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 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:

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.

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.