Erm… this is a bit sneaky

I was going to link to this article as a counter to the post I linked to the other day. The headline is “Stronger Link Found between Hurricanes and Global Warming: A century’s worth of records suggests that hurricanes are on the rise and a warming Atlantic is to blame.” Most of the article is making side swipes at “critics” (of global warming? of athropogenic global warming? of climate models? of the hypothesis that the number of hurricanes are increasing? of what?).

“Critics of such a link argue that this trend is merely because of better observations since the dawn of the satellite era in the 1970s. But the authors of the new study say the conclusion is hard to dodge.” What “link” are these critics arguing against? Does anyone doubt ocean temperatures determine the number and severity of storms? The article doesn’t address how patches of ocean are getting hotter or why they would be getting that way almost 3/4 of a century before people ratcheted up the CO2 emissions. What “link” is in dispute?

I expect more out of Sciam. They’re doing the opposite of what good science reporting should do; they’re muddying the waters.

3 thoughts on “Erm… this is a bit sneaky”

  1. Uh, when did people start ratcheting up CO2 emissions? 1975? Was that the year we discovered coal or something? My public education didn’t cover that.

    That said, I didn’t find a single reference to “carbon,” “CO2,” or “greenhouse gases,” and “global warming” only appears in the title. The critics seem to argue that changes in Atlantic ocean currents are the culprit behind increased hurricane frequency, and there is no change in frequency. Strictly speaking, they only cite one critic. Strictly speaking, even that critic’s estimated storm count for this year is around triple the average from 100 years ago (according to the article).

    Kind of a fluffy article, though, yeah. It’s a magazine, not a scholarly journal.

  2. “That said, I didn’t find a single reference to ‘carbon'” etc…

    This is my point. Why are we attacking “critics” who are just other scientists that have a different take on the data. There would be much science going on if there weren’t “critics”.

    Just a magazine. Just a magazine! It’s Scientific fricking American… its better than this.

  3. *Wouldn’t, I think you meant.

    They also don’t have much of an article without wheeling out an adversary to their plucky subjects. An erudite doubter, clad in black turtleneck, hem-heming at the notion of these upstarts and their radical methodology; no doubt he’d have his way with industrial progress if it weren’t for these meddling kids.

    Ultimately, no magazine or academic journal can stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of the Napkinback Press, or the alumni of the “School of It Stands to Reason…” and the “School of My Dad Always Said…”

Comments are closed.