Everyone knows what Pizza is without having to define it. It is the same with a tornado and a hurricane. Everyone knows what a tornado and hurricane is without having to use a meteorological definition. Well, that may not be so definitive for long. As those left liberal progressive Democrats who push the hoax of “manmade climate change,” the public can look forward to this group changing the definition of a hurricane in order to classify more storms as severe in order to fall in line with their false rhetoric.
An interesting commentary at Investor’s Business Daily by Kerry Jackson indicates that climate change alarmists are facing the fact the weather is not cooperating with their narrative since it had been 11 years since a hurricane made landfall on the united States coast. So, since Mother Nature is not producing enough “dirty weather” as Al Gore calls it, their solution is to redefine what a disaster is.
Jackson writes at Investor’s Business Daily:
Eleven years ago, Gore swore that “the science is extremely clear now.” Global warming was “magnifying” the “destructive power” of the “average hurricane,” he said. Man’s impact on the environment “makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”
The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists’ faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, “Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message.” From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was “absolutely” right.
Strain though they might, they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they’re not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn’t make landfall will in the future be catastrophic “hurricanes” or “extreme weather” events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.
If these individuals were secure in their science, which has proven to be flawed since it cannot satisfy the Scientific Method, they would not need to resort to changing the definitions and requirements to match their rhetoric.
Just recently, Hurricane Matthew slammed into the coast of the united States and dumped 17 inches of rain on the State of North Carolina. Mashable’s science editor, Andrew Freeman, wrote “it’s time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed.”
We need a new hurricane intensity metric that more accurately reflects a storm’s potential to cause death and destruction well inland, rather than the Saffir-Simpson Wind Intensity Scale, which focuses on the potential for coastal damage from high winds and storm surge flooding.
The Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, developed by engineer Herb Saffir and meteorologist Bob Simpson and used by the National Weather Service, uses a 1 to 5 scale based on the hurricane’s wind speed to determine severity. Should other factors be entered, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, Jackson suggests this could change the game entirely. One has to wonder how the “hurricane hunters” would be able to establish and predict rainfall and storm surge flooding, as well as damage and death potential, in order to change the current classification. As was seen with hurricane Matthew, it’s worse damage occurred at the Saffir-Simpson scale of one due to rainfall and storm surge. Yet, other hurricanes categorized as a one on the Saffir-Simpson scale caused less damage than Matthew. It goes to show the unpredictability of a storm to inflict damage, deposit rainfall and create storm surge.
“So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record,’ ” says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of “Climate Hustle,” a movie that “takes a skeptical look at global warming.”
“This is all part of a financial scheme,” says Morano. “If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-‘poisoned weather.’ Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”
The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is “flat to slightly down,” and science — yes, that “settled” field that somehow continues to discover new things — has failed to show a link between hurricanes and global warming. They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.
This is typical modus operandi for left, liberal, progressive Democrats and those who promote the false rhetoric of “manmade climate change.” If the data doesn’t fit what you “believe” to be true, instead of altering your hypothesis and thinking process, just alter the data and/or classification to fit your hypothesis and thinking process. One has to wonder if these people were using Common Core long before it was implemented.
Many realize no science is absolute. However, with the lassez-faire attitude to “alter data” or “adjust a scale to fit,” it compromises all science making individuals skeptical of the ability of scientists to provide conclusions based on hypothesis, theories and testing. Scientists rely on the scientific method to prove their conclusions based upon testing. Using the scientific method, any scientist conducting the same experiments using the same data should produce the same results. This has proven that manmade climate change is non-existent since it cannot satisfy the scientific method, except among scientists who support the hoax of climate change. With these “suggestions” to change definitions, it damages the integrity of the entire scientific community. But, climate change eccentrics do not care as long as it falls in line with their puppet masters, the government, to justify the further fleecing of individuals through additional taxes and increased electric bills.
It has been determined that not all variables can be taken into account in current climate models, meaning predictions have been grossly inaccurate when it comes to “climate change.” Yet, governments want to punish their people through carbon taxes and “cap and trade” based on unproven science. Since the push back against “climate change” made by man is becoming more vocal, the proponents of “climate change” propose to change the method by which hurricanes are measured to “fit” their stance. Moreover, they have begun to suggest that those who deny climate change should be prosecuted and jailed.
Meteorologists now have a difficult time forecasting the weather. How many times has there been forecasts of rain and all that happens is an extremely dark cloudy day? How are “scientists” or meteorologists supposed to “gauge” storm surge flooding, rainfall, and waterway flooding in advance? A category one just released more rainfall and storm surge than a category five. More than likely, it would not be possible to gauge those variables until after the storm, meaning the storm could be declared as severe afterward. It amounts to those who follow Nostradamus declaring he predicted the attacks on the World Trade Center after the fact.
If the National Weather Service meteorologists go along with this hair-brained scheme, these people need to turn in their degrees and take up squid fishing.