When reality doesn’t back your idiocy…

Alter Reality!:

Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can’t get their “dirty weather,” as Al Gore calls it? Then they’ll just have define down what a disaster is.

Eleven years ago, Gore swore that “the science is extremely clear now.” Global warming was “magnifying” the “destructive power” of the “average hurricane,” he said. Man’s impact on the environment “makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”

The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists’ faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, “Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message.” From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was “absolutely” right.

Strain though they might, they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they’re not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn’t make landfall will in the future be catastrophic “hurricanes” or “extreme weather” events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.

After Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote in Mashable that “it’s time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed.”

“We need a new hurricane intensity metric,” he said, “that more accurately reflects a storm’s potential to cause death and destruction well inland.”

The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides “a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane’s sustained wind speed.” But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.

“So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record,’ ” says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of “Climate Hustle,” a movie that “takes a skeptical look at global warming.”

“This is all part of a financial scheme,” says Morano. “If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-‘poisoned weather.’ Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”

The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is “flat to slightly down,” and science — yes, that “settled” field that somehow continues to discover new things — . They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.

They did it with unemployment and other economic measurement units, so why not with this too?

7 comments:

  1. Hal_10000

    OMG, the global conspiracy has finally been unmasked! Some dude did a post on Mashable!  We’re through the looking glass, people!

    Thumb up 4

  2. richtaylor365

    Dang, Hal, I guess you told him, your flippancy is revealing, I guess Alex should have cited to the NY Times or the Washington Post, then you would be on board, right?

    Some dude

    Pull your fingers out of your ears, this is not some food editor or metro writer;

    Andrew Freedman is Mashable’s Science Editor. Prior to working at Mashable, Freedman was a Senior Science writer for Climate Central. He was ranked as the most prolific climate reporter in the U.S. in 2012, and the second-most prolific in 2013. He has also worked as a reporter for Congressional Quarterly and Greenwire/E&E Daily. His writing has also appeared in the Washington Post, online at The Weather Channel, and washingtonpost.com, where he wrote a weekly climate science column for the “Capital Weather Gang” blog. He has provided commentary on climate science and policy for Sky News, CBC Radio, NPR, Al Jazeera America, Sirius XM Radio, PBS NewsHour, and other national and international outlets. He holds a Masters in Climate and Society from Columbia University, and a Masters in Law and Diplomacy from The Fletcher School at Tufts University.

    Share with us your credentials in this area, please. Now, how about commenting on what he said, is he wrong? How so?

    Just like with Heather Mcdonald, someone who knows a thousand times more about a topic then you, unless you read it in Salon or Slate, it’s empty words.

    I am more interested in debating the topic (except for climate change, afraid you true believers would advocate jailing me for my skepticism) or what is  actually said, instead of  knee jerk character assassination of the author.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  3. InsipiD

    I didn’t see any character assassination in what Alex wrote, but he’s not the first source that I’ve seen for the story about moving the yardstick.  If it weren’t for the fact that these metrics were defined before one side decided to blame the other for the weather, this is exactly what would’ve happened already.  I trust the intellectual honesty of the way that hurricanes are defined, and they can be directly compared because none of it has changed recently.  Alex is correct in that it’s been years since a hurricane hit Florida, and they’re still talking like Matthew was the 4th one this year or something.  It’s definitely time to stop the left from tampering with how things are defined, especially the ones who lay out the guilt trip for the rest of us while their fleet of Suburbans wait idling outside.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    What is “actually being said” is that it’s all a conspiracy etc etc because some people have pointed out that the way hurricanes are measured might be improved, for sound reasons outlined by Freedman in his piece. Somehow that becomes “proof” of the conspiracy to dumbfucks like Alex, who similarly had a post recently including “proof” about how the WH instructed the Justice Department not to indict Hillary, even though there was nothing but anonymous speculation. Facts no longer matter. This is why it was so inevitable that Alex became a Trump supporter. And now Alex will call me a Marxist cunt and make yet more empty and meaningless accusations, because it’s the only thing he knows.

    Thumb up 2

  5. Hal_10000

    Just like with Heather Mcdonald, someone who knows a thousand times more about a topic then you, unless you read it in Salon or Slate, it’s empty words.

    No, Rich. Quit playing your stupid fucking word games. You know exactly what I was saying: that Alex is claiming to have found a global conspiracy based on a mashable post by a scientist suggesting we find a better way of measuring hurricane intensity. We’ve come a long from hacked e-mails where scientists secretly plot to use methods from refereed papers in the analysis of their data.

    And I dismiss McDonald by citing people who know a thousand times more than she does (although a thousand times nothing would still be nothing). They can cite chapter and verse about their data. MacDonald published unsourced, unfootnoted factually-challenged screeds that cherry-pick data and basically amount to licking the government’s boots and saying that anyone who fails to lick the boots hates cops. She’s a fucking hack and you know it. You’ve already been caught out once praising her for “all the research and all the footnotes” only for me to point that her book has no footnotes and cites no research.

    Thumb up 1

  6. richtaylor365

    Quit playing your stupid fucking word games.

    No word games needed to point out your failed attempts at marginalization.

    The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides “a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane’s sustained wind speed.” But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.

    Words written by an actual climate scientist who has done extensive research in this area, but you whimsically dismiss it all as a “global conspiracy” without a single shred of factual rebuttal, and I’m the one playing sword games.

     Alex is claiming to have found a global conspiracy based on a mashable post by a scientist

    Well, at least now you admit that “some dude” is a real scientist, that is some progress.

    She’s a fucking hack and you know it

    As mentioned in another thread a few months back, your description methodology has been exposed. Prove Hal wrong in one area and you are an irritant, but do it in 2 and you are a “hack”. Both in percentages of drug offenders in federal prisons and The Ferguson Effect (which as of today even with half a dozen attempts by me to get you to understand it, you still get it wrong, amazing), she has popped your bubble.

    Using your own definition, you reached “hack” status many moons ago.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  7. Hal_10000

    As mentioned in another thread a few months back, your description methodology has been exposed.

    Yes, that methodology of using “facts” and “data” rather than “assumptions” and “anecdotes”.

    Thumb up 2

Leave a Reply