Eugene Robinson is the always party-line leftist who writes for the Washington Post. No matter what Robinson writes, it is anti-Republican and anti-conservative. That's true even if Robinson has to make up something about which to complain.
I say that after reading Robinson's latest column in which he claims that hurricanes Harvey and Irma are definitive proof of man made climate change. Of course, he's wrong, but that never stops Robinson.
He claims that the heavy rains from Harvey result from climate change. Actually, the heavy rains from Harvey are the result of the presence of certain high pressure located such that Harvey stopped moving forward and just meandered over eastern Texas for four days. Normally, a hurricane moves through an area and the rains is over in a day or so. If Harvey had done that, there would have been 10 or 12 inches of rain. That's an enormous amount of rain, but it's rather standard for a hurricane. In Florida, many areas saw that much rain as Irma passed through. Global warming has nothing to do with where high pressure and low pressure are located on any particular day or week; even the most ardent supporter of climate change who is also a scientist would agree with that statement. So Harvey's rain totals have nothing to do with global warming.
Robinson also claims that the length of time that Irma was a category 5 storm shows that there is global warming. Why? That's a question Robinson doesn't even try to answer. Until Harvey, we had just gone through a period with the fewest stong storms in the Atlantic on record. We had 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the USA. Is that proof that there is no global warming? Using Robinson's standards, it is conclusive proof. Nevertheless, we then get two strong storms -- the first in over a decade -- and Q.E.D., it's global warming!
This is a rather nonsensical way to come to a conclusion. And it's plain wrong. If I claim that there is a diphtheria epidemic in the USA and we go for twelve years without a single case followed by a week in which there are two cases, is that proof that the epidemic exists? Hardly. That's the sort of reasoning that Robinson wants to use.
Global warming caused by human activity is a serious issue. If it's real, then we need to decide if it brings more benefits or costs. If there are more costs than benefits, then we need to try to do what we can to stop it. That consideration, however, has to be done on the basis of valid science, not political junk science that is more ideology than meteorology. Hacks like Robinson need to shut up on the subject.
I say that after reading Robinson's latest column in which he claims that hurricanes Harvey and Irma are definitive proof of man made climate change. Of course, he's wrong, but that never stops Robinson.
He claims that the heavy rains from Harvey result from climate change. Actually, the heavy rains from Harvey are the result of the presence of certain high pressure located such that Harvey stopped moving forward and just meandered over eastern Texas for four days. Normally, a hurricane moves through an area and the rains is over in a day or so. If Harvey had done that, there would have been 10 or 12 inches of rain. That's an enormous amount of rain, but it's rather standard for a hurricane. In Florida, many areas saw that much rain as Irma passed through. Global warming has nothing to do with where high pressure and low pressure are located on any particular day or week; even the most ardent supporter of climate change who is also a scientist would agree with that statement. So Harvey's rain totals have nothing to do with global warming.
Robinson also claims that the length of time that Irma was a category 5 storm shows that there is global warming. Why? That's a question Robinson doesn't even try to answer. Until Harvey, we had just gone through a period with the fewest stong storms in the Atlantic on record. We had 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the USA. Is that proof that there is no global warming? Using Robinson's standards, it is conclusive proof. Nevertheless, we then get two strong storms -- the first in over a decade -- and Q.E.D., it's global warming!
This is a rather nonsensical way to come to a conclusion. And it's plain wrong. If I claim that there is a diphtheria epidemic in the USA and we go for twelve years without a single case followed by a week in which there are two cases, is that proof that the epidemic exists? Hardly. That's the sort of reasoning that Robinson wants to use.
Global warming caused by human activity is a serious issue. If it's real, then we need to decide if it brings more benefits or costs. If there are more costs than benefits, then we need to try to do what we can to stop it. That consideration, however, has to be done on the basis of valid science, not political junk science that is more ideology than meteorology. Hacks like Robinson need to shut up on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment