Tag Archives: Peer-Review

Does global warming increase the frequency of hurricanes?

Story by Michael Fumento in Forbes magazine. (H/T ECM)

Do greenhouse gases corelate with increases in hurricane frequency?

Here’s the data we have today:

True, both greenhouse gas emissions and levels in the atmosphere are at their highest, but this year had the fewest hurricanes since 1997, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the first time since 2006 no hurricanes even made landfall in the U.S.; indeed hurricane activity is at a 30-year low.

Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, wrote a paper to demonstrate that hurricane frequency was independent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Pielke published a report in the prestigious Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society… that analyzed U.S. hurricane damage since 1900. Taking into account tremendous population growth along coastlines, he found no increase. His paper was dutifully ignored by the powers that be.

How did the global warmists at the IPCC respond to Pielke’s paper?

But the so-called Climategate scandal, which illuminated efforts by climate change scientists to squelch opposition viewpoints, has now caught up to one scientist, Kevin Trenberth, who vociferously and influentially demanded that Pielke’s paper be shunned.

Trenberth works in the same town as Pielke and is one of the top researchers on the strongly warmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In a leaked e-mail from two months ago, he admitted to colleagues what he had hidden from the outside world: that there’s been no measurable warming over the past decade.

Yet two years earlier he told Congress that evidence for man-made warming was “unequivocal” and things were “apt to get much worse.” And in 2005 he told the local newspaper that Pielke’s Bulletin article was “shameful” and should be “withdrawn.”

My recommendation is to test everything by watching debates. Unless you hear both sides in a debate, you just can’t have any degree of confidence about what is really true. Be wary of people who say that “the debate is over” or that “everyone agrees” or that “there is no case on the other side”. That’s how people lie. Find the two best people you can on either side and watch them duke it out. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.

Darwinists present a solution to the Cambrian explosion

Story from Darwin’s God. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Now, thanks to the latest research, we have the answer: calcium. Evolutionists are now saying that a rise in ocean calcium levels triggered the assembly of unicellular organisms into multicellular organisms and the rest, as evolutionists say, is history. What is astonishing is that there is anyone left out there who questions evolution. Can’t they see that these guys are doing the heavy lifting? This is just rock solid investigative research, the kind we’ve come to expect from evolutionists.

From the abstract of the paper:

We propose that stronger cell adhesion allowed the integrity of genetically uniform animals composed only of “self” cells, facilitating genetic constitutions to remain within the metazoan individual and be passed down inheritance lines. The Cambrian explosion might have been triggered by the coincidence in time of primitive animals endowed with self-/non-self-recognition and of a surge in seawater calcium that increased the binding forces between their calcium-dependent cell adhesion molecules.

It seems to me that the thing to be explained in the Cambrian explosion is “where did the NEW information come from for the NEW body plans”. Positing better glue to stick single cells together doesn’t address where the NEW code came from totally NEW body plans and NEW organ types.

Please post challenges on Dr. Hunter’s blog, as biophysics is his area of expertise.

877 snowfall records were set last week in the USA

The post is here on Michael’s Comments. (H/T ECM)

The map:

Excerpt:

The [AGW] hypothesis has been falsified by:

(1) the missing thermal signature of CO2 in the tropical atmosphere which the IPCC model requires.

[…](2) new and better data from Antarctic and Greenland ice cores showing that CO2 does not cause warming, but is a feedback effect.

[…](3) the recent demonstration by German physicists, published in International Journal of Modern Physics, that the IPCC model violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodymics (i.e., their predictions are impossible) and that the atmosphere does not faintly resemble a greenhouse.

[…](4) both surface station data and new satellite data (which is not subject to distortion from the “urban island effect” or rigging by undisclosed computer models used by AGW alarmists) indicate that the warming trend had stopped by 2002 while CO2 continued to increase substantially — which the IPCC model does not permit.

[…](5) recent publication, in a prestigious peer reviewed journal, of evidence that the actual cause of modern global warming is CFCs interacting with cosmic radiation.  Unfortunately for the politicians, bureaucrats and grant pimps, CFCs are a problem that has already been fixed, and the ozone holes over the poles are repairing themselves.

How can the AGW alarmists maintain their religion in the face of such science?

This is a great post. Read the whole thing! And send it to your friends! (Also, “Al Gore” is apparently leaving angry comments in the post, so read those too!).