[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by sounding

What's to debate? There's no debate -- but there are consequences -- depending on which groups you hang out with. Just Google "landfalling hurricanes" (with quotes) and you get 30,000 hits. Landfalling hurricanes are one of many trigger-points for children who throw paint on artwork and stand in the middle of roads to stop traffic and stand on blocks of ice on makeshift gallows to protest a non-problem -- called global warming. So now, officially, there is one more landfall hurricane -- but it is another in a long list of junk-science statistics -- Nicole did not hit Florida as a hurricane. In fact, there are many who don't even think Nicole ever attained hurricane strength to begin with -- because there is no validated supporting evidence -- unless you can find some. People and offices and media can say anything -- but when you ask them to provide supporting data, they change the subject, or call you a denier. And this is why the Weather Club keeps growing in size because they want to see the "data," so can see for themselves what is going on. You don't need to be a scientist to read temperature and wind data.

Where can I find the validated supporting evidence that Ian was a hurricane? That might be a good place to start looking for the Nicole evidence.

Alternately, where is the validated supporting evidence that Nicole was not a hurricane? Surely there must be data to show the wind speed was under hurricane rating throughout the entire life of the storm.