The Entirely Predictable Lunatic Fringe Wetting Themselves Again


Well, we all knew they were going to start howling about Hurricane Sandy….. if you can call it a hurricane with its 75mph winds.  This is why I posted the preparatory post Prepare For The Hurricane …….. Alarmism

Climate Depot has some of the lunatic fringe’s inane blatherings.

Steve has done his usual great job in documenting past storms which blows up the lunatic “unprecedented” claims.  And, Anthony has a great post up about this.  He’s provided a great graphic which I’ll borrow. 

The lunatic fringe things our use of coal and oil and well, just about anything which benefits humanity is evil.  These things cause atmospheric CO2 to imperceptibly rise, and the dolts think this causes hurricanes or something.  These are way different than the hurricanes which happened in the past.  Things are different.  Anthony shows how things are different.


If you read about someone making the claim that hurricanes are caused by CO2 or that we’re doing something to alter the weather, laugh at them, empirical evidence states otherwise. 

Addendum:  You should laugh at the alarmist fringe even if they don’t specifically make this claim about Sandy.  They’re a bunch of nutjobs.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Entirely Predictable Lunatic Fringe Wetting Themselves Again

  1. gator69 says:

    They are just about the opposite of “Preppers”, I think “Wetters” is a fair moniker.

  2. tckev says:

    So all this hot, wet, tropical storm air is running into a nearly static body of cold and dry air, making a “Frankenstorm”?

    We shall see.

  3. Scott says:

    I really hate that type of plot because it’s just as skewed as the warmists’ methods. The proper y-axis would be Major Storm Count/year, not just Major Storm Count.

    There hasn’t been an increase in storm frequency with increased CO2, but plots such as the one above give the opponent an out because they can attack the biased plot instead of getting to the real heart of the matter.


    • suyts says:

      Hmm, but, wouldn’t the aCO2 also be a plot of the year along the X-axis? I mean, sure, it mandates a step not shown, but, easily inferred.

      • Scott says:

        That’s the other way to do it…Major Storms plotted against Year or storms/year vs CO2 concentration. I prefer the latter…though both need some sort of binning to be very readable…10 year bins is probably good enough.

        I guess in reality the above plot is fine as long as it makes it clear that all of the data points are binned over the same temporal length. Most people would do that, but it’d be very easy to not do so and therefore create a misleading plot. Maybe my complaints on the graph are a bit harsh, but I just don’t like to leave any opening like, especially when the rest of my case is so strong…as is the case when arguing against the CO2 causes storms meme.


      • suyts says:

        Yeh, I see your point. If you do run into the wrong alarmist he/she could spew some nonsense to unsuspecting people. I just took it for granted that all would look at it the way I would look at it.

        • Scott says:

          I guess it’s just that plotting it the above way requires good intentions (through equal-sized temporal bins), whereas plotting it either of my suggested ways is objective and for someone to cheat would require outright lying.


  4. philjourdan says:

    When these type of storms come, I am always reminded of the scene in Airplane “Assume Crash positions”. That appears to be what is happening.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s