# "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:** 9
**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:** [May 27, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/161 "2013-05-27T18:06:06Z")
And of course, besides cherry picking, the followers of JAQs just doubled down on just more JAQs, anything to not deal with the actual science, in the end, for all practical reasons they are insinuating that what the scientists quoted did was not science, but as pointed before, it is not my problem if they want to be recognized as just defenders of their own ignorance. If there is no capacity of imagining how to go about on falsifying a scientific paper, then the less of chance is there that they would follow anyone that has showed them for a long time that they are trying to push a strawman on the very person that they are “debating”. A very dumb point to make but I do not have a problem on letting the JAQs posters to gain even more bad karma. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2013, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/162 "2013-05-27T21:17:59Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I’ve not been following this debate; even if I were I’d have no clearcut criterion to offer because there’s so much uncertainty and ambiguity. _Anyway, any criterion would be a matter of percentage estimates, not the black-or-white falsification you seek._ Exactly. That is precisely the point: there is so much uncertainty and ambiguity. And lack of knowledge, lack of processing power, etc. etc. Modeling the climate is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do and I seriously doubt there is anyone even close to being able to do it accurately. ---
**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:** [May 27, 2013, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/163 "2013-05-27T23:05:46Z")
And if any attention had been paid, it should had been clear that models to do a good job on predicting overall climate trends; the problem with resolution at the level of hurricanes and tornadoes has been granted for ages, but there is ongoing work to increase that resolution: > **[News | NCAR & UCAR News](https://news.ucar.edu)** > [@](#): > > Several groups are attempting to produce global models that can directly depict hurricanes without an intervening small-scale model. The first such study, produced on Japan’s Earth Simulator computer and released in 2005, indicated more and stronger hurricanes in the Atlantic by later this century. Globally, it showed a 30% drop in the number of tropical cyclones, but a rise in the number and strength of the most intense hurricanes (view a PDF of this paper). Bottom line, once again the attempt is to apply the valid criticism of models with items like hurricanes and tornadoes and recklessly apply it to all other model work. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/164 "2013-05-28T00:49:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And if any attention had been paid, it should had been clear that models to do a good job on predicting overall climate trends; the problem with resolution at the level of hurricanes and tornadoes has been granted for ages, but there is ongoing work to increase that resolution: But that is the entire topic of this thread: the ability or lack of ability of scientists to accurately make predictions about storms (trends, as in numbers, intensity, etc.) due to climate change. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/165 "2013-05-28T00:51:09Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Bottom line, once again the attempt is to apply the valid criticism of models with items like hurricanes and tornadoes and recklessly apply it to all other model work. Can you point to any example of that in this entire thread? You keep imagining that, but I don’t see any posts discarding all model work. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/166 "2013-05-28T01:33:33Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Modeling the climate is an incredibly complex and difficult thing to do and I seriously doubt there is anyone even close to being able to do it accurately. Nope, no conditional here, you are talking here about _ **modeling the climate** _ and then telling all that anyone is close to being able to do it accurately, not the already acknowledged to death issues with modeling hurricanes and tornadoes. But we already knew that, as demonstrated, not paying attention even for what they posted early. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/167 "2013-05-28T01:41:22Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > But that is the entire topic of this thread: the ability or lack of ability of scientists to accurately make predictions about storms (trends, as in numbers, intensity, etc.) due to climate change. And already acknowledged, by even the scientists quoted, once again the JAQ effort to continue to tell others what one has not claimed here is very clear, and this also demonstrates that no attention was paid, Emmanuel and the others quoted regarding the increase on intensity _ **are not using models** _, but using actual recorded data to report an observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/168 "2013-05-28T01:55:45Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > _ **However** _, by offering to cherry-pick a particular ten-year trend _after the fact (as you explicitly did do in prior threads)_ you are in violation of correct statistical reasoning. You’re stopping one all-important step short. As in this thread, I asked GIGO to supply the falsification criteria of his choice. For reasons I’ve never fully understood, he supplied an absolutist test that was perfectly consistent with picking a span of years after the fact; I responded accordingly. Had he supplied a better test, I’d have reacted to it instead. I sure wish he’d gotten it right the first time. Possibly because GIGO realized his error, he later provided completely different falsification criteria. Again, if he’d provided sensible criteria to begin with, I’d have applied 'em – and now that he’s shifted the goalposts to before-the-fact ten-year trends, I’m equally happy to apply his all-new and all-different criteria. You fault me for having been in violation of correct statistical reasoning – for blandly and straightforwardly applying the terms GIGO provided? Here, take a look at GIGO’s latest: [QUOTE=GIGObuster] If there is no capacity of imagining how to go about on falsifying a scientific paper [/QUOTE] Stop right there and _really consider_ that: GIGO wants me to imagine up a way to falsify the claims – and my point, as ever, is that, no, the guy making the claims should specify what would falsify them. And just as I wouldn’t dream of imagining up falsification criteria now, I didn’t imagine 'em up then. The difference here is that GIGO won’t supply criteria as before – but neither time was it my place to say what would prove him wrong; it’s his call all the way. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/169 "2013-05-28T02:06:33Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Stop right there and _really consider_ that: GIGO wants me to imagine up a way to falsify the claims – and my point, as ever, is that, no, the guy making the claims should specify what would falsify them. And just as I wouldn’t dream of imagining up falsification criteria now, I didn’t imagine 'em up then. > > The difference here is that GIGO won’t supply criteria as before – but neither time was it my place to say what would prove him wrong; it’s his call all the way. And thank you for doing what I \*\*expected \*\*it was going to happen since a Meh ago. For several posts you demanded that I tell you about falsifying an item that Emmanuel already did, showing all that you are not paying attention. And no, you only are admitting here to all that I was correct: you are implying big time that what the quoted scientists did was not science, in essence you are only confirming to all that for all that your the boasting of understanding what falsification is is actually inadequate; you only have the toy version to use, as you only admit that even when pointed at the science paper, you are not able to figure out even a very simple falsification, the bankruptcy of your methods is here for all to see, you are only capable **of demanding an anonymous poster in a message board** **to create a second hand falsification** when the science paper was cited, deal with with it and falsify him, or just admit that you are only JAQ for FUD. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/170 "2013-05-28T02:41:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And no, you only are admitting here to all that I was correct: you are implying big time that what the quoted scientists did was not science I’m implying nothing of the sort. Why not simply ask me what I think, rather than simply jumping to that conclusion? > [@](#): > > as you only admit that even when pointed at the science paper, you are not able to figure out even a very simple falsification, the bankruptcy of your methods is here for all to see That’s the _honesty_ of my methods. Again, you conclude I’m unable to figure out a falsification; the truth, of course, is that I believe those who make predictions should provide their own falsification criteria. If you can’t, you reveal your claims to be – well, bankrupt. > [@](#): > > you are only capable **of demanding an anonymous poster in a message board** **to create a second hand falsification** when the science paper was cited, deal with with it and falsify him, or just admit that you are only JAQ for FUD. You’re the one who’s right here, in this thread, making claims and replying to questions; I can ask you – first hand – what would prove you wrong. Sure, if the author of the paper were here, I’d ask him; so long as you cite him, I’ll ask you. If you won’t answer, you probably shouldn’t cite him to begin with – but if you both happen to hold the same position, why not shout it from the rooftops? If you truly believe X will happen in Y years, such that anything less will prove _ **you** _ wrong, then why refuse to trumpet _ **your own** _ beliefs? ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/171 "2013-05-28T02:48:09Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I’m implying nothing of the sort. Why not simply ask me what I think, rather than simply jumping to that conclusion? > > That’s the _honesty_ of my methods. Again, you conclude I’m unable to figure out a falsification; the truth, of course, is that I believe those who make predictions should provide their own falsification criteria. > > If you can’t, you reveal your claims to be – well, bankrupt. > > You’re the one who’s right here, in this thread, making claims and replying to questions; I can ask you – first hand – what would prove you wrong. Sure, if the author of the paper were here, I’d ask him; so long as you cite him, I’ll ask you. > > If you won’t answer, you probably shouldn’t cite him to begin with – but if you both happen to hold the same position, why not shout it from the rooftops? If you truly believe X will happen in Y years, such that anything less will prove _ **you** _ wrong, then why refuse to trumpet _ **your own** _ beliefs? Anyone can see that I already replied with the second hand falsification on post #104, regardless that it leads to more questions for you, the reality is that you congratulated me for it, so it is not my problem that you are continuing to fight against yourself. For more advanced answers to the questions, there is the published science already, since you already acknowledged that I did indeed offer already a falsification, it is indeed your turn now, look at the science and learn from it. Or just admit once again that you are only JAQ. (And anyone can also notice how he removed my point about Emmanuel, we do not want to remind anyone about how silly it was to demand a falsification of what what was already falsified (the upward trend in the number of hurricanes) ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/172 "2013-05-28T02:50:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And already acknowledged, by even the scientists quoted, once again the JAQ effort to continue to tell others what one has not claimed here is very clear, and this also demonstrates that no attention was paid, Emmanuel and the others quoted regarding the increase on intensity _ **are not using models** _, but using actual recorded data to report an observed increase in the intensity of hurricanes. 1 - What is JAQ? 2 - Let’s make a deal: how about you and I stick to basic facts and opinions and ignore the other stuff. I won’t say you aren’t making sense if you will quit with the “not paying attention” and each of us can just point out facts or arguments or state opinions. I’ll start: 30 years of data in the Atlantic region only is a fairly short time period and just partial data. Yep there appears to be a relation based on that data, but with something this big and complex it would be a large assumption to think it’s as simple as that. Maybe it is, but (opinion) it’s way too early to know because there is too much missing data and too much work to be done. If it turns out hurricanes in other parts of the world don’t follow the same pattern, then we could correctly infer that we can’t just relate water temp to an increase, the model would need to be more complex. If the other areas didn’t follow the same pattern as the Atlantic region, then a climate model that is reasonably “accurate” would model this same behavior, increase in one area decrease in another. That is the level of climate model I seriously doubt is currently available. And in my non-expert opinion, a dynamic system this large and complex is likely to have local variation like that which can in turn have long term affects on the system (positive feedback, negative feedback, etc.). ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/173 "2013-05-28T03:02:27Z")
Nope, read it again, it is not models what I was citing about regarding the increase in intensity of the Hurricanes, the problem here is that you are still attempting to make it a model issue when it is not. And once again you are not getting that you are reaching for a straw man, it is not my point that hurricanes can be modeled accurately nor their numbers, now the average climate? Models have lots of success in that front. Once again, what scientists report is that the resolution is not there yet to make accurate predictions regarding hurricanes and tornadoes; **however** , it is real empirical data what is telling us that hurricanes are intensifying, as the warming is increasing the levels of water vapor in the rainy areas, it does not take a model to tell you what it is the most likely outcome if GWG are not controlled. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/174 "2013-05-28T03:09:52Z")
BTW, It really stretches credulity that after all the mentions in many previous treads that one is not aware of what Just Asking Questions is. > **[Just asking questions](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off)** > > Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"\[1\]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of... > [@](#): > > JAQing off is the act of spouting accusations while hiding behind the claim that one is “Just Asking Questions.” The strategy is to keep asking leading questions in an attempt to influence listeners’ views; the term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are “just asking questions,” albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. > [@](#): > > The Socratic method can be a legitimate means of stimulating critical thinking. Obviously not all questioning is done from a position of cowardice; in some cases, a person may simply not feel confident enough in their position to make an assertion, so they instead ask a question in order to gather more information or elicit others’ thoughts before making up their mind about a particular stance. > > **JAQing takes over when the answers are already well known, where the question embodies a point refuted a thousand times, or where the questioner exhibits willful ignorance.** ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/175 "2013-05-28T03:21:25Z")
1 - What is JAQ? You’ve accused me of being part of that effort, it seems only polite to at least explain what it is, thanks. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, read it again, it is not models what I was citing about regarding the increase in intensity of the Hurricanes, the problem here is that you are still attempting to make it a model issue when it is not. Predictions for the future in a dynamic system require more than just a trend from recent history. Predictions based on a simple trend have an implied simple model, but complex dynamic systems like the climate are unlikely to be simple. > [@](#): > > And once again you are not getting that you are reaching for a straw man, it is not my point that hurricanes can be modeled accurately nor their numbers, now the average climate? Models have lots of success in that front. But the point of the thread was changes in future storm activity, that can only be determined by some modeling system. > [@](#): > > Once again, what scientists report is that the resolution is not there yet to make accurate predictions regarding hurricanes and tornadoes; **however** , it is real empirical data what is telling us that hurricanes are intensifying In the Atlantic region only according to that paper you cited. And during a short period of time. Did you see my point about “what if other regions don’t follow same trend”? > [@](#): > > , as the warming is increasing the levels of water vapor in the rainy areas, it does not take a model to tell you what it is the most likely outcome if GWG are not controlled. Yes it does. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/176 "2013-05-28T03:42:04Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Predictions for the future in a dynamic system require more than just a trend from recent history. Predictions based on a simple trend have an implied simple model, but complex dynamic systems like the climate are unlikely to be simple. Of course, it took many years to figure that out, not being aware of the past efforts to get to that level is the problem. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > But the point of the thread was changes in future storm activity, that can only be determined by some modeling system. No, climate scientists do not rely just on models to tell you about the likely changes in climate when the CO2 and other GWG increase. https://www.youtube.com/embed/OJ6Z04VJDco?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&list=UUljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ > [@RaftPeople](#): > > In the Atlantic region only according to that paper you cited. And during a short period of time. > > Did you see my point about “what if other regions don’t follow same trend”? And once again there is no escaping that what it is missed here is that Emmanuel was not the only one cited: > [@](#): > > Global satellite data since 1981 can be used to extend analysis of hurricane intensity to each ocean, looking for any trend in wind speed (Elsner 2008). Figure 3 plots the long term trend in maximum wind speed (eg - whether hurricanes are getting stronger or weaker) against different strength hurricanes. This tells us not only whether hurricanes are overall getting stronger but also how different strength hurricanes are being affected. Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. The Nature Journal also did take a look and the reviewer also agrees: [http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2008.1079.html](http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/news.2008.1079.html) > [@](#): > > James Elsner, a climatologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, and his colleagues have now found that the strongest tropical storms are getting stronger, with the most notable increases in the North Atlantic and northern Indian oceans. Very strong storms, Elsner says, can more easily overcome any inhibiting effects of shearing winds than weaker storms, and go on to reach their maximum possible strength. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Yes it does. Check the video again. For example the increase in water vapor and energy in the background doesn’t require a computer model, it was found in the data of satellites, weather balloons and other empirical sources. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/177 "2013-05-28T03:49:13Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Anyone can see that I already replied with the second hand falsification on post #104, regardless that it leads to more questions for you No, what ‘anyone can see’ is that I followed up with those questions because – as far as I can tell – you simply hadn’t relayed falsification criteria in post #104. Did you dispute that by assuring me post #104 contained the criteria in question? No, you started going on and on about a lack of imagination. If post #104 truly had been sufficient, you wouldn’t have needed to say a word about imagination – and I would’ve had no follow-up questions. (You say “it leads to more questions”, but look closely: _they’re the same questions._ Seeing no answers in #104, I of course asked 'em again.) > [@](#): > > (And anyone can also notice how he removed my point about Emmanuel, we do not want to remind anyone about how silly it was to demand a falsification of what what was already falsified (the upward trend in the number of hurricanes) Once again, I have no idea what you’re talking about; as has been repeatedly pointed out, I asked for an entirely different falsification. Cast your memory back to when you posted the following sentence, not in reference to the number of hurricanes in general but to something else in particular: _“This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.”_ In defiance of all known laws of grammar, you eventually spelled out that, no, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will not inevitably increase. That’s a completely separate issue from the lack of an upward trend in the number of hurricanes in general: it’s entirely possible to have either without the other, it’s entirely possible to have both or neither; the answer to one question in no way implies the answer to the other. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/178 "2013-05-28T03:54:44Z")
Oh is the Mojo Jojo point again. 🙂 I also was suspecting that you still got stuck in demanding that I falsify what I already reported it was falsified, scientists like Emmanuel already showed that there was no trend with the number of hurricanes, and as pointed before, you only can continue to demand that I put flesh on the straw man. Stop being silly, I already pointed many times before that you need to post \*\*another \*\*\* quote from Elsner to show that he is going for the meaning that you are still pathetically demanding is the absolute meaning of the quote. Once again the summary of his paper demonstrates that he is not talking about the number of the hurricanes. And put down your toy falsification tool. The refusal to do it is only stamping in the minds of all that you are only cherry picking. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/179 "2013-05-28T04:13:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I also was suspecting that you still got stuck in demanding that I falsify what I already reported it was falsified And you suspected incorrectly, because I was requesting something else entirely. Indeed, you incorrectly suspect a great many things. > [@](#): > > Stop being silly, I already pointed many times before that you need to post another quote from Elsner to show that he is going for the meaning you are still pathetically demanding is the absolute meaning of it. I’m demanding nothing of the sort. I’ve repeatedly and emphatically granted, for the sake of argument, that _ **you** _ believe it means the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will not inevitably increase. I’m not discussing what _ **he** _ actually meant by that prediction; I can’t ask him what he thinks would prove him wrong, but you’re right here believing stuff and replying to questions. > [@](#): > > Once again the summary of his paper demonstrates that he is not talking about the number of the hurricanes. You keep trying to make that point, and I keep telling you the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land is a completely separate issue. > [@](#): > > And put down your toy falsification tool. Stop relaying vague predictions and I’ll stop asking you what would falsify them; offer falsification criteria and I’ll apply them. If you object to either of those, then your position doesn’t even rise to the level of “toy”. ---
**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:** [May 28, 2013, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982/180 "2013-05-28T04:21:32Z")
Meh, more silly useless points, and once again not the ones I’m talking about. Doubling down on the cherry picking is not helpful at all, but as always I do not mind if oponenets are willing to get that fame in this message board, as even real scientists like \*\*jshore \*\*told me with their support on several occasions in the past, it is clear that I do get what the scientists report. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-was-supposed-to-spawn-monster-storms-what-happened/657982.md?page=10)