Tuesday, April 25, 2006

It must be true, I read it on the Internet.

As those in the know continue to blame global warming for Hurricane Katrina, calling it the "worst hurricane in 77 years," I'd just like to remind everyone that the only reason so many people died was that the levy broke.

If you've read some of the blogs from those that went through it, the actual hurricane blew over pretty quickly, very little damage, and people were like, "Oh, geez. Hurricane. Great. Where's my beer?"

It wasn't until the flooding from the breached levy hit that the problems started.

Hurricane Katrina, which tore onto the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts on August 29, was the deadliest Atlantic hurricane in 77 years and the costliest ever, with property damages estimated at $75 billion.
Merely because the damages occurred subsequent to Katrina, does NOT mean that they were a direct result of Katrina.

Unless, of course, it fits your socio-political agenda to say so.
This year, the weather service's Tropical Prediction Center expects more hurricanes than usual, but not as many as last year's record 14.
B...Bu...bu..but...I thought global warming was leading inexorably towards climatalogical catastrophe!! Shouldn't the number go up every year until we get "The Day After Tomorrow?!" Otherwise we might be forced to suggest that hurricane patterns are {{gasp}} cyclical, or even {{shocked dismay}} random and relatively unpredictable...


Disclaimer: This post is NOT about the relative merits of the views of the "bulk of the scientific community" (appropriately vague, yes?) with respect to global warming. It is about a clear effort to make a spurious correlation between coincidental data to support an agenda.

And come to think of it, how do your reconcile the , "One degree of temperature increase can cause significant changes, the thermometer is rising! Melting ice caps! Mass extinctions!! AAUUGGH....ggrrkkkkk.... aagnngnggg." {{thump}} (passes out completely...) with this whole robust evolutionary chain where species are "adapting" willy nilly to Mother Nature's changes, conforming to their environments, etc?

In fact, should we even be worried at all? According to a strict evolutionary model, those species who can't adapt or aren't suited to warmer temperatures and a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere fit firmly into the "not of the fittest" category, and get weeded out via an inherently natural and long-standing process, right?