Newsweek (which was sold in 2010 for a mere 1 dollar) is taking the liberal mantra of “never let a crisis go to waste” to peddle the idea that Hurricane Matthew is yet another sign of the EcopocalypseTM.
Major storms such as Hurricane Matthew, which has slammed into Haiti and is now headed towards the U.S., will grow in menace as the world warms and sea levels rise, scientists have warned…
There was previously far more certainty among climate scientists over the increase of temperatures than trends in hurricanes, but government officials are now confident enough to say there has been a “substantial increase” in Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1980s, with the destruction set to ratchet up further as the world warms.
Really? A ‘substantial increase?’ It’s been ELEVEN YEARS since the last major hurricane (category 3 and above) struck the U.S. — Hurricane Wilma in 2005, the same year as Hurricane Katrina. Back then, that one-two punch was touted as proof positive that these anonymously quoted “scientists” agreed that would be the new normal due to mankind’s bad ecological behavior.
Except that it wasn’t the new normal. Much like the Goreacle Effect, it seems every time these self-certain scolds make major predictions, the observable data go the opposite way. Let’s see what some of those ubiquitous “scientists” have to say:
…statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.
This is why I stop listening to anyone who screams “the science is settled!” That crowd ignores any ‘inconvenient truths’ the average person can observe directly, and all too often
manipulates, er, “normalizes” data to produce the effect they’re selling. The ‘normalization’ process is too complex for the plebes to understand (kind of like how reading animal entrails to predict the future was only for those ‘in the know’), so we’re expected to just take their word and carefully selected data for it.