Unless we get a cat.3 hurricane hitting the US shores in the remaining month of the current hurricane season , we will have gone 5 seasons in a row without one. This is the 1st time this will occure since the 1910-1914 seasons . Within the last 4 years we had the release of the Goracle's 'Inconvenient Truth' which used the Katrina hurricane as evidence that AGW aka Global Warming would cause greater ,more intense ,and more frequent hurricanes.

Since then AGW morphed into Climate Change ,and then again to it's new manifestation... ahem... 'Global Climate Disruption'(GCD) announced by the White House and the climate disruption czar John Holdren .

Without hurricanes selling the public on cap and tax is tougher. No doubt dedicated scientists are working on the computer models that show fewer hurricanes is a GCD.

The Goracle got heckled this week as he continues to pound away on the Global Warming scene.
YouTube - Al Gore Confronted in Tampa about Global Warming Again!!

The "deniers " are on the march as the Brits have jumped on the "deniers "bandwagon.

The UK Royal Society;previously committed "warmist" organization has altered their science statement on man made global warming .

Quote:

---

a summary of the science states that “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”. Unlike Climate change controversies, a simple guide — the document it replaces — it avoids making predictions about the impact of climate change and refrains from advising governments about how they should respond.

The new guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

The Royal Society even appears to criticise scientists who have made predictions about heatwaves and rising sea levels. It now says: “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

It adds: “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future.

“There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”

---

Royal Society Bows To Climate Change Sceptics

OK so they are not deniers... they are umm skeptics.

Back to the US . Senator McCain ;never having been accused of being early to the train, is quoted as saying "global warming is an inexact science" and that the conclusions were flawed by outside infleuences .
YouTube - McCain: Climate Science Is 'Flawed By Outside Influences'

He is now a committed 'skeptic ' and will no longer sponsor major climate change legislative remedies like he has in the last decade. Doubt... a solid scientific position to take . Welcome to the real world Sen McCain.

It is amazing how the truth will win out in the end. Change the name as much as you want, climate change is happening, it has been happening for millennia, but no amount of fiddling at the edges is going to make any difference. Instead of putting our resources into trying to stop it we should be putting our resources into finding ways of living with the effects. One thing is certain we cannot continue on the path of business as usual, unbridled population growth and fighting with each other.

Politicians who demonstrate a healthy scepticism are in the ascendency as was clearly demonstrated in the recent Australian election. Could it be this was a forerunner of events in the US, just as 2007 was a forerunner of the 2008 outcome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Unless we get a cat.3 hurricane hitting the US shores in the remaining month of the current hurricane season , we will have gone 5 seasons in a row without one. This is the 1st time this will occure since the 1910-1914 seasons . Within the last 4 years we had the release of the Goracle's 'Inconvenient Truth' which used the Katrina hurricane as evidence that AGW aka Global Warming would cause greater ,more intense ,and more frequent hurricanes.

---

Tom, re: "Hurricane gap" -- I believe Gore was using Katrina merely as an example in the global warming theory. Did he limit the stats to include nothing less than a Category 3 hurricane that only hit U.S. shores? I don't remember that. But, in any event, isn't "global" the operative word here? Back in 2008, Ike might have been a Cat 2 by the time it hit the U.S. but prior to that, it was a very powerful and long lasting hurricane that caused major destruction and many deaths. It started as a tropical wave and was constantly being upgraded and downgraded during it's "life". It was listed as both a Cat 3 & Cat 4 prior to making landfall in the U.S. Hurricane History

JAL .Yes he was using Katrina as an illustration implying that hurricanes would be more frequent and at a higher intensity. The images of a city destroyed was powerful propaganda for his point of view .

The computer models have been consistenly off during the 5 year span I mentioned .Here was this year's forecasts:

NOAA releases 2010 hurricane forecast - "Extremely active" season possible - National Natural Disasters | Examiner.com

AccuWeather.com - Weather News | 2010 Hurricane Season Will Be More Active, Joe Bastardi Predicts

Revised 2010 hurricane forecast: 'major hurricanes' ahead - CSMonitor.com

It is possible that a series of storms will occure in the next month. But Sept was the most probable month for then to happen. Over the past 50 years ,the only cat 3 or higher hurricanes to make landfall in the U. S. in October were Hilda (1964), Opal (1995), and Wilma (2005). Hilda and Opal were already storms in September Wilma was the only one that formed in October.

'Global Climate Disruption' - aka weather.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Without hurricanes selling the public on cap and tax is tougher. No doubt dedicated scientists are working on the computer models that show fewer hurricanes is a GCD.

---

Hello tom:

I don't know. We've talking before about throwing your trash into the air... For some unexplained reason, you don't think it does anything bad. Now, I'm NOT a scientist, but I KNOW it does something bad. I can't understand, why YOU don't understand that...

Additionally, we've got SCIENTISTS telling us that it's so... Then you say, well that doesn't matter because scientists HAVE a political agenda... Now, I'm NOT a scientist, but I KNOW that's not so. What I can't understand, is why YOU don't understand that...

Saying a scientist has a political agenda, is suggesting that each an every one of them is a saboteur to the profession they chose... It's not credible on its face, yet you BELIEVE it. What I can't understand, is why.

Then to cap it off (pun intended) when scientists tell you that it's CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels that's causing a change in the climate, you retort that CO2 isn't a pollutant, and bury your head further into the sand... No, I don't understand why.

Finally, you, like other climate change deniers, find a cool day and say LOOK. It's cool today (or there haven't been any real bad hurricanes lately). Therefore, global warming can't be true... What I can't believe, is that you really believe that, but you do... I suppose if you think science is agenda driven, you can believe ANYTHING, and you do.

excon

Quote:

---

I don't know. We've talking before about throwing your trash into the air... For some unexplained reason, you don't think it does anything bad. Now, I'm NOT a scientist, but I KNOW it does something bad. I can't understand, why YOU don't understand that...

---

And we've talked before about this phoney strawman you keep bringing up that equates skepticism of a phony scientific hypothesis with favoring polluting the air.

Quote:

---

you, like other climate change deniers, find a cool day and say LOOK. It's cool today. Therefore, global warming can't be true... What I can't believe, is that you really believe that, but you...

---

Why don't you use the same rebuttal to those like the Goracle who used events like Katrina or an increase in tornado activity as evidence for their point of view ?

Quote:

---

Saying a scientist has a political agenda, is suggesting that each an every one of them is a saboteur to the profession they chose... It's not credible on it's face, yet you BELIEVE it. What I can't understand, is why.

---

I pointed out specific scientist and it has pretty much been proven true .This Royal Society Report is all but an admission that the information these scientist at East Anglia was selling them was bogus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And we've talked before about this phoney strawman you keep bringing up that equates skepticism of a phony scientific hypothesis with favoring polluting the air.

---

Hello again, tom:

So, if you're NOT in favor of polluting, what is your solution to it?

It IS interesting, that EVEN if you don't believe in global warming, stopping pollution would stop global warming, IF it's even happening...

But, what's even MORE interesting, is that coincidentally enough, we're running OUT of fossil fuel whether global warming is happening or not, or whether pollution is bad or not.

So, if we attempted, as a nation, to seek alternative forms of energy, we'll kill THREE birds with one stone, and you NEVER have to agree about global warming... But, we'd better start NOW, because we're RUNNING out of oil. Really, NOW would be good.

excon

PS> (edited) FOUR birds - we'll STOP financing our enemy!

Almost no dispute there .You make a better case for alt energy exploration than any of these phony global warming flim-flammers .

I make the case that they are hurting their cause by attempting to make a fraudulent chicken-little case that carbon emissions is a planet killer . Their credibilty on this is compromised by junk science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Their credibilty on this is compromised by junk science.

---

Hello again, tom:

Like I said, let's find the next power source that'll keep us on top, and you can still believe that stuff.

excon

And the people who are truly politicizing it can stop putting out commercials like this (warning graphic)
YouTube - How to Cut Carbon Emissions

Well, now that was informative. Blowing up children literally to a bloody pulp for not submitting to the agenda is OK. Why not resort to a little official terrorism to save the planet?

Or you could have posted this one:


But you'd rather post heads exploding.

When Bush used the 'Precautionary Principle ' as an argument about the threat Saddam posed to justify preemption he was mocked .
So why is it acceptable for determining public policy regarding climate and energy ,but not foreign policy ;or even domestic security ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

When Bush used the 'Precautionary Principle ' as an argument about the threat Saddam posed to justify preemption he was mocked .
So why is it acceptable for determining public policy regarding climate and energy ,but not foreign policy ;or even domestic security ?

---

Hi Tom

I think I am right when I say that the 'Precautionary Principle' you are referring to and the video posted by NeedKama amounts to comparing observed data and the outcomes we would expect to find in accordance with a hypothesis.

I can't speak much about the video because it is the first time that I have seen it but in the case of Bush we know that the observations were fabricated in order to fit the hypothesis. Eg trucks being used to move weapons of mass destruction to different locations.

I don't think the 'Precautionary Principle' was the problem with Bush it was more of a case of the unsubstantiated inferences being based on limited observations.


Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

When Bush used the 'Precautionary Principle ' as an argument about the threat Saddam posed to justify preemption he was mocked .
So why is it acceptable for determining public policy regarding climate and energy ,but not foreign policy ;or even domestic security ?

---

Tom, you know there is a vast difference betwwen starting a war and killing thousands on a hunch and taking reasonable action when given evidence of a problem.. Bush was not personally at risk but he placed millions at risk and was justifiably mocked for it. We have a slightly different situation when viewing climate change and long term energy policy. Starting a war was not a precaution but modifying our behaviour might be. Someone thinks Iran might be a threat, why? Because they make threatening statements and finance terrorist organisations, yet we don't see troops massing on their borders. Has the world learned something, or are we in in overload right now? I think perhaps there is a difference between Saddam and Ahamadjihad in the mind of America. Saddam was unfinished business for the Bush family and their Saudi friends, the only dictator in recent times who had invaded a neighbour state.

Clete there was more probabability of the truth in the Bush/Blair hypothesis than the outcomes predicted in the AGW hypothesis . Every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam retained a significant WMD program ,and Saddam had demonstrated a willingness to use them.

In contrast ,much of the AGW thesis has already been debunked or proven fabricated.

But let's assume as you say that Bush was fabricating the hypothesis similar to what the East Anglia "scientists " were.
The video argues that preemption is justified even knowing the fraud.

Quote:

---

Someone thinks Iran might be a threat, why? Because they make threatening statements and finance terrorist organisations, yet we don't see troops massing on their borders.

---

We are making a monumental mistake in not supporting regime change against the usurper Mahdi-hatter .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete there was more probabability of the truth in the Bush/Blair hypothesis than the outcomes predicted in the AGW hypothesis . Every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam retained a significant WMD program ,and Saddam had demonstrated a willingness to use them.

In contrast ,much of the AGW thesis has already been debunked or proven fabricated.

But let's assume as you say that Bush was fabricating the hypothesis simular to what the East Anglia "scientists " were.
The video argues that preemption is justified even knowing the fraud.

---

Hi Tom.

As it turned out every intelligence agency in the world was wrong.

From what I saw of the video it doesn't suggest that preemption is justified based on a known fraud. It takes into account GCC is both true and false. It puts forward the possibility of a default hypothesis. In other words it factors in the possibility we could be wrong.

Such a default hypothesis 'went missing' when it came to the Bush administration.

Regards

Tut

Quote:

---

Such a default hypothesis 'went missing' when it came to the Bush administration.

---

And yet it was debated intensely here and in the UN for a year before action was taken. I suggest that the alternatives were debated and ultimately the best intel of the world's intel communities prevailed .

The video argues that it is better to subject the word to a known calamity (global depression /economic disruption ) over a hypothesis that when subject to legitimate scientific peer review has been found lacking .

How's them lamb killing blizzards in New Zealand doing ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And yet it was debated intensely here and in the UN for a year before action was taken. I suggest that the alternatives were debated and ultimately the best intel of the world's intel communities prevailed .

---

Hi again Tom,

Tom you are putting forward an argument from authority.

Nonetheless, I can see where you are coming from. It is like all the best climate scientists considering the alternatives to Global Warming but rejecting any default hypothesis. Seems as though climate scientists are not the only ones guilty of this type of behaviour.

When the debate about Global Warming reached its height there was one piece of common ground. From memory I think it was a New Zealand scientist ( I cannot remember his name) said there are two things the majority of scientists will agree upon regardless of whether they think GW is real or phony. (1) climate change is real ( warming, cooling or otherwise). (2) Humans impact on the environment hence impact on the climate.

As far as the video is concerned are you prepared to roll the dice on the basis that the 'right numbers' will come up?


Regards

Tut

P.S. Not sure what is happening in N Z I'm from Oz