New Global Warming Research

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

You also can't assume that just because its Fox or Hannity that it isn't true.

---

Actually, you can. In a study into where people got their news compared to how well informed they were about the information in the news, it turns out that those who get their news from Fox are the most misinformed. Only 20% of Fox viewership managed to be correctly informed about the news.If you hear something from Fox, you are better off believing the opposite.

quote:

---

And if FOX can't be trusted, can USAToday?

---

The question is not so much if USAToday can be trusted. It's if Peter Schweizer can be trusted.And the answer to that is no as he is a member of the Hoover Institution, which cannot be trusted. A debunking of the claims made by Schweizer can be found here:Hoover Institute and the art of slanderHint: Schweizer received almost $300K from Exxon/Mobil. Do you seriously think he's an objective source?

quote:

---

None that would justify the way he derides the average joe.

---

Where did he do this? Dates, places, and exact quotes in full context, please.Otherwise, just like before, you're pulling it out of your ass.

quote:

---

If he is going to be the figurehead for this whole thing, he had better be squeaky clean. He is no position to chastize me. I am greener than he.

---

And you know this why? Are you privy to the Gore financial statement? Do you know where and how he consumes and pays for energy? Since you have made the claim, then you can give us a detailed accounting of his entire energy activity for the past six months.Be specific.Otherwise, you're just pulling yet another nugget out of your ass.

quote:

---

So I'm a little irked at Gore, who owns lear jets

---

No, he doesn't. Gore does not own a jet. Where did you get the idea that he does? Names, dates, exact quotes in full context, please.

quote:

---

a 20 room mansion

---

Which functions as his place of business and thus needs to deal with more than just him and Tipper. Too, he maintains a carbon neutral footprint.Way back when when the conservatives were making such a big deal about his electricity bill, what you weren't told is that he buys the "green" electricity from his electric company (Green Power Switch), which costs more, in order to supplement the electricity generated from the solar panels. Anything else is handled by purchasing carbon offsets, so he maintains a neutral carbon footprint.

quote:

---

when he tells you and I to live in straw huts while he lives in the lap of luxury.

---

And when did he ever do this? Dates, places, and exact quotes in full context, please.Otherwise, we must conclude that you are once again pulling another nugget out of your ass.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This is true, but is it the most effective way of getting to meeting obligations and getting his message across? He could have walked, bicyled, or kyaked. He could have simply stood infront of an airport with a sign saying "don't fly", the point is how many people would get the message? Yes, I would suggest though that Gore is doing a better job of putting its importance in the spotlight than any of us on these forums. The message is what is important. Who can inform more people about the environments importance; the man who re-schedules, the man who rides a moped, or the man who speaks to the most people? I don't understand why this seems to be some sort of issue. Regardless of Gores possible errors while in the administration does he not retain the right to try and inform people of important environmental concerns? Its not like this was his only concern while being the vice president.If Cat5 hurricanes are to become more common due to global warming, what other example of Cat5 destruction would you suggest he use as an example? Gore is using a logical tactic; point to the worst and present example of Cat5 hurricanes and saying "this could become more common". He would be stupid not to point at New Orleans, absolutely everyone with cable tv or internet is aware of it. I see your point. For the most part I agree. I agree that mistakes are made in any administration, but I don't see why this is an issue. What is the totally bogus solution?
Why do you think that speaking out about lowering CO2 emitions could somehow dismiss real solutions?
How could his talks affect funding for levees? How many other plans did he get funded, how many did he not fund. How many other decisions did he make while vice president? How many can we look back at a say he made mistakes? Is Gore an engineer?As I said before, I am not well informed about these issues about Gore or New Orleans funding. My contention is merely with the logic being used. Why should Gore be unable to speak out about environmental concerns in an attempt to reach the most people and have a greater impact than any one eco-friendly person could ever achieve? I am not a fan of Gore, I respect what he has attempted to do and simply do not understand the resistance.

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

On Hannity, I said you had valid responses, but those are not known to me (or you).

---

Holmes, it's Hannity. By default, he cannot be trusted. He has been shown to be a liar numerous times. How many times must someone cry wolf before he is no longer considered trustworthy? How many times must someone be caught in a lie in order to be considered a liar?

quote:

---

The ONLY criticism I would make on what he did, knowing what little I do, is that it is highly unlikely he had to use the transport he did.

---

Oh? You mean you know Gore's schedule? Then why don't you be a dear and post it here. If you are so sure that he didn't need to fly on a private jet (which he does not own but had to have chartered), then you can give us the specifics of why he could have flown commercial to meet his obligations.Names, dates, places, and quotes in complete context, please.If you can't, then you're simply pulling it out of your ass.

quote:

---

Well is saving the environment important or not?

---

Excuse me? You seem to think this is an either/or situation: That the only way to save the environment is to never fly in a private jet.

quote:

---

If he can't make those deadlines in a way that does not produce emissions he argues everyone should be reducing, perhaps he should have rescheduled.

---

Why? He has never said that people shouldn't fly. He's never said that people shouldn't fly in private jets. What he has said is that people should be aware of what it is they are doing, do their best to reduce what they can, and work to offset what they can't.How does that translate to "never fly in a private jet"? If you are so sure you know that he didn't need to take the jet, then please be kind and post his schedule and provide the appropriate itenerary.

quote:

---

Uhhhhhh... nowhere did you dispute what I claimed.

---

Uhhhhh...yes, I did. We're back to this silly notion that Gore claimed to have "invented" the internet (which he never did).Gore was a lawmaker. Therefore, he did what lawmakers do in order to advance the state of the science in global warming and provide solutions for how to improve our environment. He didn't with the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. He (along with the climatologists at the UN) won it for Peace.

quote:

---

I said he produced no new science on the issue of CC, and what he presented was not wholly accurate.

---

Incorrect. You're not about to quote the British judge, are you? If so, you must provide the complete quotes in full context, not snippets cut for sound-bites.You need to do the work, Holmes. Do not rely on media reports.

quote:

---

On what NJ and I said about how we feel regarding statements by some within the environmentalist movement, your request is absurd.

---

Huh? You make a claim about the attitudes regarding those in the environmentalist movement and asking you to provide a single person who even hints at what you are claiming is an "absurd" request?

quote:

---

We are discussing what statements we hear feel like.

---

But if nobody actually has the attitude that is causing your feeling, what does that say about the legitimacy of your reaction?What you're trying to do is paint environmental activists as some sort of extremist when you don't have any evidence that they have done anything to be considered such.

quote:

---

What did I say to you? Full funding does NOT mean adequate funding for the job needed to be done.

---

And what did I report back to you? What part of "no funding" do you not understand? The project was funded for exactly what the Army Corps of Engineers was trying to do. It was going to take 20 years. That you seem to think the Vice President should have the power to bend space and time to make a 20-year project get completed in 8 simply shows that you are more interested in playing politics than dealing with reality.It was funded to get the job that needed to be done accomplished. But then the Bush administration came in, slashed the budget, and the project immediately failed. If the project had been fully funded, the levee sections would have been completed and the disaster would not have been nearly as severe. Instead, the Bush administration cut off the funding and work [I][B]STOPPED[/i][/b].

quote:

---

Are we clear on this?

---

No, we're not. You're cherry-picking quotes, ignoring all evidence that contradicts your preconceptions. You're ignoring the words of LT GEN Carl Strock, Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, that the problem was not the design of the levees but that the storm was simply too powerful: And here from the Investigation of the Performance of the New Orleans Flood Protection Systems in Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005 by the NSF, Citris, UCBerkeley, CCRM, and Berkeley Engineering: Hmmm...who had control of Congress in 95....? That's right. That would be the Republicans. The President cannot sign a bill that doesn't come to him.From later in that report: Only 60% complete. As the President kept on trying to reduce funding. The Bush Administration has slashed the budget for the Army Corps of Engineers projects in New Orleans by 80%.

quote:

---

The "oops" was a reference to Gore.

---

Precisely. It is this snippy attitude of yours that is keeping you from paying attention to what is really happening. You are more interesting in playing politics.

quote:

---

See the guy using Katrina to back his arguments for fearing CC, was actually part of the real problem which led to Katrina. Oops.

---

Except that isn't true. The projects were funded under Clinton/Gore. They were defunded under Bush. Because they were defunded, they couldn't be completed. Because they couldn't be completed, they failed much more catastrophically than they otherwise would have.

quote:

---

Right, and with the proper engineering in place it wouldn't matter if CC led to more hurricanes or more intense hurricanes... we'd never have a repeat of Katrina.

---

Incorrect. There will always be a storm that surpasses what you think you can protect against.And again, this was a project that wasn't scheduled to be completed until 2015. Do you think Gore has the ability to bend space and time to make a 20-year project take only 8?You haven't done any research on this at all, have you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

There are other ways to get a message across. Flying everywhere to meet people in person is the old way. It is fuel inefficient. He could easily spread a message in different media.My question to you is why would other media not work? Well you have no argument from me on that point. A very famous multi-millionaire is able to do a better job putting the importance of GHG related CC in the spotlight than a poor unknown guy on a forum.That does not argue to me that he is acting as a leader could be, nor that his efforts are worthy of a medal. I would suggest that given his fame and resources, I could not only have produced a better movie, it could have been more accurate (promoting a better understanding of science), and it would have been less destructive to the environment. By this line of argument Britney spears (and perhaps even her pussy) can inform people on the environment better than an actual climatologist with 20 yrs experience. You have no argument from me that Gore has great advantages to getting whatever he says out. That only weakens the argument of what a profound thing he did. Yes he retains that right, and you are quite correct that the engineering of NO flood defenses were not his only priority. I should probably make clear I am not saying that he is "guilty" of not having paid attention to the issue surrounding ACOE plan problems, and so causing the Katrina disaster personally. There are a lot of people involved, over many many years.My point on this is the irony and hypocrisy of Gore using Katrina as a poster child for GHG related CC. The hurricane might have been the trigger, but it didn't need to be a Cat5 hurricane and in fact given enough time, it wouldn't have even taken a hurricane. New Orleans is subsiding all by itself. The great devastation people witnessed in New Orleans was the result of fault engineering, like a collapsed bridge or ceiling of a building when no undue forces were placed upon them. The hurricane was besides the point. And if Gore had been avidly involved in worrying about infrastructure, based on sounde science, he might have been aware of this problem. Likewise people walking thinking this had anything to do with "storm damage" are in for more surprises... like say bridge collapses. But there ARE other examples of Cat5 hurricanes he could have pointed to. We have had them. Indeed he could have pointed to any of the other large hurricanes present during that season. That's MY point. He chose the storm that did the most damage, but that was because of long known engineering issues which would have failed at some point anyway (and already were). He chose to point at that because that was a great picture, while the others were not as devastating (though the more correct picture of what we could experience). If people want to avoid the devastation of things like Katrina, they must understand the lessons of it. The lessons are based in engineering, not climatology. That is a red herring.Perhaps some people get that Gore is not claiming that ending GHG emissions will prevent disasters like Katrina, but I don't think that is very many. Many will likely say, with less GHGs we'll get less chances of them happening. But that is BS, as it had nothing to do with the storm. The levees would eventually fail due to the shifting of the earth below Louisiana over time. It was a failed design.Point to another hurricane for examples. But I know why Gore would not want to do that... it would be less than the example of a tragic failure of engineering. To put your mind at ease, I think he is able to speak out on this issue, and I think he honestly would like to deal with environmental problems. In another thread I have even stated that I think he's being relatively environmental about his house.My only statements here have been to contradict the unwarranted praise he and his movie have received. Unwarranted praise does not mean it had no effect, or was not worthwhile, or should not have been done. It also does not mean he should stop what he is trying to do.Along these same lines (during the contradiction of over praising) I have pointed out things which I do not like in his methods, though I admit that is a matter of opinion (taste). I do not like that he is not helping people understand science and how it is conducted, and that his main method is engendering an irrational fear of the environment, and human activity.While perhaps strongly stated, my points should be taken as constructive criticism.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I agree Hannity is a liar. But that does not mean that everything he says is a lie. Nor does that answer logical questions which arise. You have provided some potential answers. I am remaining agnostic on this topic until I hear more (meaning I'm not trusting Hannity). No, see, I'm not claiming anything. You are. You are the one pulling something out of your ass... and that stinks. I said it is highly unlikely that he'd have to use the transport. And I stand by that assessment. How many people have to use private aircraft (and chartered makes no difference)? Who has to physically be in three separate locations in a day that far apart?These are questions... you provide answers. Otherwise they stay where they are. My argument is that the way to decrease GHG emissions is for people to reduce their emissions. This is done by traveling when and in such way that they do not produce emissions. If that were my priority it would be relatively easy not to fly in jets, much less private ones. My schedule (unless and absolute emergency) would revolve around my ability to travel.Otherwise a person is arguing for convenience over environment.You are the only person arguing "never" about doing anything. Look, you still haven't contradicted anything I said. And I have no position on Gore v internet so you can keep that to yourself. I said he produced no science on GHG related CC, or how to deal with it, and indeed has provided some misstatements. Why don't you cut to the chase and show what exactly he got the Nobel for, and indicate where it involved the production of accurate science on the issue? No I'm not quoting the judge, I have already provided quotes and a link to this matter upthread by climatologists. If you didn't bother reading it upthread, I'm not reproducing it for you now. Yes, because I cannot remember exact names, dates, and places of such quotes and I'm not going digging for them. As it is I already have indicated one example, which is Gore's movie... where our exasperation was generated. There is a linking of people's activities to environmental change in the sense of some "guilting", or sin, for which we are now reaping the whirlwind. And some of its longterm effects being rather well analogized to earlier Malthusian concepts of man overloading the system he lives in. I think we can leave it for others to decide based on the evidence we gave. You chose sources older than the one I gave, and are limited to descriptions of funding based on ACOE designs. I stand by my using more recent statements and findings by the players themselves, with the ACOE admitting it was design flaws not funding.In fact your one quote from the ACOE is amusing. It states that it was only meant to handle Cat3, that it was at its full potential (that it would ever have, and so Katrina was too tough. Not only does that contradict your own assertion (that it was due to non-funding), but is rebutted by the later findings and admissions by the ACOE. I could get even more complex in my argument (bringing in the fact of subsidence) but this is enough.But I will grant you this, there was a Republican Congress. Unfortunately for you they aren't the one's getting medals, nor using Katrina as a poster child for GHG related CC. You were the one who did not understand what my oops was referring to, so my guess is that it's you who isn't paying attention. Heck, all you did was repeat your moldy claims about adequate funding, for a plan which is now well known to have been flawed, but according to your own source (when trying to misplace blame) was already as good as it was ever going to get.Sorry charlie, I'm playing science on this, you're playing politics.Edited by Silent H, : lil fix

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

BioSourceHere is one that he co-authored among other eminent dissentersMore dissentYour assertion is therefore wrong! He was ousted out of his OWN network after being hijacked, just like the co-founder of Greenpeace left because it too was hijacked by people who foam at the mouth. I haven't revisited that thread, so I honestly don't know what the objections were. I will go back and review it. It would take me being wrong for me to conclude that I am wrong. You are in fact dead wrong. You stated that there are no actual climatologists that disagree with anthropogenic global warming. There are! There are many, just not as many on the other side of the table.Now, I have no problem with coming to believe that the bulk of global warming is caused by man. I remain skeptical -- not hopelessly so, but skeptical.The fact is that the debate isn't over for any number of reasons. I also know that people from the flipside have inappropriately inflated imagery to feed the hype. Because that's what I believe this all is at this point -- resurrected Soylent Green hysteria.That said, I do more than my fair share, because whether or not global warming can be attributed to mankind or natural reoccuring cycles, I know that pollution is real. And I know that its nasty. And I know I don't want it on my earth, in my oceans, on my land.The biggest problem with this whole thing is that there are no good practical, viable solutions yet. They just scream, "Get rid of oil!" Well, no kidding! Are you gonna tell us how to fix the burgeoning energy crisis? Oh... No? You have no idea? Then shut up, and stop turning this in to a political debate. Because in the meantime there is a little thing called an "economy" that has to run. Unless you can transport people to and from work within reason, just shut your mouth. Throwing stupid concerts is disingenuous hand-waiving. It accomplishes nothing except to recruit blind lemmings who follow the crowd. Because when the concert is over, they are all going to get in their SUV's, throw their cigarette butts out the window, use nasty detergents that trickle in to the oceans, etc, etc. Except now, they are going to produce people, much like yourself actually, with a CHIP on their shoulder -- all because they BELIEVE in global warming. LOL!But that really doesn't fix the problem, does it? And if you are going to tell me to live in a friggin mud and straw hut, you had better be doing the same damn thing, Mr. Gore! I mean, holy cow! What an ass! What a complete ass!THAT is my biggest problem with this whole thing. I mean, who could fault anyone for wanting to help the environment? There isn't anything wrong with that. What I have a big problem with is this whiny, hypocritical greenies who have nothing good to say. All they do is bitch. Well, I don't want bitching, I want solutions. And until somehow has a solution, don't sanctimoniously condescend me.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Excellent point. I wonder however if other methods would result in the same "fame". It's only speculation, but my feeling is that other methods would not result in soundbites on CNN or discussions on Fox News. Even bad press is good press sometimes. I agree! I think I am just more critical of his audience than I am of his methods. It would work. Toss in Paris Hilton and you have a dream team of global warming informationists with a whole braincell to share... it would work though. They would likely get a medal too. He got the information out. He was able to compete with the war on terror, Britny Spears, and the other crap thats repeated ad nauseam on t.v. People now know something about science, even if its poor science. He did a profound thing because people know about his message and he didn't even have to show his underwear. But it is effective. Being an actual cause/effect result of global warming doesn't really matter, nobody can prove that global warming did not have some effect and everyone knows about Katrina. What other examples would you suggest he uses... because I have not heard of them. Gore presented his argument to mainstream audiences and succeeded. He does deserve a medal in my opinion. Exactly. Its like Bush saying he wants to hit Iraq for oil, it doesn't have the same panache. I understand that, and likely agree. I am simply more critical of his intended audience than I am of his methods. You demand better science, I would certainly rather have better science, but I tip my hat to the man because he did manage to wake up a few people who know more about Brad Pitt than they do about CO2.Perhaps my opinion is simply the result of Walmart shopping the day before Christmas... ask me in a week and I may say something different

It seems like our difference is mainly opinion, which means there's no real way to argue against them. You have your preference, and I have mine. Yours coincides with that of the Nobel committee, and mine does not.The only thing I can point out is you are effectively arguing that politics is more important than facts. There is nothing inherently wrong with that preference, but I do not like that, and I do not find such things laudable.My feeling is that within 10 to 20 years Gore will not be viewed as important as he is now (much like Kissinger) and his movie totally overrated. They had temporal political impact (of a rather limited nature), and nothing longterm.People that needed that movie to get their attention away from Britney Spears and Brad Pitt are likely to have returned their attention to same soon enough. This climate thing takes a long time and work... who wants that?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Silent H responds to me:

quote:

---

No, see, I'm not claiming anything.

---

Yes, you are.You said, and I quote, that it is "highly unlikely" that Gore had to travel the way he did.Therefore, it is up to you to justify that claim. Since you seem to know his schedule, then you can post it here.

quote:

---

You are the only person arguing "never" about doing anything.

---

You realize you just contradicted yourself, yes? As you said: In other words, "The only way to save the environment is to never fly in a private jet."Your words have permanence here, Holmes.

quote:

---

And I have no position on Gore v internet so you can keep that to yourself.

---

I never said you did. What I said was that you were using the same concept as those who were claiming that Gore said he did. That is, people were using it as some sort of example of Gore being duplicitous, claiming credit for something he didn't do. And here you are, putting forth Gore as being duplicitous, claiming credit for something he hasn't done.

quote:

---

Yes, because I cannot remember exact names, dates, and places of such quotes and I'm not going digging for them.

---

Then we can only conclude they don't really exist.

quote:

---

There is a linking of people's activities to environmental change in the sense of some "guilting", or sin, for which we are now reaping the whirlwind.

---

Where? Be specific. Direct quotes in full context, please.Otherwise, you're just making it up.But this is typical Holmes: Politics, posturing, and claims that you didn't actually mean what you directly said.It's time to put up or shut up. Names, dates, places, exact quotes in full context.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:

quote:

---

Source

---

This paper is a description of a meteorological information gathering system, PRISM. It isn't about climatology in general nor is there anything that indicates there is no global warming in particular. How does this give your friend any credibility on the matter?

quote:

---

Here is one that he co-authored among other eminent dissenters

---

This is a study regarding media presentation. Where is the actual science? The fact that the media pretends there is a controversy doesn't mean there actually is.

quote:

---

More dissent

---

Um, you do realize that your source is nearly 15 years old, yes? On top of that, it was published not in a climate journal but an electrical industry journal, focusing on the economics of the industry. Their home page describes the publication as: This is hardly a peer-reviewed science journal as you were asked to provide.Therefore, you haven't proven your point. Your "dissenter" friend isn't a climatologist, he's a meteorologist. Your first "dissent" article is about how the media portrays the question of climate change, not an actual study on climate. And your second "dissent" article is outrageously out of date and irrelevant.Therefore, you haven't shown where this "controversy" is. Where, in the literature, can we find any study that shows any doubt regarding the existence of global warming and its primary driver?

quote:

---

He was ousted out of his OWN network after being hijacked

---

Right. I'm sure that's what he claims.

quote:

---

quote:

---

What would it take, NJ? What would it take for you to conclude that you were wrong?

---

​

It would take me being wrong for me to conclude that I am wrong.

---

In other words, no evidence will do it. You've made up your mind and there's no way it can be changed.

quote:

---

You stated that there are no actual climatologists that disagree with anthropogenic global warming. There are!

---

Where? You haven't provided a single one.We need an actual peer-reviewed journal article, NJ. Something recent. Something from an actual climatology journal, not economics.

quote:

---

The fact is that the debate isn't over

---

Where is this mythical debate taking place? We can't find any journal articles that conclude there is no global warming or that it isn't being driven by human activity. So where is this debate?

quote:

---

The biggest problem with this whole thing is that there are no good practical, viable solutions yet.

---

A) That isn't true and B) what does that have to do with anything? Just because you've given up doesn't mean everybody else has.

quote:

---

They just scream, "Get rid of oil!"

---

Who are "they"? Names, dates, places, and exact quotes in full context please.Otherwise, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

quote:

---

What I have a big problem with is this whiny, hypocritical greenies who have nothing good to say.

---

And who are these phantom people whose voices you keep hearing?Names, dates, places, and exact quotes in full context please.Otherwise, you're just pulling it out of your ass.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Not exhaustive but in chronological order:

Direct
Name              Deaths          Damage
​
"Labor Day"       400-600         6million (90 million 2007 dollars)
1935
​
"New England"     682             306million (4.6billion 2007 dollars)
1938
​
"Fort Lauderdale" 51              110million (1billion 2007 dollars)
1947
​
Dog               14              3 million (26 million 2007 dollars)
1950
​
Janet             687             320 million (2 billion 2007)
1955
​
Donna             364             3.3 billion (23 billion 2007)
1960
​
Edith             37              25 million (129 million 2007)
1971
​
Gilbert           341             5.5 billion (9.6 billion 2007)
1988
​
Andrew            26              26.5 billion (38.9 billion 2007)
1992
​
Ivan              92             19.2 billion (21 billion 2007)
2004
​
Katrina          1,836           81 billion (86 billion 2007)
2005
​
Rita             7               11.3 billion (11.9 billion 2007)
2005
​
Dean             40              6 billion
2007

If he wants a cat 5 from the past few decades he has plenty to choose from:
Allen
Gilbert
Hugo
Andrew
Mitch
Isabel
Ivan
Emily
Katrina
Rita
Dean
Felix(source for information: wiki)Most people have heard of Andrew, Ivan, Gilbert and Rita - surely? And I think it is fair to say that when it comes to hurricanes, Katrina does look like something of an anomaly in the damage/death it caused. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

While Katrina might be considered an anomaly it is important to the discussion because it is an example of the failure to prepare.We were aware of what would happen if a major hurricane hit the New Orleans area for decades before Katrina. We knew that the dike system was inadequate and that the levees and pumping facilities were vulnerable. We also knew that evacuation routes were inadequate and that many would be impassable and that there were no plans for after the fact recovery.We know basically the same thing will happen when a major hurricane gets funneled up through the Chesapeake Bay.Like Global Warming, the problem is not whether it is caused by human activity, the problem is we are doing nothing to ameliorate the adverse effects.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

good point jar.what about the mid atlantic drift and added freshwater to the oceans?i did see where states native flowers were becomeing scarce and apeared to be migrating to other states where the climat better supports them.given the world wide talks about global warming there has to be viable proof of its danger by science. otherwise, it would not be a topic on the world stage.at least thats my take..

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides