I swear to gawd, you can real all about how they blame a drought in Syria, which was caused by weather, for the revolution that lead to ISIS. Ignore that Syria was unstable since 1963, and that multiple other countries fell first in the Arab Spring -- or that this drought has started over 100 years ago (and that man only started putting out significant CO2 since 1950's or so). #Everythingisglobalwarming.
Weather versus Climate
- 2006: "Hurricanes are going to be worse and more frequent!"
- 2017: "Told you so!"
I wrote this in 2015:
Since storms are caused by differences between hot and cold fronts, and Global Warming predicted that we'd warm more at the poles than the equator, it was predicted that Global Warming would reduce storms in severity and frequency. (It was also going to warm the upper atmosphere before the oceans), and these lack of storms would cause tidal currents to change and doom and gloom, so give us your money now to stop this.
Then we disproved the current thing and had a few high publicity storms (and the upper atmosphere wasn't rising in temp, but oceans were), so for publicity sake, the theory was revised to claim that Global Warming would cause oceanic and surface warming, which would result in far more and bigger storms: give us your money now to stop this. As Recently as last year, Obama was declaring this in his speeches.
So how are we doing? Obama is now the longest serving president (since the 1851 start of NOAA's data) to not to see a major hurricane strike the U.S. during his time in office. He is also the first president since Benjamin Harris was in office 122 years ago to have no major hurricane strike during his term.
Of course before they flop, or flip, again, odds are about 50/50 this will end next year. And odds are, that some will again declare that it was caused by man. But it's like watching people that think their rain dance has anything to do with local precipitation.
proponents claimed that global warming lead to unusually warm seas and that lead to more water, and impact. Only Global Warming Theory says the opposite -- that more CO2 in the atmosphere should ABSORB more light/energy, meaning less gets down to warm up the sea. (The atmosphere heats up more, especially up high). Thus the idea that it warms the seas more, means that CO2 is absorbing less light/heat -- it's the opposite of their own theory.
The new heresy, questioning liberal orthodoxy on faux science, with actual scientific skepticism and evidence. Burn the witch! I saw a dozen posts by people who know nothing of the underlying science reposting how the End of the dearth of Hurricanes was a sign of the eco apocalypse (global warming). Never mind that the real global warming predictions said that CO2 would first heat the atmosphere (as it absorbed more infrared light) and thus less would get to the surface or oceans (which would get less light and thus heat)... and our observations have been the opposite (satellite shows no higher atmospheric warming, but ground stations show some).Thus any warming we've seen of surface or oceans contradicts global warming theory. NOTE: warming of the air doesn't cause hurricane strength, but differences between the water (and warmer water) and air does. So if there is an intensifying of storms, it should refute CO2 as the driver of warming. But in a world where 2+2=5, pointing that out is grounds for criminal heresy. (Also called having more of a clue than the majority who parrot what they've been told to think).
If CO2 absorbs more infrared, then the surface shouldn't be heating more, it should be less. (Based on that theory). The way the surface heats more is if solar output went up, or they are wrong on one of their fundamental premises.
That doesn't mean the surface isn't warming (though most evidence of that is sketchy), it means that if it is, it's contradicting the prior global warming theory. And they haven't explained why.
The most deadly hurricane to hit the U.S. was the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935. Due to government (New Deal), it got 400 people killed.
Democrats and their media continued their trend of politicizing every disaster or event, and lying in their politicization.
Trump made a visit quicker than Obama (and without playing golf first, and was well received by the public, and the first responders. Even two Texas Never-Trump'er Democrats, Al Green and Sheila Jackson Lee (one of whom has introduced articles of impeachment against him and another who has called for his removal under the 25th Amendment) met with him, and toned down the rhetoric (briefly). But that's not the headlines you read.
Betteridge's law of headlines says that any headline that ends in a question mark, can be answered with the word "no!"
The Democrats Media all responded to Harvey with a coordinate attack, asking the same question, "Did Houston flood because of lack of zoning?" -- and again, Betteridge's law applies.
- “The New York Times: “Though its breakneck development culture and lax regulatory environment have been lauded for giving working people affordable housing, many experts and residents say that the developers’ encroachment into the wetlands and prairies that used to serve Houston as natural sponges has inevitably exacerbated the misery that the city is suffering today.”
- The Washington Post: “As the country’s fourth-largest city expanded, replacing prairie with impermeable surfaces such as pavement and concrete, the land was rendered less and less capable of absorbing floodwater. Without proper adaptive measures, this made an already flood-prone place more vulnerable.”
- “The New York Daily News: “A big factor could be the lack of rules that helped develop Houston into the country’s fourth-largest city — and the biggest without a formal zoning code. Experts believe the lack of regulation, building in the federally designated flood area, and paving over wetlands might’ve contributed to the storm’s severity.” 
Seriously, this is moronic. As Gov. Greg Abbott wrote in response, “Zoning wouldn’t have changed anything. We would have been a city with zoning that flooded.” There's no city in the nation that could have handled 50" of rain in a few days, and not flooded. None. But more than that, consider the absurdity of the claim in the context of the following facts:
- Most of the growth in the region has occurred outside the city limits, in places like Katy, Texas—which, by the way, is zoned (much of it for single-family homes)
- flooding has been a regular feature of Houston’s landscape since the beginning of recorded history in the region (most of which predate urban sprawl)
- the major flooding was creeks and bayous backlogging and spilling over their banks as more water rushes in from upstream (not from urban runoff)
- Brazos river reached record levels and spilled over its banks well upstream of the the city (especially in the rural prairie far west of the city)
- In total acres, Houston has more parkland and green space than any other large city in America
People see what they want to. Places like the Times and their rubes (the readers who don't question them) will see every problem as a lack of government. So if 50" of rain had happened in Chicago, Detroit or New Orleans (or other Democrat controlled cities with high zoning), there would have been flooding -- the difference would have been more riots and lawlessness afterwards.
So basically, I use people that reposted the articles at a litmus test for critical thinkers. If they reposted without questioning it, then their ph level of skepticism, is way, way too low. They should see a doctor or herbalist ASAP.