That article is, to put it bluntly, BULLSHIT!!!


Yes, Katrina was a very strong storm. So was Andrew in 1992, Camille in 1969, and the "Labor Day Hurricane" in 1935. Katrina was not some kind of anomaly that needs "global warming" as a cause. There've always been strong hurricanes and there always will. There'll also always be category one hurricanes and lots of tropical storms that don't make it to hurricane strength.

Yes, this decade has, so far, been an exceptionally busy one for hurricanes. It looks like we're on pace to have something around 24 hurricanes hit the U.S. which is exactly the number that hit in the 1940s before the idea of global warming was even a gleam in some scientist's eye. (Chart from National Hurricane Center) The chart plainly shows that the last four decades have been ones of below average activity. Hurricane activity is cyclical and we're obviously on the upswing of the cycle, but the causes of the cyclic activity are a complex set of ocean/atmospheric dynamics that have nothing to do with global warming, but have been going on since before any human being ever exhaled a molecule of carbon dioxide.

And, just because I can't let this one go by:

When the year began with a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming.

What??? Would someone please explain to me how global warming causes colder weather? Or does it just cause colder weather in California and warmer weather in Indiana?

I'm not saying I don't believe in global warming, just that people like the author of that article make it sound a little like environmental snake oil.