Why you may never know the truth about global warming

Earlier today, in one of the weather forums I frequent, someone posted a link to an article, titled “No debate: Deluge due to climate change”, that read the following:

More rain fell on Manila and surrounding regions in nine hours on Saturday than the amount Hurricane “Katrina” dumped on New Orleans in 2005.

The article was meant to enforce a serious issue of climate change; it astounded me.  At least, as far I read which was until the paragraph quoted above.

I’ve stayed away from this topic for one reason: it’s heated.  It’s complicated.  Everyone thinks they have the answer.  And, it seems, no one wants to hear the other side of the story.  It’s their way or the wrong way.

And, I’m tired of it.  I’m tired of seeing hurricane activity used as examples to this global warming debate argument.

I’ll tell you why you may never know the truth about global warming.

Before I break down the quote above, re-read it.  Read it a third time.

Have you noticed anything odd about it?  Perhaps we should start off with another quote in the article.

The massive floods that inundated Metro Manila were a chilling reminder of the need to seriously address climate change, experts said, warning that the lives of millions were at stake.

Your very first question should be: what experts?  Who said the flooding, caused by then Tropical Storm Ketsana, was a chilling reminder?  What expert are they referring to?  That question is not addressed throughout the entire article.

Let’s examine another quote from the article:

“We can’t just blame this on the rain. We know this is the worst deluge in 40 years. We know there is climate change happening, there is no debate about that,” Greenpeace campaigner Mark Dia said on local television.

Ok, let’s get this straight: an area experiences devastatingly-heavy rains, the likes of which haven’t been seen in 40 years, and this is your explanation for climate change?  Why was climate change not an issue 40 years ago?  Or, is that your implication?  How does this demonstrate climate change?

The article enforces upon you the idea that  Hurricane Katrina’s rains were so bad because, as we all know, New Orleans was nearly 80% underwater after the storm passed.

Newsflash:  the Katrina disaster wasn’t from rain.  It was from storm surge – storm surge that, when you compare with Hurricane Ike, a “weaker” hurricane, was no different in height.  Why use Katrina as an example?  Because Katrina is known world-wide as our (United States) natural disaster.  This is our Christmas, 2004 Tsunami.  This is our Kobe earthquake.  If a hurricane could drop enough rain to flood a major city in OUR country then that is an absolute devastating storm system.

It’s shock and awe.

Remember the flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in Houston in 2001?  Why was that not mentioned.  Because Tropical Storm Allison dumped twice as much rain as Ketsana – that’s why.

What about Hurricane Erika that struck the northern Mexico coast in 2003?  That storm was bone dry with the highest rainfall totals no greater than 7 inches and that was in one location.  Most areas saw under 2 inches of rain.

Have you once asked yourself while reading this what are my sources to back up my claims?  If not, here you go:  the National Hurricane Center.  You can read the preliminary reports on both Hurricane Katrina, Tropical Storm Allison and Hurricane Erika and see the facts yourself.

The people making these arguments are not stupid.  They’re smart as hell.  And they have a way with words that you absolutely must see through.  What if I were to make the following statement:

Experts say Hurricane Jimena’s display of rapid intensification is unlike any other ever seen.

What expert am I referring to?  And, “display of rapid intensification unlike any other ever seen,” where?  Across the globe?  How do you know if its true?

This is another way that people will try to fool you.  They establish themselves as authority figures in the topics they write about.  They develop a reputation amongst their readers that they are the experts and they speak the truth.  The readers spread those “truths” to their friends and websites.  Like a raging wildfire, stories spread and, all of a sudden, you have so mean people speaking “fact” that most everyone accepts it as fact.

I’ve told you about Hurricane Jimena.  While its intensification trends were remarkable, Jimena by no means set records; not even in the East Pacific.  But, there’s no doubt in my mind some fool used Jimena as an example of how climate change and global warming is affecting our weather.

But, unless you thoroughly read every article about global warming, you will never known what’s true and what’s bullshit.  When you read about science you must question every sentence published.  Do not take what you read as fact.  Question everything.

Consider this from CNN this morning as it pertains to the Samoan tsunami.  CNN headlined an article on their front page that read:

Towering Tsunami waves in Samoa

Very Hollywood-like; the article itself admitted the highest waves known at the time were 5-feet recorded in Pango Pango.

On the other side, Watts up with that? did an article discussing how Clemson researches have found no correlation between hurricane intensity and global warming.

NOAA did a report in February, 2008 discrediting linkage between tropical cyclones and global warming.

I’ve read the studies.  I’ve read the press releases.  I follow what’s going on.  But, I also question everything.  I don’t take anything for fact until I’ve seen enough neutralized evidence to convince myself it is, in fact, FACT.

You must do the same else you will never know the truth.

I’m tired of it.  This bullshit has gone on long enough.

And all of you anti-global warming activists who think I’m on your side: don’t.  I’m not.  Truth is: I don’t know.

Do I think we’re in a period of climate change?  Yes.

Do I think it’s man-made?  I don’t know.

But don’t bend facts and speak misrepresentations about data to fit your purpose.  I will exploit you.  I will call you out based on the facts.

If you want to make an argument about global warming and how mankind is responsible, you damn well better bring it.  Because, if I read it, I will call you out.  And, you will lose.

Two final points I want to make.  One, I’ve debated whether I wanted to link to the article that caused this tirade of mine to begin with.  To be fair and open, I will.  However, this site is added to my short but soon-to-expand list of discredited resources.

Second, there is a paragraph in here this article that is, in a way, inaccurate or misleading but one I claim as fact.  Find it and post it in the comments below.  First one to do so I will give a $50 Amazon.com gift card.  You don’t have to know about hurricanes or science to find it.  Just open your eyes and read carefully.  It’ll stick out like a sore thumb, I promise.

Be careful what you read.