Things you won't see on the Weather Channel.
1) There hasn't been one landfall hurricane in the U.S. in over 7 years; a "record".
2) There is no evidence of increasing intensity or frequency of hurricanes. As satellites have only been available for roughly 50 years, it is not surprising every Tiny Tim storm is recorded where nobody would otherwise have witnessed it. Sandy was not even a hurricane and not a "mega-storm". It occurred during high tide and full moon. One would have to believe CO2 is an intelligent being and planned accordingly and it wouldn't be shocking if some do. In 1954-1955 there were 6 (six) hurricanes that hit the East coast; 5 were H3, one H4. Sandy wasn't even H1. Don't take my word for it, the link below is a NOAA map which even they can't erase from history. With a cold PDO and still warm AMO, hurricanes will become more frequent as they were in the 1950's. It's a cycle folks, yet some think history began in 1979.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_1951_1960.jpg
Despite what some may believe, the storm track Sandy was on has not warmed in 70 years. After Sandy however, the region cooled tremendously.
3) Tornadoes are not getting worse; quite the opposite. Nine of the ten deadliest tornadoes occurred before 1960 when CO2 was at "safe" levels (whatever that means). Again, satellites detect the smallest of storms so there is no way to compare directly every period of classifed tornado count for the last 100 years. However, the more severe tornadoes were recorded more accurately. Don't take my word for it. Here is NOAA data on that as well. No way they can doctor that either. Question: if there's a tornado in the woods and nobody is there to witness it, will the wind still blow? 2012 is nothing special.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png
4) The Antarctic is not melting away as was predicted; ice extent has been increasing as well as mass. Temperatures are not increasing either. Of course after the fact climate "scientists" claim that's what they predicted all along.
5) The Arctic melted more than what was predicted, so they can't even get that right and cannot explain it either other than repeating the same "mandunit" mantra. However, wind and ocean currents are a larger contributor to ice loss than temperature. This happened in both 2007 and 2012 and as the AMO returns to its cold phase as the PDO has (see current Bering Sea ice), the Eastern Arctic ice retreat will reverse just as it always has. Greenland is still no warmer than it was in the 1930's.
All of the above is easily verifiable.
So what was predicted in 1988 that got everyone's panties in a bind? Note the picture of the super heated Antarctic which was supposed to warm faster and more than the Arctic. Remember, the "greenhouse effect" is supposed to warm most at the poles (plural).
pg. 54
Popular Science - Google Books That article and James Hansen Congressional testimony the same year is what hooked me for several years. It is a load of garbage.
Someone mentioned glaciers are melting at an "unprecedented rate". Sorry, but the vast majority of glacier melt occurred before 1960. Less honest people (scientists are people too) often fail to point out that fact. Many glaciers are now growing; that is rarely reported either. Alaska was for several years the 'canary in the coal mine' poster child for AGW, but they don't talk about Alaska these days. Why? Because the PDO flipped negative and just as The Great Climate Shift occurred in ~1975 to the warm phase, now it is returning to 20-30 years of cold. Oh darn, another AGW fail.
I did not pollute the thread with multiple graphs and pictures. If some demand such evidence with links to the data source, I'm happy to oblige.
