And every surfer on both coasts knows the name of that holiday:

El Nino.

El Nino doesn't reduce storms _overall_, however, only in the Atlantic.

It _increases_ the number of storms in the Pacific.

Some computer model used by the English shows that global warming will
establish a permanent El Nino and that should reduce the frequency of
Atlantic storms.

And permantly increase the number of Pacific storms.

And turn Indonesian into a desert, SW U. S. into a rain forest w/o the
trees . ..

In short, havoc on the biosphere.

There has been climate change before but nothing anywhere nearly this
fast.

Bret Cahill

"Publius" nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SMSdnYzQtqSPJTDYnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d@comcast.com...

Publius wrote:

Ah, yes, the 5 minute attention span. This sort of thinking is best
demonstrated as "The price of gasoline has dropped under US$2.20 a gallon.
I can buy that SUV that gets 11 mpg and life will be grand forever"

Publius wrote:

This might be a bit of "wishful thinking" on your part, or maybe
outright deception and a betrayal of common sense?

Remember all the hand-wringing a year ago over the "increase" in hurricanes,
and how they were but more evidence of global warming?

It was true, of course, that the years 2004 and 2005 were bad years for the
US, with 6 landfalling hurricanes each year (2-3 per year is typical). But
they were anomalous --- I pointed out at the time that US hurricane frequency
since 1850 showed no upward trend whatsoever. In fact, there were more
hurricanes recorded from 1852 to 1928 (145) than between 1929 and 2005 (134).

Well, 2006 is now behind us. How many hurricanes did the US suffer?

Zero. Indeed only 4 hurricanes occurred over the entire Atlantic/Gulf
tracking area.

Global warming must have taken a holiday.

Being weak minded is the defining characteristic of a libtard. That's
why they dodge issues so much.

They _sound_ like they want to collectivize costs and privatize profits
but actually they are only saying what monied interests are thinking
but too smart to say in public.

For a group who is always saying "individualist this individualist
that" libtards are helpless in looking after their own interests.

Bret Cahill

One naysayer arguement is about cause and effect. How much do humans
contribute to Global Warming?

We do know it is taking place, but I don't think science is accurate enough
in explaining cause and effect, to set policy that will mean great economic
suffering for a great many people in efforts that as of yet, we have no idea
if would be impacting at all.

Still, no one argues that we do not need to get off fossil fuel dependency.
Our political system [popular vote] does not cater to leaders making hard
decisions...but 'popular decisions' [at least to get elected]. The next
time gas prices sky rocket, watch the furor in the public and you will see
something of the problem. We may be witnessing the one great flaw in
democracy.

"AlanS" nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:qlasq25ou7r0cv2sm745umn43rptc6slpo@4ax.com...

"Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1169050626.985365.149350@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Not at all. The point was that local effects over a short interval are not
evidence of any long-term global phenomena. Six hurricanes in a year is not
evidence of global warming, and neither is no hurricanes in a year. Yet, in
2005, every alarmist and his dog were pointing to the hurricanes as "evidence
of global warming."

That is a symptom of paranoia

"Bret Cahill" aol.com> wrote in message
news:1169039055.028222.228190@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Heh. You can't have it both ways, Brett. Last year increased storms (in the
Atlantic) were evidence of global warming. This year, decreased storms (in
the Atlantic) are evidence of global warming.

As I mentioned in another post, that is evidence of paranoia --- everything
that happens is evidence that someone is out to get you.

Some computer model or other will show anything you want.