Gay Patriot Header Image

BREAKING: Now IPCC Hurricane Data Is Questioned

The Global Warming Hoax Of The Century continues to crumble

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming.  A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He’s a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community – his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an ‘A-level’ statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration.  He’s published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither “a warmist nor a denialist”, but a scientist.

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

“When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

I’d like nothing more than to see Al Gore charged with fraud by an international tribunal…. or economic crimes against humanity.  Either one that lands him in jail the quickest.  Maybe a Saudi jail??

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): So, where are the global warmists left to be discredited? They’ve been hiding the decline (in temperatures), exaggerating the melting of Himalayan glaciers and the devastation of the Amazon rain forest and now they’ve been doctoring data about hurricanes. Wonder if they made any predictions about tornadoes.

Share

36 Comments

  1. Oh but the slaves of the Democrat plantation will always have “Katrina”–never to be forgotten.

    Comment by listingstarboard — February 15, 2010 @ 9:51 pm - February 15, 2010

  2. If there was any justice, Algore and the IPCC would see their Nobel prizes rescinded.

    The fact that they caused as much trouble as they did is a sad testament to the awfulness of science education.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — February 15, 2010 @ 10:16 pm - February 15, 2010

  3. Keep these climate scandals coming. As Kathy Griffin would say, each one is like a hug from Jesus. I encourage everyone to check out Mark Landsbaum’s column in the OC Register in which he catalogs each of the scandals. His count is up to NINETEEN!

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092–.html

    Comment by Sean A — February 15, 2010 @ 10:52 pm - February 15, 2010

  4. Make sure to read Gore his Miranda Rights.

    Comment by Mitchell — February 15, 2010 @ 10:53 pm - February 15, 2010

  5. There is just as much evidence for evolution as there is for global warming.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 15, 2010 @ 11:01 pm - February 15, 2010

  6. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

    Hell, you don’t have to bother with “statistical analysis”. Just ask a handful of Floridians.

    Oh but the slaves of the Democrat plantation will always have “Katrina”–never to be forgotten.

    Nobody remembers the three storms that crossed Polk County, FL. the year before. We’re either not sexy, metropolitan or black enough.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 15, 2010 @ 11:37 pm - February 15, 2010

  7. Ash: Since evolution is made-up, take a trip to Russia and expose yourself to some of the non-evolved non-existent strains of super-TB they have. Or to certain American hospitals and expose yourself to the non-evolved non-existent strains of super-staph. Or to an STD clinic and super-gonorrhea, etc. Since evolution isn’t real, then those things can’t have evolved in the last 7 decades and hence, they can’t exist and can’t harm you.

    Back in the real world… The beauty of the “more intense storms” hypothesis for the AGW Manbearpig folks is was that it enables them to take any weather event and claim it is AGW Manbearpig. If there isn’t an intense storm, it’s AGW (because weather patterns are shifting). If there is an intense storm, it’s AGW (because there were never intense storms before AGW). Heads they win, tails they win.

    But if the AGW / greenhouse hypothesis yields any testable predictions at all, one such prediction is that the world overall should be seeing more water vapor and precipitation on average. (Allowing that some local areas could get drier.) And where’s the evidence for that?

    I liked this recent roundup of *nineteen* (I counted ‘em) scandals in the last few years around missing, exaggerated, manipulated, wrong or fraudulent AGW data and claims:
    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092–.html

    My position used to be that warming in the last 40 years was proven, but whether it is caused by humankind is very much unproven. Now I’m not even sure there has been warming in the last 40 years. (Although there has been warming in the last 250 years, pulling out of the Mini Ice Age.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 15, 2010 @ 11:46 pm - February 15, 2010

  8. [...] Gay Patriot: BREAKING: Now IPCC Hurricane Data Is Questioned [...]

    Pingback by MSM Still AWOL On Climategate « Nice Deb — February 15, 2010 @ 11:49 pm - February 15, 2010

  9. So, science “works” when it comes to evolution and allows you not to believe in God, and science “doesn’t work” when it supports something you don’t want to believe in either, like global warming. Basically, you decide which science is valid based on what you’ve already decided not to believe.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 16, 2010 @ 1:05 am - February 16, 2010

  10. I get such a kick out of reading comments about Al Gore ..as if he is the mastermind in all of this supposed “global warming hoax” .

    If this were something only the Americans believed in or were spearheading, it would make sense. In fact, according to the rest of the world, America is lagging behind in taking the problem seriously.

    It seems that there are many Americans who think we are the center of the universe.

    As far as this new unpublished report is concerned , lets give it few days and see what people who study this stuff have to say.

    in the meantime, what is happening at the two poles? and what is happening to the small glaciers? and what is happening in the desserts? And didn’t Seattle just have exceptionally warm times these days?

    and to those of you who believe this is a hoax, please tell us: what data would you need to see to change your mind?

    Comment by Mark W aw — February 16, 2010 @ 1:26 am - February 16, 2010

  11. So, science “works” when it comes to evolution and allows you not to believe in God, and science “doesn’t work” when it supports something you don’t want to believe in either, like global warming. Basically, you decide which science is valid based on what you’ve already decided not to believe.

    No, that’s not it. In fact, that’s not a remotely fair representation of the matter. But obviously you don’t get it. And at this rate, I suspect you never will. So I won’t bother to explain.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2010 @ 1:40 am - February 16, 2010

  12. (Although I also suspect that you *have* given a fair representation of your personal approach to religion. I have observed in past threads that basically, you decide whatever you want to believe religiously and then proclaim it as what God allegedly wants. It’s only human nature that you would suspect others of equal capriciousness. I.e., it’s what you know. So that may at least explain your comment.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2010 @ 1:54 am - February 16, 2010

  13. ILC, selection for certain traits is not exactly the same thing as evolution. Dairy cattle can and have been selected for higher and higher milk yield, strains of bacteria can select for resistance to antibiotics, but that’s not the same thing as one species evolving into another species.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — February 16, 2010 @ 1:55 am - February 16, 2010

  14. This is actually pretty old news in the skeptic circle. We’ve been talking about this for a couple of years. Good to see the rest of the world is catching up though.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 16, 2010 @ 2:05 am - February 16, 2010

  15. ILC, selection for certain traits is not exactly the same thing as evolution… one species evolving into another species.

    Ah, so now you’re defining terms. (The word, “evolution”, to you, would focus on matters of speciation: one species evolving into or out of another.) Defining terms is usually a step in the right direction. CG, I’ll give you credit for it.

    Please note that speciation has been observed in nature. Someone told me the other day about a lizard along the shores of Lake Tahoe with a gradation of genetic differences geographically, i.e., one from the middle shore can have fertile offspring with either north or south, but, north and south can’t have fertile offspring with each other – they must be considered separate species. I cannot vouch for the example but one may find other examples in Google easily enough.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2010 @ 2:23 am - February 16, 2010

  16. CG, as for whether I believe in evolution: I actually don’t. You read that right: I do not “believe in evolution”.

    I believe rather in answering questions of scientific truth through use of the scientific method. If the scientific method ever validated some theory of how our existing biological species came to be that was different enough from evolutionary theory that the new answer could no longer honestly be called evolution, and if I could follow the validation and agree it makes sense and fits the evidence well, I would certainly reject evolution at that point. The problem with AGW, in contrast to evolution, is that AGW does not follow the scientific method, or it does so erroneously and incompetently. Its internal errors, observational errors and other failures to follow scientific method competently make it “junk science”.

    For the record, the allegation that was made at #9 that I don’t believe in God, is also false. “God” is another issue where defining terms is usually helpful. Whether or not I believe in your God will depend on the definition you give. There as in other issues, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Ash get around to defining his terms.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2010 @ 2:40 am - February 16, 2010

  17. Mark W,

    How about actual data? Not altered data, non-existent data, or just plain contradictory data.

    How about you? How much fraud do you have to see before your blind faith is shattered?

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 16, 2010 @ 6:20 am - February 16, 2010

  18. 16: Excellent answer, ILC. I couldn’t agree more on both points. Back to AGW exclusively, this has got to be the biggest hoax on science and financial scam ever. Bernie Madoff could only dream of concocting something like this.

    Comment by John — February 16, 2010 @ 7:50 am - February 16, 2010

  19. ILC,

    Unfortunately, “evolution” has become a code word. In no uncertain terms of fact, geologic evolution has been proved. That research is what sent Darwin down the road of biological evolution. Children marvel at how human-like a gorilla is. It is natural to wonder if there is a link. Darwinists believe there is. Science can not prove it. Nonetheless, the nasty form of eugenics flowed freely from Darwin and the psuedo-science of sociology sprang from the womb of Social Darwinism. All that got corrupted into the aura and penumbra and emanating inferences of the word “evolution.”

    I have come to hate the word. I know its limited meaning and so does the Pope. It has been clearly accepted as fact by the Vatican. But neither the Pope nor I (which puts the Pope in bad company) believe that adaptation or hybridization meet the definition of evolution.

    Natural selection, is a thorny issue and Darwin’s theory has fallen flat on its face when it comes to laying out the fossil story and evidence of its probability as a fact of biological evolution. Since Darwin, whole schools of research have been unleashed to try to cause a finch species to evolve a new bill or to find the evidence between gaps of point “A” and point “Z.”

    Yes, in fact, when speaking of evolution, one does need to explain whether he is meaning full bore man-from-slime evolution or something much more prosaic.

    A final note, there is a huge bias in the world of scientists toward those who are skeptical of Darwinism and his theory of biological evolution. In academia, if you do not buy Darwin, you are a kook.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 16, 2010 @ 9:52 am - February 16, 2010

  20. 9.So, science “works” when it comes to evolution and allows you not to believe in God, and science “doesn’t work” when it supports something you don’t want to believe in either, like global warming.

    Ashpenaz, I would put it this way. If there was as much evidence for AGW as there is for evolution, then brace yourself for an increase of 20 degrees over the next decade.

    Comment by Pat — February 16, 2010 @ 9:57 am - February 16, 2010

  21. Yes, in fact, when speaking of evolution, one does need to explain whether he is meaning full bore man-from-slime evolution or something much more prosaic.

    Heliotrope, as you and ILC point out, it helps to define what one means by “evolution” when speaking of evolution. When I speak of it, I don’t mean the origin of life. There are some good speculation on how it happened, but no one knows for sure. As for the argument that God did it, that’s fine, but scientists are interested in the mechanism on how it happened. By evolution, I refer to, among other things, the infinitesimally gradual change of species over long periods of time. That humans, as a species, did not appear as they are now, but came from ancestors, that are most likely ancestors of other apes, such as gorillas and chimpanzees.

    Comment by Pat — February 16, 2010 @ 10:07 am - February 16, 2010

  22. Mark W aw (#10) notes;

    In fact, according to the rest of the world, America is lagging behind in taking the problem (man-made global warming) seriously.

    That is because America has not morphed into state as daddy socialism. We still challenge the bureaucracy.

    It seems that there are many Americans who think we are the center of the universe.

    Perhaps, but there even more Americans who believe that we can make our own determinations without blindly following the popular socialist thoughts of rocky, sloppy European prognostications and doxology.

    As they are said to say in Missouri: Show Me. Show me the data. All of the data. Even the programs used to create the data. There are a multitude of peers who can review all of this. If it is “settled science” how can anyone retain any proprietary right to how the data was compiled and manipulated?

    It seems that there are many Americans who think know they are the center of the settled science on man-made global warming universe.

    Either join the consensus science or you are doomed.

    Comment by heliotrope — February 16, 2010 @ 10:20 am - February 16, 2010

  23. [...] both Gay Patriot Bruce and Instapundit, Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned More trouble looms for the IPCC. The [...]

    Pingback by Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » IPCC hurricane data blown away — February 16, 2010 @ 11:54 am - February 16, 2010

  24. as if he is the mastermind in all of this supposed “global warming hoax” .

    He’s anointed himself as the high priest of the global warmism cult. He’s the self-proclaimed public face. Ergo, one would think that he’d be front and center on the global warmism fraud stories.

    in the meantime, what is happening at the two poles?

    Apparently, not much. We were promised that the North Pole would completely melt two summers ago. It’s still there.

    and what is happening to the small glaciers?

    Some are growing and some are receding, as glaciers are wont to do. You can’t point to one receding and ignore the one growing, a short distance away, and claim global warmism.

    and what is happening in the desserts?

    Apparently not much either.

    Can’t help but notice you casually left out the fraudulent melting of snow on mountain peaks.

    How much bullshit do you have to be buried in before you realize it’s bullshit?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 16, 2010 @ 12:20 pm - February 16, 2010

  25. Wonder if they made any predictions about tornadoes.

    Duh! Of course they have…. And they were wrong there too.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — February 16, 2010 @ 12:20 pm - February 16, 2010

  26. [...] sentiments exactly, as expressed at GayPatriot: BREAKING: Now IPCC Hurricane Data Is Questioned : I’d like nothing more than to see Al Gore charged with fraud by an international tribunal…. or [...]

    Pingback by More AGW Lies: IPPC’s False Global Warming Hurricane Data, Donald Trump Slams Al Gore & Demands Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize Be Returned « Frugal Café Blog Zone — February 16, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - February 16, 2010

  27. As for the argument that God did it, that’s fine, but scientists are interested in the mechanism on how it happened.

    Exactly. In fact, we could take it as a given that God did it. By what exact mechanism, and with what exact results? Those are scientific questions – to be resolved by the scientific method. I care less about this year’s answer from the method than I care about whether the method is being followed with sincerity and skill. (Which, in AGW’s case, it is not.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2010 @ 1:37 pm - February 16, 2010

  28. The trouble with your speciation argument is that no one knows what a species is:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

    There is no way to prove evolution from the fossil record–we don’t have sets of parents and offspring. We have one fossil coming before another. We don’t know if the early is the ancestor of the later or not–all we know is that it appears earlier in time. The idea that an earlier fossil “evolved” into a later fossil is a hypothesis.

    In the same way, you can’t prove that SUVs increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that increased the earth’s temperature. All you can show is that there is a coincidence of factors–SUVs appeared, carbon dioxide increased, the earth was warmer. If, indeed, these things happened at the same time (which is in doubt), that doesn’t prove a connection.

    You can’t prove that Stonehenge was created by intelligent beings. It could be a rock formation that is so complex it gives the appearance of design.

    You can’t show one fossil evolving into another, you can’t show how SUVs increased global warming. Science can’t prove either one. Scientists need to admit the limits of science.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 16, 2010 @ 1:48 pm - February 16, 2010

  29. Ash, I wasn’t addressing you. See #11.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 16, 2010 @ 2:25 pm - February 16, 2010

  30. #17: “Mark W, How about actual data? Not altered data, non-existent data, or just plain contradictory data.”

    Oh, but haven’t you heard, The_Livewire? The burden of proof is now on the “deniers” like us to DISPROVE the existence of man-made global warming rather than on the “scientists” to PROVE it.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/16/cru-chief-hey-why-dont-bloggers-disprove-agw-instead-of-criticizing-us/

    Comment by Sean A — February 16, 2010 @ 2:44 pm - February 16, 2010

  31. Sean,

    Oh, I wasn’t expecting a real answer from Mark, just being civil.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 16, 2010 @ 5:36 pm - February 16, 2010

  32. Also have you heard that the temp reading stations is only now becoming a scandal.
    Apparently Jones is agreeing that some temperature reading stations are not in ideal locations.
    Some annual calculations were averaged not using the siberian temps!
    Some stations eventually were found to have had man made devices grow up around them. Example an A/C evaporator system!!
    And a restaurant exhause system!!An asphalt parking lot!!
    At some point you have to be a dope to believe in this “crisis”.
    India had the best answer…….”call us when you get clean accurate unadulterated data.”

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — February 16, 2010 @ 5:53 pm - February 16, 2010

  33. We don’t know if the early is the ancestor of the later or not–all we know is that it appears earlier in time. The idea that an earlier fossil “evolved” into a later fossil is a hypothesis.

    Ashpenaz, there may not be such direct proof that such happened. I suppose it is somehow possible that, in all cases, all older species became extinct, and new species somehow magically emerged, in direct contradiction to physical laws. Until we know 100% sure, I’ll employ common sense and Occam’s Razor. The amazing thing is, just about everything we do know about has been consistent with physical laws.

    You can’t prove that Stonehenge was created by intelligent beings. It could be a rock formation that is so complex it gives the appearance of design.

    Yes, it could have just happened that way. Or Martians could have come down and formed it. Or perhaps the peoples of that area and time created it. Common sense and Occam’s Razor again, I vote for the latter.

    Comment by Pat — February 17, 2010 @ 7:08 am - February 17, 2010

  34. Pat,

    Haven’t you heard? Stonehenge marks the location of ancient ring transporters :-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 17, 2010 @ 9:57 am - February 17, 2010

  35. Given the statistical improbability of more complex things emerging from less complex things, Occam’s Razor would suggest that evolution, if it happened, is guided by an intelligent force which makes sure that the right mutations take place at the right time.

    If appearance of design suggests that Stonehenge is created by a designer, then the same appearance of design in a a cell suggests a designer as well–at least, that’s the simple, Occam’s Razor approach.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — February 17, 2010 @ 1:46 pm - February 17, 2010

  36. I really wasn’t trying to address the origin of life or the existence of God or whether speciation occurs. My comments were confined to the narrow issue of whether selection for a single trait, whether that selection occurs at the hands of a cattle breeder or in a hospital plagued with MRSA, is the same thing as evolution.

    Comment by Conservative Guy — February 18, 2010 @ 12:15 am - February 18, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.