Is this another example of the scientific consensus the alarmists like to talk about?

Question

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Global-Warming-Hurricanes.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Global warming isn't to blame for the recent jump in hurricanes in the Atlantic, concludes a study by a prominent federal scientist whose position has shifted on the subject.

Answer 1

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/a...

I like this one http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3035... see the vidio http://youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU

Answer 2

shhhhhhhhhh! You'll be thrown out of the temple..and maybe even stoned to death..... if you dare question Global Warming!

Chris Landsea at the National Hurricane Center said the same thing 3 years ago .......

Answer 3

Ha!  There was one study that concluded that global warming caused an increase in ocean salinity.

A different study concluded that global warming caused a DECREASE in ocean salinity.

These guys are making stuff up.  Let's see them try to predict the Earth's temperature ten years out.  I bet they'll get it wrong.

And if they can't guess the Earth's temperature ten years out, then why should we trust their estimate for one hundred years out?

Answer 4

No, this is contrary to what the alarmists are saying.

Regards,

Dan

Answer 5

This reminds me of a very old movie from the late 80's called The running man, where media was the absolute power.  I think we are getting closer to something like that.  Its amazing how terrible the information is presented this day as to persuade people for watever cause they want you to believe.  

To understand this article you really need to read the entire article.   You will find that many scientist, praise Knutson as a scientist (leading scientist of this study) but they don't agree with his findings   From this article:  "MIT hurricane meteorologist Kerry Emanuel, while praising Knutson as a scientist, called his conclusion ''demonstrably wrong'' based on a computer model that doesn't look properly at storms.".  

And even  Knutson aknowledges some weakness on this study.   :    "Knutson acknowledges weaknesses in his computer model and said it primarily gives a coarse overview, not an accurate picture on individual storms and storm strength. He said the latest model doesn't produce storms surpassing 112 mph."

I think there is no alarm about global warming is only a call for responsible enterprise, very simple.  You wouldn't like somebody to dump trash in your house.  Well the earth is our house and whoever makes the mess needs to clean up afterwards or are they expenting someone else to pick up after them?.   Sorry, but if you have a big industry and making money out of it, the least you could do is clean the mess that you are leaving behind.  That includes reducing your messy carbon emissions, toxic byproducts of the chemical industry, etc. etc.  or even finding a more efficient and cleaner way to do the same exact product that you are doing.  I think in the process everybody benefits not only by having a much cleaner environment but also creating jobs, that we desperately need more than ever.

Answer 6

Well pretty much the entire theory is held together by the consensus argument. Being as they have no actual scientific evidence, consensus is all they have.

In case you have not read this, here was the beginning of the consensus mantra. Like most everything associated with AGW, it to was a lie.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

Answer 7

I can't stay quiet any longer about the politics of this land.  I have been contacting my senators and congressman about a couple of issues, and they were very glad to hear from me.  Here are the 2 issues:



1.  The senate is voting soon on the Supplemental Spending Bill for the Iraq War, and Diane Feinstein put in an amendment to grant amnesty to 1 million ILLEGAL immigrants because the produce is not getting picked in time.  Our economy is in so much trouble, and there are lots of LEGAL citizens that need the money and would be willing to work in agriculture.  There are plenty of youth that need good, hard-working jobs to earn them the money they need for college, cars, etc.  Feinstein's amendment is very inappropriate.  Once you start the amnesty policy, there will be no end.  I just saw a presentation on how excessive immigration will undo our country in many ways...too far to mention.



2.  Our country has lots of oil reserves in many states and out in the surrounding oceans.  We have the technology to drill for it in a responsible way to conserve the environment.  The Dakotas, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah have oil shale that can be successfully developed for oil, and the Energy Policy of 2005 directed the BLM to lease these lands to those willing to develop the shale oil.  Now a moratorium was imposed as part of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2008 to NOT allow the BLM to lease land for shale oil development.



It is my opinion that we should be calling our representatives and letting them know we will not vote for them if they don't allow us to glean our own oil resources in our own land and help our own people and our economy.  To go begging to Saudi Arabia for more oil is humiliating and unnecessary.  This is the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world to take our money by the billions and give it to countries that are not friendly to us and then prohibit our own people from providing for themselves.



I have sent this out to many in different states.  If we each do our part, and spread the word, something can be done about this situation.  We the people are still in charge if we will take the responsibility.  I had a very good experience calling my representatives, both Republican and Democrat.  Their phone numbers were in the phone directory.  



Thanks for reading, and I hope you will take action.

Answer 8

I would suggest an optometrist as you don't appear to have read the story just the headline.

The link to the actual paper is below, even in the NYT story

"The biggest storms -- those with winds of more than 110 mph -- would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.

It's not all good news from Knutson's study, however. His computer model also forecasts that hurricanes and tropical storms will be wetter and fiercer. Rainfall within 30 miles of a hurricane should jump by 37 percent and wind strength should increase by about 2 percent, Knutson's study says."

His paper shows he thinks GW is happening and is contributing and is caused by human action, the NYT story says (if you read far enough) that medium level storms will decrease but large storms will increase by 8% (great!)

This is a non question - not even supported by it's own link

Answer 9

So the choice is more less severe hurricanes or fewer more severe hurricanes, some choice.  Knutson doesn't say AGW isn't causing changes in weather, he is saying the severity will increase rather than the quantity.  Try reading the actual study next time rather than a newspaper article.