November 27, 2006
"Inconvenient Hurricane Season" for "An Inconvenient Truth"
as of given dates for this year so far, and compared to normal.
(From WeatherStreet.com)
Al Gore and alarmists from the Left predicted that hurricanes in 2006 would become more numerous and more forceful because of mankind induced global warming. To stop this, we had to act now. After all, there is a consensus among scientists and the debate on global warming is over. Guess what. The year after those predictions, hurricane activity was down.
With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade. Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.
Do you know what I expect as a result of this? First, the alarmists will say that we're lying about their predictions. That's their automatic response. And, later, I honestly expect that those who attend the "Church of Global Warming" will blame man-induced global warming on the decrease in hurricane activity, now that their predictions for an increase failed. They take any and all sides to make their points. To prove our side, we just have to wait two-hundred years to see how false their predictions proved to be and how dishonest they are being now.
The Left likes that. Their solutions to short-term problems get exposed as false very quickly. It can take decades and centuries for their long-term predictions for disasters to be proven wrong. In the meantime, I'm against wasting significant money on this issue, whether paid with taxes or impact on our economy.
Because hurricane destruction was less than predicted this year, do you think that Al Gore is more glad for mankind or upset for his cause?
Posted by Woody M. at November 27, 2006 09:00 AM | TrackBack"I'm against wasting significant money on this issue, whether paid with taxes or impact on our economy."
Your words. Now, how much more significant money are you willing to waste on the fiasco of our Iraqi issue? The taxes are from you and me. The impact on the economy is to benefit the military-industrial complex.
Posted by James S Melbert at November 27, 2006 03:28 PM
James, how much money am I willing to waste on taxpayer paid art that offends decent people? How much money am I willing to waste on public schools that don't adequately teach kids because the teacher's union opposes competition with vouchers? How much money am I willing to waste on government health care? If we're worried about wasting money, the Democrats have a much longer list of waste than the Republicans, even though Bush is trying to catch up.
Posted by Woody at November 27, 2006 04:17 PM
Although the Democrats probably lead in terms of items, the Republicans are probably ahead in terms of dollars - but it doesn't really matter, both parties are running as fast as they can. Perhaps George could slow things down a bit if he can find a veto pen in which the ink hasn't dried up from lack of use. I'm not too hopeful, though, since I don't see any evidence that the new Congressional leadership has any attention of slowing down the race; they just may have to divy up the goodies differently - pardon me, not "the" goodies, but "our" goodies, or more correctly, our children's and their children's goodies.
Posted by civil truth at November 27, 2006 07:49 PM
The disappointment about this "bad" news is palpable from the "mother earth is gonna die" chicken littles.
In conjunction with the barely hidden joy that the war in Iraq is hitting some rough spots.
When CNN shows terrorist propaganda films, you can see a gleam in the reporters eyes.
It's all about power and partisan politics to them.
Not good weather or winnig the war.
Pathetic really.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at November 28, 2006 01:47 AM
As I've said all along, one year's data about hurricane frequency (especially when you arbirtrarily limit the data set to Atlantic hurricanes) says nothing about GW, one way or the other. This was true for 2005 and is again true for 2006.
Those who recklessly made public proclamations last year claiming such a connection were abusing science for a political agenda and deserve a smack down by the inconvenient truth of this year's hurricane data.
Posted by civil truth at November 28, 2006 10:20 AM
