Skip to content

More climategate – it’s hurricanes this time

February 16, 2010

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

(…)

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

(source)

This is the way science is supposed to work, and it’s why the post at The Other McCain the other day was so wrong. Respectable scientists don’t want science to speak with one voice. Politicians who want easy policy solutions do. I won’t deny that there are systemic problems in climate science at the moment but obviously the scientific method continues. Don’t get me started on how badly flat-earthers, 9/11 truthers and intelligent designers twist the system.

-elsewhere-

Just 6% of respondents think that the stimulus bill has created jobs. 41% believe it will. More important in this poll is the public’s assessment of how Obama is doing and it is still narrowly positive. Amazingly only 7% of the public thinks he has any responsibility in regards to the economy or the deficits. His blame Bush / blame the GOP strategy appears to be working.

Congress is viewed as being more out of touch with Americans than the President. Just 13% think most members of Congress are more interested in serving the people they represent, and eight in 10 say Congress is ore interested in serving the needs of special interest groups.

MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS INTERESTED IN SERVING…
People they represent 13%
Special interest groups 80

By contrast, 57% of Americans say President Obama is more interested in serving the American people rather than interest groups.

PRESIDENT OBAMA INTERESTED IN SERVING…
American people 57%
Special interest groups 35

(…)

Americans view President Obama as reaching out to Congressional Republicans — 62% think he is. Only 29% think Republicans are trying to work with the President.

TRYING TO WORK TOGETHER
Obama Republicans
Yes 62% 29%
No 32 62

Americans prefer reaching out and even compromise: majorities think both sides – President Obama (72%) and Congressional Republicans (74%) – should compromise rather than stick to their positions.

More Americans think the President understands their needs and problems than say that about either Congressional Democrats or Republicans. Still, less than half thinks either the President, Republicans, or Democrats are offering reasonable solutions to the economic problems people are facing.

THE PRESIDENT AND THE PARTIES Obama Dems Reps
Understands your needs and problems 60% 42% 35%

Has reasonable solutions to your
economic problems 40% 29% 22%

The GOP is still viewed unfavorably by 58% or respondents, although favorable views have increased by 7%. The GOP is getting whipped by the Dems when respondents were asked who could do a better job dealing with issues.

I don’t know where this poll fits in the universe of polls, but the results don’t look especially encouraging to me.

(h/t)

Real Climate attempts a rebuttal of the various attacks on the IPCC report.

Currently, a few errors –and supposed errors– in the last IPCC report (“AR4″) are making the media rounds – together with a lot of distortion and professional spin by parties interested in discrediting climate science. Time for us to sort the wheat from the chaff: which of these putative errors are real, and which not? And what does it all mean, for the IPCC in particular, and for climate science more broadly?

They actually mount a good defense. It won’t change any minds one way or the other but it’s a good job.

-Fox News is on in the background. Aside from some of the incredibly stupid things that get said on Fox and Friends here is another thing that bothers me. Fox referring to the “Mainstream Media” when talking about CNN, MSNBC, and so on. Fox is the largest cable news network out there ratings wise, hwo much more mainstream can you get?-

Taliban’s no. 2 captured. I heard on the news he is talking. Yay!

High Tech Barbie – Math is hard, unless you do a lot of it and practice. It’s also the basis for understanding just about anything outside literary theory, and it might be useful there too. Most practitioners of that arcane art seem to exist in a different parallel world and it might be useful to visit them occasionally.

Palin can’t fulfill your “true conservative” fantasies (h/t)

Intelligent Design Failed

Advertisements
2 Comments leave one →
  1. Portlandic permalink
    February 17, 2010 9:11 am

    The Times of London admits the IPCC may be a crock of…
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

    How ’bout that.

Trackbacks

  1. Twitted by JenniferHunt64

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: