My New Video : Drowning The Fake News About Hurricane Harvey

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to My New Video : Drowning The Fake News About Hurricane Harvey

  1. Buck Turgidson says:

    No one needs the additional keystrokes — but they may be mandatory when describing “climate scientists.” Add it to the list of oxymorons.

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    Yes, climate change IS causing fewer hurricanes. You might think that’s good but it’s a problem. A natural process has been subverted, and hurricane spawned coastal re-invigoration has been sharply reduced. This must end. Cut CO2 to the bone!!

  3. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    My Country – A poem about Australia written by a 22 year old, Dorothea Mackeller, first published in 1908.
    Second stanza:
    “I love a sunburnt country,
    A land of sweeping plains,
    Of ragged mountain ranges,
    Of droughts and flooding rains.
    I love her far horizons,
    I love her jewel-sea,
    Her beauty and her terror
    The wide brown land for me!”
    Truly a remarkable woman, who loved Australia even with its floods and droughts.
    http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/about.html

  4. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    More on Australian climate in our colonial past when atmospheric CO2 was low:
    http://climatehistory.com.au/tag/don-garden/

  5. Adamant de-Nye-er says:

    Good video. Well done.

  6. Andy DC says:

    A couple knit picky corrections. About the 37 second mark, you said that October 24 would have marked 11 years that the US has gone without a major hurricane. It would actually have marked 12 years.

    Also, somewhere around 1:2o-1:25, you said called Australian hurricanes “typhoons”. They are not called “typhoons”. Instead they are called “cyclones”.

    Another great video!

  7. John Gorter says:

    Great video.

  8. Garyh845 says:

    Tony. Re: Claudette. You said, ‘that was long before ‘climate change;’ would not it be more effective to state, ‘that was long before man-made climate change?’ There’s a number of ways to express that (prior to the consensus view of a human footprint upon GT’s), but the point is, in my view, that we need to be clear with the labeling.

    Climate change, naturally occurring, is rather constant. It’s dramatic cycles are decadal, in the short term, and well documented. The ‘consensus view,’ is only that some to most of recent GW (since the 1970’s) has a human footprint on it – AGW. Then, it’s this bit of additional GW, AGW, which (mostly in the future) is predicted to cause other forms of climate change which is worse (more extreme weather) than that which is expected to occur per the natural variability in our climate . . which is usually rather dramatic without any outside assistance.

    What I’m suggesting is that our skeptical side, in this discussion, should never refer to AGW, or ACC, as simply GW, or AGW. We should be crystal clear in using the proper terms.
    If someone asks, “do you believe in climate change?’ The first response should be, “well, of course; but, did you intend to ask me about man-made climate change . . as opposed to naturally occurring climate change?”

    Thanks – gary

    • David A says:

      Gary, I recommend greater specifics. Instead ask, did you mean CAGW?

      • Garyh845 says:

        I propose that the most important goal is first, to establish in any communication, whether we’re/they’re referring to naturally occurring GW/CC, or to some additional GW, AGW, or some additional CC, which many predict will be caused by that bit of additional GW, AGW.

        The catastrophic discussion can certainly follow, once the ground rules are clearly understood.

        The Headline in a LAT’s article yesterday is, “Catastrophic storms, once rare, are almost routine. Is climate change to blame?”

        Mann is quoted saying, “the impacts were likely greatly amplified by climate change.”

        I expect that it is implied that they are speaking of ACC; when they should only be speaking of AGW – at this point in time. My issue is that the layman audience gets to the place where all GW and all CC are now assumed to be man-made.

        My favorite is statements like this, “Sen So and So supports ‘climate change’ bill.”

        My first thought is, ‘that’s an anti-climate change bill,’ isn’t it, not a climate change bill.’

        My second thought is, ‘oh – an anti-man-made climate change bill.’

        That is what they’re talking about. Proper terms matter.

        My standard answer to, ‘Gary, do you believe in climate change,’ is, ‘Well, of course. However, what do you mean by that?’ Most, recently, have never even considered the difference.

  9. Bernal says:

    Bravo! As always.

    I think the myth of Goldilocks weather derives from the hockey stick. The stick is always smoothed going back in time so the weather looks steady. Not the fidgety extremes we suffer through today.

    This rings true in the contemporary imagination. Why just look how comfortable Daniel Day Lewis and Madeline Stowe look in Last of the Mohican. Perfectly comfortable both day and night. No mosquitos either. Clearly those were the halcyon days. We just missed them.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      When a 70-year-old model looks back at her life, she finds she was on average 35 years old. Those were the days.

  10. AndyG55 says:

    Seems that the rainfall from Harvey doesn’t rate particularly high in the historic record

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/30/record-rainfalls-a-thing-of-the-past/

  11. Garyh845 says:

    Record rainfall intensity TS Claudette, July 1979 (a colder July (7th coldest) and year (2nd coldest) for Houston) has been mentioned on these boards.

    Anyone able to determine what the SST’s in the Gulf were at that time? I believe landfall was on July 24th.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.