"Climate Change" Was Supposed to Spawn Monster Storms-What Happened?

[GIGObuster]

@RaftPeople

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.

Not accurate at all, he actually congratulated me for offering a falsification, but as usual the JAQ is strong with that one, he is still demanding that I do the same on a cherry picked quote that is not my point, nor the point of the studies I quoted.

Once again: I did offer the falsification, was congratulated, **you **are not serious. Or just like before, you are once again not paying attention.

[GIGObuster]

Here is more from the Skeptic, IMHO meta-cognition is something that is sorely missed by many fake skeptics, they are not even aware that organizations that deal with pseudoscience have looked at the “debate” and noticed that the efforts coming from places like WUWT are just what pseudoscience does.

12-02-08

“The climate records since 1995 (or 1998) show cooling.”

That’s a deliberate deception. People who throw this argument out are cherry-picking the data.13 Over the short term, there was a slight cooling trend from 1998–2000 (see Figure 4 below), because 1998 was a record-breaking El Niño year, so the next few years look cooler by comparison.

** But since 2002**, the overall long-term trend of warming is unequivocal. This statement is a clear-cut case of using out-of-context data in an attempt to deny reality. All of the 16 hottest years ever recorded on a global scale have occurred in the last 20 years. They are (in order of hottest first): 2010, 2009, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997, 2008, 1995, 1999, 1990, and 2000.14 In other words, every year since 2000 has been in the Top Ten hottest years list, and the rest of the list includes 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Only 1996 failed to make the list (because of the short-term cooling mentioned already)

[FXMastermind]

@L. G. Butts

Which scientist has said that? I would like to read that paper.

You don’t need a “paper” to know that since 2002 the global temperature anomalies have trended down.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

or

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

What the measurements actually show would seem to be just one fact in a discussion. But in the strange world of “catastrophic” climate change even the facts are not important. Sure all the models were wrong, but so what? It just means the heat is hiding. Or China increased their coal burning. Or something.

Not that anyone gives a crap, but I tend to view everybody as wrong.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

You don’t need a “paper” to know that since 2002 the global temperature anomalies have trended down.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

or

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

What the measurements actually show would seem to be just one fact in a discussion. But in the strange world of “catastrophic” climate change even the facts are not important. Sure all the models were wrong, but so what? It just means the heat is hiding. Or China increased their coal burning. Or something.

Not that anyone gives a crap, but I tend to view everybody as wrong.

Sure, but that is just like your opinion man , just keep things in perspective, all others in the know know that you are not doing right by only cherry picking; and where it counts, guys like you are ignored. Properly so.

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/25-3

This insidious practice of false equivalence takes two general forms.

First, and most obviously, journalists act as spokesmen for both sides of an argument without delving into the substance of what either side is saying. Or, in an effort to appear unbiased they’ll point out the obvious flaws in one side’s argument while nit-picking questionable claims or secondary inconsistencies in the other side’s argument.

The second form is tougher to spot. It involves giving equal time and equal billing to both sides of a technical argument when, among those in a position to know, there really is no disagreement. There are issues–abortion, gay marriage, the role of government, etc.–on which reasonable people can disagree. These are issues in which one does not need technical knowledge or expertise to have an informed opinion. Of course, more knowledge always helps. But you don’t need to be an obstetrician to have a valid opinion on abortion. You don’t need to be a pastor to have a valid opinion on gay marriage. You don’t need to be a senator or a political science professor to have a valid opinion on the role of government.

But some arguments–arguments that have great political import–cannot be productively waged by average citizens, political pundits, or even elected officials.

Some arguments are highly technical, and when they’re waged in a political forum, the only opinions that should be cited are those of actual experts.

The topic where uninformed opinions are most egregiously cited in an attempt to give equal footing to a specious argument is global warming.

If you are arguing about global warming and climate science, you need to talk to climate scientists.

And, among climate scientists, there is no argument, there is no debate.

The earth is getting warmer. Humans are causing it with their carbon emissions. And there will be negative, and likely grave, consequences for humanity.

The facts: A 2010 paper, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” conducted a broad study of the climate science community to see if there was any sort of consensus on climate change. It was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors, William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider, analyzed the data and publications of 1,372 climate scientists. They had two primary findings: First, 97-98 percent of climatologists support the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” (human caused global warming). Second, “The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”

In essence: nearly the entire relevant scientific community believes in global warming, and those that don’t are significantly less accomplished than the rest.

There is almost no issue which gets 98 percent agreement on one side.

Regarding the 2002 item, that trick also fails when the sources of that use 2003 as the starting point.

Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline

Sorry, Bob. When you try to match a line’s slope, but then shift that line upward, choosing the intercept deliberately to make the prediction look as bad as possible, that’s dishonest.

It’s also one of the most common tricks that many denialists have used to “hide the incline.” That, and cherry-picking, just might be their favorites.

[GIGObuster]

And to be more specific the cherry pick is more clear here:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/to:1902/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1902/to:1932/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1932/to:1952/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1952/to:1982/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1982/trend

It also needs to be mentioned, hadcrut is only one of the main databases, and it has been criticized in the past for missing a information from the polar regions, as a lot of the increase heat has been found to take place in the arctic, so it is not strange why fake skeptics like that set.

IOW, the post from FXMastermind is a cherry pick of a cherry pick.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@GIGObuster

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:

Skeptic » eSkeptic » February 8, 2012

So, it’s still a NO on the actual issues, like temperatures.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

So, it’s still a NO on the actual issues, like temperatures.

As pointed before I already mentioned the numbers from Emmanuel and the detected increase in intensity, but thank you again for showing all your lack of attention.

Regarding temperature, the already mentioned BEST study does show also how off base you are regarding the temperatures.

From the Skeptical Magazine report:

Figure 5. Plot contrasting the temperature data obtained by three original sources (NOAA, Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, and The Hadley Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia) with the data obtained by Richard Muller’s Berkeley group, which was originally attempting to deny the evidence of global warming, but found that in fact the original data were correct and the planet is getting warmer.

[GIGObuster]

As that shows, the fake skeptics even attempt to claim that groups that look at pseudoscience are not able to identify the frauds that exist in this issue, it is really not that hard.

[FXMastermind]

@Aji_de_Gallina

So, it’s still a NO on the actual issues, like temperatures.

If the data showed the 1 degree increase that was predicted by the models, it would be good data. Since it doesn’t, the data isn’t good.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
Waldo asks a simple question: what is the falsifiable criteria regarding storm predictions?

GIGO ignores, insults, evades, etc. for 6 pages now.

Not accurate at all, he actually congratulated me for offering a falsification, but as usual the JAQ is strong with that one, he is still demanding that I do the same on a cherry picked quote that is not my point, nor the point of the studies I quoted.
[/QUOTE]

You’re mistaken. Yes, in another thread, you offered a falsifiable prediction about a tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise in temperature; in this thread, as RaftPeople says, you’ve ignored and insulted and evaded for multiple pages instead of making a falsifiable prediction about storms.

Saying he’s not accurate at all is simply incorrect; mentioning that you made a falsifiable prediction about something else is irrelevant; stating that I’m demanding you do the same ‘on a cherry-picked quote that isn’t your point’ is utterly in error: I’m asking you for your falsifiable prediction about hurricanes.

Once again: I did offer the falsification, was congratulated, **you **are not serious. Or just like before, you are once again not paying attention.

You didn’t offer one about storm predictions, which is what RaftPeople said in the quote you (a) copy-and-pasted, but (b) didn’t pay attention to.

You offered one about a different topic entirely, which is praiseworthy. You’re now refusing to offer one about this topic, which is reprehensible.

Two completely separate issues.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

If the data showed the 1 degree increase that was predicted by the models, it would be good data. Since it doesn’t, the data isn’t good.

Of course, you need a fat cite for that, in reality scientists report that the models are doing a good job, but once again the science does not depend on them.

RealClimate: 2010 updates to model-data comparisons

As real scientists report, the actual temperatures are still inside the envelope of the model runs and previous predictions. The problem here for the fake skeptics is ignoring that all data is considered, not just the cherry picked one.

[FXMastermind]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster;16385462http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

As real scientists report, the actual temperatures are still inside the envelope of the model runs and previous predictions. [/QUOTE]

That’s pathetic. Seriously. Using a 2010 graphic?

Try reality. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/610/img/photos/2013/04/24/ce/f6/Model_Comparison.jpg You might like it.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

You’re mistaken. Yes, in another thread, you offered a falsifiable prediction about a tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise in temperature; in this thread, as RaftPeople says, you’ve ignored and insulted and evaded for multiple pages instead of making a falsifiable prediction about storms.

Oooook it is clear that you are not even paying attention of what you posted in this tread also.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Yes! Kudos! You did it in one sentence, even! Don’t know why didn’t you narrow it down to post #104 days ago, but it’s commendable that you do it eventually; if anything, you’re speeding up. And the end of that sentence gets even better:

Here you give a great description of what you relayed in post #104: my whole point is that, if you’re not bothering to supply falsification criteria, I’d have to imagine up something. And your reply is – that I have no imagination on how to falsify it?

And of course you later also report that indeed you get it, it is less gloom and doom, and once again, it was scientists like Emmanuel that told so to scientists like Curry (that is now more skeptical) to drop the idea that there would be an increase in the number of hurricanes.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

If so, I’ve gotta say: your predictions are sounding a lot less ‘gloom-and-doom’, and a lot more ‘reassuring’.

What is clear is that you are still hung up on the copy paste job, (regarding the increase in the number of hurricanes coming) the fact that you are not accepting that it is not my point and not the point either of the researchers, there is no need to falsify it by me and that you can then falsify it on your own all day long. That it seems that you will never get so the JAQ will continue.

So, once again, You did praise me for pointing at the Emmanuel data and I said how it can be falsified, you praised me for that, you then forget what you said in the same thread you participate and continue to tell others that I did not tell you.

Not my problem if you want to be proud of the infamy that you are getting in this message board.

[FXMastermind]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?ref=science&_r=5&

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.

The cooling since 2002 is even worse.

The general ideas when faced with the facts are pretty simple to fathom.

It’s cooling from anthropogenic aerosols.

It’s natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the sun.

Ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be distributed into the deep ocean

The temperature ‘sensitivity’ of the climate system is not as large as assumed

Or there is something fundamentally wrong with the “GHG warming theory”

Or a combination of the above. What we do know is it happened. The people still hanging on to “the warming hasn’t slowed at all” mantra are hopelessly absurd at this point.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

And of course you later also report that indeed you get it, it is less gloom and doom, and once again, it was scientists like Emmanuel that told so to scientists like Curry (that is now more skeptical) to drop the idea that there would be an increase in the number of hurricanes.

I get that part. I’ve said so repeatedly. You’re completely incorrect.

I’m asking about something else entirely: you keep predicting an increase in hurricane intensity – not the number of hurricanes, not the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes, not the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land, but the intensity of hurricanes. I’m asking what would prove that prediction wrong.

What is clear is that you are still hung up on the copy paste job, (regarding the an increase in the number of hurricanes coming) the fact that you are not accepting that it is not my point and so there is no need to falsify it by me and that you can then falsify it on your own all day long you will never get.

Once again, I’m not hung up on that point. Once again, if you missed it the first time – or the second, or the third, or the fourth – I fully accept that you’re not predicting an increase in the number of hurricanes. Or the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes. Or the number of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land.

You’re making an entirely separate prediction. That’s the one I’m asking about.

Saying I’m not accepting the former part is inaccurate; I accept it entirely. You’re refusing to answer about the latter part.

So, once again, You did praise me for pointing at the Emmanuel data and I said how it can be falsified, you praised me for that, you forget what you say in the same thread you participate.

That’s not accurate; the bit you bolded in the copy-and-paste was merely me praising you for clarifying that you’d been referring to post 104, not me praising you for making a falsifiable prediction.

I then went on to note that, as far as I can tell, post 104 didn’t actually do what you claimed – but I thought it was terrific that you went from vaguely saying you’d mentioned it in a previous post to saying it was post 104.

So, to reiterate: you’re predicting an increase in hurricane intensity. I’m therefore asking what you think would prove you wrong. I don’t see that post 104 does that. I don’t see that your latest post does that either, or that any post you’ve made in between does.

I don’t see that Aji or FX can see you making a falsifiable prediction about hurricanes in any of those posts – which is why they keep saying you’re not making one about hurricane intensity. What’s more, I don’t see that anyone else can see a falsifiable prediction about hurricane intensity in any of your posts; I again invite anyone reading along to pop in and say sure he did; if X and Y don’t happen by year Z, we’ll all know GIGO was dead wrong about hurricane intensity.

Anyone? Anyone at all?

you praised me for that, you then forget what you said in the same thread you participate and continue to tell others that I did not tell you.

You told me the answer when I asked which post you were talking about. That has nothing to do with whether you answered the question of how your prediction can be proven wrong. I praised you for the former, not the latter.

In another thread, you vaguely predicted a temperature increase; when asked, you specified that you were predicting a tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise in temperature; I praised you in that thread and in others for doing so. If that predicted tenth-of-a-degree-per-decade rise takes place, I’ll note that you were correct; if it doesn’t, I’ll note that you were utterly wrong.

In this thread, you’ve vaguely predicted a rise in hurricane intensity – and, when asked, you’ve failed to specify what would likewise prove you wrong. In years to come, I can’t possibly note that you were correct or that you were utterly wrong; you’re refusing to do here what you did there. What you did then was science. What you’re doing now is religion.

[Trinopus]

Cherry picking is one of the gravest of scientific offenses.

It’s like you’re on a winding mountain road, which climbs, dips, climbs, dips, climbs, and dips. The deniers select only those small portions of the road which dip, and not the entire road.

It’s almost as bad (but not quite) as the idiots who point to a really heavy New York City snowfall and say “What global warming?” They’re just doing it on a ten-year section of data instead of a two-week section of data.

The overall trend is for warming. It’s astonishing to watch the data-miners select small portions of the trend. The Stock Market had a down week recently: I guess that means that the overall trend of the Dow Jones Index is also down.

Creationists.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Trinopus

It’s like you’re on a winding mountain road, which climbs, dips, climbs, dips, climbs, and dips. The deniers select only those small portions of the road which dip, and not the entire road.

It’s almost as bad (but not quite) as the idiots who point to a really heavy New York City snowfall and say “What global warming?” They’re just doing it on a ten-year section of data instead of a two-week section of data.

It’s astonishing to watch the data-miners select small portions of the trend. The Stock Market had a down week recently: I guess that means that the overall trend of the Dow Jones Index is also down.

You make an absolutely terrific point; how can we stop people from looking at a small and cherry-picked portion instead of looking at the right length? I suggest you do so by spelling out ahead of time exactly what would prove the prediction wrong – and then, when someone points at the wrong span of weeks or years, you can say, no, I specified that we’d see at least X increase from year Y to year Z, and this falls way short of that.

[GIGObuster]

@FXMastermind

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?ref=science&_r=5&

The cooling since 2002 is even worse.

The general ideas when faced with the facts are pretty simple to fathom.

It’s cooling from anthropogenic aerosols.

It’s natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations or the sun.

Ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be distributed into the deep ocean

The temperature ‘sensitivity’ of the climate system is not as large as assumed

Or there is something fundamentally wrong with the “GHG warming theory”

Or a combination of the above. What we do know is it happened. The people still hanging on to “the warming hasn’t slowed at all” mantra are hopelessly absurd at this point.

Ah, yes, that bit has been making the runs on the denial sphere, it is still just cherry picking, reading the article does not show what the fake skeptics are claiming.

http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/2013/06/11/the-daily-caller-versus-a-scientist/194426

Conservative media are distorting a New York Times article that explained scientists’ research on how the ocean has absorbed much of recent global warming to deny manmade climate change. A prime example is the conservative website The Daily Caller, whose article is easily refuted by one of its own sources, a scientist who stated that “people should be exactly as concerned as before about what climate change is doing.”

Here’s The Daily Caller claiming that scientists have “lowered their warming estimates,” (it actually means estimates of climate sensitivity, or the amount that the surface temperatures would warm in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide):

Researchers from the UK recently reported that global temperatures will only rise between 0.9 degrees Celsius and 2.0 degrees Celsius. Before that, Norwegian researchers found that the earth may warm only 1.9 degrees Celsius.

"The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before," Dr. Alexander Otto of the University of Oxford told BBC News.

In fact, Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute compiled a partial list of studies that have lowered their warming estimates:

"Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012)."

Here’s the scientist that The Daily Caller cites, Dr. Otto of the University of Oxford, saying to the BBC that “We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn’t”:

The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.

This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.

"It is a bigger range of uncertainty," said Dr Otto.

"But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn't."

Here’s the Daily Caller casting doubt on The New York Times’ explanation that the ocean has been absorbing more heat:

Despite the global temperature plateau, [New York Times science reporter Justin] Gillis argues that global warming skeptics are still wrong to claim that global warming is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions. He suggests that maybe the ocean has absorbed some of the heat that would have otherwise been pumped into the atmosphere.

Here’s the BBC reporting that the scientist the Daily Caller cited earlier did in fact base his research on oceans absorbing more heat:

The researchers say the difference between the lower short-term estimate and the more consistent long-term picture can be explained by the fact that the heat from the last decade has been absorbed into and is being stored by the world’s oceans.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Saying I’m not accepting the former part is inaccurate; I accept it entirely. You’re refusing to answer about the latter part.

Clarifying does not make is sound better, the best that you do was to claim that it was “vague” as pointed before you are using a peculiar definition of vage, there is nothing vague on telling you that looking at the data and other research telling us that there is no increase should be enough to falsify it. Other demands are just JAQ.

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

In this thread, you’ve vaguely predicted a rise in hurricane intensity – and, when asked, you’ve failed to specify what would likewise prove you wrong. In years to come, I can’t possibly note that you were correct or that you were utterly wrong; you’re refusing to do here what you did there. What you did then was science. What you’re doing now is religion.

No, this point is dumb, and you in reality demonstrate that you have no good ideas left when resorting to accusing others of using religion. Suffice to say, I already demonstrated that if one is aware of the science there is nothing to stop you from finding studies or evidence that undermines Emmanuel, your compaint that I should explain even more about how can one falsify a study that just simply reports on the mechanics of the increase requires then to read it and one can get **other **ways to falsify it, as the example I offered about UFOs there is nothing that stopped me from finding evidence that showed the poster in GD had no good evidence whatsoever.

The take home lesson: It does not depend on me what the scientists report, nor it depends on me that one should report on how to falsify a paper, your demands are just only useful to confuse others and to avoid looking at the science.

Just like on the UFO case, I had previous experience debunking the UFO believers, it does not matter how vague they go, when one has basic understanding on where to look for evidence one does not need to demand to death to a UFO proponent to come with a falsification of what took place in an American Base in the 50’s, frankly that is just useful once, if I do not come with the evidence that I’m aware of that falsifies his points the fault is really on me.

And then it is just a JAQ if the only point is to repeat and practically tell others that one has ran out ideas and one gets a fame of just pretending that they understand the science or the history of a subject.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@GIGObuster

Clarifying does not make is sound better, the best that you do was to claim that it was “vague” as pointed before you are using a peculiar definition of vage, there is nothing vague on telling you that looking at the data and other research telling us that there is no increase should be enough to falsify it. Other demands are just JAQ.

That’s absurd. If you’re predicting ‘an increase in intensity’, why stop at telling me that looking at the data and other research should be enough?

Why not simply spell out – as you did for temperature – that you’ll be proven wrong if we don’t see at least X by year Y? How few words would it take?

No, this point is dumb, and you in reality demonstrate that you have no good ideas left when resorting to accusing others of using religion.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with that accusation if someone is, in fact, making unfalsifiable predictions exactly like a religion’s unfalsifiable predictions.

your compaint that I should explain even more about how can one falsify a study that just simply reports on the mechanics of the increase requires then to read it and one can get **other **ways to falsify it

But you’re the one predicting an increase in hurricane intensity; you mean something when you use that phrase. Why not spell out what you mean by it? So long as you don’t, your prediction is as vague as any religion. As soon as you do, you’ll have stepped into the realm of science.

The take home lesson: It does not depend on me what the scientists report, nor it depends on me that one should report on how to falsify a paper, your demands are just only useful to confuse others and to avoid looking at the science.

I’m not trying to falsify a paper. I’m saying that, so long as you predict an increase in hurricane intensity, you should spell out what would prove your prediction wrong.

And then it is just a JAQ if the only point is to repeat and practically tell others that one has ran out ideas and one gets a fame of just pretending that they understand the science or the history of a subject.

I’m weighing in only on the following: that you’ve predicted an increase in hurricane intensity, and that – for reasons I can’t begin to understand – you’ve refused to spell out what the opposite of that would look like.

Once upon a time, you vaguely predicted warming. I asked what you meant, asked what would prove you wrong. You specified: at least a tenth-of-a-degree per decade, from to X to Y and from Y to Z; anything less would be inadequate. Here, you vaguely predict an increase in hurricane intensity; I ask what you mean, and what would prove you wrong – and you’re silent.

Why? You believe in warming – and so you of course explain how much warming you expect, and how soon. If you believe in an increase in hurricane intensity, why not do likewise? Why make one claim and back it up, only to make another and play coy? Why switch to religion instead of doing science twice?