So you have a model, framework, or hypothesis, but no data which proves it true. On the contrary, the data shows no trend of this . Of course global warming has been going on for some time, so exactly how long in your estimation will it take to prove this out?

Early data was from human observation. Hence, it is unreliable and likely under reports actual incidents. If you take that out or adjust the early numbers, I think the trendline is flat, at best. People did not sit in the middle of the Atlantic trying to measure all hurricanes. Landfall, in populated areas…

Here is the data set the Lomborg used. Would love to see what “Jay” used. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html

“Named Storm” is not necessarily a hurricane. That includes tropical storms, which are lower scale events. Here is the dataset from NOAA (slow to load) which Bjorn Lomborg uses. Would love to see your data set source. Feel free to cross check if you doubt his data.

Unfortunately, your logic doesn’t apply, Rebzelmele. All categories of hurricanes are down. Further, the strength of a hurricane is a measure independent of damage caused. Lastly, the suggestion that the data is incomplete is possible if somebody, anybody, can supply the facts to support that position. Beth? Your…

Here is the data. Would love to have someone show how it’s wrong.

Why was my post deleted? The data is clear, there are fewer, not more, hurricanes hitting the US since global warming became a “thing”. If you have data that shows otherwise, please share it. I would love to see it.

Pussy Prius driving authors will never understand what it means to own a truck .

They should take your dog away from you.