Seth Borenstein claim: "I seek out experts, people who have studied the science, have academic qualifications, published the data in peer-reviewed journals and write what they say. I hold up a mirror to what data, science, reality show from qualified scientists. That's my job."
Morano responded: "Oh, come on Seth. Your 'job' is to promote bullshit climate scares in any way you can imagine, to hell with the actual science. I don't pay too much attention to your articles anymore, but I believe that you honestly think you are a good reporter on climate change. I think you are that clueless."
Borenstein replied: "You don't pay attention to reality, science or anything with common sense You're just a troll with a love for conspiracy, a hatred for science and reality. Leave science to smart people. Bye."
Morano: "No reason to get so testy Seth. Happy Earth Day."
Update: Morano apologizes!: "Upon further review, I made the first unprovoked rude comment to Seth and instigated him into making a nasty comment about me. For what it's worth Seth, I apologize. Over and out. Thanks." Borenstein accepted the apology.
AP Media hyped claim by Seth Borenstein: Will Borenstein follow up on the study?!
"The biggest most destructive hurricanes happening 3X more often than century ago," Borenstein wrote.
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: "The press release accompanying the paper announced that United States mainland “hurricanes are becoming bigger, stronger and more dangerous” and with the new study, “doubt has been eradicated.”
If true, the paper (which I’ll call G19, using its lead author’s initial and year of publication) would overturn decades of research and observations that have indicated over the past century or more, there are no upwards trends in U.S. hurricane landfalls and no upwards trends in the strongest storms at landfall. These conclusions has been reinforced by the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. National Climate Assessment, and most recently of the World Meteorological Organization.
In fact, however, the new PNAS paper is fatally flawed. The conclusions of major scientific assessments remain solid. As I’ll show below, G19 contains several major errors and as a result it should be retracted." ... The first big problem with G19 is that it purports to say something about climatological trends in hurricanes, but it uses no actual climate data on hurricanes. That’s right, it instead uses data on economic losses from hurricanes to arrive at conclusions about climate trends."
"From 1900 to 1958, the first half of the period under study, NOAA reports that there were 117 total hurricanes that struck the mainland U.S.. But in contrast, G19 has only 92. They are missing 25 hurricanes. In the second half of the dataset, from 1959 to 2017, NOAA has 91 hurricanes that struck the U.S., and G19 has 155, that is 64 extra hurricanes.The AP passed along the incorrect information when it reported that the new study looks at “247 hurricanes that hit the U.S. since 1900.” According to NOAA, from 1900 to 2017 there were in fact only 197 hurricanes that made 208 unique landfalls (9 storms had multiple landfalls)."
Dr. Pielke ridicules the study for not including Hurricane Andrew as top destructive storm. "Andrew not in top 20? LOL."
Pielke Jr.: "I should point out that this group published similar bombshell findings about hurricanes in 2012 (Also in PNAS). That study was recently updated by the WMO TC assessment and WMO found that its results did not hold up."
Dr. Pielke's note to Associated Press' Seth Borenstein:
The reason why AP decided to hide the data prior to 1958 becomes immediately obvious. Hot records were far more common not only in the 1930s, but 1950s as well. We also see far fewer cold records since around 1990. It is that lack of cold records which has skewed the ratio of hot/cold, and not an increase in the hot ones.
According to Guy Walton: “You are getting more extremes. Your chances for getting more dangerous extremes are going up with time.”
In fact, the opposite is true. The number of extremes, hot and cold added together, have been getting fewer in recent years...Borenstein claims that we are seeing more and more “record breaking heat” and “more extremes”. The opposite is true. Hot records are less common than in the past, and cold records have become even rarer. As a result, we are seeing a reduction in extreme temperatures.
A: There are things that are changing beyond recognition right now from climate change, and that makes me really sad. And to me, grieving is an important part of the process of acknowledging that. It does draw from my experience of losing a dear friend to cancer, who died at 37. ... it shouldn’t take a terminal diagnosis for life on Earth to wake us up to the urgency of working for climate stability." ...
“My dispassionate training,” the Lund University researcher writes, has “not prepared me for the increasingly frequent emotional crises of climate change,” or how to respond to students who come to her to share their own grief. ... I have pretty much stopped flying for work. It hasn’t meant I can’t be a productive researcher. I have collaborations and projects, but I try to focus on work that doesn’t require so much travel or is easier to reach by train. The only flight I haven’t yet given up is going back to the U.S. to see my family."
Dr. Matt Briggs points out that most attribution claims are based around comparing simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. But as he explains, this approach has a fundamental problem: “We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.” ...
“In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong.”