Global Warming - Bending Science to Fit the Conclusion?

Question

Please look at this link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QMHR8O0&show_article=1

Look at the conclusions they make.

The number of Atlantic Storms between 1905-1930 = 6/yr
The number of Atlantic Storms between 1931-1994 = 10/yr
The number of Atlantic Storms between 1995-2005 = 15/yr

Conclusion: Global Warming is causing more storms.

Look carefully at the data you will clearly see that the data is chosen to fit the conclusion rather than the conclusion is based on facts.

The first set of numbers span 25yrs The second 63yrs the third 10yrs

Why the difference in years? Simple, there is no difference in the number of storms over any fixed time span. Since there were more storms during the 30's-40's then today, this number had to be included with the 60's & 70's when there were fewer storms to get the number to fit the conclusion. Also while claiming that the current years have more storms 06 & 07 were conveniently left off.

Global warming is a scam

Answer 1

I agree with you 100% these enviornmental scientist are so biased towards Global Warming because with out it lots of these moron tree hugging people would be our of a job, then they would have to work at McDonalds boohoo...lol....so yeah its the biggest scam so far of the 21st century, and until these liberals get put in there place they will get worse and worse putting more and more money in there pockets.... :(

Answer 2

15 storms per year for 10 years is 150 storms. Even if there were no storms at all in 1006 and 2007, the average for the last 12 years would be 150/12 = 12.5; which is still more than 10 and way more than 5.

I think the problem with storm counts is how they define a storm, and how they were reported in the past. Definitions have changed and measurements have gotten better in all that time.

Answer 3

This is one of the smoke screens raised by the cover up. Weather scientists answered this question before it was even raised. They had said we had two very active hurricane years, then we had a very quiet one. This is regulated by whether the surface currents are warm, or cold. They trade places every so often, and the hurricane season responds accordingly. No one knows what causes this. The ancient terms were "El Nino" and "La Nina". Observations the the sea temperature measured at the surface is cooler than a couple of years ago are related to this. At the same time, the net temperature, and the vigor of the hurricane season in the active years will probably continued to be held in check by this natural phenomenon until the polar caps and glaciers are entirely gone.

Answer 4

Actually, I'd rather look at the conclusions =you= make. They're far more interesting.

If I'm not missing something, your argument runs like this:

"Some website claims that tropical storm activity has been increasing over the past century.

The data they used is misleading.

Therefore: global warming theory is a scam."

Please explain to me how this is logically coherent.

Think about this for a second. Given that the global mean temperature =has= been increasing over the past century, and given that an increase in global mean temperature would have an effect on tropical storm activity, it would have an effect of tropical storm activity whether it was anthropogenic or not.

So whether or not tropical storms have been increasing tells us precisely nothing about the validity of anthropogenic global warming theory.

Answer 5

This is silly beyond belief.

It is true that the relationship between global warming and the _number_ of storms in a particular location is uncertain. Some guys went a little far in their claim about Atlantic hurricanes. Maybe they're right (most likely), maybe they're wrong (possibly). As you point out, it depends on exactly how you analyze the data. And scientists differ about this issue.

That doesn't mean global warming is a scam. A huge amount of more conclusive evidence shows it's real and mostly man made. And the vast majority of scientists agree about that.

This is a nice picture of far more conclusive evidence. The data clearly shows that, about 40 years ago, man's production ogf greenhouse gases overtook natural forces as the driving force behind climate.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

We need to return control to nature.

Answer 6

I agree that global warming is a scam. I googled carbon offsets and was amazed about the number of sites that want a contribution. I think that I may have believed it if the advocates would lead by example. You add to the fact that people are making money on an issue that they claim is a do or die issue and I'm skeptical

Answer 7

My weather man (or if you prefer meteorologist) predicted rain yesterday and it did not rain. If people are unable to predict the weather a week out, how am I supposed to believe they can predict the weather 10-20 years out?

Answer 8

I agree this year was supposed to be a record year 17 Hurricanes with 7 making landfall. Just like last year, this only proves that man cannot predict the weather much less the climate.

Answer 9

Bob is correct - your information and your conclusion do not logically connect.

Most scientists have concluded that there's probably little or no correlation between the frequency of hurricanes and global warming (though global warming probably does intensify hurricnaes)

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_050731_hurricanes_stronger.html

but even if these scientists are wrong, you conclusion is completely illogical. Assuming they're wrong (which I agree with Bob they're probably not), you're saying that one conclusion by a couple of scientists about one aspect of global warming which most scientists don't agree about proves that global warming is a scam?

Looks to me like you're trying really hard to convince yourself that it's a scam.

Answer 10

Great Question. It seems more and more of the GW data used is being questioned.

See CO2SCIENCE.com

Old saying - Figures never lie, but liars figure. It will take some time, but the real data will come out and we will better understand this event.