Well, first, if you’re referring to it using a political phrase, climate change, rather than a scientific one, anthropogenic global warming, yeah, we ignore it. Second, when you start blaming snow storms on the release of greenhouse gases, well, then you truly are a brainwashed moron. Witness Patrick Doyle at Boston Magazine
Why Does the GOP Still Ignore Climate Change?
With Hurricane Isaac hammering Louisiana with 80 mile-per-hour winds, you would think the Republican Party might pause to consider: “Hey, what’s with all this crazy weather?†New Orleans, after all, is just a short trip around the Gulf of Mexico from Tampa, where the GOP is holding their Republican National Convention. And it’s clear they’re aware that Isaac actually exists, since they shortened the convention from four days to three—not necessarily because Tampa was going to get hit, but just to avoid the “optics†of a big Republican party occurring while New Orleans floods. After all, George W. Bush didn’t avail himself too well during Katrina.
Apparently, there never were hurricanes before 1980. Here’s the kicker
But instead of acknowledging the fact that climate change exists and is responsible for the increasing weather extremes—more hurricanes, more snowstorms, more tornadoes, more scorching-drought-filled summers—the Republicans continue to not just ignore climate change, but mock President Obama for being concerned about it. The only mention of climate change in the entire 2012 Republican Platform isn’t in the environmental/energy section, but in a critique of Obama’s national security strategy:
In fact, hurricanes are down. It’s been over 2,500 days since a major hurricane hit the US. Isaac is the first hurricane (barely) to hit the US since September 13, 2008. Overall, hurricane numbers are down. Tornadoes are down. While there is drought in the US, many parts of the world are wet. What these bat guano insane Warmists position as “extreme weather” is simply weather, which has always happened, and always will.
And, seriously, snow storms?
SIGH. Anyone with a tv or network connection would be able to know that the winds maxed out around 50mph gusts. Most of the winds were in the 30-40 range. Thats a nice strong storm where I’m from.
And, like you said, it was barely a Cat1 Hurricane. Despite the media and NOAA’s clammering that it would be a Cat5 by the time it made landfall, it refused to follow their models.
And, once again, it spits in their eye by becoming nearly stationary over Eastern LA and Mississippi. Mississippi actually got most of the brunt of this storm, but the media has always ignored them – even during the Katrina aftermath.
But, let me ask these warmistas a question: Has the Southern States never experienced a Tropical Storm or Hurricane ever before? Is the area not known for being shaped and adapted because of the frequency of these storms?
People move there knowing the danger they get in to. I don’t move to California area because I know that there is a high likelihood of earthquakes (among many reasons) in that area. I choose not to be a part of that. I do live in the plains states where tornados and strong thunderstorms (mini-hurricanes – more localized) occur. I accept that risk.
People who choose to live on the southern or south eastern coast also must accept the risk of being blown to smithereens from hurricanes every now and then. They have to take the good with the bad.
YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOTIC MORONIC INEPT DOOFUS!!! Talk like that gets tomatoes thrown at your head. Is this guy a flat-earther then?
And the Pac-NW is actually cooler than normal. Amazing how weather changes. Oh, but then weather IS climate.
Teach please list YOUR numbers here. Because I see that last year there were 19 hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin whic was far above normal, fortunately none hit that part of the planet known as the USA.
Because I see that last year there were 19 hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin….
Bull.
You saw no such thing.
Here is a map of the storms in 2011. Here is the data set for all hurricanes and storms in the last century.
Notice the actual data supported by the map, the NHC data sets, NOAA data and every other source:
There were 20 storms in 2011. Of those 20 storms, only 7 were hurricanes.
Not 19 like you claimed, but 7.
Furthermore, it isn’t as if you can claim that you misread the numbers and thought “storms” meant the same as “hurricanes.” Once again, there were 20 storms, yet you claimed 19 hurricanes. (19 does not equal 20.)
You were the one the other day that said Teach needed to check on his “primary data.” It appears that once again you have been caught making stuff up because it fits your own world view and not reality.
Um nope, there were 7 hurricanes last year, that’ slightly higher than the average of 6 annual hurricanes. Nothing unusual.
read it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season
cheers
Nice job, GC.
John, how many made landfall? The US is prime real estate for hurricanes to hit, yet, Isaac was the first in almost 4 years. And, really, some could seriously quibble with the numbers, since no airport measuring stations nor any buoys showed consistent 74mph+ winds. The buoys are typically the best for the data, since they have constant readings. Airports tend to publish hourly. You may get hurricane winds aloft, but not at ground level.
Buoys can read lower levels because of the sea level changes and waves during a hurricane, but, when you start looking at some wind gust data, yeah, I’ll say it was a hurricane. Barely.
Anyhow, what of tornadoes, John? They are way down. And, how about blaming snow storms on greenhouse gases? Even you have to admit that is pure stupidity.
And lest we forget, the predictions were for more and larger storms to hit the USA. Not just that there would be MORE than average. This has been the prediction made over the last few years since 2005. They were to be far more destructive to boot.
Media predictions with Hurricane Isaac were saying the damages were going to be larger than Katrina!! OMG OMGOMG.
Kind of hard to have massive devastation and destruction with a mild cat1 hurricane in an area that was recently cleared and rebuilt from one a few years prior.
Klem, how many of those made landfall in the US? 2. Irene was not a hurricane when during either landfall. A good chunk of them.
A big difference is that satellites can see these tropical storms that never get close to anything. The 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s were replete with numerous hurricane strikes, especially major hurricanes. Why? Because they made it to land. We know little of those that didn’t. You have to compare apples to apples.
The bad part about Isaac was that it almost stalled out, dropping tons of rain. We had that in NC back in 1999 with 2 tropical systems that flooded eastern NC. It was brutal.
But, even a tropical storm can cause damage. When Fran blew through Raleigh in 1996 it really tore shit up. That was one wild night, I’ll tell you.
There is no trend in tornadoes…In fact, if anything, they are lessening…Here’s the statisitical graph through 2010.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/image.png
Same thing with hurricanes. As you can see, they are not increasing. Even Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Craig Fugate calls hurricanes cyclical…and there is no evidence of a connection to climate change…much less anthropogenic global warming. Here’s the graph:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
There is no increase in drought, and you can find the documentation as well as a rather sweet take down of NASA’s James Hansen right here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/12/nasas-james-hansen-is-just-wrong-proof-that-there-is-no-increased-drought-in-the-usa-tied-to-temperature/
I’m not even going to document the snow storms until the Warmists actually take a position on whether there are more or less of them…They are straddling the fence, and claiming superiority either way…
Cheers,
The Worm
It’s not the GOP that intentionally avoids talking about global warming. Obama has talked very rarely about global warming on the campaign trail or any time in the past 2 years (oops, I already said “on the campaign trail”). It’s clear why he doesn’t want to. The majority of Americans disagree with his socialistic cap n trade plan. Obama’s scared to talk about global warming, but if he does speak his mind of global warming, Republicans would be all to happy to talk about why they oppose his position.
Talking about AGW is political poison, neither side wants to talk about it. But Obama says that if he is re elected, AGW will be a big topic for him. I think he is just talking, I don’t think Obama can get anywhere with AGW and he knows it, especially after giving billions to companies like Solyndra which acccept the money and then go out of business, taking the cash with them. Oldest trick in the book.
Hey Klem, while the political leaders of the parties may not want to talk about it, the people in the blogs and on the streets are. It is they\us who feel the brunt of these overbearing, burdensome, job-killing, sometimes unconstitutional executive moves are reaping.
We are the ones either stuck without electricity because monies are going to build rotting solar panels, burning or stationary wind turbines, or E-meters, and not to upgrading and strengthening our transmission grid.
We are the ones having to rely heavily upon Air Conditioning or life-saving heat that we pay for from our ever dwindling paychecks.
We are the ones that have seen our gasoline prices double, our energy prices skyrocket, our food prices near double, and our dollar drastically devalued.
And, if our leaders refuse to listen to us and our problems, then it is time to replace them and their corrupt system no matter who they are.
“We are the ones that have seen our gasoline prices double, our energy prices skyrocket, our food prices near double, and our dollar drastically devalued.”
You got that right, all it takes is the printing of trillions of new dollars to devalue the currency, it drives up the cost of energy, drives up the cost of food and increases unemployment. A devalued dollar simply does not buy as much.
Is it any wonder that unemployment was historically low under Clinton’s administration? The cost of a barrel of oil at that time was $15!!! The dollar was strong, it meant cheap oil, which means cheap gas, cheap food, it means jobs and employment.
Take a look at this graph if you want to see how much money we have been printing under Obama. No wonder there are no jobs.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=AMBNS
For some reason when you click the link the graph is not coming through properly. Try this cutting and pasting this address.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE/