House Democrats Spread ‘Lies’ About Climate Change And Hurricanes, Scientist Says

From The Daily Caller

Michael Bastasch Energy Editor

June 24, 2019 11:17 AM ET

  • House Democrats published “inaccurate” climate change claims on a committee website, according to a scientist.
  • Democrats based the “inaccurate” claim on information posted online by environmental activists.
  • “This is not in accord with current science or consensus anywhere = fraud,” the scientist said.

House Democrats’ climate change hearing is based on “inaccurate” information that’s “not in accord with current science or consensus,” according to a scientist.

A Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday on natural disaster policy “in the wake of climate change.” However, Democrats are under fire for making claims on the hearing’s webpage that don’t line up with the facts.

Atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue, a hurricane expert, tweeted that the Democrats’ hearing “spreads lies” about the scientific consensus on climate change and hurricanes. The House subcommittee is chaired by California Rep. Harley Rouda and includes Green New Deal champion New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a member.

Maue pointed out that major scientific assessments cast doubt on claims global warming is increasing hurricane frequency or intensity. (RELATED: Trump’s EPA Repealed The Centerpiece Of Obama’s Climate Agenda)

“This is not in accord with current science or consensus anywhere = fraud,” Maue said of House Democrats’ climate claims, which relies on information on information posted online by environmental activists.

Hurricane Florence is shown from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) #GOESEast satellite shortly after the storm made landfall near Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, U.S., September 14, 2018. NOAA/Handout via REUTERS.

Hurricane Florence is shown from a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) #GOESEast satellite shortly after the storm made landfall near Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, U.S., September 14, 2018. NOAA/Handout via REUTERS.

Maue took issue with Democrats’ claim that “due to climate change, ‘the number of hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 in strength has roughly doubled’ since the 1970s” — a claim that doesn’t line up with scientific assessments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other organizations.

NOAA, for example, says the rising trend in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the North Atlantic is based on data that’s “not reliable for trend calculations, until they have been further assessed for data homogeneity problems, such as those due to changing observing practices.”

Democrats linked to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) website, which points to a 2005 study on hurricanes and global warming. Based on that paper, the website claimed that “[s]ince the mid-1970s, the number of hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 in strength has roughly doubled.”

“Among the many studies included on that page is a link to a 2005 peer-reviewed Science study looking specifically at the increase in intensity of Atlantic hurricanes,” Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at UCS, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The language our webpage uses to characterize that study could be clearer in describing the results and the time period in question,” Ekwurzel said. “On the same page, we also discuss and link to a broad range of more recent studies.”

UCS changed the language on its website after being contacted by the DCNF. The updated website reads, “one 2005 peer-reviewed study showed a large increase in the number of North American hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 when comparing the most recent 15-year period to the prior 15-year period.”

NOAA National Weather Service National Hurricane Center image of Hurricane Irma approaching Puerto Rico

Hurricane Irma, a record Category 5 storm, is seen approaching Puerto Rico in this NOAA National Weather Service National Hurricane Center satellite image taken on September 6, 2017. Courtesy NOAA National Weather Service National Hurricane Center/Handout via REUTERS.

Interestingly enough, the 2005 study UCS relied on was co-authored by climate scientist Judith Curry, a prominent critic of climate alarmism. Curry will appear at Tuesday’s hearing at the invitation of oversight committee Republicans.

Curry’s 2005 paper found that the strongest hurricanes had doubled in number, though she and her co-authors did not attribute the increase to global warming.

“Should be an interesting hearing,” Curry told the DCNF. “We did not attribute this to anthropogenic global warming, although a subsequent paper showed that this increase shares information with the increase in sea surface temperature.”

However, a 2015 follow-up study by two hurricane experts came to the opposite conclusion of Curry and her co-authors. The follow-up study found the upward trend in destructive storms was “due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centers.”

Oversight committee Democrats did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “House Democrats Spread ‘Lies’ About Climate Change And Hurricanes, Scientist Says

  1. Cherry picking studies is typical for advocacy groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists.

      • Democrats linked to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) website, which points to a 2005 study on hurricanes and global warming. Based on that paper, the website claimed that “[s]ince the mid-1970s, the number of hurricanes that reach Categories 4 and 5 in strength has roughly doubled.”

        INFO FROM WIKI

        Years (25) Total Cat 4-5/YEARLY AVERAGE
        1951–1975 22 / 0.88
        1976–2000 24 / 0.96
        2001–2018 24 / 1.4

        Looks more like a statisticaly insignificant gradual increase rather than an outrght doubling

        • Let’s not forget that those tracking and and determining strengthj prior to 1976 were using far less sophisticated tools.

  2. The Dems will probably beat up Judy Curry. I’m sure she will be able to hold her own if they let her answer fully.

    • It’s too bad the format doesn’t allow Curry to question Mann. That would be far more interesting than having Congressmen ask questions in the form of statement pushing agendas. Of course, if that was the case, Mann would definitely be afraid to participate.

      • Such forums are not really to uncover the truth or even to expose and sort out the incompetent or biased work. The same goes for shameful use of expert witnesses in jury trials and lawyer attacks on the few accurate experts to “even” the playing field.

  3. Besides the issue of observation, the number of major North Atlantic hurricanes fell after 2005, so the “trend” will be broken for the period 2006-20.

  4. Ir’s the bread and butter of the socialist/green factions to make grandiose claims in defiance of reality, so is anyone really surprised?

    For example, has AOC and/or her comrades ever said anything remotely true about climate change?

      • Somewhere on earth, at any given time, 365 days a year, there is a “drought” a “flood” an earthquake, ect. ect. Why is ANY of this news?

  5. Propaganda 101: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”.
    Propaganda 102: Repeat 100 interconnected lies often enough and it becomes an unshakable ideology, and eventually the rule of law.

  6. They are doing their best to frighten 8-years old. I see only one mistake, they invited Dr. Judith Curry, a real scientist.

  7. Meanwhile, the [UK] modeled hotter drier summer has been observed to be cloudier, cooler and far more wet.

    Where is my global warming?

  8. This is completely rational. Cite the science of your donor group’s advocacy science to get ahead and win brownie points, the public won’t notice. We’ll wake them up later with street money when it’s time to go vote.

  9. It’s shocking that they would rely on a study that compared hurricanes in 1990-2005 with 1975-1990. We’re now 13 years into the next 15-year period. The fact that they haven’t cited any post-2005 data is clear evidence that that data won’t support their story.

    It’s blatant cherry picking. And, on top of that, unsupported attribution of the cherry-picked numbers.

    In other words, standard practice for climate science.

  10. Where is the reanalysis of the FSU research validating Al Gore’s prediction of increased, dangerous hurricane activity right before the drop in such activity?

  11. The simple truth is- we do NOT know how to change the frequency or severity of hurricanes, tornadoes, or any other extreme weather events. Any politician, “expert,” activist, or celebrity who says we do is lying, self-deluded, ignorant, or all three. They’re no different from faith healers and snake-oil salesmen. Hungry for your money and power over you.

  12. Scary headlines, no matter how dishonest, are essential to mass political propaganda. Repression of honest evaluation of the scary headlines is also essential to mass political propaganda. We see this in daily action through the media here in the USA. Very few voters will actually read the details behind the headlines and understand the political science fraud being committed.

  13. Alexandria Cortez is a useful tool subcommittee participant, parroting the scary headlines to reinforce the political fraud. Her particular brand of ‘AOC stream of unconsciousness’ utterances targets the mentally malleable millennials and is a perfect fit for the propaganda purpose.

      • In certain parts of the American West, and in many other dry, arid regions of the world, droughts have been quite common for many decades. In fact, there have been droughts going back hundreds, even thousands of years, certainly long before anyone ever heard of ‘climate change’!

        The very young (under 10 years?) might be fooled by this chicanery attempt to scare people, but us older (and, I hope, far wiser) heads have actually SEEN the past and the kinds of WEATHER we have had to live through! The fact is, the current weather is NO WORSE than anything we have seen in our lifetimes. That is the fact!

        As for the earth getting hotter, it’s all hoooey! Scare me now, shame on you. Scare me later, too, shame on me! It’s like the ghost stories of our childhood. Some people LOVE to tell scary stories, going to great lengths, in fact! Others, it seems, LOVE to be scared, and will believe the BS stories, no matter what! Hence all those reality shows on TV where they go looking for ‘paranormal phenomenon’ , but never seem to really FIND any! We have all heard these stories before, over and over. The only difference, now, is that SOME ‘story tellers’ have figured out a way to make themselves filthy rich! Do I believe it? No! And you shouldn’t, either!

  14. What are the interests of so called scientists perpetrating lies?

    Why are they are being allowed to pass on these lies to the detriment of our societies?

    How do we halt the beliefs of the innocent/ignorant?

    It would appear to be a giant political game.
    .

  15. … comparing the most recent 15-year period to the prior 15-year period.

    Fifteen-year periods. Isn’t that weather ?

    So, not only was the study about the fifteen-year periods NOT attributing anything to climate change, but also it did not even cover enough time to qualify as a climate study!

  16. Off topic…but has anyone else noted that almost the entire globe has been under cloud cover (including the oceans) the last few days…and temperatures over 90 are sparse (Sahara only exception). Most of the intertropical region is peaking around 85 degrees. Biggest cloud free zone is continental US…but still almost all in the 70’s and 80’s.

    Usually when one region is hot another region is cold. The entire northern hemisphere has been cold.

    Ocean cloud cover is breaking up some, but still abnormally high.

    Been watching global patterns for years and this is weird.

  17. One of the best way to turn this ship around is for the government to provide a lot of funding for research into natural climate variability. Right now legitimate research into climate variability, aside from the ones which say it is unimportant, is viewed as denial propaganda. However, were the gov to pour money into such studies, universities and researchers will follow that money. Right now environmentalists and climate researchers are marching hand-in-hand after the government and foundation funds. If the money flowed the other way, we would begin to see a divergence and a healthy tension in academia between those who believe it is all man made and those who think they have other ideas. It was, after all, a stroke of genius when the IPCC was chartered to study MAN MADE climate change, not climate change in general.

Comments are closed.