centred on 1944, cf AMO high. The recent surge in damage peaked in 2004, cf AMO.

    In fact Pielke’s graph gives a strong suggestion (that can be found in a lot of time series) that global warming pasted its peak around 2004.

    We are not cooling.

  78. There’s nothing a businessman likes more than forcing the people to pay tax to the government which is then forced to spend money on huge scale projects on their own doorstep. No arguments, no real competition, no need to keep costs under control. Guaranteed big fat profits.

    They’ve been doing this ever since the Hoover Dam. Republicans, Democrats, Labour Conservative – it doesn’t matter. They just have different businessmen lobbying them to raise taxes for their own pet projects. They don’t like Communism but they just love Socialism.

  79. STUPID is living on an island that you KNOW gets hit by hurricanes, then building a bunch of underground tunnels and holes, then making your lives wholly dependent on these, then leaving all the entrances to such things at ground level, then blaming the rest of the world for the inevitable consequences of your stupidity.

    J.

  80. Yeah, there’s a ton of money that Obama will be directing, he’d be stupid not to do anything and everything he says. Obama probably can’t win the election, but this whole climate change hurricane thing will give him a huge boost. At the least it will stop/slow the swing against him.

  81. John Brookes

    Maybe just once you’ll develop cojones and be a half decent human being, not linking every death and misfortune with your blind beliefs and lies. How can you stoop so low to use deaths and destruction to foster your favourtie lie? Don’t you have any ounce of deceny in your blood?

  82. This site is comedy at its best. Wild guess is that most people here are Christian fundamentalists that are creationists/intelligent designers. A sane rational person knowing nothing about science would be inclined to trust a worldwide body of scientists’ opinions rather than businesses, political parties, think tanks, or the like that have a collective agenda to promote a particular conclusion regardless of the evidence. Of course you will probably claim some sort of secret agenda scientists around the world collude for even though they are disconnected financially and separately research and operate. Science has led to more understanding of the natural world than any other mode of inquiry; This is undeniable. Science through peer review and rational discussion, as well as independent reseArch is self correcting, many times. The knowledge changes with evidence. And the history shows that knowledge is sometimes easy to dismiss– eg galleleo, evolution, etc. Just keep in mind that earth is governed by natural forces and chemical reactions that don’t given a hoot about money, power, or ignorance.

  83. This is so funny! I’m sitting here on an early Friday morning having coffee, and reading these comments. Guess what is playing on TV? Casino. The interplay of the above comments with the Casino script could not have been done better. Art imitates life? Did the casino bosses really just disappear? I think not!

  84. I will leave Bloomberg out of this; he has to be fairly intelligent but that does not mean that he knows anything about the climate and CO2 other than to use this scam, as so many others try to do, and that is to make money off of it and in doing so the average citizen of the WORLD must pay for their increase in wealth.

    I do wonder how many of those that line up for gas, complain about no electricity, transportation being down, etc., also totally believe the propaganda about the ”evil” energy companies and how carbon based energy is destroying their lives. It seems that without carbon based energy, their lives are effected in a way that they can actually see and understand while the consequences of an imagined ”boogey man” CO2 are in the land of the imaginary, science fiction realm of the Al gores of the world.

  85. Mayor Palpatine is always right. He saved us all from soft drinks over 16 oz. Don’t you feel better now.

    /sarc off

  86. Bloomberg doesn’t know if climate change caused Sandy or not…

    “…while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be — given this week’s devastation — should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action…”

    In other words; “we’ve had some bad weather so let’s spend hundreds of billions on something that may or may not have any effect on the climate whatsoever.”

    And by the way… exactly whom is he calling “stupid”?

  87. Bloomberg is just looking for money. An Obama endorsement can get him some federal aid. Cheeping about global warming could bring in business opportunities. He simply doesn’t care if he is committing fraud.

  88. Apparently my language was too strong, it should have read,
    “No it isn’t you cognitively challenged donkey’s rear end!”

    There is a shorter two word version starting with d and ending with s that the mods found too harsh for family viewing…hey ho!

  89. Most likely scenario is that Bloomberg got a call from the Whitehouse telling him that since he told Obama to “go to New Jersey” (kind of like telling him to go to hell) and forget NYC, he could forget getting all the FEMA money he might want. So, he did some serious backpedaling using climate change as an excuse. Being just over three feet tall and having a nine foot tall ego, and being a master politician, he may have also worried about his huge liberal base in the city. So he reverses himself on endorsing Romney, endorses Obama and uses climate change as an excuse. Not stupid, just slimey.

  90. Roger Knights says:
    November 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    “Regarding buildings, none of them in NYC collapsed from hydrostatic pressure, although none were designed with break-away walls.”

    Most likely water entered all of those buildings through broken windows, etc., and flooded the ground floor, relieving the hydrostatic pressure.

    I was merely arguing against your idea of attempting to hold back the water with stronger first floor exterior walls. It’s just not practical. Aside from the pressure, there are many other avenues of entry into the foundation of a building, including sewer service, electrical service conduits, service elevators and such.

    As for the subways, yes they are always under hydrostatic pressure, and there are weep holes to relieve it. Water is always pumped out of the ones below sea level. 8 feet of additional water pressure would likely have collapsed them, which is why they are allowed to flood. Flooding is bad, but collapsed walls would be much more expensive to repair. The tunnels beneath the rivers may be able to withstand the higher pressures, but those under the city are probably not.

    Probably getting OT here, so sorry.

  91. scientificintegrity says: November 1, 2012 at 3:43 pm
    Hmmm. I thought it had been renamed ‘Climate Change’.
    ____________________________________________

    (In the AGW pseudo-science patwa.)

    You are soo yesterday, dude, its “Climate Disruption” now.

    .

  92. Pamela Gray says:
    November 2, 2012 at 6:38 am
    “This is so funny! I’m sitting here on an early Friday morning having coffee, and reading these comments. Guess what is playing on TV? Casino. The interplay of the above comments with the Casino script could not have been done better. Art imitates life? Did the casino bosses really just disappear? I think not!”

    Great movie!! My favorite line is after all the bosses say not to worry that Stone is a good stand up guy,Remo says he agrees but “why take a chance?” Next scene they shoot him in the head. Why take a chance?

  93. JAS says: November 2, 2012 at 5:17 am
    STUPID is living on an island that you KNOW gets hit by hurricanes.
    _________________________________________________

    I am sorry to say this, bro Americans, but:

    Stupid is building houses made out of straw and wood. Even the Three Little Pigs discovered that houses should be made of bricks, if there was any wind around.

    Stupid is having electric cables on poles. Europe had that system, errrm, back in 1924.

    Perhaps this storm should be renamed as ‘Hurricane Wolfie’ – the storm that huffed and puffed and blew the US east coast houses down…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Little_Pigs

    .

    Instead of Obama spending all that newly printed money on stupid renewable energy projects, the US is in desperate need of some decent infrastructure, if it wants to compete with living standards in Europe.

    .

  94. @climatereflections According to NASA, it was barely a category 1 at landfall with maximum sustained winds of 75mph.

  95. John Brookes says:
    November 1, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Maybe the weather will turn back to normal when the hurricanes increase and become more severe.

  96. @Bill r. – You might start by ridding yourself of the logical fallacies – you do know what those are, right? As for your lecture on science, we know. The trouble is that Alarmist science is pseudoscience based merely on an assumption. I’d say stick around and you might learn, but sadly, like most trolls your only agenda is to throw your little stones and run.

  97. Last straw. Cancelled my BusinessWeek subscription today. I have had it for almost 30 years and lately the leftist editorial slant has become too much. This final cover was so bad …

  98. Anthony, take down the deceiving chart expressing storm count as absolute on Y axis.

    Refrain from these cheap and dirty tactics and let the Team to continue with their strategy. Every time the CAGW bell is rung, a skeptic is born; let’s not let the reverse happen.

  99. Blowberg = Blooming Idiot!

    While NYC is recovering from one of the worst natural disasters it has ever experienced, he decides to go ahead with the NYC marathon!!!

  100. I see an increase in the number of named storms and hurricanes over the years and the data supports this chart.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season

    I also believe the amount of hurricanes will decline in the future as Rossby waves cause wind shear. The trends also support places like New York City getting hit by hurricanes more often and intensity increasing with SST.

    Bloomberg has much more responsibility to a population and financial center than most people can realize and New York City needs it’s public transportation system to function. I seem to recall some mention of the subways being shut down three times and they were all recent times involving two hurricanes and a snow storm.

  101. bill rabara says:
    November 2, 2012 at 6:32 am

    This site is comedy at its best. Wild guess is that most people here are Christian fundamentalists that are creationists/intelligent designers.

    Wild guess No.1 fail
    Most of us are scientists/engineers. Me? I’m a mere engineer specialising in control systems and logic. (Logical control systems require some deep thinking to idiot proof designs.)

    A sane rational person knowing nothing about science would be inclined to trust a worldwide body of scientists’ opinions rather than businesses, political parties, think tanks, or the like that have a collective agenda to promote a particular conclusion regardless of the evidence.

    Speak for yourself. Personally, I’d prefer to rely on my own judgement of their science

    Of course you will probably claim some sort of secret agenda scientists around the world collude for even though they are disconnected financially and separately research and operate. Science has led to more understanding of the natural world than any other mode of inquiry; This is undeniable. Science through peer review and rational discussion, as well as independent reseArch is self correcting, many times. The knowledge changes with evidence. And the history shows that knowledge is sometimes easy to dismiss– eg galleleo, evolution, etc. Just keep in mind that earth is governed by natural forces and chemical reactions that don’t given a hoot about money, power, or ignorance.

    You really are new to this aren’t you? Have you read the so-called Climategate e-mails?
    I don’t even know if conspiracy is needed here. As for peer review correction…
    Yes, in time it does happen but it can take decades, vis Stomach ulcers

    DaveE.

  102. Gary Lance says:
    November 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    I see an increase in the number of named storms and hurricanes over the years and the data supports this chart.

    And I see storms named before they’ve even reached mid-Atlantic.

    DaveE.

  103. David A. Evans says:

    November 2, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    Gary Lance says:
    November 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    I see an increase in the number of named storms and hurricanes over the years and the data supports this chart.

    And I see storms named before they’ve even reached mid-Atlantic.

    DaveE.

    Did you see Sandy named before she reached mid-Atlantic?

  104. Mike O says:
    November 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    Last straw. Cancelled my BusinessWeek subscription today.

    I did so a year ago. It’s easy to do online at their site. Just have the label at hand to provide the exact address, etc.

    Silver Ralph says:
    November 2, 2012 at 10:21 am

    I am sorry to say this, bro Americans, but: Stupid is building houses made out of straw and wood. Even the Three Little Pigs discovered that houses should be made of bricks, if there was any wind around.

    Wind rarely knocks down our wood buildings, tornados excepted. House damage or collapse usually occurs after the roof is blown off or a tree falls on a house–both of which can happen equally well to a brick house, with equally bad results. Brick is a poor insulator of heat/cold and noise. Wood-framed walls can be filled with blown-in insulation. Brick cracks if a house subsides over time; wood-frames flex a bit and degrade gently. Brick is dangerous in earthquake zones, of which the US has more than Europe.

    Gary Lance says:
    November 2, 2012 at 1:44 pm

    I see an increase in the number of named storms and hurricanes over the years and the data supports this chart.

    But those counts are inflated in recent years because of improved detection technology. This is acknowledged by all.

  105. Roger Knights says:

    November 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    You can compare data during times when reporting was equal and see an obvious correlation between the number of storms and SSTs. That is only logical and any meteorologist is going to look at the SST to determine the future of a storm. They’re going to look at wind shear to see if the storm can become a hurricane. What’s with the game all the time of trying to pretend things like warmer water will not produce more storms, or the water hasn’t warmed? Maybe no one told hurricanes it was the LIA and they weren’t suppose to form, or maybe it was still warm enough in the tropics for hurricanes to form since Holocene Climatic Optimum times.

    It’s silly to pretend it has to been as warm as our present global temperatures or have our present CO2 levels for a hurricane to form. Call them what you want, there will be a record of hurricanes being around as long as mankind has written records in the areas where they can exist. It’s also silly to equate snow with it being cold in places where it can be too cold to snow.

  106. “It isn’t regarded as cool to blame God any more. But the desire of people to blame someone hasn’t gone away. ”

    Acts of God are not covered by insurance. Blaming Acts of Man at least you have a chance of a successful court case.

  107. Gary Lance says:
    November 2, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Roger Knights says:
    November 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    You can compare data during times when reporting was equal and see an obvious correlation between the number of storms and SSTs. That is only logical . . .

    Here is a quote from Wikipedia’s article on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Multidecadal_Oscillation, which indicates that the SSTs may decline after 2015 due to a downturn in the AMO.

    The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principal expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
    Relation to Atlantic hurricanes

    In viewing actual data on a short time horizon, sparse experience would suggest the frequency of major hurricanes is not strongly correlated with the AMO. During warm phases of the AMO, the number of minor hurricanes (category 1 and 2) saw a modest increase.[9] With full consideration of meteorological science, the number of tropical storms that can mature into severe hurricanes is much greater during warm phases of the AMO than during cool phases, at least twice as many; the AMO is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes.[6] The hurricane activity index is found to be highly correlated with the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation.[9] If there is an increase in hurricane activity connected to global warming, it is currently obscured by the AMO quasi-periodic cycle.[9] The AMO alternately obscures and exaggerates the global increase in temperatures due to human-induced global warming.[6] Based on the typical duration of negative and positive phases of the AMO, the current warm regime is expected to persist at least until 2015 and possibly as late as 2035. Enfield et al. assume a peak around 2020.[10]

    Here’s a quote from your second link, Wikipedia. (Your first link was just a chart):

    The North Atlantic Hurricane Database, or … HURDAT contains numerous systematic as well as some random errors in the database. Additionally, analysis techniques have changed over the years at NHC as their understanding of tropical cyclones has developed, leading to biases in the historical database.

    But if “the number of storms” is an artifact of the sensitivity of the detection method, then the correlation is spurious. Since 1950, the persons doing the “naming” have set a lower bar on what qualifies as a named storm, including short-lived storms that would not have been included earlier, as indicated by the following past comments (with links) from WUWT. (I couldn’t find a quote to back me up, but I think I recall seeing quotes on WUWT to the effect that the namers have become readier to name shorties as storms in the “naughties” and subsequently than previously.)

    Latitude says:
    May 28, 2011 at 6:36 am
    May 26, 2011

    No Long-term Trend in Atlantic Hurricane Numbers

    Short-duration storms are presently identified much more readily than they were, say, prior to the satellite era

    If the Atlantic tropical cyclone history is divided up into “shorties” and, we guess, “longies,” something very interesting pops out. Over the entire record, there is a big upward trend in the number of “shorties” but there is no trend in the annual number of “longies”

    Obviously, lumping the two together would produce an apparent upward trend in the total annual number of tropical storms and hurricanes—and give fuel for the fire which burns for those trying to develop a link to anthropogenic global warming.

    This situation is akin to the observed record of tornadoes in the U.S.—the number of weak tornadoes has increased markedly in the last half century, while the number of strong tornadoes shows no such behavior

    The positive trend in total annual number of tornadoes is driven not by climate change (as some would have you believe), but instead by changing observational methods.

    “”Our results provide a context for interpreting studies exploring trend behavior in the North Atlantic tropical storm activity starting prior to the 1940s. In particular, the conclusions of certain studies reporting large secular increases in North Atlantic tropical storm activity in which shorties are included [e.g., Holland and Webster, 2007; Mann et al., 2007] could be affected by what we interpret as likely spurious nonphysical trends unless an alternative physical explanation can be uncovered for the pronounced increase in shorties starting from the middle of the 20th century. Further, statistical models of tropical storm activity built using century‐scale records that include shorties [e.g., Mann et al., 2007; Sabbatelli and Mann, 2007; Mann et al., 2009] likely include an element reflecting the spurious shorties in the record.””

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/05/26/no-long-term-trend-in-atlantic-hurricane-numbers/

    ——————-

    Cam_S says:
    June 10, 2011 at 8:49 am

    Surge in North Atlantic hurricanes due to better detectors, not climate change

    http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/highlights/highlights.cgi?action=show&doi=10.1029/2010JD015493&jc=jd

    Is the recorded increase in short-duration North Atlantic tropical storms spurious? (Hurricanes)

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015493.shtml

    ——————-

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/new-peer-reviewed-study-surge-in-north-atlantic-hurricanes-due-to-better-detectors-not-climate-change/

    A spate of research has indicated there may be a link between climate change and the prevalence of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Upon closer inspection, however, researchers have noted that the prominent upswing in tropical cyclone detections beginning in the mid twentieth century is attributable predominantly to the detection of “shorties,” tropical cyclones with durations of less than 2 days.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/05/hurricanes-and-global-warming-still-no-connection/

    Alec Rawls says:
    August 23, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    “It appears to us that more extreme weather events – like floods and hurricanes – are becoming more frequent and pronounced.”

    See “Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity,” Ryan Maue, 2011:

    http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/2011GL047711-pip.pdf

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/19/ryan-maues-paper-in-grl-in-agus-weekly-highlight/

    A new research study shows that overall global tropical cyclone activity has decreased to historically low levels during the past 5 years.

    Maue analyzes global tropical cyclone data from 1970 through May 2011 to examine the considerable interannual variability of the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) metric. Since 2006, global and Northern Hemisphere ACE have decreased significantly, reaching the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Also, during 2010-2011, the overall global frequency of tropical cyclones reached a historical low. The researcher demonstrates that much of the variability in tropical cyclone energy during the past 40 years is clearly associated with natural large-scale climate oscillations such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

    Incidentally, here’s a quote from Wikipedia’s entry for North Atlantic Oscillation, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation . It seemingly implies that there is no necessary, or “logical,” connection between warmer SSTs and hurricane frequency, at least in the Gulf, assuming the SSTs there weren’t greatly different during the two periods:

    As paleotempestological research has shown, few major hurricanes struck the Gulf coast during 3000–1400 BC and again during the most recent millennium. These quiescent intervals were separated by a hyperactive period during 1400 BC and 1000 AD, when the Gulf coast was struck frequently by catastrophic hurricanes and their landfall probabilities increased by 3–5 times.[5][6][7]

  108. Don Worley says:
    November 2, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Roger Knights says:
    November 1, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    “Regarding buildings, none of them in NYC collapsed from hydrostatic pressure, although none were designed with break-away walls.”

    Most likely water entered all of those buildings through broken windows, etc., and flooded the ground floor, relieving the hydrostatic pressure.

    I don’t know about “all.” Possibly a few buildings had relatively water-tight doorways and strong windows. They would falsify your position, if they didn’t collapse. Even if no such cases occurred in NYC this time, there must be cases where such heavy-duty walls withstood external flooding.

    I was merely arguing against your idea of attempting to hold back the water with stronger first floor exterior walls. It’s just not practical.

    So you say, but nullius in verba. What I want to see are citations backing your claim up, or experts weighing in here to that effect.

    Aside from the pressure, there are many other avenues of entry into the foundation of a building, including sewer service, electrical service conduits, service elevators and such.

    Most of those could be “hardened”—that was what I was proposing. (E.g., sewer line outlets could have an anti-backflow valve installed.) The ones that still leaked would admit small amounts that wouldn’t be catastrophic as long as a sump pump with a second-floor outlet could keep ahead of them.

    As for the subways, yes they are always under hydrostatic pressure, and there are weep holes to relieve it. Water is always pumped out of the ones below sea level. 8 feet of additional water pressure would likely have collapsed them, which is why they are allowed to flood. Flooding is bad, but collapsed walls would be much more expensive to repair.

    But, as I mentioned, the Lincoln Tunnel didn’t flood and didn’t collapse. Ditto the subway tunnels under the Harlem River. And the following story from Time magazine says:

    Giant [inflatable, with air or water] plugs to prevent the flow of water into the New York City subway tunnels sound like something out of a surrealist sketchbook — or even a child’s imagination — but in just a few years, they could be our best resource to keep transportation networks dry during natural disasters. And after seeing the commuting havoc in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, during which seven subway tunnels and two commuter rail tunnels were flooded, it’s little wonder city officials are hoping they soon become mass-produced.

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/02/giant-inflatable-plugs-could-future-technology-have-stopped-subway-flooding/

    And here’s a story about them from Popular Mechanics for April 2, 2012:

    It’s taken more than five years and nearly half a million dollars for researchers to develop a 32-feet-long, 16-feet-wide tube that can inflate to up to 35,000 gallons of volume to close off tunnels and block fire, gas leaks, or flooding water from getting in. We asked John Fortune of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), the project leader, how this thing really works. What is the Resilient Tunnel Project?


    The project started in 2007. The idea behind the tunnel plug was to be able to section off regions in a subway system so you can contain flooding and prevent a widespread event. Flooding is the most difficult, but there are also concerns about fires and toxic gas releases, all of which could be addressed by a plug.

    What other ideas have people considered? 


    Previously, transit agencies looked at using rigid floodgates that could be moved in to block off the tunnel when needed. But these were bulky, hard to install, and expensive, so we wanted to come up with something like a balloon or big bag of air that we could build at a lower cost and section off tunnel as needed.

    The Inflatable, 35,000-Gallon Subway Plug – Popular Mechanics

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/infrastructure/the-inflatable-35000-gallon-subway-plug-7795767

    The city officials and DHS presumably wouldn’t be looking at ways to plug their tunnels if it were dangerous to seal them off from flooding

    The tunnels beneath the rivers may be able to withstand the higher pressures, but those under the city are probably not.

    But the ones under the city would be subjected to much less increased pressure—only three extra feet of water abve them, not 13.

  109. Bloomberg—Bloomberg, wasn’t the wonderful chap that has a bicycle lane pulled up out of a cretin neighborhood???

  110. Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. Damn, people like the Zionist terrorist Bloomberg need to go smoke some bath salts, maybe huff some glue or gasoline! Maybe even drop dead from total stupidity. LMFAO!

  111. Wind rarely knocks down our wood buildings, tornados excepted. House damage or collapse usually occurs after the roof is blown off or a tree falls on a house–both of which can happen equally well to a brick house, with equally bad results. Brick is a poor insulator of heat/cold and noise. Wood-framed walls can be filled with blown-in insulation. Brick cracks if a house subsides over time; wood-frames flex a bit and degrade gently. Brick is dangerous in earthquake zones, of which the US has more than Europe.
    _____________________________________________

    Houses in the US seem to be falling down all the time, while UK houses regularly get 50 – 70 mph winds and stay erect.

    Brick is a very good insulator, especially with blown in insulation in the cavity.

    Brick does not catch fire.

    Brick houses are built on a concrete raft, if the area suffers from subsidence (as much of northern UK is). They do not crack.

    Mediterranean areas that have seismic activity use reinforced concrete, instead of brick (and concrete walls too, on many occasions). In fact, this appears to be an even cheaper method of construction than brick-on-raft.

    Brick and concrete houses would withstand both hurricane and tornado, as has been amply demonstrated on many occasions.

    .

  112. Silver Ralph says:
    November 3, 2012 at 8:25 am

    Houses in the US seem to be falling down all the time, . . .

    From tornados or fallen trees or partially wrenched-off roofs. They don’t collapse from hurricane-force wind pressure alone. If their roof gets partially blown off, they may lose structural integrity and be blown askew or be impacted so badly from water damage to the interior that they aren’t worth repairing. But that could happen to a brick house too.

    . . . while UK houses regularly get 50 – 70 mph winds and stay erect.

    So what? US houses aren’t collapsing from 50 – 70 mph winds. It hasn’t happened with Sandy. Houses that were destroyed were flooded or hit by trees or had their roofs wrenched partly off. (Modern construction codes should make the latter rare in newly built houses.)

    Brick is a very good insulator, . . .

    It’s a terrible insulator—see here: http://archtoolbox.com/materials-systems/thermal-moisture-protection/24-rvalues.html

    . . . especially with blown in insulation in the cavity.

    If there IS a cavity, and if the climate isn’t too cold and wet: see http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/building-science/insulation-retrofits-old-masonry-buildings-building-science-podcast

    Brick does not catch fire.

    True dat.

    Brick houses are built on a concrete raft, if the area suffers from subsidence (as much of northern UK is). They do not crack.

    I didn’t mean the gradual geologic-time-scale subsidence of a whole local area. I meant the common and much quicker “settling” (I should have used that word) many houses undergo, which cracks the walls and floors (= rafts, I presume) of their basements. These would tend to crack or stress their masonry walls as well. To prevent this happening to a masonry house, the foundation under the basement would presumably have to be firmed up, adding to the cost, unless the bedrock is near the surface.

    Mediterranean areas that have seismic activity use reinforced concrete, instead of brick (and concrete walls too, on many occasions). In fact, this appears to be an even cheaper method of construction than brick-on-raft.

    It’s used in southern Europe because it’s traditional and cheaper than timber, not because it’s safer. (And also probably because its thermal mass moderates temperature peaks in the summer.) Low-cost, easy-to-work softwood grows far away in the north and may have been subject to tariffs before the EU. But the US has an abundance of such timber (ditto Canada), making it relatively cheap here. It is also far safer than brick or concrete in an earthquake. Building codes in US earthquake zones prohibit (or strictly regulate) masonry construction for that reason. The high death tolls in southern Europe and Turkey from collapsing masonry structures are notorious. (E.g., the 300-plus who died in the earthquake that the convicted Italian scientists dismissed as unlikely.)

    Brick and concrete houses would withstand both hurricane and tornado, as has been amply demonstrated on many occasions.

    Not any better than wood-framed houses, or not significantly better. It would partly depend on the thickness and solidity of the walls—but thick, solid masonry walls would add to the expense, and therefore such high-performance buildings probably represent a minority of masonry houses. (Incidentally, be sure you’re comparing apples with apples. A row of brick houses will do better than isolated wood-framed houses, because the houses in a row mutually support one another or, if they are close but don’t abut one another, each one provides a wind break for the next.)

  113. The link you placed on your chart indicates that most of the states affected by hurricanes in the timeline were not Northern states. The fact the more storm systems have been affecting “NORTHERN” states IS an indicator the something is definitively different. I’ve noticed reference to Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, and Pennsylvania. However the frequency in comparison to southern states which are obviously closer to the equator is undeniably notable. Your claims that the mere idea CO2 is the root cause of storms coming inland is preposterous IS true. But, the fact that satellite imagery of the accumulative ice degradation from 1979 to now is undeniably the culprit for weather patterns changing to compensate for such an ecological imbalance. You ARE correct in stating CO2 is not the reason for the storms affecting more northern states to a point. However, CO2 is the reason our polar caps are receding. And furthermore is a direct correlation to said storm damage. SO.. you are correct and incorrect in the same sentiment. Sorry to deflate your theory. But someone had to do it.

  114. Jeffrey VJ says:

    “CO2 is the reason our polar caps are receding. And furthermore is a direct correlation to said storm damage.”

    Horse manure. Provide even one credible citation containing verifiable, empirical evidence proving that CO2 is the reason ice caps are receding. Just one.

    Your wild-eyed speculation is not science. It is based on the AGW scare tactic. There is NO empirical scientific evidence that supports your false assertion. You need to post at RealClimate, or tamino. They like anti-science there. But this is a science site. Your baseless alarmism sounds stupid here.

  115. Roger Knights says:

    November 2, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    I am familiar with the AMO, but don’t bet on past climate patterns existing as they have been in the future. It’s my understanding AMO not only affects global warming predictions, but is having it’s SSTs adjusted in some models so global warming isn’t obscuring the phases. It was only discovered in 1994 and may not be able to give us prediction in the future. Why?

    Take a good look at the changes in the arctic and also take a good look at how SSTs and sea ice are compared to a base period! Here is a link for SSTs:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.shtml

    Notice the NOAA base period for daily values of anomalies is 1971 – 2000 and the weekly, monthly and seasonal products use 1981 – 2010. Sea ice gets compared to a 1979 – 2008 base. Global temperature is often compared to a base of 1901 – 2000. In all cases the base period involves times of known warmer conditions, so even though mathematically it doesn’t make a difference, it does make a difference in appearance.

    This may seem like a long way to make a point, but it’s important to be precise. Look at the data for instrumental temperature measurements for the 20 warmest years on record and fast forward to the end of 2015!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

    Notice there really isn’t much change in the temperature measurements for the ocean from the bottom to the top of the 20 warmest years on record, but there is for the land! Also notice the ocean temperatures vary more from year to year than the land temperatures do. It’s only logical that ocean water will retain heat better than land, so that heat has to be going somewhere besides the atmosphere. I’m sure scientists have also noticed this, hence the ARGO array looking for heat at depths below the very surface like the old buoys did. The 20 warmest years data also shows that by the end of 2015, only the year 1995 will not be one of the last 20 years, unless it gets much colder in the near future.

    Since AMO is determined by SST measurements that need to be adjusted for global warming, it becomes problematic to assign the contribution of global warming and there are even proposals to make ENSO adjustments. AMO worked fine in hindsight, but what happens when SSTs are always higher than they were? The North Atlantic is the main opening to the Arctic Ocean and the arctic is warming faster than any place on Earth. This change will affect the northern part of the North Atlantic Ocean and it’s already evident with open areas in arctic seas during arctic sea ice maximums.

    I picked 2015 for a reason and it wasn’t to dramatize the instrumental temperature records. I think there is a very good chance the arctic will become ice free by then, but even if it happens 5 years later in 2020, an obscure climate pattern like the AMO isn’t going to rush in and save the day. An ice free arctic means the multi-year sea ice is gone and the period of being ice free is going to expand each year. That’s going to affect everything in the world and especially anything close to that area. The theory goes that AMO is caused by fluctuations in thermohaline circulation and we don’t know if it’s true or what causes such fluctuations. It’s logical to expect changes in climate patterns and who knows what changes could happen in thermohaline circulaton. The AMO may not last long enough for us to figure out why it happens.

  116. Gary Lance says:

    “…don’t bet on past climate patterns existing as they have been in the future.”

    But that is the way rational people bet. Because you have no understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, you assume that trees will grow to the moon, and that global warming will never stop.

    Once you get some real world experience under your young belt, you will begin to see things in perspective. That is the hope, anyway.

  117. Gary Lance refers to the ARGO buoy network. But that empirical evidence falsifies the notion that the deep oceans are warming:

    And the ARGO buoys agree with evidence showing global cooling. Sorry to bust Lance’s bubble, but the ARGO data shows gradual cooling of the deep oceans.

  118. From D Böehm on November 3, 2012 at 10:14 pm:

    Once you get some real world experience under your young belt, you will begin to see things in perspective. That is the hope, anyway.

    Actually back when Gary was showing his ignorance like how he thinks cyanobacteria are plants as well as many misconceptions on ancient geography/geology, he mentioned taking a bunch of geology-type courses forty years ago.

    So he’s had the opportunity for lots of real world experience, but apparently hasn’t learned much. And as he’s claimed certain “scientific facts” haven’t changed since then despite science moving forward with new theories and newer “facts”, and nothing we present as evidence can change his mind, if he deigns to look at any of it as he knows it cannot be true since it conflicts with what he knows is true, I’m doubting he’s capable of learning anything here.

  119. jayhd says:
    November 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    There are lot of people in the New Jersey/New York area now getting a taste of living (temporarily) in a “low carbon” world. And they don’t seem to like it very much.
    ==================================================================
    Excellent point

  120. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    November 4, 2012 at 1:08 am

    You don’t have scientific facts. You have a trolling style that even ignores what is said and changes every discussion into an ad hom attack to hide the fact that you can’t win a debate on climate science. You were asked where the oxygen in the atmosphere originated and how did it go from nothing to 34%. You didn’t answer, because you can’t admit CO2 does anything but feed plants.

    I pointed out taking geology courses before global warming was a concern and how no one suggested CO2 changes didn’t affect climate then. The CO2 connection is in fact fundamental to geology. Global warming only became a concern years after temperatures increased and never returned to previous levels. Your voodoo “science” was only born after global warming became a threat to the fossil fuel industry. The fact is, if you don’t know the basics of science, how can you pretend to know the more advanced things without constantly being shot down? Science doesn’t care what you or the fossil fuel industries want. It’s created it’s own realities without your consent. Science didn’t ask you if it was OK if they set the standard that BP meant before 1950 and if you don’t believe me ask Easterbrook! He was a Geology Professor at WWU and knows this.

    I find it remarkable that the reinsurer industry was gathering statistics on global warming or climate change in 1973. To put it in the perspective of those times, when I took a Physical Geography course in ’75 there was no concern about global warming, but it was mentioned that some scientists had shown that it may be a future concern. When you are in the business of risk management, like a reinsurer is, any risk that may develop in the future is a concern. It’s a brilliant strategy to look for all events and figuring the probability of it happening to the degree of it being catastrophic, even down to a specific area of the world. There is no built in bias in gathering statistics for weather related catastrophes, because the same rules apply to geophysical catastrophes. Essentially insurance is gambling with the house setting the odds so the house will always win. The legacy of the reinsurers statistics is they have determined weather related catastrophic events have increased significantly over a short period of time. A person would be hard pressed to figure out some kind of insurance they pay that hasn’t been inflated by the insurance company’s concerns of climate change.

    Now since you like to make things so personal, let’s see if we can do it in a way that gets back to the topic of this thread/article and sticks to the general theme of what this forum should be about and that is climate change, whether it exists or not. My background was in the Physical Sciences, but even way back in my early years I took plenty of other science courses that weren’t required for a degree. To get a degree in Geology, like all those people who work for the fossil fuel industry, you need a course in Physical Geography and Invertebrate Paleontology (and, I’ll let you figure out why). I didn’t take some baby course like many did to get a degree in Geology, I took the Biology Department’s course, which was a two semester course. My logic was simple and based on my major. My degree required top level courses in the Physical Sciences and Mathematics, so why should I pay my money to take a course in any subject that a major in that subject wouldn’t take. I took a lot of courses I didn’t have to take, because I was interested in the subject and there are very few subjects I’m not interested in.

    As far as Bloomberg is concerned, he’s a politician, so unless you are devoid of any concept of Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy and common sense, who cares what he says? You are the ones creating the strawman out of your own desperation. When it comes to science, who cares what Al Gore says? I think both of them are big enough to admit they aren’t experts in the field of science, but that doesn’t mean they don’t respect science. That said, we should applaud any politician standing for the people of this country. Since you like to change the subject to me all the time, I think any politician caring for the people he took oath of office to serve is doing a good job. When Mayor Bloomberg sees the artery of his city repeatly shut down because of climate change, he speaks his mind. When Governor Christie sees his people damaged, he isn’t on the internet blowing smoke, he speaks his mind. Of course these politicians aren’t scientists, but they are smart enough to listen to science, which is much more than you people can do.

  121. See? Doesn’t matter how often he’s refuted, what evidence is presented, it cannot be evidence since it doesn’t confirm the “known fact of climate change” he absolutely knows is incontrovertible truth, thus he was never refuted, so he can repeat the same things forever as there is no evidence that can change his mind.

    Thanks for providing another fine long example, Gary.

  122. Roger Knights says:
    November 3, 2012 at 2:35 am

    “So you say, but nullius in verba. What I want to see are citations backing your claim up, or experts weighing in here to that effect.”

    Yes, probably better we wait on expert opinion,
    I’m not convinced by Popular Mechanics. Still waiting on the flying car.

Comments are closed.