# Do global warming "skeptics" honestly see us as a benign species? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 5, 2014, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984 "2014-01-05T23:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/441 "2014-02-12T20:28:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > There is evidence that they are getting worse, that excess of water vapor, energy and ocean rice that makes the hurricanes (that will still come) worse are based on the record of what the warming is doing in the background. It is not only that the evidence supports it but it is what logic dictates. Does the same logic dictate we get a season with an ACE of 35? Can you help me interepret the evidence you see in [this chart](http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl) for Global hurricane ACE? To my geezer eyes, there’s a general trend down for Global ACE from about 1994… I’m fascinated by this ability to see bogeymen, and particularly future bogeymen. Or am I looking at the wrong data? From the text underneath the graphs (Use the Global tab if you want to see what I’m looking at): " **10 Things We Know About Accumulated Cyclone Energy** 1. There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012." Understand I’m not so foolish as to think a single year’s remarkable variation in ACE somehow disproves AGW. I’m much more interested in how human psychology works to find patterns and believe things which confirm an a priori bias even when no such evidence exists. Lately it seems I cannot hear about a bad hurricane without simultaneously hearing about how it could be a harbinger of AGW. Data notwithstanding, apparently. Perhaps your memory of hurricane San Ciriaco is not as vivid as mine, my son. 😉 Sometimes it helps to be really old, and to have seen a lotta predictions crap out. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/442 "2014-02-12T20:41:02Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Sometimes it helps to be really old, and to have seen a lotta predictions crap out. It always helps to be really old when you are looking at human nature. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/443 "2014-02-12T21:03:53Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Perhaps your memory of hurricane San Ciriaco is not as vivid as mine, my son. 😉 Sometimes it helps to be really old, and to have seen a lotta predictions crap out. The problem is that what Emanuel and others found are not predictions but what the record says. > **[What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm)** > > \It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.\ > [@](#): > > To determine whether warmer temperatures affect hurricane intensity, one study began by defining the potential destructiveness of a hurricane based on the dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of a hurricane (Emanuel 2005). The Power Dissipation Index is found to increase since the mid-1970s, due to both longer and more intense storms. Hurricane intensity is also highly correlated with sea surface temperature. This suggests that future warming will lead to an increase in the destructive potential of tropical hurricanes. > > Hurricane Intensity (Power Dissipation Index) versus North Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature - Emmanuel 2005 > > Figure 2: Smoothed Power Dissipation Index (dotted line, a measure of hurricane intensity) versus Tropical Atlantic Sea Surface Temperature (solid black line). (Emannuel 2005). > > 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. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase. More on Elsner’s paper… ---
**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:** [February 12, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/444 "2014-02-12T21:05:58Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It always helps to be really old when you are looking at human nature. But being older is not a guarantee to being right either. ---
**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:** [February 12, 2014, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/445 "2014-02-12T21:21:56Z")
BTW what I do notice is that a few factors on what kind of damage a hurricane can cause are not included in that weather underground chart (the point should be here that as usual one aspect of the issue is selected that misses other factors) > **[The connection between Hurricane Sandy and global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/hurricane-sandy-global-warming.htm)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > There are several ways in which human-caused global warming contributed to the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy - by causing higher sea levels (bigger storm surges and flooding), warmer oceans (a stronger hurricane), and more moisture in the air (more flooding). > [@](#): > > Looking into what we can expect for the impact of future sea level rise on hurricanes, Lin et al. (2012) found that: > > ``` > "The combined effects of storm climatology change and a 1 m [sea level rise] may cause the present NYC 100-yr surge flooding to occur every 3–20 yr and the present 500-yr flooding to occur every 25–240 yr by the end of the century." > > ``` > > So this human contribution to the Sandy-related damage is quite straightforward. This is what we know: > > ``` > [ul] > > ``` > > [li]Humans increased the greenhouse effect.[/li][li] The greenhouse effect caused the planet to warm.[/li][li] The warming planet caused land ice to melt and the oceans to expand.[/li][li] Melting land ice and thermal expansion caused average sea level to rise.[/li][li] Higher sea level made the storm surge worse than it would have been in the past, thus causing more flooding.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/446 "2014-02-12T22:35:51Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Well, some of us are actually capable of looking at [the data (.txt file)](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.2.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt). It appears that a new record was set in 1998, then again in 2005 and another record was set in 2010. > > Would you like to provide additional sources proving you wrong, or are you planning on stopping now? While appreciate the effort you expended to provide “the data (.txt file)”, the chart itself seems to be lacking labels or other identifying marks. How does that specific chart change the fact that hadcrut would use the same temp readings for the most recent 15 years in their 60 and 600 year charts? Why would I want to provide additional sources proving me wrong? (Have you given up trying?) And what do you mean “additional” sources? The IPCC and agw camp seem to have a credibility problem convincing the public that global warming is currently occuring. The most recent 15 years seem to indicate that the global temp has plateaued. The IPCC and agw camp are busy trying to explain why the Earth’s actual temperature so cruelly betrayed the IPCC guesstimations. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/447 "2014-02-12T23:02:57Z")
I see that the discussion has been lively in my absence. I’ll try to be brief and respond to those points from **Chief Pedant** that particularly caught my eye at the moment… > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Ummm…I realize it’s easier for you to argue against the position you’ve assumed I’ve taken but can you help me see where I’ve informed you that increasing CO2 will bless us with a pleasantly warmer environment? Sure – [right here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17093260&postcount=407): “Heck; with a little more AGW and CO2 fertilization, we might be able to get even more crops out of the northern latitudes and feed even more. We don’t know. (We aren’t interested much in exploring the upside of a warmer planet” And spare me the “I didn’t use those exact words” defense. I think most of us recognize the “Richard Lindzen gambit” when we see it (“who’s to say what is the ideal temperature for the earth anyway?”, “warmer temperatures and increased CO2 can bring benefits”, etc.). As pointed out [in a few links here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17094086&postcount=413), that isn’t what the science tells us – both from the perspective of physical climate system instabilities, and from the perspective of biological stresses. Your entire argument at its core is that “we don’t actually know anything” … for example: > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > What I’ve said is, we are crappy at predicting, we have a long history of predicting Doom incorrectly because Doom captivates us and it sells well; and I have suggested there is a parallel between the earnest novitiate proselytizing for their religion and the psychology which drives those who proselytize for AGW Doom. This is neither supportable or correct. Consider the following statement: > [@](#): > > The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment of climate change science concluded that large reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels. However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable. This missive, reflecting the ostensible child-like earnestness and alarmism of which I’ve been accused, didn’t come from me but from a joint statement signed by the US National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Académie des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico), Russian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Science of South Africa, and the Royal Society (United Kingdom). These signatories effectively make up the principal national science bodies of the world. Their joint announcement, of which [this is the full text](http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf), seems to run counter to your unqualified hunches. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I was interested to see your post about Dr Emanuel. > > But it may be that you need to lay off the marketing for a bit and catch up on your reading, as that paper is a few years old. > > Dr Emanual created a bit of stir by adding hurricane frequency along with severity back in to the CMIP5 climate model predictions I’m quite familiar with Emanuel’s work, thanks, and I’m not aware of engaging in “marketing”. Remember, the statement I was responding to was “Climate researchers predicted there would be more hurricanes in the future due to man-made CO2 global warming.” I’m not aware of that having ever been a widespread claim, from Emanuel or anyone else, and it isn’t now. The paper you cite says that some of the CMIP5 models differ from the CMIP3 ensemble in suggesting the possibility of increased hurricane frequency in addition to the fairly well established greater-energy theory, but with a great deal of uncertainty around that projection and indeed with [some CMIP5 analyses](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1530.html) contradicting it, at least for 21st century projections overall. Indeed if you actually read the paper, the last sentence is “the differences between our results, those arrived at by applying the same technique to CMIP3 models, and the conclusions of other groups using different models and/or using different methods suggest that projections of the response of tropical cyclones to projected climate change will remain uncertain for some time to come.” And Emanuel himself has always been extraordinary conservative is translating even strong research results into public statements, let alone tentative preliminary indicators. On his own MIT website, [he continues to stress PDI](http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/node/3) (a hurricane energy index developed by him) as the primary linkage between climate change and hurricane destructiveness. Likewise, there is no reason to discard one of the main conclusions of the [IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather](http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf): “It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. An increase in mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely, although increases may not occur in all tropical regions.” It will no doubt be tempting for you – perhaps insurmountably tempting – to trot this out as an example of how little the science actually knows. I would stress again that there is a vast difference between predicting the general trend of the earth’s energy balance and the well-established evidence for the large-scale instabilities that rapid changes cause in both the climate system and the ecosystem, and the ability to predict the nature and timing of specific changes that are heavily influenced by chaotic factors. I will resist the temptation to provide obvious analogies, as I’m sure you can grasp the concept. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/448 "2014-02-13T04:47:38Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I see that the discussion has been lively in my absence. I’ll try to be brief and respond to those points from **Chief Pedant** that particularly caught my eye at the moment… > Sure – [right here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17093260&postcount=407): “Heck; with a little more AGW and CO2 fertilization, we might be able to get even more crops out of the northern latitudes and feed even more. We don’t know. (We aren’t interested much in exploring the upside of a warmer planet” > > And spare me the “I didn’t use those exact words” defense. I think most of us recognize the “Richard Lindzen gambit” when we see it (“who’s to say what is the ideal temperature for the earth anyway?”, “warmer temperatures and increased CO2 can bring benefits”, etc.). As pointed out [in a few links here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17094086&postcount=413), that isn’t what the science tells us – both from the perspective of physical climate system instabilities, and from the perspective of biological stresses. > Your entire argument at its core is that “we don’t actually know anything” … for example: > This is neither supportable or correct. Consider the following statement: > This missive, reflecting the ostensible child-like earnestness and alarmism of which I’ve been accused, didn’t come from me but from a joint statement signed by the US National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Académie des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Science Council of Japan, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico), Russian Academy of Sciences, Academy of Science of South Africa, and the Royal Society (United Kingdom). > > These signatories effectively make up the principal national science bodies of the world. Their joint announcement, of which [this is the full text](http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf), seems to run counter to your unqualified hunches. > > I’m quite familiar with Emanuel’s work, thanks, and I’m not aware of engaging in “marketing”. Remember, the statement I was responding to was “Climate researchers predicted there would be more hurricanes in the future due to man-made CO2 global warming.” I’m not aware of that having ever been a widespread claim, from Emanuel or anyone else, and it isn’t now. The paper you cite says that some of the CMIP5 models differ from the CMIP3 ensemble in suggesting the possibility of increased hurricane frequency in addition to the fairly well established greater-energy theory, but with a great deal of uncertainty around that projection and indeed with [some CMIP5 analyses](http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1530.html) contradicting it, at least for 21st century projections overall. > > Indeed if you actually read the paper, the last sentence is “the differences between our results, those arrived at by applying the same technique to CMIP3 models, and the conclusions of other groups using different models and/or using different methods suggest that projections of the response of tropical cyclones to projected climate change will remain uncertain for some time to come.” And Emanuel himself has always been extraordinary conservative is translating even strong research results into public statements, let alone tentative preliminary indicators. On his own MIT website, [he continues to stress PDI](http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/node/3) (a hurricane energy index developed by him) as the primary linkage between climate change and hurricane destructiveness. > > Likewise, there is no reason to discard one of the main conclusions of the [IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather](http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf): “It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. An increase in mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely, although increases may not occur in all tropical regions.” > > It will no doubt be tempting for you – perhaps insurmountably tempting – to trot this out as an example of how little the science actually knows. I would stress again that there is a vast difference between predicting the general trend of the earth’s energy balance and the well-established evidence for the large-scale instabilities that rapid changes cause in both the climate system and the ecosystem, and the ability to predict the nature and timing of specific changes that are heavily influenced by chaotic factors. I will resist the temptation to provide obvious analogies, as I’m sure you can grasp the concept. See, here’s the problem: Like most Alarmists you want to take umbrage with anything that challenges your assumptions. Including quoting me entirely out of context. Here’s another quote from me you left out: “I don’t deny that AGW may kill us all. Neither do I raise an alarm about it. It’s an interesting possibility that may turn out to be correct, and it’s a further possibility that some of the effects may be harmful. I do argue that the net effect is quite unknown, and I do argue that its as-yet-unknown net effect is nowhere near at the top of current environmental dangers to the health of this planet.” I’ll let you and GIGObuster knock yourselves out convincing yourselves there’s good evidence hurricanes are worsening. Anything that fits the Alarmist mentality has to be right. Where you are dead wrong is that there is any reasonable idea of what the net effect of this will all be. Concern? Sure. But we just have a horrible track record of predicting outcomes, even when we are confident our models that set up the outcome are correct. Any confidence level about a particular putative outcome for AGW is badly overstated. If you think sea ice melting is the horrible outcome confirming the IPCC, you and I have very different ideas of what horrible outcomes are. I thought we were talking about some sort global catastrophe. And no reasonable person would deny the current trend is toward disappearance of the Arctic sea ice. What I am saying is that we have no idea what the in toto outcome of AGW will be, and our psychology is to emphasize the Doom potential. The reason I assumed you were less familiar with Dr Emanuel’s work is this comment from you: _“Until Emanuel’s landmark paper in 2005, no strong claims were being made about hurricane energies, either, but we now know that in many regions like the North Atlantic, we can likely expect fewer hurricanes due to distruptive factors like wind shear, but that when they do occur, higher sea surface temperatures will tend to create more energetic ones.”_ (underlining mine, for emphasis) In fact, as I pointed out above, his work published last summer suggests hurricanes will be more frequent. It got press precisely because it fed a confirmation bias: Doom is on the horizon (read the Mother Jones article I linked to get a sense of what I’m talking about). Now that the 2013 season was so ridiculously feeble, it’s time to start parsing out the fine print at the end, apparently. Had the season been enormous, I suspect the headline of increased frequency would have seized the day. I have no issue with Dr Emanuel’s prediction, particularly. I mean, he’s got a one third chance of being right. They’ll either be less frequent, or have the same frequency, or be more frequent. But whatever they are, it will not be much of anything but dumb luck if he’s right. So far I don’t see much evidence hurricanes are worse or more frequent by the ACE standard generally accepted by the hurricane community…of course if you just make the claim hurricanes will be hitting us hard Real Soon Now, we’re back to my point that we are lousy at predicting the future. I wish Dr Emanuel the best. And good luck with his effort to get Germany off their dumbass anti-nuclear position, which has driven them to start [burning up forests to prop up solar](http://www.economist.com/news/business/21575771-environmental-lunacy-europe-fuel-future)in the name of environmentalism. I guess when you’re in a panic over all these terrible consequences about to visit doom upon us, you can’t think straight anymore. Bad enough to be crappy at predictions. Worse to take idiotic measures in the name of avoiding the uncertain predictions. Ah well… I recommend a little less panic, even if takes the fun out of proselytizing. One last thing: in the G8+5 paper you cite, can you help me parse out exactly what doom they think AGW is going to bring? I see melting sea ice, and rising (unquantified) sea levels. Is that about it? ---
**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:** [February 13, 2014, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/449 "2014-02-13T05:45:47Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I’ll let you and GIGObuster knock yourselves out convincing yourselves there’s good evidence hurricanes are worsening. Anything that fits the Alarmist mentality has to be right. A strawman tosser to the end. I’m on the record mentioning that a possible reduction on the number of hurricanes could be one of the few good things to come from a warming world, the point remains that many other issues coming thanks to the continuous increase on our emissions are still more likely to give humanity trouble if there is no concerted effort to deal with the issue. What it is really reckless is to think that we should follow the advice of the ones that continue to tell us that we should bet on more risky outcomes. The best choice is still to reduce the risk, so, to reduce emissions is what the experts recommend. ---
**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:** [February 13, 2014, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/450 "2014-02-13T06:12:58Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > In fact, as I pointed out above, his work published last summer suggests hurricanes will be more frequent. It got press precisely because it fed a confirmation bias: Doom is on the horizon (read the Mother Jones article I linked to get a sense of what I’m talking about). Now that the 2013 season was so ridiculously feeble, it’s time to start parsing out the fine print at the end, apparently. Had the season been enormous, I suspect the headline of increased frequency would have seized the day. The confirmation bias was really from you to think that doom regarding an increase in the number of the hurricanes was the order of the day, even the article reports that is not the case. > **[A Scientific Storm Is Brewing Over the Hurricane-Climate Connection](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/hurricanes-global-warming-kerry-emanuel/)** > > Echoes of 2005's scientific dispute—and its devastating hurricane season. > [@](#): > > **Following the explosive 2005 debate, scientists gradually settled on a new conclusion. Storms are likely to be stronger on average in the future and to dump more destructive rainfall, they agreed, but—in a bit of a reprieve—they’re also likely to be less numerous overall.** Or as a recent summary of the state of scientific understanding put it, an “increase in intense storm numbers is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical storms.” > > While it may sound rather mild, this conclusion could hardly be called good news. The strongest storms—the Katrinas—cause the most damage, so a future with more of them is likely to be a pretty grim one. “I like to emphasize that for societal purposes, the big deal is the increase in the frequency of the high category events,” explains Emanuel. Nonetheless, to the untrained ear the current view sounds like a tradeoff of strength versus numbers, and thus kind of a wash.\*\* “I think that was a bad way for us to put it,” says Emanuel of the consensus view.\*\* This item is just a confirmation that you still think that just using the spin of the popular press as being good; as I pointed before, but you ignored, the Mother Jones article reports that the issue of the hurricanes getting more numerous is not supported by most researchers. What you have there is just like the spin seen when the media claimed in the 70’s that an ice age was coming, controversy sells. And then contrarians spin it even more to give the impression that all researchers are just selling doom regarding an increase in the number of hurricanes, time will tell if he is correct on the increase on the number of hurricanes. And there warnings regarding the intensity of precipitation and surges that should not be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/451 "2014-02-13T12:03:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The confirmation bias was really from you to think that doom regarding an increase in the number of the hurricanes was the order of the day, even the article reports that is not the case. > > [A Scientific Storm Is Brewing Over the Hurricane-Climate Connection – Mother Jones](http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/07/hurricanes-global-warming-kerry-emanuel) > This item is just a confirmation that you still think that just using the spin of the popular press as being good; as I pointed before, but you ignored, the Mother Jones article reports that the issue of the hurricanes getting more numerous is not supported by most researchers. What you have there is just like the spin seen when the media claimed in the 70’s that an ice age was coming, controversy sells. And then contrarians spin it even more to give the impression that all researchers are just selling doom regarding an increase in the number of hurricanes, time will tell if he is correct on the increase on the number of hurricanes. And there warnings regarding the intensity of precipitation and surges that should not be ignored. With all due respect, this is why I stay out of these tedious AGW debates for the most part. Each side is so desperate to convince the other, they pull out bits and pieces out of context and just end up yammering. Please read that Mother Jones article again, slowly. The thrust of it is not the current consensus. The thrust of it is that hurricane Doom is even worse than we thought–and here’s why–from a respected hurricane expert. That new data (increased frequency prediction based on the CMIP modeling) is the news being reported. Let me help you understand what the writer is saying. I hope this series of quotes will help you get the whole gist: \*"And suddenly, an MIT scientist—who’s arguably the world’s top expert on hurricanes—publishes a bombshell paper in a top scientific journal. His suggestion? That global warming might be making the most destructive storms on Earth even more dangerous. Emanuel is back with a new paper challenging the consensus on hurricanes and global warming… Following the explosive 2005 debate, scientists gradually settled on a new conclusion. Storms are likely to be stronger on average in the future and to dump more destructive rainfall, they agreed, but—in a bit of a reprieve—they’re also likely to be less numerous overall. …to the untrained ear the current view sounds like a tradeoff of strength versus numbers, and thus kind of a wash. “I think that was a bad way for us to put it,” says Emanuel of the consensus view. Emanuel no longer thinks that consensus is necessarily correct. In his new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, he uses a procedure known as “downscaling”—combining together global climate models with a much higher resolution hurricane model—to show that hurricanes may be both more numerous and also more intense going forward. And according to Emanuel, these newer models have a different treatment of so-called sulfate aerosol emissions, which come from the burning of coal and actually tend to reflect sunlight away from the planet and its oceans, producing a net cooling effect. The newer models project a greater reduction in future aerosol pollution from countries like India and China. And as Emanuel explains, his “hunch” is that the disturbing hurricane response that his study found is a perverse result of this seemingly “good news” aspect of the models’ projections. In other words, if you clean up the air, you can actually worsen global warming and also, perhaps, hurricanes. The debate over Emanuel’s new results has just begun—but already, the work has been challenged. The divergent findings, says hurricane expert Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “indicate that care needs to be taken in being too explicit with climate predictions of changes in tropical cyclone frequency at this stage.” "\* All of this is exactly in line with what I am trying to get across here. We are lousy at predicting actual outcomes–what the actual in toto physical issues are that we have to deal with over the next decades. The Scientific consensus is that we are in a cycle of warming, and that this cycle is being heavily contributed to by anthropogenic causes. There is far less consensus on what the net result of that will be to mankind or to the earth’s environment, and the deeper one digs under the covers about specific outcomes (such as hurricane frequency and intensity) the more speculative and the less unanimous is that consensus. For Alarmists, when potentially bad news comes out–hurricanes might get more horrible–it’s news precisely because it feeds our confirmation biases. When potentially good news comes out–CO2 fertilization might be beneficial–it’s quickly met with all the reasons it’s actually bad news. When bad things happen–hurricane Sandy–they are harbingers. When good things happen–2013 Atlantic hurricane season with an ACE of 35–they are normal variant outliers. For Deniers, exactly the opposite happens. The 2013 hurricane season is proof Alarmists don’t know beans, and the past winter in North America is proof Scientists are idiots. It’s all just human nature, each side fighting for their Great Cause. Next week if I have time I’ll open up a debate on why the AGW marketing message that we need to Change Now is toast. I think the movement is in real trouble, with the public pattern settling down to “OK; our increased CO2 might change the future. Please leave me alone for now.” I’m sure I’ll see you there, repairing my points. ---
**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:** [February 13, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/452 "2014-02-13T14:45:44Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > With all due respect, this is why I stay out of these tedious AGW debates for the most part. Each side is so desperate to convince the other, they pull out bits and pieces out of context and just end up yammering. > > Please read that Mother Jones article again, slowly. The thrust of it is not the current consensus. The thrust of it is that hurricane Doom is even worse than we thought–and here’s why–from a respected hurricane expert. That new data (increased frequency prediction based on the CMIP modeling) is the news being reported.\* That is nice, but I was and continue to talk about the current consensus, the point stands, you tried to make it sound like if the consensus was doom, that consensus will not do for the bias you have. So it has to be minimized by contrarians like you. And you do it with a non-scientific article that does minimize the conclusions of Emmanuel himself. One mayor point I do make is that popular media is just about the last place to get information from, or I should say, the spin. [As Science writer Peter Hadfield explained many times before, you need to check the source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk), more often you will find that the spin omits important information, and popular media gets a lot of the science 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:** [February 13, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/453 "2014-02-13T15:39:30Z")
What it is clear to me is that you are also wrong in assuming that I’m also an alarmist. The point I constantly make is that one has to look at what experts and the evidence and the climate scientists agree to so we can make better decisions, and it is clear also with this example that we can not rely on popular media. Just concluding that there is only a message of doom is not the whole reality, of course there are some that press on alarmism, and I’m also on the record of shooting down alarmists like Lovelock. The point here is that you are even wrong regarding where I come from; before this subject and others I debunked many of the followers of the moon hoax, I got into that thanks to my experience in media and image formats and the science and historical evidence that told me how out of it the conspiracy theorists were. Same with this issue, history allowed me to notice that virtually all contrarians insist on refusing to accept the evidence presented regarding the progress made with paleo climate (because it made their beautiful theory about how warm the medieval warming was inadequate, that warming was not as important as they assumed) was enough for me to conclude that contrarians follow the idea that climate scientists are into a conspiracy. The points you are making here do rely on a conspiracy of sorts, but I think here this is mostly related to the incompetency of many in the popular press. The problem here is that you think that I follow the popular press when I look at this issue. Or that we should look at it to confirm a bias, as pointed that is not really important, what is important is to check what the researchers and experts agree nowadays, not what the popular press gets 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:** [February 13, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/454 "2014-02-13T16:41:32Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Next week if I have time I’ll open up a debate on why the AGW marketing message that we need to Change Now is toast. I think the movement is in real trouble, with the public pattern settling down to “OK; our increased CO2 might change the future. Please leave me alone for now.” I’m sure I’ll see you there, repairing my points. My observation here is that the same can be said about the message of biologists regarding evolution, the acceptance of that message remains at worse levels than the acceptance of AGW, but what counts is that when important decisions are made regarding education and medical progress it is the experts that are consulted, not the popular media or creationists. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/455 "2014-02-13T17:56:09Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > One last thing: in the G8+5 paper you cite, can you help me parse out exactly what doom they think AGW is going to bring? I see melting sea ice, and rising (unquantified) sea levels. Is that about it? Mercifully, a relative economy of words will suffice here as the answer to that covers many other points. The answer is “no”, and that question is a misinterpretation of the nature and purpose of [the document I linked](http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf), which is not a “paper” but a policy statement and an urgent call to action with respect to specific actions that are needed to mitigate AGW. It specifically references the assessments of the IPCC, which itself is just a reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge, and those who are interested in the details about the impacts of climate change can find them in abundance in the [IPCC Working Group II assessments](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html) (of which a new report will be issued next month as part of the Fifth Assessment series) and of course throughout the literature. Let’s remember that this statement represents the consensus of the world’s major national science bodies, and is far from the only such policy statement. Similar statements have been issued before by the US National Academy of Sciences and such organizations as the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, the American Physical Society, the National Intelligence Council, and literally countless others. It is astounding to me that anyone could believe that there is any credible basis for contradicting this kind of scientific consensus based on such denialist canards as “science can be wrong” or, with all respect, an entirely specious armchair analysis of the psychology of human belief systems. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Please read that Mother Jones article again, slowly. The thrust of it is not the current consensus. The thrust of it is that hurricane Doom is even worse than we thought–and here’s why–from a respected hurricane expert. That new data (increased frequency prediction based on the CMIP modeling) is the news being reported. The MJ article is to me an all too typical example of bad journalism, and specifically of sensationalized journalism. If your point is that we are infested with bad reporting and irresponsible media, I agree with you completely, but I would point out that journalistic sensationalism doesn’t lead quite to the results you claim it does. Sure, it will tend to sensationalize negative predictions into a gloom & doom scenario, but bad journalism above all seeks to create headlines, and nothing creates headlines better than conflict and debate. So for every climate scientist announcing a potentially damaging finding in relation to climate change, the media is happy to trot out some lunatic to flamboyantly contradict him, which not only creates headlines but provides the illusion of “balance” and thrills their advertisers by not only drawing in a bigger audience but also by appealing to industrialists’ denialist proclivities. It is, indeed, the media and nothing else that has created the illusion of “debate” over key issues that are in reality pretty much settled science and rarely if ever appear in the legitimate scientific literature. In that connection we return here to our man of the hour, Kerry Emanuel, who has written some notable pieces on the politics of climate change, one of which is a wonderful essay called “Phaeton’s Reins” that appeared in the Boston Review in January/February 2007. Google will still turn up various versions of it online and I highly recommend it. It’s about 16 or 17 pages long but this is one quote that is relevant here – and it’s a theme that I’ve emphasized many times – that the public has not been well served in this arena either by the media or by its politicians: > [@](#): > > But as the dogmatists grew increasingly alienated from the scientific mainstream, they were embraced by political groups and journalists, who thrust them into the limelight. This produced a gross distortion in the public perception of the scientific debate. Ever eager for the drama of competing dogmas, the media largely ignored mainstream scientists whose hesitations did not make good copy. As the global-warming signal continues to emerge, this soap opera is kept alive by a dwindling number of deniers constantly tapped for interviews by journalists who pretend to look for balance. > > While the American public has been misinformed by a media obsessed with sensational debate, climate scientists developed a way forward that helps them to compare notes and test one another’s ideas and also creates a valuable communication channel. Called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, it produces a detailed summary of the state of the science every four years … Although far from perfect, the IPCC involves serious climate scientists from many countries and has largely withstood political attack and influence. > > Especially in the United States, the political debate about global climate change became polarized along the conservative–liberal axis some decades ago … There are other obstacles to taking a sensible approach to the climate problem. We have preciously few representatives in Congress with a background or interest in science, and some of them display an active contempt for the subject. As long as we continue to elect scientific illiterates like James Inhofe, who believes global warming to be a hoax, we will lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/456 "2014-02-13T20:36:15Z")
[The ultimate guide to shutting down climate trolls.](http://www.salon.com/2014/02/13/the_ultimate_guide_to_debunking_blizzard_based_climate_change_denial/) ---
**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:** [February 13, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/457 "2014-02-13T20:54:25Z")
You should spam that in more topics. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2014, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/458 "2014-02-13T22:14:31Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > You should spam that in more topics. Same topic, different threads. Do try to keep up. ---
**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:** [February 13, 2014, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/459 "2014-02-13T22:38:58Z")
MOAR spamming, less thinking. Don’t you have the skepticalscience app? You don’t need to think, just use the canned response. It’s easy and fun. ---
**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:** [February 14, 2014, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984/460 "2014-02-14T00:06:35Z")
It is just a resource, not using it just demonstrates that you are not even aware that people can organize what was discussed before and agreed after many years of research. I guess because you think that is impossible your only fallback is to attempt to kill the messenger, it does not matter that many diverse sources like conservative scientists, people that investigate pseudoscience for a living and many skeptic groups and individuals recommend Skeptical Science. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-global-warming-skeptics-honestly-see-us-as-a-benign-species/677984.md?page=24)