Why do hateful swamp dwellers like Paul Pillar deny climate science of two UN IPCC reports finding low confidence in human connection to hurricanes, tropical cyclones, extra tropical cyclones, and tornadoes? Everyone knows excess CO2 that only exists in China doesn't cause hurricanes or increase their intensity

Excerpts from 2013 AR5 and 2012 SREX UN IPCC reports: 

 (Zhang et al., 2004)."

June 7, 2013, "WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment,"  Jan. 2014 est. publication date

p. 1, "...Before publication the Report will undergo final copy editing as well as any error correction as necessary, consistent with the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Possible Errors. Publication of the Report is foreseen in January 2014."...

p. 62 of 165, pdf:

"2.6.3 Tropical Storms 

AR4 concluded that it was likely that an increasing trend had occurred in intense tropical cyclone activity since 1970 in some regions but that there was no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.

Subsequent assessments, including SREX [2012] and more recent literature indicate that it is difficult to draw firm conclusions with respect to the confidence levels associated with observed trends prior to the satellite era and in ocean basins outside of the North Atlantic. 

Section 14.6.1 discusses changes in tropical storms in detail.  Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century and it remains uncertain whether any reported long-term increases in tropical cyclone frequency are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities (Knutson et al., 2010). Regional trends in tropical cyclone frequency and the frequency of very intense tropical cyclones have been identified in the North Atlantic and these appear robust since the 1970s (Kossin et al. 2007) (very high confidence). However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated (Landsea et al., 2006; Holland and Webster, 2007; Landsea, 2007; Mann et al., 2007b) with different methods for estimating undercounts in the earlier part of the record providing mixed conclusions (Chang and Guo, 2007; Mann et al., 2007a; Kunkel et al., 2008; Vecchi and Knutson, 2008, 2011).

No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Measures of land-falling tropical cyclone frequency (Figure 2.34) are generally considered to be more reliable than counts of all storms which tend to be strongly influenced by those that are weak and/or short-lived. Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century although including 2010/2011 season data this trend becomes non-significant (i.e., a trend of zero lies just inside the 90% confidence interval). Significant trends are not found in other oceans on shorter timescales (Chan and Xu, 2009; Kubota and Chan, 2009; Mohapatra et al., 2011; Weinkle et al., 2012), although Grinsted et al. (2012) find a significant positive trend in eastern USA using tide-gauge data from 1923–2008 as a proxy for storm surges associated with land-falling hurricanes. Differences between tropical cyclone studies highlight the challenges that still lie ahead in assessing long-term trends. [Insert figure 2.34 here]

  Figure 2.34:...

  
Arguably, storm frequency is of limited usefulness if not considered in tandem with intensity and duration measures. Intensity measures in historical records are especially sensitive to changing technology and improving methodology. However over the satellite era, increases in the intensity of the strongest storms in the Atlantic appear robust (Kossin et al., 2007; Elsner et al., 2008) but there is limited evidence for other regions and the globe. Time series of cyclone indices such as power dissipation, an aggregate compound of tropical cyclone frequency, duration, and intensity that measures total wind energy by tropical cyclones, show upward trends in the North Atlantic and weaker upward trends in the western North Pacific since the late 1970s (Emanuel, 2007), but interpretation of longer-term trends is again constrained by data quality concerns (Landsea et al., 2011).

In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in page 63 observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence however is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region." ["However, argument reigns over the cause of the increase and on longer time scales the fidelity of these trends is debated." per above, 14.6.1]

 

============== 

p. 63 pdf , "2.6.4 Extra Tropical Storms"

parag. 6, "SREX [UN IPCC 2012] also notes that, based on reanalyses, North American cyclone numbers have increased over the last 50 years, with no statistically significant change in cyclone intensity (Zhang et al., 2004).

p. 64 pdf (continuing, "2.6.4 Extra Tropical Storms") 
.........

  



There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world (particularly in the SH). Likewise, confidence in trends in extreme winds is low, due to quality and consistency issues with analysed data."

===============

Additional source: 2012 UN IPCC report on Extreme Weather: "Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation" (SREX)

 



p. 280 pdf: "4.5.3.3 Attribution of Impacts to Climate Change: Observations and Limitation" 

(end of page): "Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research. Attempts have been made to normalize loss records for changes in exposure and wealth. There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change (Choi and Fisher, 2003; Crompton and McAneney, 2008; Miller et al., 2008; Neumayer and Barthel, 2011). The evidence is medium because of the issues set out toward the end of this section."  

 

 






Most studies related increases found in normalized hurricane losses in the United States since the 1970s (Miller et al., 2008; Schmidt et al., 2009; Nordhaus, 2010) to the natural variability observed since that time (Miller et al., 2008; Pielke Jr. et al., 2008). Bouwer and Botzen (2011) demonstrated that other normalized records of total economic and insured losses for the same series of hurricanes exhibit no significant trends in losses since 1900." 

[LINK FOR ABOVE] 

   
..........................





9/10/17 Paul Pillar article: "Hurricanes Blow Away Climate Change Denial," Consortium News

"Climate change denialism that has been politically popular on the Right, notes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar."

................

Comment: Where "on the Right" are these people? By "denialism," I assume Mr. Pillar means US taxpayers who know they've been forced to pay billions over several decades for what is now clearly no reason, and who've come to realize they're effectively slaves in a political system that can't be changed by elections. Mr. Pillar is the "denier." Even if CO2 is a problem, it exists in excess only in China and will for the foreseeable future. As John Kerry said, "If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions...it wouldn't be enough. Not when more than 65% of the world's carbon pollution comes from developing world." The entire political class in the UK has no problem with the $4 billion a day "climate" industry. In the US,  

In 1990 George HW Bush's USGCRP enshrined unlimited climate spending in the Executive Branch and 13 federal agencies in perpetuity. (As of 2017, all government agencies finance imaginary climate "danger": "Most recent estimate puts tab at $77 billion from 2008-2013," per Bloomberg, 3/15/17. "To Protect Climate Money, Obama Stashed It Where It’s Hard to Find"). The jet setting "global climate science" industry exists today only 

 Seeking "climate action"? Thanks to George HW Bush, actually thanks to US taxpayers, climate action exploded in 1990 and has continued  (This chart, page 4, pdf, is an underestimate, doesn't include congressional appropriations):
 

 


 

"Note and Sources: The data shown here are funding disbursements by the White House U.S. Global Change Research Program and its predecessor, the National Climate Program, available at NCP 1988, 43; Climate Science Watch 2007; and Leggett, Lattanzio, and Bruner 2013. These data, however, do not represent congressional climate science funding appropriations to other government agencies. As we show later in a more detailed assessment of U.S. government climate science funding, the numbers here, especially those for more recent years, greatly underestimate the actual level of funding." pdf p. 4

Fall 2015, "Causes and Consequences of the Climate Science Boom," independent.org, Butos and McQuade

"Government policies and funding as well as the emergence of a scientific “Big Player” [UN IPCC] that has aggressively championed the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)1, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have together fomented 

Image of Bush #1, "New World Order quotes" via You Tube




.................