NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Global Warming Update: cherry picked data debunked

Global Warming and Hurricanes: Still No Connection
By Patrick Michaels, at Tech Central Station
A scientific team led by Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology today published findings in Science magazine. The team claimed to have found evidence in the historical record of both more tropical cyclones, such as Hurricane Katrina, but also a higher percentage of more intense ones.

This follows on the heels of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Kerry Emanual proclaiming in the Aug. 4 on-line edition of Nature magazine that he had found evidence that global warming in the last 30 years was producing more intense cyclones.

The conclusion many draw from papers such as these is that anthropogenic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing more lethal storms. A closer look, though, reveals not human actions but rather natural cycles are the primary cause.

Dr. Michaels presents the graphs of frquency and intensity starting in 1945, when the Hurricane Hunter program started, to the present. You can see that the current hurricane frequency and intensity are all part of a larger pattern. If you start in 1970, Webster gets an uptrend. Look at the whole record you get normal variation pattern. Hummm. This is real science?

Dr Michaels after presenting the charts for you to see, concludes:
While the impacts of the currently active hurricane period are being felt especially hard in the United States, there remains no scientific proof that human contributions to an enhanced greenhouse effect are the root cause.

Full report with the charts here.
UPDATE: Climate Science has additional data and confirmation for the above article here.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.


Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Russ, the irony of your comments is that your own government's military as well as allied government's militaries don't believe you. Right now, Canada is expecting that warming will reopen the Northwest Passage, and is planning to take control of this new SLOC. has numerous independent sources of data drawn from a number of countries, including China, that indicates extreme weather conditions have gone up concurrent with anthropogenic global warming.

Mon Sep 19, 02:03:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...

Fredric: Please give me some reference to the military. The one study that made a big splash in the liberal press has been debunked. It was a what if study, based on a hypothetical rapid climate change scenaro. The military does a lot of what if planning. These plans are not proof of anything, other than the military likes war games and pays contractors to do what if studies for their war games.

Tom has some interesting opinions, but little data to support his views. Show me some graphs or tables that show long term extream weather conditions, that are concurrent with human caused warming. You cannot, because we are only looking at the past 100 years, and many weather cycles are thousands of years long.

Get real!

Mon Sep 19, 07:59:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

The Pentagon report? And I gave you the references to Canada's military. Also look up Kaplan's fantastic "Coming Anarchy".

Was "debunked"? You mean, with your sole argument that the military does all sorts of scenario analyses? Yes, Russ, and it also puts priorities on some above others. They undoubtedly have a contingency plan for an invasion from Luxembourg or Canada, but those aren't ever expected to happen. The global warming study accepted the broad scientific consensus as likely fact and analyzed the disastrous possibilities. Yes, it did not try to get into the scientific debate, but it did not declare that warming was not occuring and that this was just a theoretical test, or even put any kind of equity between the two models.

"Liberal media?" First of all, media serves the corporations that, well, constitute and pay the media. Pretty easy. This often means leaning liberal, but in general it means accepting the corporate consensus. In fact, recently it has been going right, as FAIR has documented. Why the global warming news has been breaking recently is that elites are now beginning to evaluate its potential impacts on their bottom lines in very serious manners.

Or, to use Maddox's rebuttal: "To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right."

Russ, you can post graph after graph as you may, but the fact is that we are laymen and very likely to miss vital facts. When scientists provide conclusions and reasoning, I don't go through all of the data and graphs again myself. But how about the links I showed you that included graphs, such as this one, Or these: The ice core data is very good at showing that the change we've experienced in this century is beyond anything experienced before in terms of rapidity.

Tue Sep 20, 12:05:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home