Global Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We’ll Have More Of Them…


#1

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.”

Global Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We’ll Have More Of Them… | Weasel Zippers

Come on people I am sure everyone has seen this before. This occurs any where from the medical field to any organization that wants to build up the importance of why they exist. I have seen illnesses expanded to include stuff that was considered separate to make something so horrendous that if something is not done you will surely die. Advertisers use this gimmick to sell their products to demonstrate how their product is needed.

So now the alarmists want to redefine weather so that minor events will also be included as major and show the world that warmest are on the right track.


#2

Govts lying to support their agenda has been around for all of known history. But we came along in the late 1700’s with a whole new form of govt and it was based the men that left a corrupt govt, one that had a state church one that lied, and had all the faults that govts can have.

So what kind of people braved the Atlantic to come to a new world? Strong men who were brave, honest of good moral and ethical strength. They came and formed a govt and the ONE mistake they made, which we have discovered over 200 years later, is that this new form of govt depended upon men like themselves to be the leaders. But the new govt had an Achilles heel and that was it could be easily taken over by corrupt and dishonest men who could bring it down with little effort.

America was a great experiment and it worked better than any in the past, but it failed because it was based upon men and women of human quality and by the same token the Rolls Royce auto depends upon the finest leathers for their seats, the highest quality in their welds, the finest woods and carpeting. As long as they maintain their quest for quality they will be the worlds best, but swap the find leathers for Naugahyde, the wood for embossed plastic and they to will fall upon the trash heap failed car companies before them…


#3

Here are some AGW excerpts from the Democrat Party Platform for 2016:

> Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our
> national security, and our children’s health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and
> security that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century

> We will protect communities from the impact of climate change and help them to mitigate its effects by investing in green and resilient infrastructure

> Our climate change policy will cut carbon emission, address poverty, invest in disadvantaged communities, and improve both air quality and public health. We support the tribal nations efforts to develop wind, solar, and other clean energy jobs

> Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time

Geezzz . . . are these guys chaneling Al Gore, or what?

Seriously, this is what we’re in for when Hitlery wins.


#4

When your not happy with the outcome of something because it doesn’t meet your criteria the simplest way to “fix” it is to change the criteria.
.
That worked so well with our high schools. Now they just have to show up & sooner or later they graduate.
.
It even works with elections polls. Want Hillary to be ahead you just put more democrats into the mix.
.
As for hurricanes well in a couple of weeks people won’t remember that the standards were changed & it will become big news. If you don’t have a cause it’s pretty simple to make one. Oh well.


#5

Anyone who has read my posts knows that despite my overall left-wing/Democrat views I do not believe in AGW or man-made climate change. I believe in cycles.

That being said I have no problem with an impact scale for storms that includes a metric other than sustained winds, as long as it includes historical storms. Not including those is dishonest.

But some hurricanes such as Agnes in 1972 or Irene in 2011 did little damage in my neck of the woods from winds. Almost all the damage came from inland rains as the storms moved respectively over upstate New York/Middle Atlantic (Agnes was a recurve) and upstate New York/New England. Both followed weeks of torrential rains and the ground was already muck. There was nowhere for the water to go. As long as the base is adjusted a redefinition will prejudice no one and should not tilt the debate, as I am quite sure that the pre-Industrial early 1800’s and eras before them had their share of Agnes’ and Irenes. To imply that those kinds of storms are new is intellectually dishonest.