Diverse — Drokles on November 1, 2012 at 5:36 am

Tom Harris skriver for Frontier Center

Listening to climate campaigners, you would think that Hurricane Sandy, already downgraded to a tropical storm, was something that never happened before in the United States. While damage has indeed been severe for a number of reasons I discuss below, winds are already slowing due to drag produced as the storm moves over land.

In fact, there have been many storms far more powerful than Sandy, which, by the time it hit the coast of the U.S. was barely a category 1 hurricane. ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Dr. Tim Ball, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, explains that Sandy’s upgrading to even this level was the result of one measurement from a hurricane hunter aircraft extrapolated down the surface, not a direct measurement of the wind speed at the surface.

This didn’t stop main stream media, ever anxious to hype extreme weather events as harbingers of climate catastrophe, from pronouncing it a hurricane of unparalleled proportions.


Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now says that there is little or no science backing claims that human-caused climate change is responsible for current extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy agrees and explains that such links are not scientifically based. As Corcoran explains in the National Post, Prof. Pielke also asserts that there are no signs of a trend in any direction in hurricane activity. “We’ve done long-term trends with respect to hurricane damage in the United States, and it’s very safe to say that regardless of how [Sandy] plays out, there’s a century-long time series with no trend in it — and that’s in damage, the number of landfalls, or the intensity of storms at landfall.”

For people who have been following the science debate, none of this should be surprising. The August 29, 2011 Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report (NIPCC – see concluded “…the data reveal there have not been any significant warming-induced increases in extreme weather events.” The report showed that this was the case whether the phenomenon was precipitation, floods, drought, storms, hurricanes, fire, or other weather-related events. Dr. Khandekar, an NIPCC author, demonstrated that extreme weather events are now occurring with about the same frequency as they did during 1945-1977 cooling period.

Også No Tricks Zone tager brodden af hysteriet

Phoenix invited meteorologist Dr. Karsten Brandt as an expert. Brandt is co-managing director of He was asked by the Phoenix news achorman if we should expect more and bigger storms due to global warming.

I haven’t yet been able to find a clip of that particluar segment, so I have to rely on my memory for his answer.

When asked about the global warming-storm link, Brandt said that by looking back at the global data available over the last decades, there’s “no indication or evidence showing there’s been an increase in storm activity. The data don’t show it.” He added: “Luckily we don’t need to worry much about increasing storms in the future”.

Steven Goddard har også fat i statistikken

October hurricane strikes occurred almost three times as often during the 19th century as they do now. They used to happen about once every 1.7 years, and now they happen about once every five years. The peak decades for October hurricanes were the 1870s and the 1940s, which both had six.

Og Goddard ironiserede videre på Real Science

Today marks seven years since a major hurricane hit the US, the longest such period since at least the Civil War. Climate experts tell us that the hurricanes we aren’t having would be stronger if they were happening.

It has also been more than twenty years since a category five hurricane hit the US. This summer had the fewest tornadoes on record in the US. The dearth of hurricanes and tornadoes are a sure sign that man-made extreme weather is exploding, and is going to kill us all.

Og det er nemlig lige hvad der sker. Med religiøs iver ser klimahysterinere overalt tegn på gudernes utilfredshed. Breitbart citerer filminstruktøren Oliver Stone

“I was a little disappointed at the third debate when neither of them talked about climate control and the nature of the situation on Earth. I think there’s kind of a weird statement coming right after … this is a punishment … Mother Nature cannot be ignored. That’s all I thought about.”

MSNBC’s populære studievært Chris Matthews kaldte klimabenægtere for svin fortæller Real Clear Politics

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well Professor [Michael] Oppenheimer, back in the 60s, we calls such people pigs. Pigs. No, really. They don’t care about the planet, they don’t care about the destruction of war. All they want is what they got, their stuff, and they want more of it. Is that what we’re facing here, just greed? I’m not talking about the guy at the coal mind, that’s hard work. I’m talking about people who won’t listen to you, won’t listen to science because they want more stuff.

OPPENHEIMER: Listen, Chris, I’m not into name calling here. I think –

MATTHEWS: Well I am.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Og Al Gore bliver vindikeret som profet ifølge The Blaze

President Barack Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones took to Twitter on Tuesday to encourage climate change skeptics to apologize to Al Gore after superstorm Sandy because, apparently, the storm proves that “he was right.”

Jones doesn’t elaborate as to why the massive storm proves the global warming theory to be fact.

Al Gore tidligere Boss, Bill Clinton mener at ønsketænkning om Obamas Oceansænkende evner er realitisk politik skriver Think Progress

I was actually listening closely to what the candidates said in these debates. In the first debate, the triumph of the moderate Mitt Romney. You remember what he did? He ridiculed the president. Ridiculed the president for his efforts to fight global warming in economically beneficial ways. He said, ‘Oh, you’re going to turn back the seas.’ In my part of America, we would like it if someone could’ve done that yesterday. All up and down the East Coast, there are mayors, many of them Republicans, who are being told, ‘You’ve got to move these houses back away from the ocean. You’ve got to lift them up. Climate change is going to raise the water levels on a permanent basis. If you want your town insured, you have to do this.’ In the real world, Barack Obama’s policies work better.

Nu Obamas politik bliver nævnt kunne det være interessant at få besvaret Tom Nelsons spørgsmål om udgifter til at hindre andre udgifter (min fremhævning)

Superstorm Sandy shuts down New York City

If the storm reaches the higher estimate of $20 billion in damage, that would put it ahead of Hurricane Irene, which raked the Northeast in August 2011 and caused $16 billion in damage. Hurricane Katrina, which killed 1,200 people, cost $108 billion.

Renewable Energy: Obama $90 Billion Alternative Energy Projects Are Failing

Renewable energy has become a political football, especially as it is found that Obama’s $90 Billion alternative energy projects are failing.

Jeg lader en af CO2 teoriens varme støtter, David Appel, slutte af med denne reprimande til sine egne religiøse støtter-

The Bill McKibben’s and Brad Johnson’s who jump on every storm in service of their cause are just as misguided as climate change deniers. It is the ultimate cherry pick — wait until an event happens, and they proclaim it as typical. There needs to be just as strong a term for them — “climate exaggerators,” perhaps — because despite what they think they are doing, they are ruining the cause of controlling carbon and minimizing future impacts. They have turned religious on the issue, and like all zealots they believe their cause justifies any lie.

They have become clowns who can always be counted on to parrot their beliefs, regardless of the facts. And that makes people dismiss the issue, not understand it.

Det er delvist klimahysterikernes manglende realitetssans, der får os til at afvise klimahysteriet, men mest er det nu realiteterne i sig selv.

5 Kommentarer »

  1. Og jeg har sagt det mange gange før: Det uvidenskabelige klimahysteri er enormt skadeligt for bekæmpelsen af den kemiske forurening, som er et veldokumenteret problem, som vi i modsætning til klimaforandringer er i stand til at gøre noget/lidt ved.

    Mens vi skændes om klimaet bliver vi forgiftet og især hormonforstyret, til den store guldmedalje. Fejludviklede kønsdele hos drengebørn, feminisering af krokodiller og fisk ses mange steder i verden.

    Men det ville blive dyrt for rigtig mange firmaer, hvis vis skulle stramme giftudslippene og de stoffer der bruges i industri, landbrug og husholdning. Derfor er det nyttigt for mange med dette klimahysteri, som effektivt skygger for de store problemer vi faktisk har indflydelse på.

    Comment by Balder — November 1, 2012 @ 11:10 am
  2. Jeg har ingen ide om omfanget af den kemiske forurening, men det er klart mere bekymrende. Det er en slet fugl der søler egen rede, sagde min farmor altid.

    Comment by Drokles — November 3, 2012 @ 10:03 am

    Monokultur » Profeterne…

    Trackback by — August 14, 2014 @ 9:27 pm
  4. company financial Planning…

    Monokultur » Profeterne…

    Trackback by company financial Planning — August 15, 2014 @ 9:48 am
  5. emergency cash…

    Monokultur » Profeterne…

    Trackback by emergency cash — August 16, 2014 @ 5:44 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress