Hurricane Blame Game Shameless Finger-Pointing Based on Underwhelming Evidence and a Manufactured Political “Consensus” “Global-warming opportunists and their media allies could not even wait for authorities to clear the bloated corpses from the water. They are no better than the loudmouths who seized upon the Asian tsunami in December.” (Editorial, “Exploiting Katrina,” The Washington Times, September 11, 2005) The leader of Australia’s leftist Green Party, Germany’s environment minister (a member of Germany’s Green Party), a European Commission spokeswoman, media critic and self-proclaimed climate expert Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Al Gore, the Boston Globe and other global warming alarmists have all either suggested or stated outright that global warming is to blame for Hurricane Katrina. There may not be any billboards pointing the partisan finger at President Bush quite yet, but alarmist charges continue to flood the media – mindful that the next election cycle is fully one year away. Like clockwork, alarmists, touting two highly disputed studies, are wasting no time blaming President Bush for a natural phenomenon. Fact: The science linking global warming to hurricanes is underwhelming. The science linking global warming to Katrina is non-existent. Yet, despite the continued lack of science, global warming alarmists still use the devastation in the Gulf States caused by Hurricane Katrina to promote their selfish cause by attacking President Bush. “Insufficient Evidence” and “…The Lack of Reliable Long-term Data.” Undoubtedly, even the few alarmists who at least attempt to justify their declaration with scientific facts will concede the scientific evidence is underwhelming. Amanda Gardner in Forbes Magazine writes about the most recent study published in Science Magazine: “The study… is perhaps one of the strongest scientific statements yet on a connection between hurricane activity and global warming.” Yet even the “strongest” study is thoroughly disputed in the scientific community. BBC News science reporter Helen Briggs explains the consensus of scientists remain unconvinced stating: “But most scientists believe there is currently insufficient evidence to make such a claim [link between global warming and increased intensity in hurricanes], partly because of the lack of reliable long-term data.” “… [A] Warmer World Should Have Fewer, Not More, Hurricanes.” Oregon’s state climatologist and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, George Taylor, has another take with regard to the number of hurricanes. Taylor writes in his recent article, “Hurricanes and Global Warming: Is There a Link?”, that “… there is no reason to expect increases in hurricanes due to greenhouse warming. Climate models, for all their problems, are unanimous in at least one respect: they predict that most of the future warming will be in high latitudes, in the polar regions. This will reduce the north-south temperature gradient and make poleward transfer of heat less vigorous -- a task in which tropical storms play a major role. All other things being equal, a warmer world should have fewer, not more, hurricanes.” http://www.techcentralstation.com/091404D.html (Taylor: “Figure 1, obtained from data provided by the National Hurricane Center, shows hurricane strikes (landfalls) by decade in the U.S. since 1900. The 1940s were rather busy, the 70s the quietest, and the 1990s pretty close to the long-term average. A simple linear fit suggests a decrease over time.”) Taylor also quotes from hurricane prediction pioneer Bill Gray of Colorado State University: “Various groups and individuals have suggested that the recent large upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity (since 1995) may be in some way related to the effects of increased man-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2). There is no reasonable scientific way that such an interpretation of this recent upward shift in Atlantic hurricane activity can be made.”