Al Gore's view…
From The Science is Settled Department. Three strikes for CSIRO today, and this last one is a peach, flatly contradicting all the Labor hype about more cyclones:
CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government suggests climate change could dramatically reduce the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region and decrease wave heights on the nation’s east coast.
The surprise findings, which appear to contradict some common predictions about the impact of climate change, are contained in scientific papers on “Projecting Future Climate and its Extremes”, obtained under Freedom of Information laws by The Australian Online. [Why did it need an FOI request? Were the CSIRO hiding it under a filing cabinet somewhere? I wonder why… – Ed]
One paper, by CSIRO researcher Debbie Abbs, found rising temperatures could halve the frequency of tropical cyclones.
“Climate change projections using this modelling system show a strong tendency for a decrease in TC numbers in the Australian region, especially in the region of current preferred occurrence,” Dr Abbs said.
“On average for the period 2051-2090 relative to 1971-2000, the simulations show an approximately 50 per cent decrease in occurrence for the Australian region, a small decrease (0.3 days) in the duration of a given TC and a southward movement of 100km in the genesis and decay regions.” (source)
So therefore, instead of imposing a carbon tax, perhaps the government should be paying us to burn coal and lessen the risk of damage from cyclones, right?
As usual, the science really doesn’t have the first clue about how the climate system works, and yet we are about to cripple our economy with a pointless carbon tax to “lessen the risks” from climate change? Facepalm.
Australian Climate Madness 
Fewer cyclones.
CHECK.
Smaller waves.
CHECK
Two more things for the list!
I note bigger waves is already on the list. (Everyone knows waves should be medium.)
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
DEBBIE ABBS: The intensity of the storms that we will get in the future is likely to be more intense. So of those smaller number of cyclones, the proportion of them that will occur in the severe categories will actually be greater.
Sorry Madness, I know you would not mind if I just added this small addition to your rant.
Cheers, thanks for that. Just adds weight to the claim that AGW is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, and therefore pseudo-scientific garbage.
is “likely” to be more intense?
Ha ha ha, one of these days we’re “likely” to get a straight answer from these scientific Shamans too I guess…
..and sawdust is “likely” to become a sceptic…
Here’s that “likely” again, followed by “we don’t know”. And I wonder what assumptions they make with those computer models:
“Dr Walsh said warnings about the increasing intensity of storms in a warmer Australia came from latest modelling and that “the most intense ones, when they occur, are likely to be more intense”.
“The difficulty is because there are fewer of them we don’t know whether in a warmer world there will be more of the really intense category 4 and 5 cyclones,” he said.”
http://www.news.com.au/national/brace-for-more-extremes-climate-experts-warn-after-queensland-floods-and-cyclone-yasi/story-e6frfkvr-1226034122759