The eternal question of climate change.

Yet another headline this morning on Breibart: "Hurricane threat for 2007 upgraded by scientific team". "There is a high (around 80 percent) likelihood that activity will be in the top one-third of years historically," the report stated. As I read the article, I am thinking – nothing different than the 2006 predictions, still last year turned out to be one of the quietest season in years. In fact, 2004 and 2005's forecast were high (turned out 04/05 were record high in top hurricanes) but never as high as the ones for 2006 and 2007. Why should we believe or even care about the new forecasts? Then reading more, I found out that the study is sponsored by the Reinsurance Industry. In pretty much everything these days, there is always an agenda behind any report, a motive. It is hard to believe doctors today knowing that their studies are paid by the pharmaceutical companies, as much as scientists, for whomever pays their checks. The worst the planet looks, the better it is for them. Sounds crazy? Unfortunately it is not that far stretch. Take for instance this report, paid by an industry that benefits from the possibility of destruction. The higher the forecast for hurricanes is, the higher the revenues. I remember John Stewart saying on television the day the Republicans won there second election, "The biggest winners – the Democrats!" Why, cause they had something to complain about for the next four years. Otherwise, they would have had to fix the mess left by the Republicans. The climate change issue sells big time right now. Anyone going against the popular belief is seen as a crazy-polluted-earth-insensitive person, no question asked. An attitude I find similar to the Republicans when they attacked anyone and declared them unpatriotic when they did not endorse the war in Iraq. Al Gore's movie surely helped fueled this frenzy – which finally led, last august, the Institute for Public Policy Research, a think tank agency in London, to qualify the coverage of climate change in the media as "Climate Porn". "It is appropriate to call [what some of these groups publish] 'climate porn', because on some level it is like a disaster movie," Mr Retallack told the BBC News website. "The public become disempowered because it's too big for them; and when it sounds like science fiction, there is an element of the unreal there."

Is the climate changing? Yes. I don't think anyone disagree. Do we have 5 years left before it is too late. I don't think so. In fact I find it absolutely sad to hear people, people that have a duty to rightly inform the public and do so in a way that inspires the population, to say things like: "It's too late, the planet is doomed". The other day I went to see the movie Bobby. There is a scene in the movie when Robert talks to a child about how bad pollution is and how New York will become a waste land is things don't change. That was 30 years ago. His words are no different that the ones used by Al Gore and other environmental alarmists. Pollution is less today then it was 30 years ago, and even more, the health of the rivers around Manhattan has never been better in the last 150 years. This is taken from Wikipedia: "Although cities like San Francisco or Portland, Oregon are most commonly associated with urban environmentalism in the United States, New York City's unique urban footprint and extensive transportation systems make it more sustainable than most American cities. The environmental organization SustainLane ranked New York highest of all U.S. cities with more than 1 million residents in its 2005 US City Rankings, a detailed report on city quality of life combined with indicators of sustainability programs, policies and performance. The organization cited New York's land use, density, transportation systems, innovative watershed management, and extensive local food and agriculture resources that include 750 community gardens and 64 farmers markets as some of the city's strongest environmental assets."

History is filled with examples of speeches about world condemnation, predicting the end of the world. Religion announcing the apocalypse, Environmentalists screaming the imminence of our planet's destruction, as far as 2000 years ago. Pollution is increasing in some places, and decreasing in others. Tree population is increasing in some places and decreasing in others. Part of the problem is not because we don't care, we do, I agree we all need to care more, but the fact is, it is a problem of population – are we going to implement control population laws? Not really. We will adapt and find solutions, like we have always done, when forecasts become realities, tangible and we know what we are dealing with.

Why is it now that sustainability is being accepted? Because it is market viable – the technology is there, the will is there, the knowledge is there. It is not because of climate change. Of course it is helping the momentum, but the forces behind the change are economic.

While the US had it nice during 2006 huricane season, compared to 2005, Canada got the bad end of it. As storms recurved and avoided the East Coast, they hit/sideswiped the Canadian Maritimes. Bermuda was also knocked around and buzzed. Elsewhere, the hurricane season was more eventful, and destructive. The Philippines are going through another typhoon. The PRC had their own Katrina, but censorship blocked out some of the reports of breaucratic bunglings, and very high death tolls.

I haven't looked at what these studies carefully. But a graph published in the paper indicated they have predicted roughly the same level every year for about a decade. No large variations.

What does that mean? We can't know. It would be interesting to test whether the actual error would have been greater or less had they merely repeated the same forecast exactly every year during that time.

William Gray, mentioned above, thinks that global warming is a hoax.

"We will adapt and find solutions, like we have always done, when forecasts become realities" -sounds like a great FEMA or Army Corp Engineers quote circa 2005.

New York City has 750 community gardens and 64 farmers markets = a remarkable food supply for 8 million people?

It's certainly simpler for some to keep faith in the status quo/Bill Gray.

Robert Schwartz wrote: William Gray, mentioned above, thinks that global warming is a hoax.

That was a good article. My take on Gray? There's no fool like an old fool.

PS: New York City has never met the federal health standard for ozone and does not meet the new standard for particulate soot.

Daniel Belanger wrote: In pretty much everything these days, there is always an agenda behind any report, a motive. It is hard to believe doctors today knowing that their studies are paid by the pharmaceutical companies, as much as scientists, for whomever pays their checks. The worst the planet looks, the better it is for them.

I can understand how it might seem that way, if you don't understand the science enough to evaluate the reports. Science reporting in the media is not uniformly good, and medical reporting is horrid. As for the reality of matters, though, I think your cynicism is overblown.

One word: guesswork.

Let's face it, meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather more than 5 days from now. Can anyone explain to me in a convincing way how anyone in the world will be able to accurately predict what the hurricane season will look like, considering it doesn't even start for at least a good 6 months???

Not to be a jerk, but we heard the same predictions about 2006. I remember hearing several times (and I believed it after seeing what 2005 was like) that 2006 was going to be a huge hurricane season, with several US mainland hits. Didn't happen. I wouldn't advise moving to the coast of Florida (ever), but I would say it is better to be skeptical of these predictions.

Truth is, no one knows until the hurricane season has already started. We'll find out at the end of the summer. Until then, it's guesswork.

DB:
Not quite. Scientists (I mean real scientists, not GB suckers) have quite clear idea what are the prerequisites for next season hurricanes: ocean temperatures, energy balance, ocean currents trends, and alike. Naturally, all of these are no more then prerequisites, and their forecast is no more then probability of quantity and force of anticipated hurricanes. No one could predict how many of them will reach landfall and at what force.
These predictions are routinely used by impacted industries, but of course whatever we hear on newscast is pure dramatization and oversimplification.

But make no mistake, when the hurricane is already developed and scientists say “run” – you better run.

I'll just watch El Nino, and see what will happen. It would be as good as their forecast until 2007 Atlantic hurricane season starts.

I love hurricanes because I love to feel the fresh breeze through my hair.

I live in Florida and right now we are in a severe drought. The hurricane season helps us to get our water level to where we need it so that we are not on a perminent water restriction. As far as globel warming causing hurricanes to increas it is a known fact that due to the holes in our ozone layer, the flocarbins, the pollution, the large amout of fumes caused by cars and other factors we are creating this problem and we need to unite as one. Not only us but other countries that is creating the probles like China, Russia, the slashing and burning of the forests in central and South America. WE MUST ACT NOW. Stop the stupidity, the greed and TAKE A STAND UNITE AS ONE for our future and our children and grand childrens future. Remember this accranim SPAT which stands for Stop Polluting And Teach.