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…”

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.

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.