# "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:** 15
**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, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/281 "2013-06-15T06:48:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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** , What? No. That’s not – no. I’m implying nothing of the sort. I’m explicitly stating the exact opposite. Are you “confused” again? Take a step back. Put aside climate change for a moment. Say someone – call him Ogig – made a claim that, as it happens, _in fact is impossibly vague._ And when you ask him to clarify his own claim, he says (a) you’re stalling, and adds that (b) you’re “implying that there are other less vague answers you know”. That would be a complete non sequitur, right? It’d make no sense. It’d be utterly incorrect. _You’re utterly incorrect now._ That bit you bolded for emphasis _could not be more wrong._ That’s all there is. There isn’t any more. I’m flatly saying I want to know what you think would prove your claim wrong – because I don’t know what you think would prove your claim wrong. That’s it. That’s all. Nothing else is being implied. Nothing else should be inferred: I don’t know the answer; you do. The fact that you’re going on and on about my imagination proves it: if you’d already supplied the answer, you wouldn’t need me to imagine one! > [@](#): > > Unless of course you are admitting that it was all part of the JAQ effort. “JAQ”? I’m expressly asking you to clarify your own claim – because you keep telling me to use my imagination, when you could supply the actual answer. I’m not trying to imply a particular answer, or suggest that I already know a less-vague one; I’m requesting yours, and flatly saying why, and full stop. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m not offering an interpretation! You’re offering a prediction – and instead of interpreting it myself, I’m asking you to interpret it! The reason I ‘refuse to look for one’ is that I’m not the one making a prediction. By contrast, you _are_ the one making a prediction; you don’t need to look for a cite, _you can be your own cite!_ You could supply the answer right now! Given that you’re making a prediction, what’s the reason for your refusal? ---
**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, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/282 "2013-06-15T07:04:49Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What? No. That’s not – no. I’m implying nothing of the sort. I’m explicitly stating the exact opposite. Are you “confused” again? > > Take a step back. Put aside climate change for a moment. Say someone – call him Ogig – made a claim that, as it happens, _in fact is impossibly vague._ And when you ask him to clarify his own claim, he says (a) you’re stalling, and adds that (b) you’re “implying that there are other less vague answers you know”. > > That would be a complete non sequitur, right? It’d make no sense. It’d be utterly incorrect. > > _You’re utterly incorrect now._ That bit you bolded for emphasis _could not be more wrong._ > > That’s all there is. There isn’t any more. I’m flatly saying I want to know what you think would prove your claim wrong – because I don’t know what you think would prove your claim wrong. That’s it. That’s all. Nothing else is being implied. Nothing else should be inferred: I don’t know the answer; you do. > > The fact that you’re going on and on about my imagination proves it: if you’d already supplied the answer, you wouldn’t need me to imagine one! Nonsense, in the thread going on right now about UFOs in GD shows, a proponent has been very vague on the “strong” evidence about a UFO encounter, It was not hard to find out that the records show that there was no confirmation of almost all the incidents that the UFO proponents claimed took place in an Air Force base. Even when we do not know for sure what “strong” evidence he is talking about (indeed that is what vague **is** ), the information is not hard to find and [It shows how off base the UFO proponent is](http://www.scribd.com/doc/42303580/Echo-Flights-of-Fantasy-Anatomy-of-a-UFO-Hoax-by-James-Carlson), so, regardless if he was vague all along it is not hard to find information to falsify his say so. The take home point here is that it should not be hard for you to find plenty of evidence on what can falsify a paper, unless you are already aware of how lousy the contrarian sources are indeed. But the problem here is also that your definition of “vague” is silly, there is nothing vague on reporting that finding that finding that there is no significant increase on the intensity of the hurricanes on later surveys would be enough. It is really silly to claim that that and other simpler falsifications (Checking his data and finding a flaw) are vague. ---
**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, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/283 "2013-06-15T07:24:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The take home point here is that it should not be hard for you to find plenty of evidence on what can falsify a paper, unless you are already aware of how lousy the contrarian souses are indeed. Are you “confused” again? I’m not out to falsify _ **a paper** _; I want to know what will falsify _ **your** _ predictions. How I can make that any clearer? > [@](#): > > But the problem here is also that your definition of “vague” is silly, there is nothing vague on reporting that finding that finding that there is no significant increase on the intensity of the hurricanes on later surveys would be enough. It is really silly to claim that that and other simpler falsifications (Checking his data and finding a flaw) are vague. Again, checking _ **his** _ data and finding a flaw isn’t the point. As usual, you come right up to the edge before stopping short: I’m asking, repeatedly and straightforwardly, what _you_ think will prove _your_ vague prediction wrong. Anyone reading this thread should be able to follow along: I keep noting that you can clarify _your own remarks_ by providing falsification criteria, and you keep replying that I’ve failed to imagine the specifics you refuse to supply. Have you spent all this time mistakenly thinking I’ve been after something else? ---
**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, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/284 "2013-06-15T07:28:14Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Are you “confused” again? I’m not out to falsify _ **a paper** _; I want to know what will falsify _ **your** _ predictions. How I can make that any clearer? > > Again, checking _ **his** _ data and finding a flaw isn’t the point. As usual, you come right up to the edge before stopping short: I’m asking, repeatedly and straightforwardly, what _you_ think will prove _your_ vague prediction wrong. > > Anyone reading this thread should be able to follow along: I keep noting that you can clarify _your own remarks_ by providing falsification criteria, and you keep replying that I’ve failed to imagine the specifics you refuse to supply. Have you spent all this time mistakenly thinking I’ve been after something else? Nope, you are only JAQ. The effort is only geared to get a second hand opinion from one that is pointing at the science so as to get some silly rhetorical point going and never bother to show if there is any understanding of the science coming from you in the first place, as there is no cite coming from you to show that indeed you were not cherry picking the quote from the scientist, the evidence is just accumulating that indeed you do not want to learn anything. ---
**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, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/285 "2013-06-15T07:55:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, you are only JAQ. That’s simply incorrect; I’m asking you _what you think would prove you wrong_ because _I don’t know what you think would prove you wrong._ Though you keep claiming otherwise, I’m not doing so to imply anything else: I’m flatly stating that I don’t know the answer because you refuse to spell it out. I don’t need to hide that behind a JAQ approach; I’m telling you exactly what I think while patiently explaining why I’d like your answer. It’s frankly bizarre that you’d call that a JAQ. > [@](#): > > The effort is only geared to get a second hand opinion from one that is pointing at the science so as to get some silly rhetorical point going and never bother to show if there is any understanding of the science coming from you in the first place, as there is no cite coming from you to show that indeed you were not cherry picking the quote from the scientist, the evidence is just accumulating that indeed you do not want to learn anything. Good heavens, man; I keep asking what _you_ think would prove _your_ prediction wrong; what could be clearer evidence that I in fact, _want to learn_ what you think would prove your prediction wrong? You refuse, and I ask again. You refuse, and I ask again. You make a slew of incorrect statements, and yet I persist _precisely because I want to learn your answer._ Don’t tell me what you think my effort is geared to get; you may well be incorrect. Tell me what you think will prove you wrong; you can’t help but be correct. ---
**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, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/286 "2013-06-15T08:48:28Z")
It is not “may” it is. ---
**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, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/287 "2013-06-15T11:10:47Z")
Waldo Pepper I appreciate what you are doing. I actually have no idea what sort of mental state a person can be in and not get what you have said, the point you are making. It’s why I mock certain kinds of people I run across online, which probably isn’t a very good method of persuading, but it’s also pretty obvious that nothing is going to matter. Like pointing out that according to all the data, there has been this unexpected flatline, or worse, a slight decline (not significant, due to statistics) in global temp anomalies. I brought it up because of the hurricane intensity question. It’s not relevant in regards to the long term warming trend IMNSHO, which I stated up front. Doesn’t matter. That simple fact is so threatening to the “warming movement” (whatever that is) that it can’t be acknowledged. It doesn’t matter. I looked at the North Atlantic and global hurricane data. Certainly no increase of late, using total energy as a measure. In fact, quite a drop since the peak in 2005/2006, which would seem very odd if hurricane energy was related to global heat energy. Which is why I brought in the global temperature anomalies. Looking at the recent trend, be it due to deep ocean heating, increased pollution, clouds or the quiet sun (or all of that), the measured SSTs and troposphere data show a cooling trend. (even with the massive 2010 warmth). The reaction to finding out the trend is negative since 2002 isn’t unexpected, but it certainly is lacking in anything of value. I saw the 2002-to-present trend data mentioned in a paper on another subject. So I checked and sure enough, there is this slight downward trend, which was surprising. But not nearly as much as finding out about the widespread boreal winter cooling, that starts in 88. It’s a shame there isn’t a single global warming topic here, for discussing general information. But obviously that would be a disaster. ---
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/288 "2013-06-15T16:14:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Waldo Pepper > > I appreciate what you are doing. I actually have no idea what sort of mental state a person can be in and not get what you have said, the point you are making. It’s why I mock certain kinds of people I run across online, which probably isn’t a very good method of persuading, but it’s also pretty obvious that nothing is going to matter. Past experience only shows that the idea is to defend a cherry pick to death. Not my problem that you guys are getting the fame of cherry pickers over here. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Like pointing out that according to all the data, there has been this unexpected flatline, or worse, a slight decline (not significant, due to statistics) in global temp anomalies. I brought it up because of the hurricane intensity question. It’s not relevant in regards to the long term warming trend IMNSHO, which I stated up front. > > Doesn’t matter. That simple fact is so threatening to the “warming movement” (whatever that is) that it can’t be acknowledged. It doesn’t matter. Only that the scientific organizations, even the ones cherry picked to say what you want conclude the opposite of what you claim. And local conditions are acknowledged, it is a common factor that denial sources even deny that scientists also deal with that acknowledgement. Once again, it is not enough to override the big -non cherry picked- picture. [http://www.ipcc.ch/publications\_and\_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2.html](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2.html) > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s a shame there isn’t a single global warming topic here, for discussing general information. But obviously that would be a disaster. The disaster is being avoided by not citing properly, but it seems that you are aware of how shitty your sources are. I noticed that when shown how acute your cherry picking is then no cites are coming. As pointed before, not even NOAA is listening to any of your sources. Scientists are talking now with the understanding that the points of the false skeptics have no weight at all where it counts. [http://m.npr.org/programs/all/5/191614377](http://m.npr.org/programs/all/5/191614377) > [@](#): > > THERESA BRITSCHGI: Hi. I’m Theresa Britschgi, and I’m from Seattle Biomedical Research Institute. In addition to doing infectious disease research, we contribute a great deal of time, our scientists, in working with the community and being with teachers and using scientific content and practices to help our teachers convey these messages into students. And often our teachers want to talk to us about the overlap between climate change and global infectious diseases such as malaria, insect-borne diseases. Do you have any comments that we could contribute back to our learning communities on this topic? > > FEELY: Yeah. I think that - as you might suspect that there is a very strong connectivity between climate change and ocean acidification. The very cause of climate change is the CO2 that’s released in the atmosphere and the continued use of fossil fuel for energy and the dependence on foreign oil. This all contributes to climate change. > > And now if we see the connection between the impacts of climate change on land and affecting us in terms of the storms and in terms of sea level changes and flooding, now we connect that up with the impacts on our ocean ecosystems and how - they may be changing in the future. I think there’s a very strong connection that we should make that link to, and really get the point across that what humankinds are doing and the choices we need to make over next century have a huge impact on our planet. > > I like to say that the decisions we make over the next 10 or 20 years would have an impact on our oceans for the next hundreds of thousands to millions of years. > > FLATOW: Wow. > > FEELY: We really need to make a careful decision here. > > FLATOW: Right. We can’t stop on our more dramatic melt than that. Now, I want to thank both of you for joining us today. Richard Feely, senior scientist at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory here in Seattle. And Benoit Eudeline is the hatchery production and research director at Taylor Shellfish Farms in Quilcene, Washington. Thank you both for taking time to be with us today. > > FEELY: Thank you. So, that is the disaster for the false skeptics, not even the real skeptical scientists deny the warming. And even the ones that do acknowledge the warming are getting the reasons for the warming wrong. [http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/07/bad-week-for-roy-wrong-way-spencer/](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/07/bad-week-for-roy-wrong-way-spencer/) [http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/19/measuring-temps-no-thermometers/](http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/19/measuring-temps-no-thermometers/) Point here is that that is one of the main reasons why NOAA and other scientific groups go for the current consensus, is that the contrarians are constantly getting wrong. And worse are the bloggessors that have no science and continue to mislead or cherry pick, slightly useful for discussions in an internet forum (To discredit the ones pushing their sorry denial points) but completely useless where it counts. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/289 "2013-06-15T17:30:04Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Sometimes the correct thing is to say we don’t know. Sometimes. But in regards to this topic, certainly some people claimed they did know, and now that time has shown them to be wrong, it’s easy enough to simply say they were wrong. Same for the fact that warming has not continued as the models predicted. IMHO this does not mean there isn’t change happening, because there certainly is. It’s looking very much like the climate change happening doesn’t fit the insane claims some people made about it. Not that you see many people admitting anything, much less being wrong. ---
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/290 "2013-06-15T17:36:49Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Sometimes. But in regards to this topic, certainly some people claimed they did know, and now that time has shown them to be wrong, it’s easy enough to simply say they were wrong. And scientists were the ones that found that error, so much for being alarmists. And this also my point here, anyone can read that you did link to sources that actually supported what I said, It was a snapshot of how scientists concluded that there is no trend on the number of hurricanes that will come in a warming world, but there is already an observed increase in the intensity, and that increase in intensity does not depend only in the category number of the hurricane. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Same for the fact that warming has not continued as the models predicted. IMHO this does not mean there isn’t change happening, because there certainly is. It’s looking very much like the climate change happening doesn’t fit the insane claims some people made about it. Not that you see many people admitting anything, much less being wrong. And you are not even right, once again, the scientists do not depend on computer models, not even the item we are focusing is based on computer models, Emmanuel is using the current data to report on the found increase in intensity. And your position depends on this being a conspiracy, scientists do not support your say so’s. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/OJ6Z04VJDco/hqdefault.jpg "27 -- The evidence for climate change WITHOUT computer models or the IPCC") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) Sources: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8WrE63\_\_I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO8WrE63__I) (inside “Show More”) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/291 "2013-06-15T18:18:32Z")
I imagine that even if we had CO2 at 600 ppm and ice sheets 3 meters thick for 3 centuries and still it’d be a) “Piffle” b) “Discredited source” c) A pompous skeptical science link. for example when [73 climate models](http://www.coyoteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png)(basically all of them plus all IPCC reports) are warmer than actual measurements it’s still be a) “Piffle” b) “Discredited source” c) A pompous skeptical science link. ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/292 "2013-06-15T19:04:45Z")
And thak you for showing all how difficult is for you to check the last cite. For anyone else it is clear that the last poster is proud to remain ignorant of how scientists do not rely on computer models nor the IPCC. Sad to see how proud they remain even if they pile up on demonstrating all how off base they are. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/293 "2013-06-15T19:36:03Z")
> [@user\_hostile](#): > > 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. If you thought that any of my post was an argument then there is very little I can do to help you. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/294 "2013-06-15T23:23:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And thak you for showing all how difficult is for you to check the last cite. You have the name of 73 datasets, all publicly avilable. 73 chances of proving me wrong. You try to make people read those unsefferable sks links or greenman’s soul-sucking videos on youtube. I like the straight quote to the real scientific data. > [@](#): > > For anyone else it is clear that the last poster is proud to remain ignorant of how scientists do not rely on computer models nor the IPCC. Sad to see how proud they remain even if they pile up on demonstrating all how off base they are. They DON’T rely on models? How can they tell us that the temperature will be higher in 100 years? Palantîri? The IPCC casus belli is their [projections, done by computer modelling.](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png)So, if they don’t use computer modelling and the actual onserbations show no warming, how can they tell us it will be hotter? ---
**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 16, 2013, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/295 "2013-06-16T02:37:16Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You have the name of 73 datasets, all publicly avilable. > 73 chances of proving me wrong. > You try to make people read those unsefferable sks links or greenman’s soul-sucking videos on youtube. I like the straight quote to the real scientific data. It was not Greenman but science writer Peter Hadfield, AKA Potholer54 but we knew already that you have trouble following. And no, there is no need to show that you are wrong, [you are not even wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong). > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > They DON’T rely on models? How can they tell us that the temperature will be higher in 100 years? Palantîri? > The IPCC casus belli is their [projections, done by computer modelling.](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png)So, if they don’t use computer modelling and the actual onserbations show no warming, how can they tell us it will be hotter? Missing the point also, and spectacularly, if you had looked at the evidence you would had seen that the projections are based on basic physics and what the atmosphere will most likely do when more CO2 is added. And you should had learn by now on not to rely on “I’m never telling all my groupies my reason for my site to exist was lie” Anthony Watts. > **[Anthony Watts](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts)** > > Willard Anthony Watts (1958–) is a former radio and TV weatherman and notable global warming denier. He has joined the denialist Heartland Institute as senior fellow for environment and climate.\[1\] He claims to have subscribed to AGW years ago before... > [@](#): > > The Surface Stations Project > > Ironically, Watts has done more to strengthen the scientific evidence for AGW than refute it (guess he really is an environmentalist). A conservative think tank, the Heartland Institute, published his “academic” work based on the Surface Stations data claiming that NOAA’s weather stations did not meet regulatory code and had collected unreliable data that exaggerated maximum temperatures.[4] Watts’ data, however, was collected by volunteers using only microsite data. When the data was reviewed in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, the authors found that the stations Watts flagged as unreliable were indeed unreliable…in the opposite direction. They had actually underestimated the maximum temperatures.[5] Good catch, Anthony! > > In 2011 Watts was back again, claiming to have new “research” that would prove the unreliability of the weather stations and shake the very foundations of AGW theory. In fact, when the paper was finally released, it came to essentially the same conclusion as the aforementioned Journal of Geophysical Research study: minimum temperatures at a number of stations were biased slightly upward and maximum temperatures biased slightly downward, thus canceling out the bias when averaged.[6] > > Watts is a former radio and TV weatherman, but as is typical of media weathercasters he has no academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines. Surprise, surprise. > [edit] BESTed > > In March of 2011, Anthony Watts appeared to stake his entire stance on the reliability of surface temperature data on a single upcoming study: the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST), an independent temperature record to be constructed using over 39,000 unique stations. On March 6th, Watts said on his blog: > > > [@](#): > > > > … I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise. So let’s not pay attention to the little yippers who want to tear it down before they even see the results. > > However, when BEST’s results confirmed the reliability of preexisting surface temperature records, Watts backpedaled.[7] Apparently, he was only willing to stake his claims on an independent study if it came to the conclusion he wanted. And yes, those are the sources people like Aji de gallina looks up to. The image he linked was coming from the Watts site, as usual, full of deniers looking at good data and just cherry picking it by the non scientists at WUWT. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/296 "2013-06-16T12:59:53Z")
So, we’re still on: a) “Piffle” b) “Discredited source” c) A pompous skeptical science link. BTW, the reference to reenman wa a genral view on your general posting style. You still can refute the straight number from the actual sources. It’s so sad. Are you afrid of numbers? ---
**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 16, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/297 "2013-06-16T16:18:57Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, we’re still on: > a) “Piffle” Did not say it in the past post > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > b) “Discredited source” It was, I take your lack of defense of it as an acknowledgement that me and others that look at pseudoscience are correct on what people like Watts pushes. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > c) A pompous skeptical science link. Not use also in the past post. But thank you for now broadcasting to all how everybody else should see you, there is ignorance and the there is a willful one. Skeptical science is a resource that links to the published science, even conservative scientists recommend it, so not giving up on this “killing the messenger” fallacy only shows to all the kind of debater you are. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > BTW, the reference to reenman wa a genral view on your general posting style. > You still can refute the straight number from the actual sources. It’s so sad. > Are you afrid of numbers? Nope, the one that is afraid of information you, and as past experience and this one shows the numbers in the image are good, but not used exclusively to report what average temperatures we are headed when CO2 levels increase. But that is not the point I’m making, once again what the scientists reported on the increase of intensity of the hurricanes is based on data obtained from the field, not made on a computer model. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/298 "2013-06-16T16:44:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Did not say it in the past post > It was, I take your lack of defense of it as an acknowledgement that me and others that look at pseudoscience are correct on what people like Watts pushes. > Not use also in the past post. But thank you for now broadcasting to all how everybody else should see you, there is ignorance and the there is a willful one. Skeptical science is a resource that links to the published science, even conservative scientists recommend it, so not giving up on this “killing the messenger” fallacy only shows to all the kind of debater you are. > Nope, the one that is afraid of information you, and as past experience and this one shows the numbers in the image are good, but not used exclusively to report what average temperatures we are headed when CO2 levels increase. But that is not the point I’m making, once again what the scientists reported on the increase of intensity of the hurricanes is based on data obtained from the field, not made on a computer model. You don’t have to say a) “Piffle” b) “Discredited source” c) A pompous skeptical science link. it’s that ALL your answers go down to at least one of them, aside from never actually engaging the numbers. Still the 73 models plus 4 IPCC reports + the new one due this year (all of which have all overshot actual temperatures. Got numbers or only more. I read Sks myself. If you’re onyl contribution to CC/AGW thread is posting link to them, then simply, on your first post say: “read sks” and be done with it. I’d rather debate with someone who has actual opinions or actual grasp of the numbers. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2013, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/299 "2013-06-16T17:34:59Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > 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!) Are you serious? **Waldo** asks a simple question: what is the falsifiable criteria regarding storm predictions? **GIGO** ignores, insults, evades, etc. for 6 pages now. Are you able to explain why a prediction shouldn’t be specific enough to be falsifiable? ---
**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 16, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/300 "2013-06-16T17:55:53Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You don’t have to say > a) “Piffle” > b) “Discredited source” > c) A pompous skeptical science link. > > it’s that ALL your answers go down to at least one of them, aside from never actually engaging the numbers. > > Still the 73 models plus 4 IPCC reports + the new one due this year (all of which have all overshot actual temperatures. > Got numbers or only more. > I read Sks myself. If you’re onyl contribution to CC/AGW thread is posting link to them, then simply, on your first post say: “read sks” and be done with it. > I’d rather debate with someone who has actual opinions or actual grasp of the numbers. Nope, as usual you are still wrong. there is more than just SKS and as shown before you continue to rely on poisoned wells of information for “balance” that is called false equivalence" It is a false equivalence as places like WUWT uses anonymous and non-experts to give deniers a sense of “balance”. The fact is that places that make a business of identifying pseudoscience do know what the science is: > **[12-02-08](https://archive.skeptic.com/archive/eskeptic/12-02-08/)** > > In this week’s eSkeptic, Donald R. Prothero addresses climate change denialism head on, demolishing deniers’ arguments and rebuttals, and clearly demonstrating how we know global warming is real and human caused. > [@](#): > > **The climate deniers have a lot of other things in common with creationists and other anti-science movements.** > > They too like to quote someone out of context (“quote mining”), finding a short phrase in the work of legitimate scientists that seems to support their position. But when you read the full quote in context, it is obvious that they have used the quote inappropriately. The original author meant something that does not support their goals. The “Climategate scandal” is a classic case of this. It started with a few stolen emails from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. If you read the complete text of the actual emails29 and comprehend the scientific shorthand of climate scientists who are talking casually to each other, it is clear that there was no great “conspiracy” or that they were faking data. All six subsequent investigations have cleared Philip Jones and the other scientists of the University of East Anglia of any wrongdoing or conspiracy.30 > > Even if there had been some conspiracy on the part of these few scientists, there is no reason to believe that the entire climate science community is secretly working together to generate false information and mislead the public. If there’s one thing that is clear about science, it’s about competition and criticism, not conspiracy and collusion. Most labs are competing with each other, not conspiring together. If one lab publishes a result that is not clearly defensible, other labs will quickly correct it. As James Lawrence Powell wrote31: > > > [@](#): > > > > Scientists….show no evidence of being more interested in politics or ideology than the average American. Does it make sense to believe that tens of thousands of scientists would be so deeply and secretly committed to bringing down capitalism and the American way of life that they would spend years beyond their undergraduate degrees working to receive master’s and Ph.D. degrees, then go to work in a government laboratory or university, plying the deep oceans, forbidding deserts, icy poles, and torrid jungles, all for far less money than they could have made in industry, all the while biding their time like a Russian sleeper agent in an old spy novel? Scientists tend to be independent and resist authority. That is why you are apt to find them in the laboratory or in the field, as far as possible from the prying eyes of a supervisor. Anyone who believes he could organize thousands of scientists into a conspiracy has never attended a single faculty meeting. > > … > > It is true that scientists are human, and do make mistakes, but the great power of the scientific method is that peer review weeds these out, so that when scientists speak with consensus, there is no doubt that their data are checked carefully. > > Finally, a powerful line of evidence that this is a purely political controversy, rather than a scientific debate, is that the membership lists of the creationists and the climate deniers are highly overlapping. Both anti-scientific dogmas are fed to their overlapping audiences through right-wing media such as Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Just take a look at the “intelligent-design” creationism website for the Discovery Institute. Most of the daily news items lately have nothing to do with creationism at all, but are focused on climate denial and other right-wing causes.32 > > If the data about global climate change are indeed valid and robust, any qualified scientist should be able to look at them and see if the prevailing scientific interpretation holds up. Indeed, such a test took place. Starting in 2010, a group led by U.C. Berkeley physicist Richard Muller re-examined all the temperature data from the NOAA, East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, and the Goddard Institute of Space Science sources (see Figure 5 below). Even though Muller started out as a skeptic of the temperature data, and was funded by the Koch brothers and other oil company sources, he carefully checked and re-checked the research himself. When the GOP leaders called him to testify before the House Science and Technology Committee in spring 2011, they were expecting him to discredit the temperature data. Instead, Muller shocked his GOP sponsors by demonstrating his scientific integrity and telling the truth: the temperature increase is real, and the scientists who have demonstrated that the climate is changing are right. In the fall of 2011, \*\*his study was published, and the conclusions were clear: global warming is real, even to a right-wing skeptical scientist. Unlike the hired-gun scientists who play political games, Muller did what a true scientist should do: if the data go against your biases and preconceptions, then do the right thing and admit it—even if you’ve been paid by sponsors who want to discredit global warming. Muller is a shining example of a scientist whose integrity and honesty came first, and did not sell out to the highest bidder.\*\*33 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=16)