• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deceptive PNAS Paper About Hurricanes

Buzz said:
Now you are just adding nonsensical arguments to your lies.

Later, Jack.

See you on your next false or misleading cut and paste.
Click to expand...

Nope. I just gave you a clear, concise explanation the issue. You're denying.
 
Jack Hays said:
Address the substance or embarrass yourselves. Your call.
Click to expand...

There isn't much substance to respond to. They pretend to have four major points of argument, but two of them are just restating the accusation of cherry-picking. But their support for this claim is... cherry picking a smaller and less-recent dataset. A larger dataset is better than a smaller one, generally, so this claim is unconvincing.

They also tried to claim that the percentage of tropical storms that strengthen into a major hurricane is irrelevant if the total number of major hurricanes stays the same. A claim like this is entirely missing the point.

Their last claim is some whining about journalists that I am entirely uninterested in.
 
Deuce said:
There isn't much substance to respond to. They pretend to have four major points of argument, but two of them are just restating the accusation of cherry-picking. But their support for this claim is... cherry picking a smaller and less-recent dataset. A larger dataset is better than a smaller one, generally, so this claim is unconvincing.

They also tried to claim that the percentage of tropical storms that strengthen into a major hurricane is irrelevant if the total number of major hurricanes stays the same. A claim like this is entirely missing the point.

Their last claim is some whining about journalists that I am entirely uninterested in.
Click to expand...

The critique is powerful. "Intensity" is the difference between major hurricanes and other, lesser storms. The PNAS authors "find" more intensity only because overall hurricane frequency declined, and major hurricane frequency stayed level. Thus, the percentage increase in major (more intense) hurricanes. Manipulation of statistics on hurricane frequency is in fact central to the PNAS authors' argument.
 
Jack Hays said:
The critique is powerful. "Intensity" is the difference between major hurricanes and other, lesser storms. The PNAS authors "find" more intensity only because overall hurricane frequency declined, and major hurricane frequency stayed level. Thus, the percentage increase in major (more intense) hurricanes. Manipulation of statistics on hurricane frequency is in fact central to the PNAS authors' argument.
Click to expand...

If it was “powerful”, it wouldnt be on a ****ty denier blog.
 

India Confirms No Increase in Tropical Cyclones Due to Climate Change

by Vijay Jayaraj One of the chief fears about climate change—or, more specifically, global warming—is that it will generate more frequent and more severe extreme weather events. Observed facts, however, should quiet those fears. India, one of the key members of the global climate change pact, has reiterated that there is no increase in cyclones…
Continue reading →
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom