Climate scamming, part two
OK class, our lesson for today is: Always believe everything you are told, never check the validity or sources of data, never apply reason to unconventional assertions, and always steadfastly deny that another's hypothesis may be every bit as valid as the one you devoutly embrace.
In a recent article entitled Climate Scamming, The B2 Journal offered a common-sensical glimpse at how, for whatever reasons, Earth's natural climate evolution may be a victim of misinterpretation. The intent was to bring awareness to the fact that narrowly-structured research and presumptuous scientific analyses do not necessarily a doomsday make — and hoping it to be so does not either.
Such is the case with the global warming theorem. After publishing the article, B2J received several emails promoting thoughts which, shall we say in the interest of good taste, strenuously disagreed with the article's focus. This was particularly true regarding the affirmation that tropical cyclonic storm events appear to be periodic in nature as to their degrees of intensity and occurrence.
What does this mean? Simply that there will be stronger and more frequent storms for a few decades, then there will be weaker and fewer storms for a few decades. Well. To acolytes slavishly devoted to the global warming faith, any such statement is blasphemy. Blasphemy, that is, until one bothers to research the historical record of Tropical Cyclones and landfall frequencies on the shores of the United States.
I can hear the devotees now, faces purple and forehead veins popping while they sputter, "Say what? You expect us to believe corroborative data? You must be daft! Why, that contradicts our Man-is-to-blame, America-is-evil, Earth-in-the-balance, Kyoto-is-salvation Gospel!"
Ahem. Yes, and perhaps then such unfortunate souls would have to embrace another religion other than global warming like, oh I don't know, Wicca, Victimology, Paganism, Socialism, Multiculturalism, or Communism (practical Marxism). Of course, there is another religion that has been in the news lately, one of "peace" or so we are led to believe. But the nice part about the first religions mentioned is that the alternative to conversion is not death. Hmm, perhaps we should leave Communism out of it as well.
Tropical cyclone history
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its National Hurricane Center (NHC), data strongly indicates that such storms do indeed follow a periodic pattern of frequency and strength, and that the last twenty years to present day has hardly been the most active storm period on record. For non-zealots woefully afflicted with reason, common sense, and a keen interest in the pursuit of truth, a link has been provided to the complete NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS TPC-4.
For those who don't wish to bother with reading a dry, mind-numbing, eye-watering scientific abstract, an excerpt is provided listing the number of category 3 or greater storms by frequency, per decade:
| PERIOD 1 | 1841-1850 | 1851-1860 | 1861-1870 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| number of storms | no data | 6 | 1 | 7 |
| PERIOD 2 | 1871-1880 | 1881-1890 | 1891-1900 | Total |
| number of storms | 7 | 5 | 8 | 20 |
| PERIOD 3 | 1901-1910 | 1911-1920 | 1921-1930 | Total |
| number of storms | 04 | 07 | 05 | 16 |
| PERIOD 4 | 1931-1940 | 1941-1950 | 1951-1960 | Total |
| number of storms | 8 | 11 | 6 | 25 |
| PERIOD 5 | 1961-1970 | 1971-1980 | 1981-1990 | Total |
| number of storms | 4 | 4 | 4 | 12 |
| PERIOD 6 | 1991-2000 | 2001-2010 | 2011-2020 | Total |
| number of storms | 5 | 8 | no data | 13 |
While a clear cyclical pattern to frequency is obvious, please bear in mind that NHC meteorologists and climatologists agree that data collected prior to the 1950s may be skewed downward. That is to say, they believe data collection methodologies and instrumentation of the day did not accurately record the full strength of the storms, so the figures cited prior to 1950 may actually be lower than what they should be.
Too much emotion, not enough thought
One would think that with a theory as polarizing, shakily unsubstantiated, and zealously sermonized as global warming, one would seek a more prudent and thorough pursuit of proof. This is especially so when to merely delay the speculative effects of that theory, we are mandated to follow an arbitrarily-devised scheme that would adversely alter life for citizens of developed nations and foment calamitous impacts on the global economy.
Developed nations do, after all, feed the needy people of Earth and willingly provide medical, public health, financial, technical, and spiritual assistance to nations less well-off or otherwise incapable of self-sustainment or development. And despite what some would have you believe, most of this humanitarian aid is freely given or any accrued debts are routinely forgiven.
Yes, one would think that caution be the rule, but one would be wrong. Because when it comes to this particular theory, there is no thought involved; only mindless emotion — and perhaps a hidden agenda.