Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

There’s no scientific evidence of ‘human-induced climate change’ causing stronger hurricanes

Published

7 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Paul Schwennesen

The scientific consensus on hurricanes, which isn’t covered by breathless climate reporting, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. We must demand honesty and contextual complexity on climate reporting.

As Hurricane Beryl barreled its way across the Gulf of Mexico and into the U.S. mainland, the attention-getting headlines had beaten it there by a long shot – claims that it was a remarkable outlier were appearing in climate-frantic narratives more than a week earlier.

CBS News claimed it was “historic,” alongside headlines on “How to talk to your kids about climate anxiety.” The BBC reported that it was “the first hurricane to reach the category four level in June since NHC [National Hurricane Center] records began and the earliest to hit category five – the highest category – in July.” While technically true, and warranting some mention, the claims tend to misrepresent, by implication and association, the current scientific understanding of hurricanes and human impacts on climate change.

The scientific consensus on hurricanes, a consensus not covered by breathless reporting on climate, is that humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. The National Climate Assessment published by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, for instance, in Appendix 3 reads:

There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has any trend been identified in the number of US land-falling hurricanes.

So what’s actually going on? Is Beryl’s historic early arrival an indication of something fundamentally different about hurricane activity? Does it or does it not represent the bitter fruit of humanity’s ecological sins? The answer is almost certainly not. Rather, the hype around Beryl’s early arrival represents a major misunderstanding, a mass-bias phenomenon which sees evidence where evidence doesn’t really exist.

Historically speaking, of course, hurricanes are commonplace in the Gulf. “Hurricane” derives from the prehistoric Taíno name for the god of evil winds, Jurucán. The Spanish quickly adopted the name to describe the violent storms which wreaked such havoc on their exploratory efforts in the New World. Both the 1527 Narváez and 1539 De Soto expeditions, for example, were pummeled by hurricanes that may well have reached category five, had the NHC been around to classify them as such. So while it is conceivable that Beryl is a major anomaly and portent of evil tidings, it is very unlikely to be.

Instead, its media portrayal as Exhibit A in the case for anthropogenic climate change is fundamentally inaccurate. Today’s dire headlines are a perfect example of what Steve Koonin, in his book Unsettled, calls “the long game of telephone that starts with the research literature and runs through the [scientific] assessment reports to the summaries of the assessment reports and on to the media coverage.”

The media, he says, often end up distributing a narrative that is directly counter to the actual evidence. They do this partly from misunderstanding the scientific and statistical significance of observations, but mostly because extreme headlines fit a generally understood narrative. Such reports are far more likely to be recognized and absorbed by the news-reading public. This selective attention pushes a bias toward extremism in climate reporting that significantly inflames the political climate, to our collective detriment.

Instead, what happens is that reports which are technically true (like Beryl’s record early arrival) make it into the common current only if they fit the general alarmist narrative. The BBC perfectly exemplifies this in its coverage, noting that “Hurricane Beryl’s record-breaking nature has put the role of climate change in the spotlight.” It then goes on to say, toward the end of an article most people will never fully read:

The causes of individual storms are complex, making it difficult to fully attribute specific cases to climate change. But exceptionally high sea surface temperatures are seen as a key reason why Hurricane Beryl has been so powerful.

This is how the slight-of-hand works: BBC reporters, no doubt in interviews with hurricane experts, were obliged to quibble somewhat about the implications of Beryl’s record-setting classification. They properly note that it is “difficult” (impossible, in fact) to attribute Beryl’s record to climate change as such. And they are correct that high sea surface temperatures are a major factor in Beryl’s extraordinary rise. But it is the way these technical truths are presented that leads to errors in association. Very few casual readers would be likely to read the article, headlined with “How record-breaking Hurricane Beryl is a sign of a warming world” and not make an inductive leap to the causal inference of human-induced warming. This is a problem, because such an inference is in fact not substantiated by any scientifically accepted observations.

Now, to be sure, this works both ways. This is not a claim that human emissions have no impacts, after all, only that we must be very careful about what the evidence actually says before channeling it into policy recommendations. Nor is my point that we can safely disregard all negative reports about the environment, since there are clearly issues that warrant our genuine collective attention. For instance, I’ve played a bit of sleight-of-hand myself: I correctly noted that major hurricanes are below the historical average, but I did not highlight the fact that overall hurricane count is up. Likewise with the Great Barrier Reef: while coral coverage is remarkably up, the kind of monoculture coral crop accounting for the rise still leaves room for ecological concern.

The real point is that we must demand honesty, including contextual complexity, on climate reporting. Especially since the stakes are so high (either in matters of our environment or individual liberty), we cannot afford to play games with half-truths and obfuscations. Intelligent free people deserve fuller, more comprehensive, less-activist reporting on climate change. Beryl has made a record of sorts, yes. What that record really means in the context of human-induced climate change is fundamentally, scientifically unknown. Maybe that would be a better headline.

Reprinted with permission from the American Institute for Economic Research.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Business / 3 hours ago

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Agriculture / 8 hours ago

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Business

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Published on March 6, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By 

Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.

All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.

Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”

“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.

On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.

Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.

In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.

In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

Continue Reading

International

Pursuing world peace: Trump’s secret peace talks with Hamas a stunning break from decades of neocon policy

Published on March 6, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The Trump administration is pursuing a clean break with the approach of the last 70 years. Perhaps the only hope for peace lies in breaking the rules of the old rules-based order.

As Donald Trump publishes a stark warning to Hamas, news emerges that his administration is also engaged in direct negotiations with the militant group to secure a lasting peace deal in Gaza.

A statement released on Trump’s Truth Social account and by the White House reads:

“Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted! I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say.”

The statement followed Trump’s meeting at the White House with some of the Israeli hostages released following a deal brokered by his initiatives and led by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff.

 

“We believe you have been sent by God to save us,” Trump was told. Israel media reported hostage relatives asking, “Why does Witkoff (Steve Witkoff, US Envoy to the Middle East) answer us but not our own ministers?”

Trump is credited by the released hostages and their families with saving their lives, whilst Israeli leader Netanyahu has been accused of having “sabotaged” every hostage deal for the past year, with his own national security minister saying Netanyahu “sacrificed the hostages for his own personal interests” in January. The deal to release the hostages was secured because Trump “pressured” Netanyahu into accepting it, Israeli sources say.

Donald Trump’s message to Hamas and to the people of Gaza was stark:

Yet an exclusive report from Axios yesterday showed the Trump administration is also engaged in secret and direct negotiations with Hamas.

“The Trump administration has been holding direct talks with Hamas over the release of U.S. hostages held in Gaza and the possibility of a broader deal to end the war, two sources with direct knowledge of the discussions tell Axios.”

The White House confirmed the historic move.

Direct talks with Hamas were described by Reuters as having broken a “long- standing diplomatic taboo,” with their report also noting the Israeli response to the news.

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office issued a statement saying: ‘Israel has expressed to the United States its position regarding direct talks with Hamas.’ It did not elaborate but Israel, which along with many other countries considers Hamas a terrorist organization, refuses to negotiate directly with the group.”

The pursuit of direct bilateral talks with the “enemy” here mirrors the approach pursued by the U.S. in reopening and normalizing diplomatic channels with the Russians – suspended by the Biden administration for around three and a half years.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this week it was notable that “normal conversation” had resumed between his nation and the U.S.

 

The return of direct diplomacy is a signal that the Trump administration is serious about peace, and whilst stressing its power to respond with overwhelming in force in both theaters of war, has been willing to engage with the Russians and with Hamas to break the deadlock.

This is a significant departure from the decades of policy which produced escalation, emergencies, and periodic wars in place of rational compromise and peace.

Israeli commentator Ori Goldberg, a former academic in Middle East Studies, framed the situation as a choice between a leader who is for peace, and another who is for war.

 

Trump’s direct threats in public are partnered with direct negotiations in private, with the goal seemingly to return hostages and remove the leadership of Hamas from Gaza. It is likely these negotiations will feature the vastly higher number of Palestinian hostages held by the Israelis, whose appalling treatment has included rape with metal rods – a practice endorsed in the Israeli parliament and discussed favorably on Israeli daytime TV.

The ultimatum to Hamas follows Trump’s “Mar-A-Gaza” plan for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip along the lines of a holiday resort, which would seemingly entail the mass expulsion of the Palestinian population.

In response to this proposal, which has been met with widespread condemnation and outcry, Arab leaders have produced an Egyptian-led counter-proposal for the future of Gaza, involving $35 billion of Arab-led investment. This plan, rejected by the Israelis, would see Egypt assume security supervision of Gaza in place of Hamas, and would permit the Palestinians to remain in Gaza as reconstruction is undertaken. U.S. national security spokesman Brian Hughes said the plan, which will be presented to Trump in the coming weeks, did not recognize that Gaza was now “uninhabitable.”

Meanwhile, the crisis flowing from Netanyahu’s actions – and inaction – undertaken to consolidate his grip on power continues to develop. Controversy over the failings of the Israeli government and army to prevent the October 7 attacks continues to deepen.

The new IDF (Israeli army) chief of staff, ignoring Netanyahu’s strong opposition, has ordered a “re-examination” of the army’s actions during the October 7 attacks. The previous army chief, Herzi Halevi, has resigned – citing his and the Netanyahu government’s failure to protect Israelis.

Netanyahu “dismissed” a warning from Shin Bet, the Israeli security service, issued five months in advance of the attacks, as Haaretz reports. Whether Netanyahu deliberately sabotaged the hostage deal, or refused to act on warnings about October 7, the Israeli leader is beset with questions he refuses to answer.

He is increasingly being seen, inside and outside Israel, as the main problem, being implacably opposed to any attempts to find solutions that would give several decades oppressed Palestinians any new rights and their own state.

Having been in power for most of the last 16 years, Netanyahu can be charged not only with corruption, but with having managed Israel into what has become an existential crisis the tiny nation has never before experienced to this degree. His political future, very similar to that of also corrupt, Jewish Ukrainian president Zelensky, appears to be staked on making any lasting peace impossible.

The reality behind the headlines once again reveals the development of a new geopolitical order beneath the sensational chaos of the current news cycle.

The Trump administration is pursuing a clean break with the approach of the last 70 years. That consistent pattern of repeatedly broken agreements, war crimes, propaganda, atrocities, and ruinous regime change has been part of the process intended to sabotage any chance of peace through periodic escalations and a permanent state of emergency punctuated by all-out war.

After decades of politics dominated by an ongoing death machine, perhaps the only hope for peace lies in breaking the rules of the old rules-based order and placing the protection of ALL innocent human lives as the top priority.

Continue Reading

Trending

X