https://skepticalscience.com/pics/NATS_frequency.gif

The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.
The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation: extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish.
What do the records show? According to the Pew Centre, “Globally, there is an average of about 90 tropical storms a year”. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."
But this graph, also from the Pew Centre, shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme:

But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.
And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.
What can we conclude from these studies? About hurricane frequency – not much; the jury is out, as they say. About climate change, we can say that these differing approaches are the very stuff of good science, and the science clearly isn’t settled! It is also obvious that researchers are not shying away from refuting associations with climate change, so we can assume they don’t think their funding or salaries are jeopardised by research they believe fails to support the case for AGW. The scientific method is alive and well.

While most of what Paul Driessen says about the need for Co2 for plant life is true never the less his views are biased He is from Heartland Institute whisn is a propaganda outlet for fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and Koch Brothers who are primary funders for Heartland Institute anything from that outfit is biased. Co2 is necessary for life to exist and life is carbon based. To little and we freeze too much and life roasts. The Temperature on Venus is around 950 degrees F. and the atmosphere on Venus is comprised of green house gasses 90 % of which is Co2

https://skepticalscience.com/pics/NATS_frequency.gif

The current research into the effects of climate change on tropical storms demonstrates not only the virtues and transparency of the scientific method at work, but rebuts the frequent suggestion that scientists fit their findings to a pre-determined agenda in support of climate change. In the case of storm frequency, there is no consensus and reputable scientists have two diametrically opposed theories about increasing frequencies of such events.
The background to these enquiries stems from a simple observation: extra heat in the air or the oceans is a form of energy, and storms are driven by such energy. What we do not know is whether we might see more storms as a result of extra energy or, as other researchers believe, the storms may grow more intense, but the number might actually diminish.
What do the records show? According to the Pew Centre, “Globally, there is an average of about 90 tropical storms a year”. The IPCC AR4 report (2007) says regarding global tropical storms: "There is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones."
But this graph, also from the Pew Centre, shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme:

But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.
And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.
What can we conclude from these studies? About hurricane frequency – not much; the jury is out, as they say. About climate change, we can say that these differing approaches are the very stuff of good science, and the science clearly isn’t settled! It is also obvious that researchers are not shying away from refuting associations with climate change, so we can assume they don’t think their funding or salaries are jeopardised by research they believe fails to support the case for AGW. The scientific method is alive and well.

Ah yes the old "adjusted data", comment in order to discredit any findings at all, all coming from the right propaganda engine. The hurricanes come from Africa whether they split to the Gulf or up the coast is insignificant, that depends on pressure zones(fronts), winds, currents (north Atlantic conveyor) all these things having an impact on steering a hurricane. But you are talking about the weather, which is difficult to predict on a daily level, on the other-hand climate increase is easy to record and track, and with a steady course easy to predict. You didn't read the baseball synopsis from a poster here, it was very well done and easy to understand.

""The President of Finland says to Trump, if we lose the tundra the human race is finished. ""

I'd like to know how losing the tundra will cause the extinction of the human race. LOL!

Look, most scientists will admit that the climate is changing for the warmer although a few still don't think so. What is becoming more and more accepted is that increased CO2 levels is not contributing to the warming. I've looked at so much data regarding climate change and the one thing which keeps popping up , or I should say the two things that keep popping up are:

1. In all of the core samples predating us by hundreds of thousands of years, there have been many warming a cooling periods and many rises and falls in CO2 levels but, the rises in CO2 are always subsequent to the temperature rises, not preceding it. In other words rises in CO2 levels is caused by warming, not the reverse. Just as medicine is now, for the most part, admitting that increased cholesterol levels is subsequent to heart disease and not the cause, CO2 is not the cause of global warming. One might note that as the number of fires increases so too does the number of firemen, but we know that firemen tend not to cause fires.

2. The green house effect of CO2 is being over estimated. Bring down that estimate in the computer models and there is NO global warming. And it is ONLY computer models which predict global warming based upon CO2 levels. One could postulate that CO2 is having "some" effect on climate, but it is minuscule.

Certainly there is not enough evidence of anything pointing to the extinction of man or supportive enough of man's contributions to over turn economies.

Hello nwtk...

Rather precise in your explanation, as well as the examples you use to orchestrate your collusion..

Ironically, my sister who is a Nurse Practitioner just sent me an article from the medical journal studies suggesting the very same about cholesteral levels before and after a heart attack..

Likewise your computer model association of what results are measured by and by what percentage is the common sense of the truth or fabrication of the supposed dangers of CO2.. That minuscule percentage is absolutely correct....

Always nice to see you..