Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures

[Linky]

Regarding my previous post, I have conducted some research & present my findings...

Your research is commendably in line with Green/Left principles i.e. cut and pasted with mild paraphrase from exactly the same website you were quoting earlier.

All these matters were examined and ultimately dismissed 10 years ago by the Danish Ministry of Science, and the conclusion could be interpreted as being either:

a) Lomborg was unfairly attacked by an environmentalist cabal (including the above website owner) and successfully defended himself

-- or --

b ) Lomborg was scientifically careless in an attempt to make a name for himself, and got off on a technicality

The truth, as always, is probably somewhere in between.

Considering all the data manipulation, illegal hiding of data and shonky science carried out at the UEA Hadley Centre (described at length in the Climategate papers), Lomborg's peccadilloes look mild by comparison.

But, of course, that's not the point. Lomborg is not singing from the right hymn-sheet, so he has to go.

The top 800 or so scientists in the world were asked to conduct a study on climate change and they reported it was real and man does influence it.

When the UN contacts you to ask your opinion be sure to give it. ?

[shirtless]

Scientists will say anything if they are paid enough, as in Japans case they will be totally confused as to why their are so many dieoffs in the pacific .They can no longer be trusted

[RickBradford]

The top 800 or so scientists in the world were asked to conduct a study on climate change and they reported it was real and man does influence it.

When the UN contacts you to ask your opinion be sure to give it.

If the UN asks me, I will tell them that I agree. Of course climate change is real, and of course man influences it. Did you arrive late, or something?

[NeverSure]

As a number of us have noted only recently, a number of scientists have become wholly owned subsidiaries of political designs or companies, corporations who are also in bed with political machinations. The threads connecting the lot add up to one big B#2qwJobb! It is not surprising that scientists would eventually be forced to self police. There is only so long you can just make crap up, or observe phenomena and assign it to the fantasy agenda. Were the leftist redistributionist solutions not so militant and insidiously there could have easily been a gradual collective deceit; however, it was not gentle lying and the camps quickly divided into their respective political camps.

Why would it all devolve into political camps?This didn't happen when we stood Newton on his head. This didnt happen when water was declared outside the earth. This didn't happen when Pangaea was asserted, or Continental drift. No, it happened regarding "climate change" because its core element is not science but social engineering stalking as objectivity and reason.

Let's just say this one more time. That's it, and that's all of it.

[sirineou]

a lot of charts, counter-charts, statistics, and counter-statistics

why would anyone need any of this to realize that we are polluting the only home we have to death is beyond me

cutting down on pollution, human produced CO2 being one of them should be a no brainer, to anyone other than the brain dead

but some seem to suggest that such a move would have a negative economic impact,

it sound to me like some are trying to maintain their comfy seats on the Titanic

Morally bankrupted !!! securing once comfort at the expanse of once children s future

[singa-traz]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

...

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

Anyway, the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, so how can they know what happen millions of years ago?

[sirineou]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

...

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

Anyway, the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, so how can they know what happen millions of years ago?

The answer to the "were you there " question is simple

Sure I was, I had trees there and these trees still exist and I can count growth rings and content, my snow in the north and south poles was there and it contains trapped atmospheric content etc

Asking that question exhibits a profound misunderstanding on how science works

[arjunadawn]

Myself and others have repeatedly noted what is more terrifying is the decided political leftist machine pushing climate change with one finger raised at the sky and handing a course of corrective economic and political actions over with the other hand. One most beg the question, which came first. As I have noted the politics came before the contrived debacle to unite people in a glue that is supranational, it comforts me a bit to know now others, advisers to PMs even, are asserting the same maleficent intention of those who wish to inflict their good upon us: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/08/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/australia-pm-advisor-says-climate-change-u-n-led-ruse-create-new-world-order/#.VUzOWJN1XTe

The climate changes but what could be more mischievous and cause for laughter and cognac at billion dollar mansions than the absurdity that "they are buying" the co2 thing; "Just keep at 'em. gaslight it. Have our media run specials and oh... get the president to go to the Rio thingy... that'll keep in front and center for a while," one could imagine such machinations. Its a done deal and its being inflicted upon the populace irrespective of science. Indeed, science, from this moment on, reveals the ark of inquiry they carry is barren.

[ricklev]

"Top scientists" the title says. Oops. They forgot to give their names or qualifications.

[ricklev]

Oops. Just looked at the article. My bad. Never mind.

[willyumiii]

Previously, I strongly believed in "Global Warming" or what I prefer to call " Climate change influenced by humans".

Recently, I read a very good novel by Michael Crichton titled " State of Fear", and as a result, I now question what I strongly believed before reading it.

Yes, it is a novel and it is fiction, but....

It refers to, and quotes a lot of actual data collected that both supports and debunks the theory of climate change.

Probably most important it points out the bias involved in all data collection and interpretation in any research done..

Most research finds the conclusion they expect to find when the research is started!

Most research is strongly influenced by the source of funding for said research as well.

It also demonstrated the financial motivation for coming to the desired conclusions with research.

No, it has not convinced me that it is a good idea to rape the environment for the sake of profits.

It has convinced me to take what research and the media present as facts with a very large grain of salt.

No matter what your point of view on "Global Warming" I highly recommend you check out this book.

I found it enlightening and a very good read as well.

[RickBradford]

Crichton was a very far-seeing and sensible man (as well as being a good author). Here's an excerpt from a speech of his:

"Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view."

"We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

"Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that."

Right on the money.

[pitrevie]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

I don't enjoy it at all. Read the other thread on here contemporaneous with this one which spells out a need to change refrigerants at a massive cost to the public but a huge profit to corporations.

Most people can understand the words "corporate greed" but for some reason they miss "scientist greed." Scientists, at least until now, didn't dare go against "global warming" (a long debunked theory which had to be replaced with "climate change") because their research money came from governments and yes, corporations and they'd get cut off if they didn't go along. Their colleges would boo them out of the biz.

I'm always stunned that people would use charts going back 50 or even 200 years to show a trend when the earth is millions of years old and the fossil record shows that the climate has always been in flux. Tree growth rings show periods of low growth and high growth over periods back as far as they can try to date the fossils.

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

The earth is a very good recorder its why scientists spend their time extracting ice cores, studying tree rings, rocks. Its why they are now so good at finding fossils. They know the age of a rock stratum and they know the fossils that are likely to be there.

Its the basis on which forensic science works albeit a shorter time span but none of them were there when a crime was committed but they are able to provide a very accurate picture of what most likely took place based on the evidence they uncover.

Of course the climate has always been changing and its why they can give very good reasons for the climate being in that condition at that particular time, they look at the evidence. Then they publish that evidence and when it corresponds to what others are also discovering it leads to conclusions based on the evidence.

[Loptr]

More people in positions of power are calling a spade, a spade...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/the-un-is-using-climate-change-as-a-tool-not-an-issue/story-e6frg6zo-1227343839905

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser says that climate change is a ruse led by the United Nations to create a new world order under the agency’s control. The statement coincided with a visit from the UN’s top climate negotiator.

It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

[RickBradford]

Of course the climate has always been changing and its why they can give very good reasons for the climate being in that condition at that particular time, they look at the evidence. Then they publish that evidence and when it corresponds to what others are also discovering it leads to conclusions based on the evidence.

Wouldn't that be great? However, climate science doesn't work like that.

All the key conclusions in climate science have been arrived at through computer models, not evidence. And it is trivially simple to get a model to fit past temperatures or whatever - you simply plug in a few parameters.

As the famous mathematician John von Neumann explained: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."

The problem is, as has been vividly demonstrated time and again by the evidence, these computer models have no future predictive ability whatsoever. Predicting the past is easy; predicting the future is nearly impossible.

Blindly basing public policy on what these models predict is an act of the most wilful stupidity.

[NeverSure]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

...

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

Anyway, the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, so how can they know what happen millions of years ago?

Please tell me where anyone gets the incorrect idea that the earth is only that old? Even the bible doesn't say that and I've studied it.

Are you just repeating some talking points that you learned from another ignorant joker?

[NeverSure]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Top scientists" the title says. Oops. They forgot to give their names or qualifications.

Oops. Just looked at the article. My bad. Never mind.

Do us a favor and don't get involved in science, OK? That's a good boy.

[NeverSure]

Its the basis on which forensic science works albeit a shorter time span but none of them were there when a crime was committed but they are able to provide a very accurate picture of what most likely took place based on the evidence they uncover.

Neither your hypothesis nor you conclusion tracks. Forensic scientific examples are repeatable and provable. One can repeat and prove DNA and ballistic tests and results and time since death.

That is totally impossible for these "scientists" who proclaim climate change to do. They are truly paid and supported to say it.

Do you know absolutely anything at all about scientific testing as a science?

[sirineou]

Never Sure is going to enjoy this one.

...

My standard response to someone who tries to tell me what things were like thousands much less millions of years ago is to simply ask: "Were you there?"

Anyway, the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, so how can they know what happen millions of years ago?

Please tell me where anyone gets the incorrect idea that the earth is only that old? Even the bible doesn't say that and I've studied it.

Are you just repeating some talking points that you learned from another ignorant joker?

Firstly, nowhere did Singa-traz say that he got the numbers from the bible.

I dont want to put words in his mouth, but I think he was being sarcastic, at least I hope he was.

he takes the word of Christian scholars who have studied the bible and have come up with a time-line . Creationist museums claim humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

But I am glad that you also call them ignorant jokers, I think Singa-traz would agree with you on that ,

at least I hope he would

Now back to global warming and associated weather change

Global warming changes weather in ways that in areas could have the opposite affect

such as more snow due to more moisture in the air caused by increased evaporation,

More frequent and violent weather events due to greater energy input.

"at least 48 tornadoes,in Midwest this week"

"Oklahoma declared a state of emergency in a dozen counties Thursday as the state and several others recovered from severe storms."

[Scott]

One off-topic post removed.

[RickBradford]

Global warming changes weather in ways that in areas could have the opposite affect

such as more snow due to more moisture in the air caused by increased evaporation,

More frequent and violent weather events due to greater energy input.

The US is in the middle of the longest hurricane 'drought' in recorded history, according to NASA. No category 3 or stronger hurricane has hit the US since Wilma in 2005.

Activists are rushing around trying to figure out how to blame this 'pause' (as well as the temperature 'pause') on evil capitalist-driven global warming.

[sirineou]

Global warming changes weather in ways that in areas could have the opposite affect

such as more snow due to more moisture in the air caused by increased evaporation,

More frequent and violent weather events due to greater energy input.

The US is in the middle of the longest hurricane 'drought' in recorded history, according to NASA. No category 3 or stronger hurricane has hit the US since Wilma in 2005.

Activists are rushing around trying to figure out how to blame this 'pause' (as well as the temperature 'pause') on evil capitalist-driven global warming.

yes Sure, In some places we will see increased activity in others decreased activity but in the aggregate the resultant would be increased activity, Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity,

[NeverSure]

Global warming changes weather in ways that in areas could have the opposite affect

such as more snow due to more moisture in the air caused by increased evaporation,

More frequent and violent weather events due to greater energy input.

The US is in the middle of the longest hurricane 'drought' in recorded history, according to NASA. No category 3 or stronger hurricane has hit the US since Wilma in 2005.

Activists are rushing around trying to figure out how to blame this 'pause' (as well as the temperature 'pause') on evil capitalist-driven global warming.

Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming

"Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming."

You nailed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN-VGj2huH0

[sirineou]

Global warming changes weather in ways that in areas could have the opposite affect

such as more snow due to more moisture in the air caused by increased evaporation,

More frequent and violent weather events due to greater energy input.

The US is in the middle of the longest hurricane 'drought' in recorded history, according to NASA. No category 3 or stronger hurricane has hit the US since Wilma in 2005.

Activists are rushing around trying to figure out how to blame this 'pause' (as well as the temperature 'pause') on evil capitalist-driven global warming.

Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming

"Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming."

You nailed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN-VGj2huH0

Oh you young kids, with your rock and roll and your long hair......

If I nailed it, it was only half way through, because that quote was edited and taken out of context,

I continue to say :

"but one can be sure that

any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity, "

Though the first statement is true the second qualifies it.

Though one might not be able to determine the where ,how and when, one can surely tell the what,

and if one get's the how, when and where, wrong, it does not mean that the what will not happen

Get it?, got It?.... Good!

So here is a musical interlude more my speed

[media]

[media]

[NeverSure]

"Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming."

You nailed it.

Oh you young kids, with your rock and roll and your long hair......

If I nailed it, it was only half way through, because that quote was edited and taken out of context,

I continue to say :

"but one can be sure that

any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity, "

Though the first statement is true the second qualifies it.

Though one might not be able to determine the where ,how and when, one can surely tell the what,

and if one get's the how, when and where, wrong, it does not mean that the what will not happen

Get it?, got It?.... Good!

So here is a musical interlude more my speed

Oh, had my great grandmother only lived to see the wonders of modern music on YouTube.

Air conditioning requires one to "introduce energy into any system" to increase activity.

Sun spots introduce energy into our system but we weren't there a long time ago to scientifically say what happened then. Before the European settlers could fight forest fires in the US and Canada lightning started huge forest fires that had to burn until the fall rains came. Those fires were huge putting out smoke and greenhouses gases that must have circled the earth. Yes, man was her to observe that less than 100 years ago.

Did that insulate the earth and cause warming or did it block the sun and cause cooling. No one knows because the equipment and the curiosity wasn't there to know.

That was less than 100 years ago and now we're warming up from all of that? How do you know? You don't. I don't.

It's not science. It's speculation and it's speculation with a political agenda.

[sirineou]

"Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming."

You nailed it.

Oh you young kids, with your rock and roll and your long hair......

If I nailed it, it was only half way through, because that quote was edited and taken out of context,

I continue to say :

"but one can be sure that

any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity, "

Though the first statement is true the second qualifies it.

Though one might not be able to determine the where ,how and when, one can surely tell the what,

and if one get's the how, when and where, wrong, it does not mean that the what will not happen

Get it?, got It?.... Good!

So here is a musical interlude more my speed

Oh, had my great grandmother only lived to see the wonders of modern music on YouTube.

Air conditioning requires one to "introduce energy into any system" to increase activity.

Sun spots introduce energy into our system but we weren't there a long time ago to scientifically say what happened then. Before the European settlers could fight forest fires in the US and Canada lightning started huge forest fires that had to burn until the fall rains came. Those fires were huge putting out smoke and greenhouses gases that must have circled the earth. Yes, man was her to observe that less than 100 years ago.

Did that insulate the earth and cause warming or did it block the sun and cause cooling. No one knows because the equipment and the curiosity wasn't there to know.

That was less than 100 years ago and now we're warming up from all of that? How do you know? You don't. I don't.

It's not science. It's speculation and it's speculation with a political agenda.

This is not my field of expertise, so please forgive the simplicity and inconsistencies contained in the following explanation,though the specifics might not be entirely correct, the conclusion is, Solar energy was converted through photosynthesis in to biomass. (trees, animals, the birds, and the bees) this biomass, was buried in to the ground, for at least 6,000 years and the energy contained their in was trapped. Along comes man, digs this carbons and hydrocarbons up and burns them, releasing the trapped energy new energy introduced in to a system increases activity

It is a simple proposition and to denied it is a profound case of.... denial. hopefully we can move through the denial stage, into acceptance and take action before the situation is irreversible

[NeverSure]

"Weather systems are complicated, no one can can be precise in predicting exactly when . where and how these weather systems will be affected by global warming."

You nailed it.

Oh you young kids, with your rock and roll and your long hair......

If I nailed it, it was only half way through, because that quote was edited and taken out of context,

I continue to say :

"but one can be sure that

any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity, "

Though the first statement is true the second qualifies it.

Though one might not be able to determine the where ,how and when, one can surely tell the what,

and if one get's the how, when and where, wrong, it does not mean that the what will not happen

Get it?, got It?.... Good!

So here is a musical interlude more my speed

Oh, had my great grandmother only lived to see the wonders of modern music on YouTube.

Air conditioning requires one to "introduce energy into any system" to increase activity.

Sun spots introduce energy into our system but we weren't there a long time ago to scientifically say what happened then. Before the European settlers could fight forest fires in the US and Canada lightning started huge forest fires that had to burn until the fall rains came. Those fires were huge putting out smoke and greenhouses gases that must have circled the earth. Yes, man was her to observe that less than 100 years ago.

Did that insulate the earth and cause warming or did it block the sun and cause cooling. No one knows because the equipment and the curiosity wasn't there to know.

That was less than 100 years ago and now we're warming up from all of that? How do you know? You don't. I don't.

It's not science. It's speculation and it's speculation with a political agenda.

This is not my field of expertise, so please forgive the simplicity and inconsistencies contained in the following explanation,though the specifics might not be entirely correct, the conclusion is

, Solar energy was converted through photosynthesis in to biomass. (trees, animals, the birds, and the bees)

this biomass, was buried in to the ground,

for at least 6,000 years

and the energy contained their in was trapped.

Along comes man, digs this carbons and hydrocarbons up and burns them, releasing the trapped energy

new energy introduced in to a system increases activity

It is a simple proposition and to denied it is a profound case of....

denial.

hopefully we can move through the denial stage, into acceptance and take action before the situation is irreversible

"Along comes man, digs this carbons and hydrocarbons up and burns them, releasing the trapped energy

new energy introduced in to a system increases activity."

"Along comes man, digs this carbons and hydrocarbons up and burns them, releasing the trapped energy

new energy which was burned, polluted the atmosphere, shielded the earth from the sun's radiation and cause climate change."

----

You keep trying to sell me global warming which has indeed been debunked by the general scientific community. What they did to remain dishonest was to adapt another term called climate change. The weasels can't even stay with their own story.

Yes we need to get out of denial and accept that science can't prove their own assertions and stop them from using them to regulate public policy. These unproven assertions are about money and control of people, not science.

[sirineou]

Oh you young kids, with your rock and roll and your long hair......

If I nailed it, it was only half way through, because that quote was edited and taken out of context,

I continue to say :

"but one can be sure that

any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity, "

Though the first statement is true the second qualifies it.

Though one might not be able to determine the where ,how and when, one can surely tell the what,

and if one get's the how, when and where, wrong, it does not mean that the what will not happen

Get it?, got It?.... Good!

So here is a musical interlude more my speed

Oh, had my great grandmother only lived to see the wonders of modern music on YouTube.

Air conditioning requires one to "introduce energy into any system" to increase activity.

Sun spots introduce energy into our system but we weren't there a long time ago to scientifically say what happened then. Before the European settlers could fight forest fires in the US and Canada lightning started huge forest fires that had to burn until the fall rains came. Those fires were huge putting out smoke and greenhouses gases that must have circled the earth. Yes, man was her to observe that less than 100 years ago.

Did that insulate the earth and cause warming or did it block the sun and cause cooling. No one knows because the equipment and the curiosity wasn't there to know.

That was less than 100 years ago and now we're warming up from all of that? How do you know? You don't. I don't.

It's not science. It's speculation and it's speculation with a political agenda.

This is not my field of expertise, so please forgive the simplicity and inconsistencies contained in the following explanation,though the specifics might not be entirely correct, the conclusion is , Solar energy was converted through photosynthesis in to biomass. (trees, animals, the birds, and the bees) this biomass, was buried in to the ground, for at least 6,000 years

and the energy contained their in was trapped. Along comes man, digs this carbons and hydrocarbons up and burns them, releasing the trapped energy new energy introduced in to a system increases activity

It is a simple proposition and to denied it is a profound case of.... denial. hopefully we can move through the denial stage, into acceptance and take action before the situation is irreversible

"Along comes man, digs this carbons and hydrocarbons up and burns them, releasing the trapped energy

new energy introduced in to a system increases activity."

"Along comes man, digs this carbons and hydrocarbons up and burns them, releasing the trapped energy

new energy which was burned, polluted the atmosphere, shielded the earth from the sun's radiation and cause climate change."

----

You keep trying to sell me global warming which has indeed been debunked by the general scientific community. What they did to remain dishonest was to adapt another term called climate change. The weasels can't even stay with their own story.

Yes we need to get out of denial and accept that science can't prove their own assertions and stop them from using them to regulate public policy. These unproven assertions are about money and control of people, not science.

I don.t know where you got this quotes , they certainly are not mine, if you could please site the source, it would be appreciated

Some one is trying to sell something to some one what and who is arguable

Global warming is the condition, Climate change is a result, one of many others being , ocean acidification , ocean water level rise, bio-zone shift. etc etc

I am afraid the dishonesty is committed by those who have something to gain. by digging and burning this trapped energy and not by the scientific community who have nothing to gain .

edit typo

Edited May 10, 2015 by Scott

[RickBradford]

but one can be sure that any time you introduce energy in to any system you will have increased activity,

I'm sorry, but if you take that statement to a group of physicists, you will have them rolling in the aisles.

Ever heard of noise-cancelling headphones? Extra sound energy is deliberately introduced to damp down the overall sound. Peak meet trough.

Irrelevant to climate? Not a bit of it. One of the most closely studied aspects of global warming has been the disparity between warming at the tropics and warming at the poles.

Virtually everyone in climate science agrees that:

1. Warming at the poles will be greater than warming in the tropics.

2. Therefore, the temperature differential between tropics and poles reduces

3. Tropical storms are driven by this temperature differential (redistribution of energy, a basic physical process)

4. Therefore global warming will lead to a lessening of tropical storm activity.

You may remember the Hollywood sci-fi fantasy The Day After Tomorrow. The premise was that increased warming at the poles would, through changing the water density, stop the Gulf Stream and freeze Europe and North America.

The mechanism is plausible enough for many activists such as the EU, New Scientist, Sunday Times ("Britain faces big chill as ocean current slows") to have included it in their litany of capitalist-driven woes. Most reputable scientists believe it is extremely unlikely to happen

So the results from adding energy to a system, particularly a complex one, do not just amount to "increased activity".

[canuckamuck]

Also, by now we should be seeing the increased storm activity if that premise were to be true.

Where's the climate change?