Jik Bombo wrote:
"John Krempasky" wrote in message
...

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...


And a study in Science a few months ago found that while the number of

storms

wasn't up, the intensity was.

It appears the data set used for that Science article was a
complete disaster; it's been badly savaged by Dr. Bill Gray,
and also, I understand, by a large number of very qualitied
mets on a worldwide tropical cyclone listserv.

Bill Gray is the guy that Planck was talking about when he pointed out
that new ideas don't convert opponents, but the opponents eventually
die. The recent papers linking cyclone intensity (not number) to global
warming are direct challenges to what Gray has written over the years,
and he has over-reacted in a predictable way, saying any number of
stupid things that he is not willing to back up (for example his claim
on the radio that he expects a cooling in the global temperature to set
in in a few year). When challenged to put his money where his mouth is
he swallowed his teeth.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...n-cooling.html

And no, for anyone following this thing, the data set Emmanuel used was
reasonable. A major issue in this is how do you get global coverage
before satellites.

josh halpern




They don't care about the truth. And they know that you cannot unring a
bell.

More funding, please!

LOL!