by Christopher Cook

There's a lot of real BS being floated out there on the "global warming" issue. Here's a quick refresher:

We know that the earth is in a warming trend---that is not in dispute. On the left, however, it is an absolute article of religious faith that this warming trend is anthropogenic, i.e., caused by human activity. To speak to most people on the Left, you would think that this too is not in dispute.

But it is in dispute. Very much so.

Any dissent, however, is simply not acceptable in polite liberal circles. Rank-and-file folks on the Left simply accept it as truth. Those in a position to guide policy---the "handlers," if you will---use alarmist tactics as one of the many tools at their disposal to spread this dogma. The Left, so good at insinuating itself (however unbidden) into EVERY aspect of life, has essentially taken over the scientific community on this issue. Dissenting scientists are being starved on money and intimidated into silence. The climate of thuggery and intellectual pogroms has even Left-leaning scientists feeling skeptical and disaffected. Even more sinister than the disingenuousness, the alarmism, the lies, the bad science (such as the discredited "hockey stick"), the imbalance in grant allocation, and the intellectual oubliettes into which dissenting scientists are thrown... is the dangerous fraud called the Kyoto Protocol. A system whereby the American economy gets destroyed, major polluters such as India and China are exempted, and very little change in temperature increase is realized... THAT is the solution posed by the environmental left.* (Once again proving that their interests are in pursuing the agenda of the Left far more than in pursuing an environmental one.)



This dogmatic notion, enforced with alarming severity, has also insinuated itself into every fiber of our public education system. Children today are unable to read, write, compute, or even speak at grade level---and they can't find Canada on a world map---but you can be darned sure they know whose fault global warming is. I recall, many years ago, seeing a note pinned to a friend's door from his young cousin that read, "you are the best cusen (sic) in the wrld (sic)." A very sweet, albeit poorly spelled gesture of familial affection. Of course, on that same paper, almost as if compelled by indoctrination, the young boy also included the words, "Recaical---Save the Enviernment," (better spelled as "Recycle---Save the Environment). Of all the possible sentiments this young cousin could have included in his friendly note, the unseen (yet often brutal) hand of the Left guided him to repeat a few articles from the Leftist creed. Good little drone.

As many of us are all too painfully aware, people on the alarmist left will blame ANYTHING on anthropogenic global warming. Warm weather, cold weather, droughts, excessive rain---anything that inconveniences them as they drive to pilates class or their favorite Starbucks simply has to have been caused by greenhouse gasses (which in turn are caused by America, capitalists, Republicans, and of course, George Bush). Two days after the catastrophic 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean, someone very close to me informed me that the undersea quake that brought about the tsunami had been caused by changes in "the deep ocean currents," changes which had themselves been caused by... yep, global warming. She was sure, too. Even a scientist shouldn't be sure about such a thing, but she had heard it somewhere, and a mere two days later, she was sure.

Most salient and recent, of course, is the example of hurricane Katrina. In addition to the breathless ascription of blame for the shortcomings of the relief efforts (also characterized by a wanton disregard for the truth), the Left cited Katrina as yet another indicator of the imminent doom we are all facing as a result of global warming. And of course, not content to leave it there, the existence of any hurricane greater than those in recent years, or any number of hurricanes above the average number in recent seasons, is also cited as a sign of the coming enviropocalypseâ„¢. Of course, responsible climatologists assert that there is no evidence for this.

Enter Dr. Chris Landsea.

Dr. Landsea is just such a responsible scientist. In a 2001 National Geographic article, Landsea essentially predicts the increase in hurricane activity we've been experiencing.

Violent winds, killer waves, torrential rains, and flash flooding are the calling cards of a hurricane.

And if scientists are correct, the North Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico regions can expect increased hurricane activity in the next 10 to 40 years.

The number of major hurricanes has more than doubled in the last six years. The increase is part of a long-term climate shift that is likely to persist for several decades, said Chris Landsea, a meteorological researcher with the U.S. National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division and co-author of a study on the findings in the July 20 issue of the journal Science.

We've seen a big increase in the number of hurricanes since 1995, and in the next 30 years we're going to see a lot more," he said. "It's part of a natural cycle, and it's going to be a real eye-opening for the people living on the coasts who have never seen a hurricane before."

During the 20th century, a period of high hurricane activity occurred from the 1920s through the 1960s, followed by reduced activity from 1971 to 1994.

The researchers predict that we are now on the cusp of a 10- to 40-year shift toward increased frequency of hurricanes.

"During any of these periods, the actual number of storms can jump around a lot from year to year," said Landsea. "1997 is a good example. Strong El Niño effects suppressed hurricane activity for that year even though we were in the middle of an 'active' period...

The new findings apply only to the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. Accurate records of hurricane activity date back 60 years for the Atlantic Ocean and the western Northern Pacific Ocean, but only about 30 years elsewhere. The lack of reliable records makes it impossible to identify long-term trends in other regions of the world...

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small.

~snip~

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.

~snip~

I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.

~snip~

Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.

~snip~

It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation - though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements – would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

~snip~

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely, Chris Landsea