Another glitch on the NCDC State of the Climate report

Is NOAA Misleading the Public by Including Tropical Cyclones in its 2012 Climate Extremes Index Ranking?

IF NOT, THE PRESS AND PUBLIC WILL CERTAINLY GET THE WRONG IDEA

The Summary Information of the NOAA State of the Climate report reads with respect to extremes:

The U.S. Climate Extremes Index indicated that 2012 was the second most extreme year on record for the nation. The index, which evaluates extremes in temperature and precipitation, as well as landfalling tropical cyclones, was nearly twice the average value and second only to 1998. To date, 2012 has seen 11 disasters that have reached the $1 billion threshold in losses, to include Sandy, Isaac, and tornado outbreaks experienced in the Great Plains, Texas and Southeast/Ohio Valley.

This gives the reader the impression that landfalling tropical cyclones were a contributor to the high ranking. They were not. NOAA fails to note in the summary that the landfalling tropical cyclones were so low that NOAA lowered the ranking on its Climate Extremes Index by including them. That is, without landfalling tropical cyclones, 2012 would have ranked number one on Climate Extremes Index.

Using the drop-down menu on the NOAA Climate Extremes Index graph webpage, we can plot NOAA climate Extremes indicator graphs. Figure 1 is the NOAA Climate Extremes Index graph for landfalling tropical “systems”. 2012 was extremely low, far below average. I included this data through November in my Video: Drought, Hurricanes and Heat Waves – 2012 in Perspective. I was therefore surprised when NOAA included tropical cyclones in their 2012 State of the Climate summary.

Fig 1 Climate Extremes tropstorms

Figure 1

 

If we plot the NOAA Climate Extremes Index for 2012 with landfalling tropical cyclones, Figure 2, 2012 does in fact rank number 2 behind 1998. This confirms NOAA’s statement in their summary.

Fig 2 Climate Extremes w tropstorms

Figure 2

But if we exclude landfalling tropical cyclones from the Climate Extremes Index, Figure 3, 2012 rises to a ranking of number 1.

Fig 3 Climate Extremes w-o tropstorms

Figure 3

Therefore, by including landfalling tropical cyclones in the Climate Extremes Index for 2012, NOAA lowered the ranking, but gives the public the impression that landfalling tropical cyclones contributed to the high ranking—when, in reality, tropical cyclones lowered the 2012 ranking.

About these ads
This entry was posted in NCDC, NOAA and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Another glitch on the NCDC State of the Climate report

  1. Pull My Finger says:

    The question is with hurricanes and tornados practically non-existant, what was so “EXTREME!!!”?

  2. oldfossil says:

    “IF NOT, THE PRESS AND PUBLIC WILL CERTAINLY GET THE WRONG IDEA”

    I’m trying to decide if this is Bob Tisdale being ironic?

  3. Tom in Indy says:

    I hope the dollar values are adjusted for inflation. That would be a huge ‘oops’ if they are not.

  4. beesaman says:

    Well if you live on a sand spit eventually it’s going to get expensive….

  5. KuhnKat says:

    Is this index adjusted for inflation and increase in population and buildings?? If it were we would see that 2012 and the mid 2000’s is not that big of a deal!!

  6. Doug Huffman says:

    Damage dollars as a weather severity metric/proxy confounds logic.

  7. Bob Tisdale says:

    For NOAA’s description of the Climate Extremes Index, click on the INTRODUCTION link near the top of the webpage here:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12

    The Climate Extremes Index was presented in Karl et al (1995), available here:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%281996%29077%3C0279%3AIOCCFT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    oldfossil says: “I’m trying to decide if this is Bob Tisdale being ironic?”

    Not intentionally. I was just stating a logical response. I would have assumed that tropical storms contributed to the number 2 ranking, if I had not discovered that the low tropical storm ranking actually lowered the overall rank.

  9. Caleb says:

    Their charts need to be audited. First, though Sandy wasn’t as bad as a hurricvane could get, it’s full-moon-high-tide timing and NYC location made it very expensive. So that graph seems too low. The other graph seems too high, for the primary damage was due to crops, (due to the drought, I am assuming.) Or am I missing something?

    I am so uncomfortable with the entire way science is driven by “policy” these days that I really need to see the formula they use to crank out their numbers, before the numbers have any meaning to me. My trust is so shot full of holes that holes is all I see. When I run across the good, hard-working and honest government scientists (and they do exist) I am always filled with a sense of gratitude.

  10. Bob Tisdale says:

    Example: The Discovery News article yesterday titled “2012 Warmest Year on Record”:

    http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2012-warmest-on-record-for-us-130108.htm

    They open with, “2012 marked the warmest year on record for the United States and was also the second most extreme ever, the U.S. government agency charged with monitoring weather events said Tuesday.”

    A few paragraphs down, they note, “The nation suffered through 11 weather disasters that caused $1 billion in damage or more, including hurricanes Sandy and Isaac and deadly tornado outbreaks in the Great Plains, Texas and the Ohio Valley,” and “Sandy proved the most destructive as it made landfall near New York, killing 131 people, knocking out power to eight million people and destroying tens of thousands of homes and businesses.”

    But Discovery News failed to note the reason for the number 2 ranking on the overall Climate extremes Index, which was the low landfalling hurricane ranking.

  11. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Someone should invent an Extreme Cupidity Index for self-interested bureaucratic organizations who profit from their output. Oh wait, I just did.

  12. Tom Jones says:

    Tom in Indy raises a point I have often wondered about, but never seen any commentary on. In fact, it’s worse than inflation. Even taking inflation into account, the capital value of what has been destroyed keep rising, as we pour more and more investment into the US, and the world. Until those issues are factored in, destruction and insurance claims are just a meaningless number.

  13. u.k.(us) says:

    Tangled webs.

  14. john robertson says:

    Inflation will be a real problem for this index.
    As Obama tanks the US dollar to Zimbabwe equivalents, it will only take 1 tornado to cause Gazzillions of dollars damage.

  15. barryjo says:

    Since these people always like to point out the dollar value of the damage done by “extreme” weather, shouldn’t there be a concomitant value for stupidity? Such as building near the water, REbuilding near the water, not installing sufficient protections, etc?
    Seems this would serve to greatly mitigate the “extreme” thing.

  16. I’m not sure if this is a satirical comedy or a “soap opera” masquerading as melodrama. All this cost emphasis is little more then the insurance industry attempting to justify higher rates to more quickly recover their costs. Heaven forbid they might keep sufficient assets in reserve. I’ve seen how these guys add stuff up, maybe we need some interdependent source for the normalized dollars they are using. It simply makes no difference one way or other. First, second, or what ever; done, gone and pass on. The true measure is how well had we prepared for what we know will eventually happen. Lets see that index.

  17. Theo Barker says:

    Anthony, Roy, and Goddard made the Fox News web site headlines questioning NOAA’s over-the-top BS SOTC:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/

  18. Werner Brozek says:

    The below has been entered in the other post as well. I thought I would give it here as well because although it does not deal with the specific topic in this post, it does seem to suggest another case of Misleading the Public Is there a trend here?

    Graham W says:
    January 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm
    Here you go, a more useful link!

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

    According to Figure 1, the data is from “the Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC”. So…pretty vague.
    Thank you very much! Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I am becoming increasingly convinced someone is trying to hide something. They say:
    “The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record in 1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C above long-term average.”
    So that means they are talking about Hadcrut3 and not Hadcrut4. I am aware of three different versions of Hadcrut3. They are listed below along with the 1998 anomaly for each. The range is from 0.52 to 0.548. All of these are above 0.40. Can someone please tell me what I am missing?
    This version has 1998 at 0.529 and 2010 at 0.470.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

    This version has 1998 at 0.548 and 2010 at 0.478.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    This version has 1998 at 0.52 and 2010 at 0.50.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates

    By the way, Hadsst2 for 1998 was 0.451.

  19. pat says:

    10 Jan: Daily Mail: James Delingpole: The crazy climate change obsession that’s made the Met Office a menace•The £200 million-a-year official weather forecaster often gets it wrong
    •This week it has admitted there is no evidence that ‘global warming’ is happening
    •The Met Office quietly readjusted its temperature projections on its website on Christmas Eve

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html

    ——————————————————————————–

  20. Day By Day says:

    I’m having a very hard time reading the graphs and understanding what you and NOAA are saying.

    “Figure 1 is the NOAA Climate Extremes Index graph for landfalling tropical “systems”. 2012 was extremely low, far below average.”

    “If we plot the NOAA Climate Extremes Index for 2012 with landfalling tropical cyclones, Figure 2, 2012 does in fact rank number 2 behind 1998. This confirms NOAA’s statement in their summary.”

    “But if we exclude landfalling tropical cyclones from the Climate Extremes Index, Figure 3, 2012 rises to a ranking of number 1.”

    It sounds like you are saying that if you take out tropoical cyclones, which were low, you get more extereme weather. I’m sure I just don’t undetrstand how to read the darn things–it seems that if they included the cyclones–it would make it more extreme, not rank number one by excluding them.

    Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?

  21. pat says:

    10 Jan: Daily Mail: Sean Poulter: Enough to make you shudder! Temperatures set for sudden plunge to minus 10C… as average heating bill for the elderly soars to £1,350
    •Cold snap will put huge pressure on elderly, fearful of turning up heating
    •Average gas and electricity bill for over-65s reached £1,356 last year
    •Five of ‘Big Six’ energy firms put up tariffs as winter began
    •Experts warn thousands will die from medical conditions worsened by chill

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2260490/UK-temperatures-plunge-minus-10–average-heating-elderly-soars-1-350.html

  22. garymount says:

    Are tides considered weather?

  23. DR says:

    Theo Barker says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    Anthony, Roy, and Goddard made the Fox News web site headlines questioning NOAA’s over-the-top BS SOTC:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/

    Peter Thorne……that name rings a bell. Climategate?

  24. Tim says:

    The CEI index says they base it in part on high and low temp. readings. I wonder if they normalize for an increasing # of weather stations over time or if we simply get a higher count of these “extreme” because we have more “counting stations”.

  25. garymount says:

    The reason I ask is because the Sandy expense was largely due to high tide, not to mention other reasons that have nothing to do with weather.

  26. ferd berple says:

    Tom Jones says:
    January 10, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    Until those issues are factored in, destruction and insurance claims are just a meaningless number.
    =========
    How about damage as a percent of GDP? That would actually have meaning, as it measures the ability of the nation to deal with damages. 1 billion dollars is a lot of damage if your GDP is 1 billion dollars. If your GDP is $100 trillion, then if ranks with the cost of a speeding ticket, or a night out on the town for the average person.

  27. u.k.(us) says:

    Day By Day says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm
    “Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?”
    ===========
    I knew there was a point, but had to read it twice myself.
    It seems Bob is tired of explaining every last thing :)

  28. rogerknights says:

    I suspect NCDC doesn’t have any choice as to whether or not to include cyclone damage in their SOTC reports in any given year. It’s probably cast in concrete that it must always be reported.

  29. Yes, Bob, I think NOAA is trying to mislead the public and ruin their reputation. So sorry.

  30. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @Tom in Indy

    >I hope the dollar values are adjusted for inflation. That would be a huge ‘oops’ if they are not.

    Of course they aren’t. That’s the whole point. More development means more at risk and it is inevitable that the $ value of destruction will rise. Surely the occurrence of any category of disaster has to be weighted in some way? How was that done?

  31. oldfossil says:

    I loved the bit in the Gleason et al 2008 report where they describe floods as a “moisture surplus.”

    Wouldn’t it be really cool if there were similar charts for global climate?

  32. Bob Tisdale says:

    Day By Day says: “Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?”

    Here’s how NOAA defines their Climate Extremes Index (CEI). It’s found on the webpage link to DEFINITION at the top of this webpage:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12

    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    Definition
    The U.S. CEI is the arithmetic average of the following five or six# indicators of the percentage of the conterminous U.S. area:
    1. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.
    2. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much above normal.
    3. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States in severe drought (equivalent ot the lowest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI and (b) percentage of the United States with severe moisture surplus (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI.
    4. Twice the value of the percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) 1-day precipitation events.
    5. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation and (b) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days without precipitation.
    6. *The sum of squares of U.S. landfalling tropical storm and hurricane wind velocities scaled to the mean of the first five indicators.
    HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    My post noted that factor number 6 (landfalling tropical cyclones) was so low (Figure 1 in the post) in 2012 that when they averaged it into the Climate Extremes Index it lowered the ranking for the year.

  33. Bob Tisdale says:

    u.k.(us) says: ” I knew there was a point, but had to read it twice myself. It seems Bob is tired of explaining every last thing :)”

    Sorry. I thought I had, but refer to my reply to Day By Day above for a clarification.

  34. Bob Tisdale says:

    There’s lots of talk about dollars in the comments. The units in the Climate Extremes Index are not dollars. They’re the percentage of the US with extreme weather as NOAA defines those percentages. See my reply to Day By Day here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/10/another-glitch-on-the-ncdc-state-of-the-climate-report/#comment-1195318

    Regards

  35. Gail Combs says:

    Theo Barker says: @ January 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    Anthony, Roy, and Goddard made the Fox News web site headlines questioning NOAA’s over-the-top BS SOTC:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    DR says: @ January 10, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Peter Thorne……that name rings a bell. Climategate?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Search of all climategate e-mails for Peter Thorne returns this: (21 pages)

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=Peter+Thorne&id=7

    You can use this to search:
    2009 emails: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5
    2011 e-mails: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2
    ALL e-mails: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4

    (I keep them bookmarked)

    I really like that Fox News story it actually gave both sides, wow! The Dr. Roy Spencer quotes were great but Anthony’s quote ending the piece was the real killer.

  36. Gail Combs says:

    u.k.(us) says:
    January 10, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    Day By Day says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm
    “Am I the only one whose head is exploding becasue I don’t understand what the graphs and Mr. Tisdale are actually saying?”
    ===========
    I knew there was a point, but had to read it twice myself.
    It seems Bob is tired of explaining every last thing :)
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I used to have trouble following what Bob was saying until I saw his videos:
    Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/user/BobTisdale1
    Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bugpqVan5Q

    Website: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/video-drought-hurricanes-and-heat-waves-2012-in-perspective/

    The problem with a complicated topic is either you make the assumption people are up to speed and you lose them because they do not understand or you go into the details leading up to your present conclusion, become to wordy and lose them.

    Bob ‘solved’ the problem by making videos and writing a book. Me? I am just too wordy.

  37. higley7 says:

    Is their inclusion of tropical cyclones an attempt to include the non-hurricane Sandy as extreme weather, legitimizing the hype about how terrible it was.

    If you live on the shore and do not adequately insure, it’s all your problem. There is no reason to believe that a storm will never hit your part of the coast and also that the rest of the country has to pay for your house or the infrastructure of your town. Adequate funds should have been put aside for such contingencies.

  38. Frank K. says:

    Hi Bob,

    I really don’t understand the concept of a “Climate Extreme”. What does that mean? The weather events over a year’s time is NOT climate! Remember the warmist’s meme of “Weather != Climate”? If there was a period of thirty years where tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, floods etc. were abnormal, then we can call that period a “Climate Extreme”.

    I think that inserting “Climate” when it really is “Weather” is simply a calculated move on NOAA’s part to keep the climate change machine going before people catch on and the funding dries up…

  39. Jimbo says:

    O/T but VERY important indeed for the sake of humanity.
    According to Dr. James Hansen president Obama has just one week left to save the planet.

    Sunday 18 January 2009 – Guardian
    “We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”

    Hansen said current carbon levels in the atmosphere were already too high to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Yet the levels are still rising despite all the efforts of politicians and scientists.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

    H/t Marc Morano

  40. Silver Ralph says:

    barryjo says: January 10, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    Since these people always like to point out the dollar value of the damage done by “extreme” weather, shouldn’t there be a concomitant value for stupidity? Such as building near the water, REbuilding near the water, not installing sufficient protections, etc?
    ______________________________

    And building wooden shacks instead of houses.

    I have said it before, but even the Three Little Pigs realised that houses should be made of brick or concrete. Come on, USA, if the rest of the world can afford ‘stone’ housing, why are you still using sticks?

    .

  41. David says:

    I suspect that inflation has (possibly deliberately) NOT been allowed for – the article certainly doesn’t mention it.
    So – apart from all the other factors, such as:
    Population increase in the affected areas
    Building in stupid flood zones (we get this a lot in the UK – regular houses being built on ‘flood plains’)
    – factors which affect the figure:
    Everyone has more ‘stuff’
    The ‘stuff’ they have is more expensive to replace
    More people have insurance.
    So – its not difficult to meet the magical $1bn figure….
    :

  42. Bob,

    Interestingly, if you look at Step 5,

    The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation and (b) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days without precipitation.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/5/01-12

    You also get very moderate figures, with very low levels of both category.

    The overall claim of “an extreme year” seems to be based largely on warmer weather and PDSI.

    Paul

  43. As much of the “higher temperatures”, that are largely driving this index, occurred in the winter/spring and late autumn, I fail to see how these in any way could be regarded as “extreme”.

    Would not “mild” be a better description?

  44. Ethically Civil says:

    Looking at the individual components it looks like the ranking is driven strong by the first two:

    1. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.
    2. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much above normal.

    Note that both are somewhat misleadingly labeled. The Max and Min “extremes” are variations to *both* sides of normal. In other words more moderate temperatures (Max below norm and Min above norm) are included in the definition of extreme. This is an interesting definition that might be considered Orwellian — “moderate is extreme!”

    Of course it would be uncivil to ascribe intentional deception to the authors of the metrics. I would be very interested to know which of those extremes are “moderate” and which are actual extrema.

    I would also be interested in the definition of “much” as without that none of it is reproducible.

  45. Billy Liar says:

    Theo Barker says:
    January 10, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    Anthony, Roy, and Goddard made the Fox News web site headlines questioning NOAA’s over-the-top BS SOTC:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/

    I like the use of the word ‘revisions’ with respect to climate data rather than ‘adjustments'; it has such a nice ring to it , don’t you think?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism)

  46. _Jim says:

    Silver Ralph says January 11, 2013 at 5:50 am

    And building wooden shacks instead of houses.

    I have said it before, but even the Three Little Pigs realised that houses should be made of brick or concrete. Come on, USA, if the rest of the world can afford ‘stone’ housing, why are you still using sticks?

    … too busy saving european-butt I reckon …

    We’ve been down this subject discussion before, Ralphy-boy …

    .

  47. _Jim says:

    Silver Ralph says January 11, 2013 at 5:50 am

    Come on, USA, if the rest of the world can afford ‘stone’ housing, why are you still using sticks?

    Little benefit to building a concrete-block structure even whose roof is pulled-free in a tornado leaving four bare walls with the contents in shreds … I guess you have not ‘run the economics’ on this subject Ralphy …

    .

  48. Bob Tisdale says:

    rogerknights says: “I suspect NCDC doesn’t have any choice as to whether or not to include cyclone damage in their SOTC reports in any given year. It’s probably cast in concrete that it must always be reported.”

    Including landfalling tropical cyclone data (not damage) is experimental. See the footnote under the list of “indicators” that are part of the “definition” webpage (there’s no direct link to the webpage):

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12

    It reads “The sixth indicator is experimental and is included in the experimental version of the CEI.”

  49. Bob Tisdale says:

    Frank K. says: “I really don’t understand the concept of a “Climate Extreme”. What does that mean?”

    NOAA defines the Climate Extremes Index on their “definition” webpage here (no direct link. You have to click on the menu at the top of the webpage):

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/cei/01-12

    They write:

    Definition
    The U.S. CEI is the arithmetic average of the following five or six# indicators of the percentage of the conterminous U.S. area:
    1. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.
    2. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much above normal.
    3. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States in severe drought (equivalent ot the lowest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI and (b) percentage of the United States with severe moisture surplus (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI.
    4. Twice the value of the percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) 1-day precipitation events.
    5. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation and (b) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days without precipitation.
    6. *The sum of squares of U.S. landfalling tropical storm and hurricane wind velocities scaled to the mean of the first five indicators.

  50. Laurie Bowen says:

    Roger Lowenstein my newest and most current hero . . . “””Americans, with their strange belief in improvability, have always been prey to conmen selling Jesus or instant riches or enduring health. American finance itself—the author seems unaware—has a long tradition of boosterism.”””

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-11/book-review-pound-foolish-by-helaine-olen

    Says it best, for me . . . . I sure would like to see him write on the subject and the AGW, Al Gore issue.

    Don’t mean to plug, but I recently read When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management by Roger Lowenstein it definitely confirmed what many have called “silly notions”.

  51. Day By Day says:

    Thank you Mr.Teasdale–that really did help. I, like most of America, had a very different interpretation of “Extreme Climate.” My biggest problem and that of most of America is that regular folk describe “Extreme Weather” or “Extreme Climate” as more tornados, floods, hurricanes, and drought–they do not consider it days of “much below noraml and much above normal” of anything. I had this dicussion with my Mom and brohter, both who believe the AGW meme–and they were shocked that tornadoes were low, no major huricanes making land fall in 7 years, floods average gobally–we looked up the data together and I literally shocked them with the facts. My Mom asked, “why do they keep saying it was so extreme?”

    So the answer to the question posed in your article is, “Whether they intend to mislead or not–it is terribly misleading becasue most people think it is the floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and such…

    And what is “much below normal?” That’s about as unscientific as one can get. What kind of data is that?

    Frank K. says: I really don’t understand the concept of a “Climate Extreme”. What does that mean? The weather events over a year’s time is NOT climate! Remember the warmist’s meme of “Weather != Climate”? If there was a period of thirty years where tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, floods etc. were abnormal, then we can call that period a “Climate Extreme”

    Yes! thanks for that–my point exactly.

    **************************************
    Silver Ralph says: And building wooden shacks instead of houses. I have said it before, but even the Three Little Pigs realised that houses should be made of brick or concrete. Come on, USA, if the rest of the world can afford ‘stone’ housing, why are you still using sticks?

    You obviously don’t understand earthquakes–only wood stands and earthquake proof steel. My Mom had 4 houses in the great Landers earthquake–epicenter just a few hundred yards from her place–the trailers and wood stood and the block and rock came falling down!

    Thanks Gail–I only have dial up now, but that should change in the next few months…I’ll catch Mr.Teasdale’s videos when I get the bandwith.

  52. Jason says:

    This makes me very mad. It is illogical. $1B in NYC is not much. The people drive expensive cars, the real estate is expensive. That’s like 100 penthouses. That city plus London are the financial capitals of the world. Money does not go far. However $1B in Louisiana goes much farther. That’s like 100,000 trailers. ($10k each)

  53. Ben says:

    Strange.
    When performed regionally, only Ohio Valley and Southwest finished first for 2012.

    Northeast = 6th or 7th
    UpperMidwest = 4th
    Southeast = 11th
    South = 2nd
    Northern Rockies and Plains = 3rd
    West = 15th
    Northwest = 24th

Comments are closed.