IPCC “science” on hurricanes no longer settled, either

posted at 8:48 am on March 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists insisted that the stronger storm systems resulted from the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making hurricanes increasingly more severe.  These claims made their way into the UN’s IPCC report and have been a staple of AGW arguments for immediate and drastic action to limit energy production as part of the “settled science” attempt to shut down debate.  Unfortunately for the hysterics, new peer-reviewed research published in Nature Geoscience concludes that hurricane strength has little to do with global warming:

Research by hurricane scientists may force the UN’s climate panel to reconsider its claims that greenhouse gas emissions have caused an increase in the number of tropical storms. …

However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

In other words, the weather changes from year to year.  That’s not to say that global warming of any kind — man-made or natural — won’t have some impact on storm activity.  In fact, it will decrease tropical storms by a third (emphases mine):

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

What can we conclude from this?  Climatology is a very inexact and developing science.  Even the researchers agree on that much:

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore’s book as “misleading”.

Landsea is not an AGW skeptic, but left his IPCC post in 2005 over the politicization of the scientific process at the UN body.  At the very least, the scientific research showing that hurricane strength cycles have nothing to do with AGW or carbon emissions is yet another reason to dismiss the highly-politicized 2007 report and the blatherings of politicians using it to seize control of the private energy sector.  About the only reliable information left in the IPCC report is the page numbers.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Computer modeling of Climate Change is such a joke.

Anyone can write a program that will spit out the results you want.

You want 2 + 2 = 5? Computers can make it happen!

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 8:51 AM

A lot of huff and puff about less huff and puff.

OldEnglish on March 1, 2010 at 8:51 AM

The STUPIDITY is settled.

ParisParamus on March 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM

Are we sure the page numbers are correct?

Dasher on March 1, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Set his monkey hair face on fire. Warming never felt so good.

Coronagold on March 1, 2010 at 8:53 AM

duh

kelley in virginia on March 1, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Between these certified nitwits and the equally idiotic Op-Ed piece run over the weekend by the goof who started everything, Algore, maybe it is time for the media as a whole to just turn their backs on these clowns and just not pay attention to them anymore.

And there should be an even louder than before outcry to make Algore give that Nobel prize back!

pilamaye on March 1, 2010 at 8:54 AM

‘So what if we’re wrong?
We’re saving the planet, here…
So shut up and pay!”

Haiku Guy on March 1, 2010 at 8:54 AM

About the only reliable information left in the IPCC report is the page numbers.

Probably not even those. A lot of times if a student uses a lot of filler and rambles on in-cohesively just to get a term paper up to the required pages, the teacher notices and says that the paper is short and since pretty much all of the IPCC report is in-cohesiveness they really shouldn’t have bothered writing the report at all. It’s nothing but a waste of paper. And they claim to care about the environment.

MobileVideoEngineer on March 1, 2010 at 8:55 AM

Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980’s are the highest on record.

From the NYT
January 26, 1989

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

Jeff2161 on March 1, 2010 at 8:55 AM

massive declines in global temperatures as well as record snowfall proves global warming – Al Gore.

The Science Is Settled!!

Guardian on March 1, 2010 at 8:55 AM

1. Is the earth warming?
2. If so, is man the cause for all of the warming?
3. If so, can man create a plan to fix it?
4. If so, can man properly implement such a plan?

When the first question starts out with “maybe” as an answer, the following questions are premature, at best.

beatcanvas on March 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM

The largest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.

blatantblue on March 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM

“AGW causes earthquakes” in 5… 4… 3…

Oops, too late. It’s already out there.

petefrt on March 1, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Good rebuttal to Al’s pathetic column in the NY Slimes.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/al_gores_weird_disconnected_op.html

sheriff246 on March 1, 2010 at 8:59 AM

The fact there have been no confirmed sightings of manbearpig proves manbearpig exists.

BobOfTexas on March 1, 2010 at 8:59 AM

“However, the latest research, just published in Nature Geoscience, paints a very different picture.”

Nice to see the Times UK highlight this but the different picture was painted at least a year ago and by Maue, if not by others.

Dusty on March 1, 2010 at 9:00 AM

And Al Gore’s still pushing the hoax.

kingsjester on March 1, 2010 at 9:00 AM

The largest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.

blatantblue on March 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM

From the people that brought us the joys of collectivism!

July 10 on March 1, 2010 at 9:00 AM

From the people that brought us the joys of collectivism!

July 10 on March 1, 2010 at 9:00 AM

A house of cards, if you will.

blatantblue on March 1, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Abducted by aliens

Bigfoot

Loch Ness Monster

AGW

UN

Saltysam on March 1, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Liberal drones flocking in mass back to Borg cube to download response to newest hit on global warming.

Rumor is the new response is that GW just cause hurricanes … period.

darwin on March 1, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Since AGW was never predicated on science, science will have no effect on it. It’s pure socialism/communism and nothing more.

Mojave Mark on March 1, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Liberal drones flocking in mass en masse back to Borg cube to download response to newest hit on global warming.

darwin on March 1, 2010 at 9:04 AM

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

In other words, the weather changes from year to year. That’s not to say that global warming of any kind — man-made or natural — won’t have some impact on storm activity.

EliTheBean on March 1, 2010 at 9:05 AM

From The Peoples Cube…

In a bid to free the nation from foreign oil and bring its carbon footprint to naught, Congressional Democrats passed a new law of thermodynamics, which states, “From each according to ability; to each according to need.” This should lead to real energy independence once supply of energy becomes independent of its demand.

In practical terms, the new legislation establishes a new energy regime called “greenergy,” according to which supply will match demand based on need and not on any particular technology’s ability. Under this scheme, alternating current (AC) will be replaced with alternative current. The new AC will work by adjusting the needy consumer rather than the supply. Said one Senator, “For alternative energy we need an alternative consumer. That much is clear.”

Jeff2161 on March 1, 2010 at 9:05 AM

What’s funny is Gore just came out with a NYT’s article that said global warming has a major impact on hurricanes

darwin on March 1, 2010 at 9:06 AM

We need a criminal investigation of manbearpig Gore, the IPCC and CRU. This is intentional fraud.

And they need to give back the Nobel prize & Oscar.

rbj on March 1, 2010 at 9:06 AM

And Al Gore’s still pushing the hoax.

kingsjester on March 1, 2010 at 9:00 AM

He’ll keep on selling his snake oil until someone takes him to court.

petefrt on March 1, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Well, the UN and other world governments always have the option of just imposing their scheme on humanity and forgetting the charade.

They are getting somewhat desperate. Desperate people do desperate things.

darwin on March 1, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Manbearpig exists! He’s just hiding in the snow. I’m totally serial.

OhioCoastie on March 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM

These researchers are obviously in the pocket of Big Wind.

venividivici on March 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM

We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity

This will probably fail the reality test as well. Computer modeling has failed spectacularly in predicting climate events.

darwin on March 1, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Sorry submit does not equal preview

It suggests that the rise in hurricane frequency since 1995 was just part of a natural cycle, and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

In other words, the weather changes from year to year. That’s not to say that global warming of any kind — man-made or natural — won’t have some impact on storm activity.

This proves Climate Change (Formally known as Global Warming)! It is all part of a natural cycle.

But Riddle me this Batman; natural cycle or man-made, why can’t governments collude to tax and control their populations. Weather changes, governments control; it is all part of a natural cycle.

“We can not control nature” BHO Feb 2010

EliTheBean on March 1, 2010 at 9:12 AM

The science didn’t kill global warming – the solution did. The menace of raising taxes and sending the money to foreign countries created instant resistance, and many did their own research into “climate change.” They checked the existing figures and found not only errors but outright fraud. had their solution been more palatable, it might have worked. Thank God that their arrogance brought them down. Nonetheless, I’m keeping my tricorn hat and musket by the door just in case the Greencoats come by.

KillerKane on March 1, 2010 at 9:16 AM

I for one welcome palm trees growing in Colorado. Bring on the heat.

boomer on March 1, 2010 at 9:17 AM

They used to farm the land of Greenland.

When Greenland starts turning into an infertile desert, I’ll get worried.

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM

That dude looks like a homeless guy who stole a suit jacket from the dry cleaners.

Alden Pyle on March 1, 2010 at 9:21 AM

And the fall-out!!
=================
Apple Shareholders – Dump Gore

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=18231

CNET- Shelton Ehrlich, stood at the microphone and urged against Gore’s re-election to the board. Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted,” Ehrlich said, referring to Gore’s views on global warming. “If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn’t need to be re-elected.”

canopfor on March 1, 2010 at 9:23 AM

I for one welcome palm trees growing in Colorado. Bring on the heat.

boomer on March 1, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Hey boomer, ‘It’s Mar.1 and Spring is only 60 days away. *_-

thomasaur on March 1, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Where’s Albert?

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=18202

canopfor on March 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM

The page numbers follow a computational model. It’s a strictly linear model for a strictly linear system (which is one of the few cases where computer models have predictive power.)

Prufrock on March 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM

The science didn’t kill global warming – the solution did. The menace of raising taxes and sending the money to foreign countries created instant resistance, and many did their own research into “climate change.” They checked the existing figures and found not only errors but outright fraud. had their solution been more palatable, it might have worked. Thank God that their arrogance brought them down. Nonetheless, I’m keeping my tricorn hat and musket by the door just in case the Greencoats come by.

KillerKane on March 1, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming (aka ManBearPig) was made popular because of the solution, not in spite of it.

July 10 on March 1, 2010 at 9:30 AM

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.
====================
Interesting!!

canopfor on March 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Can you imagine a master’s thesis having this many mistakes? The candidate would not be graduated. Yet we’re supposed to excuse a few boo-boos here and there, no big deal.

MADgirl91 on March 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM

“If climate change wasn’t real, you think I’d have this hair do?”

Cybergeezer on March 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM

It’s never been about the science, it’s always been about the power. Watermelons, green on the outside, red on the inside.

JimK on March 1, 2010 at 9:38 AM

The finger is out of the dike. Expect a flood of papers and findings to be released by scientists who had been barred, banned and coerced from taking part in the discussion and denied a seat at the table.

This is not going to be good for some of their ‘peers’.

It will take some time but good, honest scientists will clean up the system and restore confidence and reputations. Probably lots of time.

Yoop on March 1, 2010 at 9:41 AM

You want 2 + 2 = 5? Computers can make it happen!

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 8:51 AM

No, I’m pretty sure it’ll still be four no matter what the computer says. But..The Ministry of Truth and the thought police can make you believe that it’s five. Just like some people believe that Barrack is gonna be down at the local Sheetz filling up their gas tanks for free or that fire can’t melt steel.

Oldnuke on March 1, 2010 at 9:47 AM

On the discovery channel last night they had a series of shows, ‘Prehistoric something’ and it showed the oceans rising and dropping 300 feet from today. The ice caps came and went, like climate changes.

They talked extensively about the Bering Land Bridge and how migration to the Americas took place, they walked in. The depth is now about 165 feet at that point. They also talked about the effect of the Isthmus of Panama being built by plate tectonics 4 million years ago, and the migrations north and south that caused.

The series should be substituted for Al Gore’s lies.

tarpon on March 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM

You want 2 + 2 = 5? Computers can make it happen!

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 8:51 AM

This explains how ManBearPig can be half man, half bear, and half pig.

July 10 on March 1, 2010 at 9:54 AM

I guess when when Michelle Obama said “We’re going to have to make sacrifices, we’re going to have to change our conversation, we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history and we’re going to have to move to a different place” she must have been talking about the AGW hoax.
This hoax has been going on for several generations. History books have been written on this fraudulent data and a sort of religion created from it.

Electrongod on March 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM

The IPCC Report. The closer you look, the worse we look.

GarandFan on March 1, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Yoop on March 1, 2010 at 9:41 AM

As I have posted a number of times We are in the equivalent phase in climatology that Alchemy was to Chemistry. Yes it will take a long time to restore trust in the field.

chemman on March 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

Someone should ask Kanye if this means that it’s actually Al Gore that hates black people.

BlueCollarAstronaut on March 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM

How unsettling.

jnelchef on March 1, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Good grief. The year after Katrina was predicted to be an even worse hurricane season and it didn’t happen. Year after year I kept reading about how much worse it was going to get and it never has. Right now I believe that years ago we went through a warming period and that now it’s over and nothing they’ve predicted seems to have come true. What a farce.

scalleywag on March 1, 2010 at 10:21 AM

No, I’m pretty sure it’ll still be four no matter what the computer says. But..The Ministry of Truth and the thought police can make you believe that it’s five. Just like some people believe that Barrack is gonna be down at the local Sheetz filling up their gas tanks for free or that fire can’t melt steel.

Oldnuke on March 1, 2010 at 9:47 AM
_______________

You obviously have no experience in programming, because the computer only spits out what we tell it to. It can’t do basic math unless you write a program telling it how.

You ever wonder how your calculator finds sines or cosines?

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM

As I have posted a number of times We are in the equivalent phase in climatology that Alchemy was to Chemistry. Yes it will take a long time to restore trust in the field.

chemman on March 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM
_______________

To be fair, Alchemy was based on the science of chemistry.

Global Warming is based on nothing even remotely related to actual sciences.

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 10:27 AM

nfortunately for the hysterics, new peer-reviewed research published in Nature Geoscience concludes that hurricane strength has little to do with global warming:

Perhaps, but OLD research and science has been telling us this for a few years as well.

I’m totally out of patience with leftist charlatans and fraudsters. Seriously, when do some of these criminals (to borrow from Mark Levin, “yes, I said it!”) begin to PAY for the intentional fraud they’re perpetrating on the rest of us?

Midas on March 1, 2010 at 10:30 AM

You ever wonder how your calculator finds sines or cosines?

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Tiny gnomes with bits of string?

TexasDan on March 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Ain’t this the same BOZO who used to pump gas on the Jersey turnpike?

sonnyspats1 on March 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM

You ever wonder how your calculator finds sines or cosines?

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Tiny gnomes with bits of string?

TexasDan on March 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Actually, my understanding is that the calculator has the first few terms of the functions’ Taylor polynomials programmed in and it uses those to approximate. For it to be reasonably accurate over the range of values users might plug in the calculator would need a polynomial with many terms or multiple polynomials expanded over many centers. Sorry, I teach calculus, so I felt I needed to go off a bit.

Goldenavatar on March 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM

You obviously have no experience in programming, because the computer only spits out what we tell it to. It can’t do basic math unless you write a program telling it how.

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Really? How about

mov eax, 2
add eax, 2

I’m pretty sure that code will result in the eax register (on an Intel or compatible processor) holding the value ’4′, even though I didn’t tell the computer how to add, just to add 2 + 2. Basic arithmetic functions are implemented in the silicon.

DarkCurrent on March 1, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Sorry, I teach calculus, so I felt I needed to go off a bit.

Goldenavatar on March 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Calculus made my head hurt.

But I. Really. Really. Hated. Diffy. Q.

;-)

Yoop on March 1, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Rita, coming on the heels of Katrina was bad. Everyone was in a state of panic. Go? Stay? By the time my area was called to evacuate, there was nowhere to go. The highways were filled with cars. EVERY highway. So we loaded up as best we could, and hunkered down, and rode it out. It wasn’t pretty afterward, but it surely could have been worse. Yet…never once….did I say this was due to global warming. That’s the most rediculous assertion.

Sh!t happens, and we deal with it.

capejasmine on March 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

Next up from the AGW crowd: “See, the decrease in hurricanes since 2005 prove that the world is warming!”

mwdiver on March 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM

“Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease.” – Al Gore, New York Times – February 27, 2010

RadClown on March 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

Even though I like that this is in contradiction to the IPCC blathering, I don’t put any value into these climate models. They are all jokes that shouldn’t be used for “proof” or any predictive power, at all. A paper airplane is a better model of a jet fighter than these pathetic computer climate models are of the actual climate.

To hear anyone proposing the output of these models as though it is a look into the future is a sad joke. That the field of climate scientology seems to be utterly dependent on them, in leiu of pretty much anything else, is a sad commentary on how the softer sciences have perverted our foundation of rationality.

neurosculptor on March 1, 2010 at 11:26 AM

Ok sorry if someone else has already said this, but does this guy TRY to look like Albert Einstein with his freaky hair to give himself more credibilty?

4reds on March 1, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Has anyone noticed how the links to environmental science articles always come from UK papers, and never come from American papers?

hawksruleva on March 1, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

There is no way anyone can predict anything ninety years in the future. What a bunch of crystal ball, GIGO nonsense.

They might as well use tea leaves. That would leave less of a carbon footprint than using computer models and would be just as accurate.

RadClown on March 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

There is no way anyone can predict anything ninety years in the future. What a bunch of crystal ball, GIGO nonsense.

RadClown on March 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

I predict an annular solar eclipse will be visible across the Pacific Ocean on March 10, 2100 :)

DarkCurrent on March 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

DarkCurrent on March 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Already have my reservations at the Hilo Hilton.

Cybergeezer on March 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Already have my reservations at the Hilo Hilton.

Cybergeezer on March 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I plan to watch from Maui – the will be better

DarkCurrent on March 1, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Soon … all weather caused by global warming.

Let’s face it. These radical nuts won’t give up until they win. So we might as well call this what it is … a war. Us against them and the sooner we learn to play by their rules (which are no rules at all) they better chance we have of winning.

darwin on March 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Rumor is the new response is that GW just cause hurricanes … period.

darwin on March 1, 2010 at 9:03 AM

And that explains why there were no Atlantic hurricanes that hit our mainland last year.

docdave on March 1, 2010 at 12:37 PM

As I have posted a number of times We are in the equivalent phase in climatology that Alchemy was to Chemistry. Yes it will take a long time to restore trust in the field.

chemman on March 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM

To be fair, Alchemy was based on the science of chemistry.

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Alchemy was the goal that chemistry was built on, when the researchers began keeping careful records of their experiment. So that when others tested their results they got the same. Something that is imposable when the data is destroyed.

Slowburn on March 1, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming (aka ManBearPig) was made popular because of the solution, not in spite of it.

July 10 on March 1, 2010 at 9:30 AM

I see your point, but perhaps it is more accurate to say that it cuts both ways. Wealth transfer appeals to some while is appalling to others.

KillerKane on March 1, 2010 at 12:53 PM

“We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report.

So, according to the high priests of the AGW movement, does that mean the National Hurricane Center is veering dangerously close to being… climate deniers?

Paul_in_NJ on March 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Shocking.

holygoat on March 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I love the fact how we just made a huge mess of the tsunami prediction from a known quake, with active gauges all over the friggin’ Pacific … and yet they still like to speak about any sort of mid-term climate predictions, via their computer models, as if they have a clue – and that goes for any side that uses computer modeling as the bases for these predictions.

I don’t fault anyone on their mistaken “crying wolf” over the predicted tsunami, but I think that our inability to accurately predict and/or track something so simple and immediate should really be all one needs to know how worthless any of these longer-term climate predictions are.

neurosculptor on March 1, 2010 at 1:32 PM

Looking to the future, it also draws on computer modelling to predict that the most likely impact of global warming will be to decrease the frequency of tropical storms, by up to 34% by 2100.

AGW skeptics have been saying this for years now, that if the globe is warming it would decrease the frequency of tropical storms. But no one listened to them because they weren’t peer reviewed, had ulterior motives and were crazy.

What asshats Al Gore and his fellow warmongers are. Whom do we sue to get back all the time and money they wasted? All the time teachers spent teaching absolute nonsense? All the laws made that hurt industry and commerce? They wanted us to pay for the “damage” we were doing to third world countries, when are they going to pay for the damage they did to us?

29Victor on March 1, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore’s book as “misleading”.

Gore’s book cover shows a hurricane near Florida spinning clockwise, which is extremely “misleading” because all Northern Hemisphere storms spin counterclockwise.

Maybe Gore was looking in the mirror when he desigend the book cover!

Steve Z on March 1, 2010 at 1:49 PM

I predict an annular solar eclipse will be visible across the Pacific Ocean on March 10, 2100 :)

DarkCurrent on March 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

Even a hard, mathematical like that is subject to inaccuracy, as small as that may be. They are too many variables that can unpredictably change over time. As the event approaches, the calculations will be refined to compensate for those changes.

RadClown on March 1, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Don’t forget: Lindsey Graham, Liberman, and Kerry are still at it.

mobydutch on March 1, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Climategate is making the minds of liberal Wikipedians explode. Look at the Talk page of the (aka) Climategate article. Every newspaper is a reliable source except The Times. Eh?

HotWeaver on March 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM

You think it can’t get any sillier??

The original NBC “news story” has been DELETED – to save face probably.

This would be a laugh riot if they weren’t out to spend TRILLIONS of real dollars on this charade.

fred5678 on March 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Climate Change
Water is Wet
Gravity is a Downer

All obvious statements. “The only thing constant in life is change.” Especially true for the climate.

PastorJon on March 1, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Oh, and the ONLY cycles leftists understand are the ones they ride through the driving rain as I pass them on the highway. To them there are to be no climate, economic or other cycles of any kind. Living in an unstable, changeable world scares the heck out of them and they are sure millions of helpless others they need to rescue. It comes from lack of faith in a caring, loving God, or even in the idea that, “It all evens out over time . . .”, even the up hill and down hill rides on their cycles . . .

PastorJon on March 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM

1. Is the earth warming?
2. If so, is man the cause for all of the warming?
3. If so, can man create a plan to fix it?
4. If so, can man properly implement such a plan?

beatcanvas on March 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM

That’s actually the wrong question to ask for #2. Here’s the right one:
2. Will a warming earth help or harm man’s interests?

It’s irrelevant whether human activity is the main cause; if it could be conclusively proven that a) industrial activity has nothing to do with climate change, but also that b) climate change is going to be hell, then the only reasonable course of action would be to attempt somehow to mitigate its effects.

hicsuget on March 1, 2010 at 4:01 PM

You want 2 + 2 = 5? Computers can make it happen!

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 8:51 AM

“Gorebage” in, “Gorebage” out!

chickasaw42 on March 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM

Does the front page picture make this guys head look way too small?

BKeyser on March 1, 2010 at 5:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2