Hurricane Irene: Harbinger of Climate Change?

Of course, we all KNOW the real answer to this idiot's question. The answer is no…so called global warming is not causing or strengthening tropical cyclones. It's utter bullshit. Even NOAA admits it. But we see this story repeated with nearly every tropical weather disturbance; global warming is attributed as the cause. The reality is far more benign than they would have you believe.

So why do liberal morons in the media continue the hype? Because they're trying to prop up the global warming myth--a myth which is reeling under its own ridiculous weight. It's the same reason they attribute NEARLY EVERYTHING deemed bad to global warming; for the government to be granted more control by its citizens, there must be a collective perception of some threat. It's as simple as that.

The scale of Hurricane Irene, which could cause more extensive damage along the Eastern Seaboard than any storm in decades, is reviving an old question: are hurricanes getting worse because of human-induced climate change?

The short answer from scientists is that they are still trying to figure it out. But many of them do believe that hurricanes will get more intense as the planet warms, and they see large hurricanes like Irene as a harbinger.

[From As Climate Changes, Scientists See Irene as a Harbinger - NYTimes.com]

Average 2010 Temp 1 Deg Below "Normal"

Amazing. NOAA (and their buddies at NASA) always try to play the manmade climate change game, but read the last paragraph too. I've bolded the most interesting parts.

The main culprit behind the cold temperatures in December 2010 was the same one which caused the cold winter of 2009-2010; a strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). When these atmospheric oscillations are in the strong negative phase, they essentially “flip” the weather pattern across North America, with upper-level high pressure and relative warmth over Greenland and Northeastern Canada and upper-level low pressure and cold over the eastern Continental United States, including Florida (Figure 1). This pattern forces the jet stream to plunge south from northern Canada into the southeastern U.S., transporting Arctic air masses into Florida.

***

As mentioned above, South Florida experienced its hottest summer on record in 2010 (with the exception of Naples which recorded its second hottest recorded summer). Despite the record hot summer, average yearly temperatures at the main climate sites will end up around 1 degree below normal, which will be the coolest calendar year since the early and mid 1980s, and among the top 10 on record (except for Miami). At secondary sites Miami Beach and Moore Haven, it was the coolest year on record (please note caveat below table).

[From NOAA on Miami Florida: Coldest December on Record | Watts Up With That?]

700 Alarmist Scientists Plan Campaign (Against 31,000+)

Apparently these schmucks have conveniently forgotten Climategate, NASA-gate, IPCC-gate--all of the climate scandals that broke over the past year and demonstrated what a bunch of shit this global warming lie is. Stay out of politics?!?! These alarmist, fear-mongering buttholes have NEVER stayed out of politics. All they've done is to seek global taxation and regulation to 'save us from ourselves.'

This is SO EASY to counter; simply enlist the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of SKEPTICAL SCIENTISTS. Then maybe the world will get the picture that there is NO UNQUESTIONED CONSENSUS.

Reporting from Washington — Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.

[From Climate science: Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics - latimes.com]

NOAA and Old Farmer's Almanac Duel

So who's going to be right? Will NOAA's warming-centric prediction--one that has been increasingly WRONG--hold true for the winter, or will the Old Farmer's Almanac (80-85% accuracy) win the day with its colder-than-normal winter? We've seen how NOAA has blown it over the past several years; the world has had DEADLY COLD winters since 2008, even though NOAA, NASA, and other AGW proponents of the "consensus" tried to prop up "warmest <fill-in-the-blank> on record" claims. All of this while story upon story touted record cold and winter events in China, Russia, United States, and many other places around the world.

Here's my prediction: OFA wins by a mile!

DUBLIN, N.H. – Most of the country will see a colder-than-usual winter while summer and spring will be relatively cool and dry, according to the time-honored, complex calculations of the "Old Farmer's Almanac."

[From Old Farmer's Almanac: Global cooling to continue - Yahoo! News]

ABOVE NORMAL TEMPERATURES ARE FAVORED IN OND 2010 FOR LARGE PARTS OF THE LOWER 48 STATES EXCLUDING THE PACIFIC COAST, THE NORTHWEST AND IN THE SOUTHEAST EXTENDING NORTHWARD ALONG THE EAST COAST TO NEW ENGLAND.  PROBABILITIES ARE GREATEST IN THE DESERT SOUTHWEST DUE PRIMARILY TO DECADAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS AND LA NINA IMPACTS.  BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES ARE FAVORED RIGHT ALONG THE PACIFIC COAST, MAINLY DUE TO THE PERSISTENCE OF BELOW AVERAGE SSTS UP AND DOWN THE COAST.

[From Climate Prediction Center - Seasonal Outlook]

TX First to Challenge 'Consensus' in Court

Given that the EPA, NOAA, NASA, and other government agencies have continuously cited the now-discredited IPCC's latest climate report (that openly exaggerated and even relied on environmentalist rantings instead of hard science), Texas is the first to tell the EPA to take their regulation of CO2 as 'pollution' and shove it.

Don't mess with TX, you socialists.

The state of Texas today sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' 1200 WOAI news reports.  

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the rules are illegal and if imposed, will cost Texans in higher energy costs and tens of thousands of lost jobs.  

"The state explained that the IPCC, and therefore the EPA, relied on flawed science to conclude that greenhouse emissions endanger public health and welfare," Abbott said. "Because the Administration predicated its Endangerment Finding on the IPCC's questionable facts, the state is seeking to prevent the EPA's new rules, and the economic harm that will result from these regulations, from being imposed on Texas employers, workers, and enforcement agencies."

[From Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules]

NASA Climate Data Inferior to Climategate Data, Space Agency Says

So much for James Hansen's GISS data and the NOAA data that predicts gloom and doom on a monthly basis; we've already seen multiple instances where this data has been proven untrustworthy.

Scandal-ridden UEA CRU data is 'more accurate' than the data invalidated by the Climategate scandal.

It doesn't take a scientist to look at this mess and discern that it's nothing but a political propaganda campaign and witch hunt against all scientists not willing to go along with the imaginary "consensus."

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

[From FOXNews.com - NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits]

NOAA: Hottest Year On Record? Not So Fast...

NOAA is at it again--cherry-picking to keep the federally-hyped poot of global warming alive, while REAL people (like the plumber who just solved the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico) continue pointing out the stupidity of it all. The Urban Island effect is constantly poo-poo'd away by alarmists, but it still doesn't change THE FACT of this effect. There is no global warming...especially given NOAA's data set.

Marc Morano, a global-warming skeptic who edits the Climate Depot website, says the government "is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data."

Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.

He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.

He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

[From World sizzles to record for the year - USATODAY.com]

Obama's New Climate Agency Czar Suppressed Data

The scandals relating to all things manmade-climate-change continue to mount. This new NOAA agency was just announced several days ago, and it turns out that the appointed head of the nascent agency is responsible for some data obstructionism of his own in relation to his work with the IPCC and the scientists at East Anglia, including the disgraced Phil Jones.

The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.

Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.

***

But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.

The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.

[From FOXNews.com - New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge]

NASA Alarmist: Last Decade Warmest

So, how does this jibe with disgraced CRU (IPCC) scientist Phil Jones' admission just yesterday that there has been no significant warming for 15 years and other studies that show no warming since 1998 even with increasing CO2? Good question. Stories like these keep the warming alarmists out there believing in the myth, even after numerous scandals and empirical evidence to the contrary.

Let's look at the problems with the proclamations in this article (since alarmists will just accept what it says without question). The first problem is the source--alarmist radical Dr. James Hansen at NASA's GISS. Much has been written about him by skeptics, including in this blog. He is the one who said that oil executives should be put on trial and wrote a letter to Thulsa Doom Obama urging a carbon tax to redistribute wealth. Sound like a level-headed, unbiased climate scientist to you, whose only concern is scientific truth?

Next, let's look at his past assertions and the erroneous data behind them. Hansen is the scientist who called October 2008 the hottest October on record and then had to publicly recant that contention after mathematical mistakes were found in his data (and those errors were ONLY DISCOVERED because SKEPTICS SCRUTINIZED HIS NUMBERS). Hansen has proven time and again that he is a climate radical, and therefore, biased. Amazing that skeptics are often denigrated (even after being vindicated in their scrutiny of his work), while chumps like Hansen are just continually accepted as 'bringers of truth.' No one has put two-and-two together here. Why isn't the media questioning this proclamation after his past mistakes are a matter of record?

The problems with surface temperature measurements and sweeping contentions drawn from those data (such as the contention made here) were just recently discussed in the news. First, the "next climate scandal" discussed NOAA's >75% reduction in temperature monitoring stations that occurred in 1990 (and, surprise...most of those were stations in cooler areas). Second, the "urban island effect" is a factor, though it is often poo-poo'd away by alarmists as irrelevant. However, if you've ever watched professional tennis events like the Australian Open or U.S. Open, the players and commentators will often discuss how much warmer it is on the court, simply because of the reflected sun and heat energy coming off the concrete and onto players (this is almost common sense). If you live in a hot part of the country, do an experiment yourself; wait until the hottest part of the day (usually 1600 or so) and see which is warmer: your driveway or the grass in your yard? Use your hand or thermometer...doesn't matter. Clearly, urban areas will be hotter than non-urban areas, regardless of how alarmists might try to cover up that fact. An accurate temperature measurement in or around urban areas is problematic.

The next problem with Hansen and GISS is that, much like the scandal-ridden CRU's refusal to release data, Hansen has continually blocked attempts to release data for independent verification under the Freedom of Information Act. NASA is currently being sued to release more data. If they ever do, I assert that skeptical scrutiny will uncover more errors, just as they have before with Hansen and all the recent IPCC report errors.

The point here is that these calculations (or any others) by the radical alarmist, Dr. Hansen, should not be given full credence absent careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, the alarmists and media organizations with interests (like the BBC) in continuing the global warming myth will simply accept what GISS says without the slightest question. Much like the now debunked CRU data and IPCC reports, GISS's proclamations will be taken as gospel by those who don't want their religious-like belief in manmade climate change disrupted.

The 2000s were the warmest decade on record according to analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Goddard's surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade over the past three decades and a rise of 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880 since reliable record-keeping began in 1880.

2005 was the warmest year of the past decade and, by NASA's estimate, is the warmest year since 1880 (the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization gives 1998 that title). 2009 was only slightly cooler than 2005, although it was the warmest year on record in the Southern Hemisphere. 2010 is expected to be even warmer due, in part, to the return of El Niño, a cyclical phenomenon.

[From The warmest decade on record]

The Next Climate Scandal

The scandals are now being revealed at an ever-increasing tempo. This one directly relates to our old friend, Dr. James Hansen. If one were a clear-thinking, non-zealot, would one ask the question on whether there could be OTHER CAUSES of supposed observed global mean temperature increase? Or would a zealot simply accept what they’re seeing without asking any probing questions? A real, ethical scientist, untainted by bias, would probe deeper and look at every possible angle. “Could something else be causing this anomaly?”

Surprise! NOAA eliminated climate measuring stations in 1990 in the coldest areas of the world; they reduced the number from 6,000 stations down to less than 1,500 (>75% reduction)! That’s a significant event affecting the accuracy of analysis, as this data was used to look at temperature trends spanning before and after the reduction in stations. What followed eight short years after the drastic 75% station reduction was the so-called “warmest year ever.” Even with these missing stations, we’ve seen a gradual cooling since 1998, which means the ACTUAL global mean temperature average since 1998 might actually be far cooler! We’ll never know, as we’ve lost the continuity in data, just as all the raw data from those stations has now been destroyed by the CRU.

Has this been openly discussed ANYWHERE in the scientific literature? No, it hasn’t. Because alarmist scientists like Dr. Hansen are biased and depend on climate research funding, especially since space exploration is drying up. We’re dealing with scientific zealots, and they’re finally being exposed.

The global warming scandal keeps getting worse. Revelations over the few weeks show that many important assertions in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on misquotes and false claims from environmental groups, not on published academic research as it was originally presented. This is on top of the recent mess regarding data, where the three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 assessment report still have not been released. Other data simply never seem to have existed or cannot be provided to other scientists.

But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

[From FOXNews.com - The Next Climate-gate?]

More Irony: New Obama Climate Service Postponed by Blizzard

Poetic justice continues to pile-on the alarmists and global warming believers out there, even amidst all the empirical data and fraud evidence to the contrary. Thulsa Doom Obama, refusing to acknowledge recent record-setting cold or climate scandal after climate scandal, is sticking to the party-line: Man’s use of fossil fuels (capitalism) is heating up the world. What would you expect from a Marxist like Obama and his Comrades?

Of course, Mother Nature and TRUTH get the last words. Sorry, TD Obama.

So, this schmuck alarmist in the article is going to teach us ‘children’ the difference between climate and weather. Sorry, but the weather reflects the climate. After all, their version of climate equals warmer temperatures that drive empirical changes in weather. But when the empirical part doesn’t fit their template (like all these blizzards), they poo-poo it away and lecture us for not knowing the difference between climate and weather. Or they’ll claim that warming causes the observed cooling; or they’ll claim that La Nina is masking warming.

This is what I call climate revisionism. If there’s a heat wave, hurricane, or if a chunk of ice melts somewhere in the Antarctic, however (even when it doesn’t really happen as recent scandals have shown), they’re quick to jump up and say, “See, see? Global warming!!!” The opposite empirical evidence results in all sorts of hysterical contortions on the part of alarmists, like this lecture on ‘climate’ versus ‘weather.’

As D.C. continued to dig out from Snowmageddon and is keeping an eye on another storm system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was busy making a climate change announcement.

NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, is going to be providing information to individuals and decision-makers through a new NOAA Climate Service office. “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.

Earlier snowmelt? That would be nice.

Turns out the release was planned prepared ahead of the snowstorm, which shut federal agencies today and forced its senders to hold a press conference by telephone instead of at the National Press Club.

[From NOAA: Blizzard Rearranges Climate Change Announcement - Washington Wire - WSJ]

Obama Sets Up New Climate Agency

Still NOT getting the message from the electorate that hates his policies, Thulsa Doom Obama continues down the path of self-righteousness and egomania. Since the flawed, scandal-ridden IPCC of the U.N. isn't enough (nor the revelations for Climategate), he's going to double-down and set up a U.S. version of the IPCC using NOAA to continue perpetuating the lie.

Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico. But a U.N. report that preceded the conference in Copenhagen has been widely disputed after much of the data in it was found to have been gathered unscientifically.

"More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit.

Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.

[From FOXNews.com - Administration Proposes New Agency to Study Climate Change]

34th Coolest Summer on Record

More empirical data mounts. But...GASP...we must do something RIGHT AWAY!!! (Before you all figure out what a load of crap this global warming is).

The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

[From NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]

Another Senator Steps In Pile of Poop

Here's another "brilliant" legislator showing why she should stick to things like screwing up health care. The whole hurricane-warming myth has even been debunked by NOAA and Dr. Gray, and all recent hurricane seasons have been weak while the predictions were dire.

Yet, these folks can't help but blame normal weather occurrences--even those that haven't manifested--on a lie, because propping up the myth will bear some benefit. This time it's not Gore or Kerry...it's Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.). She must be right, because she "feels it when she's flying." That's real science, folks.

Meanwhile, empirical evidence shows that Michigan--her home state--has had a record COLD July. She must not feel that because she's in D.C., surrounded by a bunch of hot air from her fellow global warming cult members.

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

[From DETNEWS | Weblogs | Henry Payne's Sketchbook]

CNN: "Unusually destructive" hurricane season

Just when you thought the whole global warming-hurricane link had been thoroughly debunked, up pops alarmism advocate CNN (Communist News Network) to prop up the fart cloud. Please read the previous post where we talked about this year's REALLY SLOW season compared to (once again) inaccurate predictions.

The point is to keep making each hurricane season seem "unusual" to tie it into the overall theory of climate change, and we know that Al Gore and his cult followers really buy into this link, which has been debunked by NOAA.

CNN, predictably, chooses to highlight certain facts and omit others (omission bias). For instance, they say that this was the fourth busiest season since 1944. My follow-up questions: How spread out were those four seasons? What about the seasons prior to 1944? Costs? Yes, hurricane damage in terms of dollars is greater today (even when adjusted for inflation) because there are more people and greater densities of people living in coastal areas.

Hurricane damage IS NOT GREATER because of manmade climate change.

Hmmm? Hello, CNN? Hmmm?

An unusually destructive hurricane season ends - CNN.com:

(CNN) -- The 2008 Atlantic hurricane season ended Sunday, marking the finish of one of the busiest and costliest hurricane seasons ever.

Sherrie Hoppal cleans out her Texas home that was flooded by Hurricane Ike in September.

The damage caused by this year's Atlantic hurricanes is estimated at $54 billion, according to the National Climatic Data Center. That's second in recorded history only to 2005, the year Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast. The total that year was an estimated $128 billion.

Atlantic Hurricane Season "Withers on the Vine"

Back in April 2008, Dr. Gray (a well-known global warming SKEPTIC), issued his famous hurricane season forecast; we were supposed to have a season "well above average." At the beginning of August 2008, the forecasters decided to "revise" their predictions to reflect an even more active season. I proposed back in April waiting to see how accurate these predictions would end up and whether they would be like a lot the global warming predictions that have come and gone so far AND BEEN WRONG!

So what happened? Not very much. The season did spike up a little higher than last year, but it was no where near the 2005 season. Once again, global warming failed to cause the cyclonic disaster typically predicted by global warming alarmists like Al Gore, even though NOAA has already discredited that theory.

Atlantic Hurricane Season 2008 Withers on the Vine « Climate Audit:

Now, to answer the question: how active was the 2008 hurricane season, we need to define climatology. This is where the tricksters can play pranks on the public. Where is the beginning point of the analysis? How well do we trust the frequency and the estimated intensities of each storm? What metric do we use – number of tropical storms, number of hurricanes, ACE (accumulated cyclone energy), Power Dissipation, or perhaps some complicated statistical measure? All of these questions are entangled in the debate surrounding whether anthropogenic climate change is indeed a modulating influence upon current and future Atlantic hurricane activity.

***

Final verdict: When encapsulated in the recent active period in North Atlantic activity (1995-2007), 2008 experienced normal or expected activity as measured by ACE.

Nobel Dodo bird's prediction

Notice certain words below in the article on Dr. Molina's "prestigious research" and pontification. We see ALARM, WARNING, IRREVERSIBLE CONSEQUENCES, and WORRISOME. The term Nobel no longer has much weight with me, since they gave one to Al Gore--a complete dufus. This article is a stereotypical climate fear piece, designed to influence the sheep among us for political reasons.

Now, let's look at all the B.S. stuffed into the article; I've already debunked many of these subjects in previous posts, but let's take each one-by-one. First, is the Earth warming? No, it isn't and hasn't since 1998; as a matter of fact, the temperature this past winter failed to meet warming predictions and instead plummeted.

Next, the changes in climate we see are a result of human activities--namely, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. We've seen how the temperature graph of the past 10 years has not mirrored the CO2 graph, which was previously espoused as proof of manmade warming. If CO2 drives warming then we should not have had plateaued and then reduced warming over the past 10 years (especially the precipitous drop this past winter).

Finally, Dr. Molina really shows his true alarmist tendencies by broaching the subject of hurricanes. NOAA has already debunked the connection to stronger hurricanes and "manmade warming," and if the Earth is still warming (which it isn't) then we should have seen stronger storms than 2005's Katrina over the past few years, even with the oft-used La Nina and El Nino excuses to revise failed climate and hurricane predictions. Heck, 1998 should have brought the worst hurricanes with the "spike" in warming, and it failed to do so.

Note that the consequences mentioned below are "ALMOST" irreversible. That means that "really smart" scientists and politicians can still save your dumb butt from your love of capitalism, which is fed by oil.

Nobel scientist warns on climate change | Environment | Reuters:

MIAMI (Reuters) - The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who rang the first alarm bells over the ozone hole issued a warming about climate change on Saturday, saying there could be "almost irreversible consequences" if the Earth warmed 2.5 degrees Celsius (4.5 degrees F) above what it ought to be.

"Things are changing and there's no doubt that it's as a result of human activities," said Mario Molina, a Mexican who shared a Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for groundbreaking work on chlorofluorocarbon gases and their threat to the Earth's ozone layer.

"Long before we run out of oil, we will run out of atmosphere," he said.

Molina told a panel discussion on climate change at an annual Inter-American Development Bank meeting in Miami that the increasing intensity of hurricanes was among the worrisome changes that scientists had linked to a rapid global warming trend over the past 30 years.

What they predicted; what actually happened

Similar to the wrong-headed, dire hurricane predictions over the past few years (where AGW was going to dissolve the coastline through high-powered cyclones), NOAA forecasters (also fueled by the global warming frenzy) forecasted a "warm winter" just a few months ago...

Warm Winter Predicted For United States:

ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2007) — NOAA forecasters are calling for above-average temperatures over most of the country and a continuation of drier-than-average conditions across already drought-stricken parts of the Southwest and Southeast in its winter outlook for the United States, announced at the 2007-2008 Winter Fuels Outlook Conference in Washington, D.C October 9, 2007.

Now, let's review a small sample of what actually happened (because the winter harshness was extensive):

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe :

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

• Now, reputations fall like dominoes
• Arctic = Melting; North Da-ka-ka-kota = FREEZING
• Iowa snow 22 inches ABOVE NORMAL
• Recent climate-related headlines

Surprise, surprise! Global warming completely reversed in one year. The climate CHANGES all the time--go figure! It’s not “climate change”…it’s the changing climate. The climate can not be expressed as a flat-line graph; it goes up and down and has done so for 4.5 billion years. Notice this piece about snow cover at the bottom:

While there has been little trend in snow cover extent during the winter season since records began in the late 1960s, spring snow cover extent has been sharply lower in the past two decades as global temperatures have increased.

What they’re letting out of the bag here (reluctantly) is that all the hoopla about “loss of snow cover and ice” is based on a baseline measurement range that is not yet 50 years in width. Do you realize how SHORT that period of time is when stacked against the Earth’s estimated life of 4.5 billion years???!!! Any medical research with such shady statistics would be laughed at roundly by scientists, and no treatments would ever result from such garbage research.

As Newsbusters correctly points out:

Hmmm. These guys can't accurately predict climate conditions two months out, but we should radically alter our economy based on their forecasts decades into the future?

NOAA: AGW not causing increased hurricane destruction

'Nuff said. Can we have the Gore-Christ's Oscar and Nobel Prize back now?

NOAA: Hurricane frequency and global warming NOT the cause of increased destruction « Watts Up With That?:

A team of scientists have found that the economic damages from hurricanes have increased in the U.S. over time due to greater population, infrastructure, and wealth on the U.S. coastlines, and not to any spike in the number or intensity of hurricanes.

“There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”