Oh for the love of coffee, this is just so ridiculous!
As Tropical Storm Alberto threatened to strengthen into the ninth hurricane in 22 months to affect Florida, former President Clinton predicted Monday that Republican environmental policies will lead to more severe storms.
“It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming,” Clinton said at a fundraiser for the Florida Democratic Party. “It’s a serious problem. It’s going to lead to more hurricanes.”
What was it that he did about it? Nothing
Why dont slick whllie keep his piehole shut it will do more to cut down on all that HOT AIR and of course you can always tell when he is lying becuase his mouth is open:razz:
Nice spin, peejz, but wrong again. Clinton was referring to global warming leading to more hurricanes, not Republican policies.
This is in keeping with your mantar: say it and some folks will follow like lemmings.
What did I spin Paul? The words were those of the AP, not me..I merely cited the AP articl along with the link referencing that Clinton/Gore did nada in their 8 years…
Your headline” Clinton links … GOP policies” is misleading at best. He linked global warming.
actually, it’s AP’s headline … quite misleading. See, both sides think the MSM stinks. Quite a mess we have here.
So Klinton is as utterly moronic as EcoFraud Al Gore, by claiming that “Global Warming” has increased the intensity and/or numbers of hurricanes?
That is absolutely, insanely, totally WRONG. There is absolutely NO evidence to even suggest such a thing. But these idiots have proclaimed that it is certain.
Ecofraud idiots.
From the US Dept. of Commerce:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
The U.S. Dept. of Commerce may be expert on Commerce, but it knows nothing about hurricanes.
I heard the foremost expert in the U.S. and possibly the world, from NOOA, interviewed, and he said there is zero evidence to even suggest a link. End of story.
They got a new hurricane commin in its called ALBERTO and thats spanish for ALBERT like in AL GORE and they should name a hurricane for gore since it takes HOT AIR to produce one:razz::razz:
Robert – NOAA is a Dept. of Commerce agency. You say they know “nothing about hurricanes?” LMAO.
Well, I guess your sources at the DOC who released that might want to talk to their in-house expert before they open their mouths again, because whoever released that is wrong. Again, NOAA knows: DOC don’t.
Robert, if you bothered to look at the link I posted, you would have noticed the following. “My study” was done by NOAA.
Given your obvious biased disgust with anything that remotely smacks of disagreement with your view of things, it surprises me not that you have a puritanical, tunnel-visioned view of this issue. Said differently, Dear Leader says it’s so, and you go yea, hallejah. Some free advise: stick to issues you know something about.
LMAO,,,, Paul lectures about tunnel vision. LOL
Yeah, speeches in New York about global warming on the coldest day of the is an inconvenient truth.
Someone mentions a movie by “blow hard” and Bill gets the wrong idea…
The part you copied and pasted is at the beginning of the page on the NOAA website that discusses their work, and it represents their hypothesis.
I am familiar with the Knutson and Taleya study and if you will read the entire page that discusses it you will find out that at the end they back way off that hypothesis statement acknowledging that their results are based only on their computer simulations. So I would suggest you broaden your information sources before you make proclamations.
The scientist I heard interviewed, and I was on the road so I couldn’t write down his name, is the expert on hurricanes for NOAA and he flatly stated there is absolutely no evidence to support the global warming link to hurricane frequency or intensity. ALL of the hypotheses are made solely on computer models created by, guess who, the same people who want more money to study it further.
So there just ain’t no evidence…only hypotheses and simulation results generated by computer models…sorry!
The results of my own computer simulation are now in! The results:
1. Al Gore is an EcoFraud wacko, and should be flushed down the toilet.
2. His new sidekick, Bill Klinton, doesn’t know or care about Global Warming. He just wants to hang out with Al and score some activist nookie at the next Global warming rally.
These results are based on my own latest computer model! So they must be rea1!
Back way off? Of course the report is based on computer simulations. The future hasn’t happened, yet, to base it on fact.
Look, I choose (after reading/hearing BOTH sides) to believe what I’m supporting. You choose the opposite. I think science is on my side, and that the right has historically and routinely lobbied against science. Big business opposes science because of the costs involved in complying. Hence, the right opposes. The hell with the environment.
BTW, Robert, what is the back-up rationale/science for your expert’s statements? You “heard” it? Where? Source? Provide the facts.
my #17 … was at the tail end of the report I quote. Hardly backing off.
Of course. The future hasn’t happened yet. So anybody can claim anything, especially when there’s lots of money in predicting that, well, you need to keep studying it! You see, it isn’t just Republicans and business that wants the money. It’s the Eco industry, too. It can be argued that “Environmentalism” is big business too.
Big business opposes science because of the costs involved in complying. Hence, the right opposes. The hell with the environment.
When you try to cross science with politics, there no longer is any science.
Remember just after Klinton left office, the huge Republican Culture of Environmental Corruption scandal? Yeah, the Greenies and the Democrites were screamning about how Bush was polluting our water with Arsenic. Turns out that it was all a bunch of BS. I am very familiar with the science involved there, and it was total BS. Klinton started that debacle just before he left office by approving new EPA standards for Arsenic levels in water that were ridiculously low, in the ppb as I recall, when there was absolutely no data, no evidence whatsoever, to mandate lowering the standards at all. Even detecting the Arsenic at those low levels was difficult. Klinton did it, of course, just to set a trap for Bush, because he knew that by the time Bush got in, industry would be organized and demand that this absured, unwarranted standard be rescinded and the whole mess would fall into Bush’s lap. It worked all right, because the Democrites went right after Bush. It was as though Bush and Cheney were going out there at night and dumping 100 lb bags full of Arsenic powder into our drinking water. Thats almost what they made it sound like.
This was just a little example of how when politics get involved, science no longer matters. Kyoto was another classic example. Even Klinton wasn’t crazy enough to fall for that one.
“As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is considerable uncertainty in projections of future radiative forcing of earth’s climate. A criticism of our paper by Michaels et al. was recently published in the Journal of Climate. Our response is available here.
An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to an increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms.”
Italics added. That is at the very end of their NOAA web page reporting this study. Hardly a proof, or even a preponderence of evidence. More like a “Gee, we need to study it more, so give us more money…”
What were you saying about NOAA and DOC?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/G4.html
Hurricane Research Division
Subject: G4) Are we getting stronger and more frequent hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical cyclones in the last several years?
Contributed by Chris Landsea
Globally, no. However, for the Atlantic basin we have seen an increase in the number of strong hurricanes since 1995. As can be seen in section E9, we have had a record 33 hurricanes in the four years of 1995 to 1999 (accurate records for the Atlantic are thought to begin around 1944). The extreme impacts from Hurricanes Marilyn (1995), Opal (1995), Fran (1996), Georges (1998) and Mitch (1998) in the United States and throughout the Caribbean attest to the high amounts of Atlantic hurricane activity lately.
As discussed in the previous section, it is highly unlikely that global warming has (or will) contribute to a drastic change in the number or intensity of hurricanes. We have not observed a long-term increase in the intensity or frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. Actually, 1991-1994 marked the four quietest years on record (back to the mid-1940s) with just less than 4 hurricanes per year. Instead of seeing a long-term trend up or down, we do see a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases for major Atlantic hurricanes on the scale of 25-40 years each (Gray 1990; Landsea 1993; Landsea et al. 1996). The quiet decades of the 1970s to the early 1990s for major Atlantic hurricanes were likely due to changes in the Atlantic Ocean sea surface temperature structure with cooler than usual waters in the North Atlantic. The reverse situation of a warm North Atlantic was present during the active late-1920s through the 1960s (Gray et al. 1997).
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –
That’s enough use of RV bandwidth for now. But do you get the point? For every NOAA article you claim for your side, I can get another that says no. And my side has actual historical data, while yours has simulations based on computer models they developed. Which do you think is more convincing?
But EcoFraud Gore says that the evidence is in, the case is closed, it’s a shore thang! You see what an asinine whacko he is? THAT’s my point.
On the global warming fraud front, I am sick and tired of hearing that bunch of unproven drivel trotted out as science. Look up the Duke University tree ring study. It shows that temperatures during the late middle ages, as in BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, were in fact higher than they currently are and that we are simply in the middle of a cool end of the earth’s environmental temperature cycle. Apparently the earth goes through temperature cycles that last approximately 800 years or so. We are simply starting back on the upswing.
The one fact that is undeniable, and I think puts the whole argument in perspective, is that as late as the mid 1960s they were predicting a coming ice age. “They” are some of the same people that were very early adopters of the global warming theory. So let’s see…in 20-30 years we went from heading into an ice age to global warming being an imminent issue. How amazing! The Earth is what 4-5 billion years old, but seems to be extremely volatile, even today!
I remember as a kid in grade school contemplating the terrible realities of the new ice age to come. But that was all before SUVs. Imagine…the climate of the earth changed by SUVs…:lol:
Paul, the computer models the left bases their enfironmental whackoism are as skewed as a CNN poll or a NBC Dateline report on Chevy pickups.
I program coputers for a living. I see when the whackos put their assumptions and prejudices in the programming of the models, the get the results THEY DESIRE.
They can’t consistently model anything to the future, through the present, and then the past with the same model. The models are severely and fatally flawed, but the Pauls of the world choose to disregard it and shout like Chicken Little.
I would both AL GORE and BILL CLINTON are crazy as loons but the loons are probibly more intellegent then these two wackos:razz:
Hey Robert, want to hear the scary truth? The truth is that the Earth is getting warmer, and we are going to have another Ice age. It’s called a CYCLE, something the econazis refuse to admit exists. There is abundant evidence that they Earth has gone through MULTIPLE heating and cooling cycles. It’s also a KNOWN FACT that the Sun will one day go either Nova or Supernova and fry half of the solar system before buring out, forming a medium sized Black hole which will then suck in and crush probably all but the very outermost planets. What can I say? The Earth is doomed. Am I going to worry about it? Nope, I’m not planning on living forever so why should I care what happens to this rock a few millenium after I’m dead? Some moron in a lab will probably come up with a bioengineered disease that wipes out life as we know it in a quest for the next best treatment for wrinkles or something else stupid like that before then anyway.
Don’t you just love it when liberals whine about global warming just hours after flying around in private jets?
The important thing is that we empower the Left! That is what they want: control over your life and your rights.