Are severe storms increasing? Or becoming more intense?

I think it's mostly scare tactics. "Better your lives, or the big bad hurricane is coming to get you!" They have to make something up, now that less people believe in the bogeyman.

There was a Dutch politician (of the green party), who said after the big ass tsunami a few years ago, that we should stop global warming in order to prevent such disasters in the future. How far can she get her head up her ass? Considering that humans contribute around 3% of all green house materials (yes, all 7 billion of us, only 3%) and the Earth creates the other 97% naturally, and we've only being doing this for about 150 years and the Earth has been at it for millions, I think we give ourselves too much credit if we think we caused global warming, let alone that we can stop it.

Storms might get bigger (but I don't know, I'm not a meteorologist or hurricanologist, if they say they are sure they get bigger, I could believe that), and yes, they are very destructive if there is a lot of **** in the way (like New Orleans), but I don't think it's something we should feel guilty about. The weather is nice so I'm gonna burn some fossil fuel by going for a drive and I just started a really good book which I'm gonna read tonight by a 60 watt incandescent bulb. Sorry if a huge hurricane hits you, you may blame me, but I don't think it will be my fault.

 

One of the things I disagree with about the entire climate change debate is that a few scientists appear to be looking at the issue with blinders on. There does not appear to be any attempt to really look at history to validate the findings.

In this case the trend is certainly not conclusive (although it is interesting and bears continual study). There have been strong hurricanes for centuries in the written record, it seems incomplete to ignore those records.

 

I think it is sure plausible that we contribute to global warming. We have a couple giant coal fired power plants around here and their vast plumes remind me daily that we sure put a lot of extra energy into the atmosphere. Why is that supposed to not have consequences? Humanity's other industrial scale actions - be it industrial fishing, logging, air pollution etc pp - sure do have an impact. Why should CO2 (and other climate relevant) emissions be the exception?

We had a strong winter here (to my delight, I've been sorely missing snow the last years) but that doesn't disprove global warming either. More energy in the meteorological system will lead to more climate extremes. In that sense, cold winters and hot summers and a lot of storms or very violent ones would underline that. And the science does indicate that the Arctic glaciers, and glaciers everywhere for that matter, are melting.

Sure, I am not completely convinced about it since it may just be that, since we measure a lot more today, we may just notice more of the weather.

On the other hand, what climate sceptics in the US, funded by energy interests, do is something else entirely. Actually, it is very simple: If global warming was accepted generally, it creates a compelling case for emission regulation. The industry doesn't want that to happen. So they try, and have in part succeeded, to create an artificial controversy about the matter.

They are saying that, since nothing is proven, nothing must be done, and many more studies are needed. There is a name for that: 'Paralysis by analysis'. They don't want regulation, irrespective of it being sensible, simply because it costs money and reduces profits, and so they stall, using the aforementioned arguments - that the science is not all in, that it is too early to make a call etc pp. The so-called climate sceptics are a lot about that. It is disingenuous to take such assertions at face value.

My take is that our planets energy reserves are finite. They may last for a decade or two centuries, but they are finite. As a result, for us and for our children, conserving energy and resources makes sense. Anything else is irresponsible.

Low energy prices don't disincentivise waste - that starts with building standards necessitating energy intensive air condition (the Spanish were up to something when they built these massive stone buildings in the deep south) and it doesn't end with SUVs. I think that America is well advised to tax energy higher. As a result people will use it more carefully. Conservation and encouraging measures makes good sense even without global warming.

Not having power plants emit sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere makes good sense as well. The Republicans are in the US are at times fighting environmental standards that, to the credit of our otherwise obnoxious greens, are standard in Germany and other central European countries for decades now. IMO they are not doing their nation a favour. I still recall how those exhaust plumes looked thirty years ago, yellow. They're white now. Not perfect, but far less dirty. They got more efficient, too, as far as coal fired power plants go. Al that are good things.