Comments on: Does Global Warming Mean Fewer Hurricanes?

U.S. Government Study: Warmer Waters May Lessen Chances Of Hurricanes Hitting Land

[robertkjjj]

The 2nd paragraph in this shows the inherent media bias that assumes global warming(GW) is human-caused. It says:
"The new study is the latest in a contentious scientific debate over how man-made GW may affect the intensity and number of hurricanes." Note the "man-made" phrase. Also, note this article is not even dealing with the question of IF GW is man-made. It''s about hurricanes and their frequency. It''s mind-boggling how obvious the liberal bias is on this question. Please remember that there are two major, yet separate, questions on this issue. (1) Is GW occurring? Some say yes, some say no. Each side has "scientists" that support their view. (2) If GW is occurring, is it caused by human activity? Some say yes, some say no. Each side has "scientists" that support their view. There are 2 chronic problems with the media reporting on GW. One, the media lumps the two together, and asks absurd questions such as %u201CDo you believe in global warming?%u201D It%u2019s an impossible question for many to answer. For example, I believe GW IS occurring(on a small scale), but like many I believe it%u2019s a natural cyclical occurrence, and not human-caused. But, the question itself is a trick, as it assumes that if you say %u201Cyes%u201D that you agree that GW is man-made. The whole scientific argument and questions have been %u201Cdumbed down%u201D for the masses. Like nuclear power, there is really no way to make this discussion %u201Csimple%u201D.

[one_american]

The next thing they will try to tell you is - Global Warming will cause the next Ice Age.

Liberals are never allow truth or scientific facts get in the way of their agenda.

[one_american]

Since the last two years have produced no hurricanes for the United States, the Global Warming zealots want to re-write their junk "science" to fit the current conditions so they can continue with their ruse on the American people.

[ora734]

The global warming scientists can''t see past their face on the basis that fewer hurricanes aids in their argument that the earth is warming up, it''s so simple they trip over it.
Their argument that the ice melt at the artics is proof of warming, but clamor that the seas are warming up, is fouled thinking. The fresh water melting into the oceans is cooling the oceans, which cools the gulf stream. What drives a hurricane? Warm water.
A lot fewer hurricanes is proof to me that it is warming up in the atmosphere, which is causing the cooling of the oceans. The speed at which this is happening is whats alarming to me. This will cause the reverse of global warming eventually. Once the balance is lost it takes cataclysmic events to rectify the balances.

[republic1776]

Moose farts contribute to Global Warming.
A drive from NY to LA generates the smae as a Moose ***.
Why don''t we start eating Mooose, EAT MEAT!

[one_american]

Man-made Global Warming is turning out to be the largest hoax ever played upon the American public, since the broadcast of "War of the Worlds" by Orson Welles in 1938 - and Al Gore has become the world''s biggest huckster.

[displeased]

rf35. What specifically do you propose that spend money on that will absolutely fix global warming? What is that fix? How do you quantify if you fixed it? How long will it take to see a change? How much will your plan change the global temperature? How much will it cost? Who is in charge of the money? Where does the money come from? Show us your plan!
Posted by squidly8

I don''t rebut or advocate global warming since I also have many questions, but it would be more beneficial if we invested our money in implementing alternative sources of energy instead of squandering it to Iraq and Dubia. An economic disaster is inevitable because of our oil addiction which our government greedily supports.

[squidly8]

ibzjem. You are simplifing the medical research process to one where money is just spent without any justification and the shifts with the wind direction. I would sincerely doubt that any medical research institution allows their $ to be spent without any formal review process. "Here Mary, take $20M and spend it on the effect of ball point pens on skin cancer" Show that the research has some quantifiable benefit against this KNOWN problem. We don''t know that global warming is even true let alone a problem!

Al Gore said it was a problem so you believe. Conned you into believing it caused Katrina and melting snow on Kilamanjaro and polar bears stranded on icebergs and the "hockey stick" chart. It might be enough for you to throw your money in but for a thinking person it shouldn''t be. It isn''t for me.

[easeup-2009]

OK so they blamed all the 2005 hurricanes on global warming now they are saying less hurricanes is the result of global warming.......hmmmmmm.....

Next year: "Scientists conclude that an average number of hurricanes, give or take, is the direct result of global warming."

[global_chick]

ibzjem, that''s the whole point. I think many people would have been more open to hearing about the possibility of global warming had we been given the facts and been able to question what was being stated. Instead, Gore and his friends made the decision to shut down the debate and treat anyone who might have questions as an outcast or an oil company shill. That is where things went off-track for me, and I''m sure, for a lot of other people. By the same token, I am not going to "throw money" at anything via my tax dollars until I have the facts.

[ibzjem]

Throwing money at a problem without the absolute root cause known is flushing it down the toilet.
Posted by squidly8 at 12:08 PM : Jan 23, 2008

So do you think the same way about medical "research"? Seems to me most people think differently about the "science" behind big Pharma and their miracle pills. Do you know that there has been no cure for anything from medical research? Do they know how to cure cancer or what causes it in every case/type? No. So I guess we should stop spending the money there too.

I think the old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" goes for the environment as well.

[squidly8]

Who said anything about being pro oil? That is the classic environmentalist tactic - attack anyone who doesn''t believe as they do as a shill of the oil industry. I am all for increasing the efficiency of the way that we do things - with oil, gas, geothermal, solar, nuclear - whatever. Why? Because who can argue with using our resources more efficiently? It is simply the right thing to do.

What I am against is the chicken little scare mongering over something that in all likelihood, humans are not in control of. Fact - It is not proven that man is responsible for any changes to global temperature now and 100 years from now. Some have theory and emotion but those are not facts even though they are spread as such. Using fear mongering to spend trillions of $ to ''fix'' something that we don''t even know is broken let alone if we are even the cause is at an undescribable level of ridiculousness.

Throwing money at a problem without the absolute root cause known is flushing it down the toilet. You don''t know that you are ''fixing'' the right thing or even if your ''fix'' will compound the problem.

rf35. What specifically do you propose that spend money on that will absolutely fix global warming? What is that fix? How do you quantify if you fixed it? How long will it take to see a change? How much will your plan change the global temperature? How much will it cost? Who is in charge of the money? Where does the money come from? Show us your plan!

[olebd]

It''s all just a bunch of theories (educated GUESSES)

I''ve noticed, in the past few years, weather forecasting seems to have become less accurate despite better technology. If you hear there is a 50% chance of precipitation, chances are good better these days that it WON''T happen. Forecasts are also revised more frequently than they used to be but they seem less accurate.

Doesn''t seem like any of these scientists know for sure what is going on.

[rf35]

"...no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
That about says it all. For hurricanes. Nothing has been settled, just another question raised. Regardless of the hurricane situation, global warming is still a problem and still needs to be addressed. Changes in hurricanes aren''t the only consequence of climate change. People who use this as some sort of pro-oil rallying point need to wake up! I doubt the folks in Florida will much care how intense the next decade''s hurricanes will be if their homes are under water.

[raised4952]

global warming,this is a subject that confuse''s myself as i am sure that others may be confused by it too,the reason for the confusion is that the schools teach students that the earth and sun move closer to one another every year..i wish that scientist could get thier story straight on this matter..

[global_chick]

Um, I thought it was the opposite?? Wonder what Al would have to say...oh yeah, he refuses to debate global warming. Guess we''ll never know. I am laughing my butt off at the sheep who swallowed this nonsense for so long. At the very least, the concept of global warming required further study. However, the cultists behind the practice decided to shut down the debate. Nice job.

[extremophil]

Fewer Hurricanes? Another plus for global warming!!

[squidly8]

Oh this makes me laugh. I thought the science was settled. Gore and his Katrina antics. We don''t know enough about climate science to make doom and gloom predictions of tipping points and temperature rises 100 years from now to justify spending how many trillions of $. That is a fact and emotions don''t change facts.

Wait, next we will hear and see links to websites showing how the study author is bought and paid for by the oil industry.

[mcvet]

I hope this is true.. It would be one of a very few good things to come out of it.