It’s spelled Edgar Cayce, sorry and yes SD has covered his observations:What’s the scoop on Edgar Cayce, the "Sleeping Prophet"? - The Straight Dope
What’s the scoop on Edgar Cayce, the “Sleeping Prophet”?
January 16, 2001
What’s the scoop? Even the cite there already is telling us:
The reasons for the weather change coming from Casey are not the correct ones so I’m not impressed about a “psychic” that gets it wrong virtually all the time.
Yes they have, but I can’t give a link as it was on a talk show and I didn’t notice the name of the show.
I have no problem with reducing my carbon output- I use public transport as much as possible for a start.
However, I refuse to take the whole scenario seriously as our politicians do nothing other than introduce pointless taxes to actually make a difference.
When they stop jetting off for talk fests in foreign countries, and start using the train in their own country I’ll become engaged.
Obama likes to play up his pro alternative energy policies, but continues to fly around the US in his plane/ helicopter etc.
Very, very true. If Obama were *truly *serious about reducing emissions, he’d be *walking *everywhere!
Cite for that? That would had actually be progress on this front.
And this is once again the “wealthy popularizer” red herring, typically directed at people like Al Gore.
Indeed, just another excuse to not do anything and ignoring that a tax will also affect those rich popularizers.
Going back to the OP: It was supposed to, but it didn’t.
And showing to all that you did not read the thread, the OP was a straw man, the actual thing the scientists report is that there is no trend on the number of monster storms coming.
What does, “the OP was a straw man” mean?
The imaginary thing was to claim that the scientists were reporting that the number of hurricanes was increasing, when in reality the scientists report and most agree that there is no trend on the number of storms coming. What scientists found evidence is that even the usual number nature will send us are bound to be more intense because more energy and matter are present in the background.
The key word is “spawn” as in originating or source and the OP made clear that it was referring to the number of hurricanes increasing, the straw man was to setup the false idea that climate scientists did agree that hurricanes were going to increase, the problem was that the few that reported on the increase were shot down already by many other experts, hence the point was an imaginary one made with the purpose of discrediting the science and denying what the scientists are actually reporting.
That, and Edgar Cayce was loopy. 
Here’s more insight on the El Nino of 97/98:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2013-fire-year.html
Ok. whatever the OP:
- No more cat 3/4/5 hurricanes
- No more total cyclone energy.
An honest answer to that question would be a welcome change.
“Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.”
—Richard Feynman
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/HurrGlobalWarm.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/30/science/30hurricane.html?_r=0
One thing about being able to search and look at the past, it’s very difficult for somebody to lie about something that was published, and get away with it.
If anyone tries to tell you more and worse hurricanes were not predicted, and that “global warming” wasn’t the “cause”, you can be sure they are in denial of reality. There a thousand more sources that say exactly that.
Well I would think that one should not wish show to all that one is an ignorant on the meaning of what “not a trend”* is. But that is just me.
- (it does not mean that there will be no more hurricanes, it just means that there will be no more or less than the average number we see, and one should read the last Skeptical Science link to see that the impact of even a cat 1 has increased thanks to all the energy and material that has been added in the background)
Of course, reading comprehension is also needed, most of the papers deal indeed with the increase of intensity, not an increase of the numbers, just as mi point and the current understanding is, the rise of the straw man just continues. And only one that thinks that papers from the past can never be dismissed with more up to date evidence is just telling others that the climate scientists are not doing science, they are.
Good to know that is precisely the point I and many scientists are making, but the straw man has to be propped up.
Once again: Worse hurricanes **are **predicted because an increase in the energy and material in the background, that increase in intensity has already been detected.
The OP claimed that the scientists told us the numbers of the hurricanes would increase, that is false. The truth is more nuanced and while there is a silver lining (so far) that the number of hurricanes will not increase in a warming world the increase in intensity of the regular number that will come is just another reason why CO2 emissions should be controlled. Incidentally the other more likely problems the increase in GWG will bring are already being detected and they are still an issue, like the increase in regional droughts, Melting of the ice, rise of the oceans, ocean acidification, crop loss, etc.
Just wanted to pop back in and add:
- I still have no idea what hypothetical evidence could prove you wrong on this count.
- I’m not sure anyone can say. Ají de Gallina certainly can’t; FXMastermind certainly can’t; people keep bringing up points you dismiss as irrelevant, but you never seem to spell out what would be relevant.
I get that each year from now until the end of the century could involve the number of hurricanes staying the same or dropping a bit – and the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes likewise, and the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land likewise, all while tornadoes maybe plummet to nothing – and still you could stamp your foot and insist you were right all along; that it was never about the number of hurricanes, but their intensity.
But what could make you admit you were dead wrong about intensity increasing? You don’t say; you rule some things out, but rule nothing in.
If you’d like to clarify – or if anyone reading this thread feels they can divine your answer – I’d love to hear it, so I can see whether it happens to occur.
And here we go again. An “increase in regional droughts,” he says. If there are more such droughts in years to come, doubtless you’ll declare victory; if fewer, doubtless you’ll say it’s the not the number but the intensity of said droughts.
(And if someone asks, ahead of time, what hypothetical evidence would prove you wrong about those droughts? Why, you can of course refuse to provide any specifics about falsification – as you now do with regard to the intensity of hurricanes.)
I stopped even trying. If reality won’t sway somebody, then no amount of logic or reason will matter.
Sure, more cluelessness from the usual.
So, no other quote from the scientists to demonstrate that there is even support for other interpretations, for a point that is not mine.
And FXMastermind is still pretending that he can ignore all the evidence that shows he is pathetically **demonstrating **the point I’m making and he thinks that he is contradicting me.
No, see, we’re not at that point yet; we can’t look for “other interpretations” until we actually know what your point is.
It’s the old bit about how “ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them”: nobody can refute you – not with facts, and not with quotes about facts – until you mention what you think a decrease in intensity would look like. You’re not ruling out a decrease in the number of hurricanes – or the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes, or the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes relative to all hurricanes, or the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land; those, we could measure. Instead, you’re predicting an increase in intensity; what does that mean? How will we know if you’re wrong? What’s the opposite of your prediction?
You don’t say. We can’t tell.
You reject points as irrelevant – instead of spelling out what would be relevant. You fault me for not using my imagination about your vague position – when you could provide specifics.
I wrote that (a) I have no idea what evidence could even hypothetically prove your prediction wrong, and that (b) FXMastermind likewise can’t say; FXMastermind’s reply: “I stopped even trying.” It’d sure be hard for either of us to think we’re contradicting you; we don’t know what your position is.
(I added that, if anyone here can say what you think would falsify your position, I’d love to hear it. I repeat the invitation: if anybody believes you’ve made an actual prediction about what’s to come with hurricane intensity, they can easily prove it: mention what, at a minimum, would have to occur in years to come before we can say, Yep, GIGObuster was completely incorrect; the exact opposite happened.)