# "Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 10, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982 "2013-05-10T12:10:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/261 "2013-06-14T20:52:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, there was a NOAA link also, but thank you for showing all that you are not paying attention, and as Science Friday on NPR reported, the NOAA guys are clearly not your friends. Oh, I quit paying attention quite a while back. I just pop in every now and then to remind people that you are a follower of a religion. Unfalsifiable claims, a “bible” of websites that tell you what you want to hear, a High Priest in Al Gore, and a carbon tax for a collection plate. Nobody can make a valid point except for you because some yahoo on the internet has already thought of the criticism and posted a rebuttal. You don’t seem very capable of independent thought in this area…you are a Fundie. I remember a while back I made a reference to Al Gore and you immediately posted a “rebuttal” from one of your worshipper websites to demonstrate how the “deniers” use ol’ Gore as a punching bag to smear the whole movement. Truly sad. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/262 "2013-06-14T20:52:33Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I guess I did predict what happened. It’s almost like I’ve seen this movie before. More silliness. If you are correct it should not be difficult to get a cite from a scientific organization that thinks that just looking at the last years is an honest thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/263 "2013-06-14T21:05:00Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Oh, I quit paying attention quite a while back. I just pop in every now and then to remind people that you are a follower of a religion. Unfalsifiable claims, a “bible” of websites that tell you what you want to hear, a High Priest in Al Gore, and a carbon tax for a collection plate. Nobody can make a valid point except for you because some yahoo on the internet has already thought of the criticism and posted a rebuttal. You don’t seem very capable of independent thought in this area…you are a Fundie. > > I remember a while back I made a reference to Al Gore and you immediately posted a “rebuttal” from one of your worshipper websites to demonstrate how the “deniers” use ol’ Gore as a punching bag to smear the whole movement. Truly sad. Yep. tlTrully sad to see false skeptics dumping even on the few real skeptical scientists that report that the warming is there but it will be not as bad. Clearly many did not get the memo. In reality what you are doing here is embracing a creationist level understanding of what scientists are reporting. And claiming that the one quoting science is following a religion is the scientific version of a godwin. It is an open admission that deniers ran out of ideas and resort to points that woo woo followers use: claiming that science is religion is indeed an overused card by followers of pseudoscience. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2013, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/264 "2013-06-14T21:33:39Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Oh, I quit paying attention quite a while back. I just pop in every now and then to remind people that you are a follower of a religion. Unfalsifiable claims, a “bible” of websites that tell you what you want to hear, a High Priest in Al Gore, and a carbon tax for a collection plate. Nobody can make a valid point except for you because some yahoo on the internet has already thought of the criticism and posted a rebuttal. You don’t seem very capable of independent thought in this area…you are a Fundie. > > I remember a while back I made a reference to Al Gore and you immediately posted a “rebuttal” from one of your worshipper websites to demonstrate how the “deniers” use ol’ Gore as a punching bag to smear the whole movement. Truly sad. This is great. I’ve been wanting a particularly egregious examples of using fallacies to make an argument. You have a unique talent, **yorick73**. I look forward to your future posts. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/265 "2013-06-15T00:59:18Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I guess I did predict what happened. It’s almost like I’ve seen this movie before. Disney’s 1st Law: “Wishing will make it so!” Using the Hardcrut3 plotting, [you can go back to 1850](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/trend). Your original plot showed a single en echelon cooling trend. But when we look back to 1850, we see that there are other “cooling” trends. Doesn’t matter–the overall linear trend is positive. Your conclusions are suspect. It’s because how you’re manipulating the data. Forget, for a moment, that it’s about AGW; let the data represent the expansion dynamics of the Pismo Beach Tsetse Fly, or Cygnus X-1’s consumption of space carrots. You haven’t provided a rational compelling arguments why you picked 2002 through the present, while tossing aside the rest. If your going to argue that there is a negative trend that seems to start in 2002 and continues to this day–then I’d say your argument is compelling and the data seems to support that conclusion. But _only_ from 2002 till present. On the other hand, let’s see what the trends are if we go back 20, 30, & 40 years ago: [1992](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1992/trend) [1982](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1982/trend) [1972](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1972/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1972/trend) You’ll note that the further we go back in time, the stronger the positive trend becomes. Run it back all the way to [1850](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/trend), and you can clearly see by the overall evidence for a positive trend vastly exceeds the negative ones. Tersely put: you’re cherry picking. The evidence you presented doesn’t stand up to scrutiny–and again–this is about _how_ you presented the data–not about _kind_. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/266 "2013-06-15T02:28:50Z")
I knew that no matter how clearly the information was presented, the alarmists just can’t look at what is being discussed. Which is global warming and hurricanes. The poor alarmists is, as I said multiple ways, faced with a conundrum. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > That isn’t a true claim. There has been no increase in at least 15 years, and a slight decrease since 2002. (don’t take my word for it, see [woodfortrees](http://www.woodfortrees.org/) to compare all the different datasets) > > The NH global average has dropped in the last 11 years. > > Which actually could explain why hurricanes haven’t been increasing. If there were some sort of linear connection between global average temperatures and hurricanes. Of course my points are ignored, and they want to argue global warming in the largest sense. The topic is asking about storms, warming, and what happened? Arguing global warming isn’t the issue. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Because there wasn’t any warming since 2004. In fact, both ocean/land temps globally have gone down since 2002. This places the entire thing in some weird climate conundrum, in which it can’t be both ways. (well, yes, some people want it both ways, but in science it can’t be both) > > The NH temps actually matter most because we are discussing NH weather, hurricanes. Not Pacific typhoons, which actually matter, but nobody really talks about them much. > > In any case, if hurricanes had increased, either in strength or numbers, since 2004, it wouldn’t mean warming was the cause. Because there wasn’t warming! > > You can check any dataset you want, they all show a decrease in global temps since 2002. Land and SSTs. I know a lot of people probably don’t know this. Once the warmer discovers this, they quickly hand wave it away as too short a time period yadday yadda yadda, which means nothing. Just as I said, the 11 year period being discussed is hand waved away, or the goal posts get moved. Anything rather than discuss storms and warming and what happened. Knowing full well the deep ocean missing heat would come up, I spoke to that issue, in regards to the storms. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Even if you believe that somehow, all the warming has, like magic, gone down to the deep ocean, it doesn’t change the SSTs, nor the fact that there has been no warming since 2002. In fact, there has been a decrease since 2002. That is an obvious fact, and important because we are discussing hurricanes and temperatures. If there wasn’t any warming, then the hurricane data makes sense, if the hypothesis is correct. That is the essential point, which no alarmists can discuss, because it means they have to admit that the records show troposphere temps and SSTs have slightly declined since 2002 > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I can see why an alarmists would want to avoid looking at the data. Pretty much all of the credible datasets for global temperatures (land or sea or combined) clearly show a cooling trend since 2002. > > Hadcrut3 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend) > > Hadcrut4 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend) > > RSS MSU > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2002/trend) > > Crutem4 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2000/plot/crutem4vgl/from:2002/trend) > > RSS land only > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:2000/plot/rss-land/from:2002/trend) > > Hadsst2 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend) > > Hadsst3 > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2000/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend) There is the data. Of course when you can’t just deny it, as GIGO has tried to do multiple times, you have to switch the conversation to something else. Even when I clearly stated that a short 11 year period is no important in the long run. To quote, “Again, an 11 year period that shows a downturn does not mean the warming is done” > [@FXMastermind](#): > > **Again, an 11 year period that shows a downturn does not mean the warming is done.** I brought it up to show why claiming warming in the last decade has resulted in “more intense” storms, or whatever it is being claimed. You can’t claim warming caused worse storms, when there was no warming. > > You can fall back to the “all those years were warm years”, but that just makes it worse for your argument. If all the years were the same, warm, and that resulted in worse storms, what the hell happened? Or the opposite as well. > > Looking at a longer period, you can see the obvious global warming that ends in 2002. > > [Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2002/trend) > > Which is why the “more intense” storms thing is so interesting. If that is true, the data shows why it didn’t happen. If you insist it did happen, it wasn’t due to increasing SSTs, or global temperature increase I don’t expect the alarmists to ever answer those points. Which is why they can’t actually discuss the topic. I note that some scientists are indeed discussing it, because it’s impossible to just ignore it any longer. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s because the warming stopped (actually temps decreased slightly, over an 11 year period) that we are seeing various reasons to “explain” it, while sticking with the basic “CO2 drives the climate” hypothesis. > > [Science News: Latest Development and Breakthroughs in Technology, Health, and More | NBC News](http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17708881-where-did-global-warming-go-the-deep-ocean-experts-say?lite) > > It didn’t “slow down”, as the data in the previous post shows. It actually reversed, but nobody promoting “global warming” can bring themselves to actually say that. > > Of course picking a start point to try and make a point isn’t proof of much, like how in 2009 the 11 year period shows a flat trend. See? I clearly stated “ **Of course picking a start point to try and make a point isn’t proof of much** ”. The 2002-2013 trend is on the table because of the hurricane issue, not to deny global warming. Not that there is any hope that an alarmist will honestly discuss the hurricanes. > [@user\_hostile](#): > > owed a single en echelon cooling trend. But when we look back to 1850, we see that there are other “cooling” trends. Doesn’t matter–the overall linear trend is positive. Nobody is challenging your religion. We are discussing hurricanes and warming in the last decade or so. Predictions were made, especially after 2004/2005 about monster storms. The “new normal”. Fear was created by climate experts, people were frightened. What happened? Which is why the the NH temps and SSTs are being discussed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/267 "2013-06-15T02:30:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And claiming that the one quoting science is following a religion is the scientific version of a godwin. It is an open admission that deniers ran out of ideas He says you’re making unfalsifiable claims; you say he’s run out of ideas – not that he’s _incorrect,_ since you happen to _be_ making unfalsifiable claims, but that it’s bad form for him to compare your unfalsifiable claims to a religion’s unfalsifiable claims. Why attack the comparison when you could simply remove it? Why not just provide a falsifiable claim, so that he’d stop being right? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/268 "2013-06-15T02:31:49Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Why not just provide a falsifiable claim, so that he’d stop being right? I got a hundred bucks that say he won’t even answer your question, much less ever make a testable claim. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/269 "2013-06-15T02:45:19Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Nobody is challenging your religion. We are discussing hurricanes and warming in the last decade or so. Predictions were made, especially after 2004/2005 about monster storms. The “new normal”. Fear was created by climate experts, people were frightened. > > What happened? Which is why the the NH temps and SSTs are being discussed. And of course you have not read the thread, but it is not my problem that you want to fall down in flames and at the same time demand that others follow your say so that is the \*\*reverse \*\*of what experts reported. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/270 "2013-06-15T02:46:42Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I got a hundred bucks that say he won’t even answer your question, much less ever make a testable claim. You lost already as he even congratulated me in this tread for doing so, he is sore for demanding that I do the same for the straw man point you are making. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/271 "2013-06-15T02:54:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You lost already as he even congratulated me in this tread for doing so, he is sore for demanding that I do the same for the straw man point you are making. You’ve indeed made a testable prediction about a tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise in temperature. You haven’t, as far as I can tell, made a testable prediction about hurricane intensity. I’m amazed that – so long as you’re making claims about both – you can be so obliging about the former and so obstinate about the latter. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/272 "2013-06-15T02:58:32Z")
And of course if it is a religion it should be easy to cite the scientific organizations that are reporting all this is bogus, but that cite will never come, only more cherry picking from organizations that are telling us what they are finding. As the refusal to deal with the fact that the la nina years are getting warmer shows \*, the ones that are really using religion cannot even tell others what scientists or organizations are agreeing with their nonsense. - those years are also “by coincidence” the years in a cycle that deniers are using to claim that there is no warming. > **[The Escalator](https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/273 "2013-06-15T03:02:24Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You’ve indeed made a testable prediction about a tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise in temperature. You haven’t, as far as I can tell, made a testable prediction about hurricane intensity. I’m amazed that – so long as you’re making claims about both – you can be so obliging about the former and so obstinate about the latter. Everyone else just needs to check Post #104 as our intrepid poster here is not capable of finding it. As reported before, showing all that you do not know what is a cherry pick and why one should avoid it should had been enough to show all who is not understanding the science. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/274 "2013-06-15T03:21:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Everyone else just needs to check Post #104 as our intrepid poster here is not capable of finding it. Yes, we’ve been over that one before: I noted that said post didn’t spell out what would prove your claim false, and instead of providing specifics you – castigated me for not using my imagination. Regardless of what happens in years to come, you can still say your prediction hasn’t yet been proven false – and you’d even be _right,_ since you haven’t actually said what would prove you _wrong._ Remember, I wouldn’t need to use my imagination if you’d simply lay out the terms of your choice. That you haven’t done so makes post 104 irrelevant. > [@](#): > > As reported before, showing all that you do not know what is a cherry pick and why one should avoid it should had been enough to show all who is not understanding the science. Are we back to _that_ again? Let me expand on my immediately prior post: you provided that testable tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade claim _after moving the goalposts from a second claim_, after moving the goalposts from a _first_ claim. Your first claim was, simply and only, that X number of years without warming would count against your position; I responded accordingly. Dopers should’ve descended on you like a plague of locusts o’er the land for picking that first criterion, but they didn’t; more’s the pity. You later realized your mistake and came up with a different criterion that wasn’t susceptible to a cherry-pick; I responded accordingly to that one likewise. You then came up with the current criterion, and I responded accordingly to that one. Even now, I stand ready to react accordingly if you propose a new and different criterion – yes, even one that’s susceptible to a cherry-pick. I hope you don’t; I hope you’ll now stick to claims that aren’t as ill-advised. But if you feel like moving the goalposts to a fourth spot, I’ll play along as ever. tl;dr? _You provide the criterion and I’ll respond accordingly._ That’s all there is. That’s all there ever was. There isn’t any more. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/275 "2013-06-15T03:51:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > tl;dr? _You provide the criterion and I’ll respond accordingly._ That’s all there is. That’s all there ever was. There isn’t any more. Bingo, and it was enough to show how broken your toy falsification tool really is, once again, simple logic should tell anyone that finding that there is no increase in intensity after the significant signal that Emmanuel and others found would be enough. And so is finding that all that measured increase in energy and material in the background is not doing anything to the hurricanes that come. BTW I got confused in the last post and the cherry picking is actually directed to FXMastermind, but that another history, that one is of you not being able to take on “supporters” that are not really helping. Or it is that the support you get is so pathetic that you have to tacitly support the silliness that they post. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/276 "2013-06-15T04:30:46Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Oh, I quit paying attention quite a while back. I just pop in every now and then to remind people that you are a follower of a religion. Unfalsifiable claims, a “bible” of websites that tell you what you want to hear, a High Priest in Al Gore, and a carbon tax for a collection plate. . . . This isn’t the pit, so I can’t give this what it deserves. **GIGObuster** : keep on keeping on! You’re the voice of reason here. Please stay with it. I’m not able to do the research needed – I’m amazed that you can afford the time! I’m thankful that you do, and I always find your posts convincing. The fact that you don’t engage in straw-man crap of the type quoted above is only part of your convincing style of debate. My only request would be to try to keep from exhibiting anger. Damn hard, given how provocative some of the posts are here. But every time you say something snarky, no matter how true it is, it only bolsters their illusion of legitimacy. (But the comparison to Duane Gish was spot on. Alas, we are in the presence of creationist-style reality denial.) (Al Gore as High Priest? Yeah, yeah, and I’ll bet they’re still mad at Jane Fonda for being a Traitor. Get with the times, guys! There are lots of people far more influential today than Al Gore! It’s a silly straw-man attack for being seriously outdated!) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/277 "2013-06-15T04:31:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Bingo, and it was enough to show how broken your toy falsification tool really is, once again, simple logic should tell anyone that finding that there is no increase in intensity after the significant signal that Emmanuel and others found would be enough. Good heavens, man, that’s simultaneously (a) obvious, and (b) vague to the point of being useless. It requires no imagination on my part – or clarity on yours – to say that you’d be proven wrong if there’s no increase in intensity; my whole point is that you’re refusing to spell out what you think that means. For some reason, you keep repeating yourself and stopping one step short; it would take you less time and effort than you’ve spent on all these posts – indeed, probably less than you’ve spent on _any_ of these posts – to just define your terms: something something _average miles per hour,_ something something _duration of hurricanes_, something something _anything less than X amount of time could be disregarded as short-term weather and possibly a fluke, but anything more than Y years would be long-term climate and prove me wrong – no, don’t you cherry-pick a year; start from representative year Z._ > [@](#): > > BTW I got confused in the last post and the cherry picking is actually directed to FXMastermind, but that another history, that one is of you not being able to take on “supporters” that are not really helping. Or it is that the support you get is so pathetic that you have to tacitly support the silliness that they post. Well, here’s the part I’ll explicitly rather than tacitly support; the first part is my reply to _you,_ the second is his response to _me_: [QUOTE=FXMastermind] [QUOTE=The Other Waldo Pepper] And so you go on, spending time and effort composing reply after reply instead of simply ending my objection. [/QUOTE] I’ve run into this sort of thing on many other forums. Pointing it out won’t help, because as you probably know by now, to make a prediction means having to be accountable at some future date. [/QUOTE] I agree with him on that: _you’re not making a falsifiable prediction about intensity._ I agree with him that you can’t be held accountable at some future date, because your claims about future intensity are coy to the point of vagueness – and because of that, the rest is moot: insofar as your predictions are meaningless, he can’t possibly agree with you or contradict you. Did I tacitly support him when he said you’d never make a testable claim? Of course not; I stated that you’d done so – and, once you got “confused”, I promptly explained that you’ve moved the goalposts from one testable claim to another testable claim and thence to a third testable claim. Tell you what: if you’ll now make a testable claim about _intensity_ as you have for _temperature,_ and if FXMastermind then persists in his criticism, we can see whether I tacitly support him or explicitly support you. (Sure, maybe he’ll be obliging as soon as you’re obliging, but why not find out?) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/278 "2013-06-15T05:01:22Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Good heavens, man, that’s simultaneously (a) obvious, and (b) vague to the point of being useless. It requires no imagination on my part – or clarity on yours – to say that you’d be proven wrong if there’s no increase in intensity; my whole point is that you’re refusing to spell out what you think that means. Actually it refers to the other point I’m making, your toy falsification tool is broken. It is not vague at all to point that just a demonstration that what Emmanuel referred to is not taking place would falsify it, falsification does not depend on waiting for a trend, other scientists can check on the data for errors or show that other factors are missing that show his conclusions are off; so really, after so many years on going on about falsification the reality is that you can not begin to imagine logical ways to falsify this, IMHO the reason is simple, the implication all along is an attempt to show others that what Emanuel and others are doing is not science, this effort is just pathetic. Attached to that is the also ongoing denial that scientists did report on the “no trend up or down” on the number of hurricanes coming in a warming world, IMHO the effort here is that it does not fit with the denial narrative that claims that there is no science going on and the climate scientists are just alarmists, that it was climate scientists the ones that told a few to drop their idea that there was a trend in the numbers going up does not match the narrative that the “cabal” of scientists that are only pushing alarmism, Finding that in the real world scientists actually \*\*did \*\*use science to drop the idea that the numbers would increase does not compute to the false skeptics, it has to be ignored furiously at all costs. And many thanks to **user\_hostile, Trinopus** and all other that have no trouble identifying the clear dishonest points of other posters that our intrepid one here is not able to see how harmful is for his side to support them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/279 "2013-06-15T05:41:46Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > after so many years on going on about falsification the reality is that you can not begin to imagine logical ways to falsify this I shouldn’t have to imagine ways to falsify it! So long as you’re the one making the claim, you’re the one who should spell out what you mean by it! The weakness of your position can’t possibly be put in starker relief: you’re asked to name your own terms – and your only answer is to fault the guy making the request, saying he should use his imagination – and you denigrate those who compare so unfalsifiable a claim to the unfalsifiable claims of a religion? This couldn’t be more basic: that you heap vitriol on me for refusing to imagine up a criterion _for your prediction_ only emphasizes that _you’re failing to provide one to begin with._ If anyone else puts words in your mouth, you can always say they’re wrong; you, and only you, can clarify your own vague stance. Just “imagine” the logical reaction in literally any other context: a white supremacist says blacks are inferior – and refuses to say what could prove him wrong. _“Use your imagination,”_ he says. How would the SDMB react? How would you react? Sensibly, I hope – but this thread gives me reason to wonder. Someone tells you all _major_ diseases will be wiped out _before long_; what would prove him wrong? Only he can say. Why the heck wouldn’t you ask him? A man says he’ll bet you a thousand dollars the US will outperform China at the next Summer Olympics; _what does that mean?_ More medals? More gold medals? Some sort of weighted medal count? A per-capita medal count? He obviously has something in mind; shouldn’t he spell it out? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/280 "2013-06-15T06:03:30Z")
Meh, it is not hard to figure out a falsification, it is part of showing others how capable you are at your so called strength and it allows one to explain why a falsification is faulty, just telling others that it is “vague” is only stalling as **it is clear that you are implying that there are other less vague answers you know** , so it is your turn to show all that you do understand what the scientists are actually saying… Unless of course you are admitting that it was all part of the JAQ effort. The way to react to white supremacists is to show with quotes how off base their misinterpretations of the science is, and I already showed that in other threads that is not hard at all, even “vague” claims of falsification are not hard deal with when pseudoscience is being used by an opponent. Your continuous refusal at even looking for another simple quote that shows that the scientists preferred your interpretations just demonstrates how off base you remain. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=15)