“There’s Been NO Increase”: Scientists Debunk Climate Change Claims About Hurricanes

[TastySuckToy]

https://discernreport.com/theres-be...ebunk-climate-change-claims-about-hurricanes/

He said he expects “we’ll hear a lot more alarmist messaging” if 2024 is a busy hurricane season, as predicted. But, like Mr. Bastardi, Mr. Cohen said hurricanes aren’t getting bigger or more intense. He said that as temperatures naturally warm coming out of the Little Ice Age, hurricanes and weather events will get less intense—not exponentially worse.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

https://discernreport.com/theres-be...ebunk-climate-change-claims-about-hurricanes/

Epoch Times?
Do you have a link to the peer reviewed journal?

 

[JoePepsiCo]

If you were more curious and less stupid, you would have perused the article and saw the links to research.

I continue to believe that you have no concept as to what peer-review actually is.

It's come to be a phrase that you parrot.

Wanna cracker Cracker?

 

[quietlylooking]

If you were more curious and less stupid, you would have perused the article and saw the links to research.

I continue to believe that you have no concept as to what peer-review actually is.

It's come to be a phrase that you parrot.

Wanna cracker Cracker?

Old scientist here, so I have peer review experience and appreciate its importance to science. I followed a number of the links (but didn't click on every single one) and didn't find that they went to peer-reviewed journal articles.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

What do you do when you want a peer-review (been there, done that)? Use those who vehemently disagree with you? What you're not saying is that you found error in the conclusion; you dispute the methodology and I say "peer-review" is not the gold standard anymore in a publish-or-perish incestual intellectual academic environment. You review mine, I'll review yours and we'll both advance in our careers.

[Edit: I mean, who are the experts in the field? It's not like you go outside of your expertise to find "peers."]

Have you even seen the math on the numbers of peer-reviewed papers that have been proven erroneous?

It's simply staggering.

 

[ll74]

So the headline says one thing while the article says another.

For the tl dr of it all - Epoch is basically predicting that climate change activists will blame climate change for increased hurricane activity,. If it were to occur.

Epoch consistently writes puff pieces about climate change to pwn the libs. This article has no value whatsoever.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Glowball Warning means fewer hurricanes; they require the temperature differential.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Weather Porn

https://twitter.com/x/status/1763547278730498480

 

[John_von_Neumann]

While the state of peer review today is highly questionable, AJ once claimed that solicited book reviews were just the same as double-blind peer review. So take what "JoePepsiCo" has to say with a pint of salt.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Who's AJ? Your arch nemesis or something?

Link? It sounds like a farcical fantasy.

 

[jomar]

If you were more curious and less stupid, you would have perused the article and saw the links to research.

I continue to believe that you have no concept as to what peer-review actually is.

It's come to be a phrase that you parrot.

Wanna cracker Cracker?

lol, you’re about as credible as the epoch times and the gateway pundit. Good job Rightguide Jr!

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it made you feel all smart and everything.

 

[DeluxAuto]

California recently had a hurricane warning. That's a 100% increase for them.

 

[quietlylooking]

What do you do when you want a peer-review (been there, done that)? Use those who vehemently disagree with you? What you're not saying is that you found error in the conclusion; you dispute the methodology and I say "peer-review" is not the gold standard anymore in a publish-or-perish incestual intellectual academic environment. You review mine, I'll review yours and we'll both advance in our careers.

[Edit: I mean, who are the experts in the field? It's not like you go outside of your expertise to find "peers."]

Have you even seen the math on the numbers of peer-reviewed papers that have been proven erroneous?

It's simply staggering.

You don't get to pick who reviews your work when you submit it to a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal (although sometimes you can make suggestions, the journal doesn't have to take them). Scientists want a thorough, critical review of their work before it is published. They want to hear about alternative explanations, weaknesses in arguments, problems with experimental designs, etc. so they can address these issues. Scientists know it makes their work better and brings them closer to truth.

Peers= others with expertise in the field in which you are working, by definition. So you are correct: it is impossible to find a true peer who is outside of your area. But not all "peers" have the same views, and many enjoy the rigor of scientific discussions with those who have different ideas. It makes science better.

As a scientist, you make a hypothesis and expect it to be tested. Sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes there is a flaw in the analysis. That is part of the scientific process. Science is constantly revising, building on past work, correcting itself, evolving, improving, moving towards truth. Scientists do have their own biases and pressures to publish (with predatory journals and click-bait press releases diluting and diminishing the good work that is done). Still, peer review has gotten us pretty damn so far, and I'm not aware of a better way for science to progress. Any ideas?

 

[jomar]

Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it made you feel all smart and everything.

You’re welcome. Actually, it made feel all amused and everything.

 

[Rotadom]

You don't get to pick who reviews your work when you submit it to a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal (although sometimes you can make suggestions, the journal doesn't have to take them). Scientists want a thorough, critical review of their work before it is published. They want to hear about alternative explanations, weaknesses in arguments, problems with experimental designs, etc. so they can address these issues. Scientists know it makes their work better and brings them closer to truth.

Peers= others with expertise in the field in which you are working, by definition. So you are correct: it is impossible to find a true peer who is outside of your area. But not all "peers" have the same views, and many enjoy the rigor of scientific discussions with those who have different ideas. It makes science better.

As a scientist, you make a hypothesis and expect it to be tested. Sometimes you are wrong. Sometimes there is a flaw in the analysis. That is part of the scientific process. Science is constantly revising, building on past work, correcting itself, evolving, improving, moving towards truth. Scientists do have their own biases and pressures to publish (with predatory journals and click-bait press releases diluting and diminishing the good work that is done). Still, peer review has gotten us pretty damn so far, and I'm not aware of a better way for science to progress. Any ideas?

You’re welcome. Actually, it made feel all amused and everything.

He's is nothing but a contrarian who debases himself by saying dumb things in hopes to be seen as "edgy."

 

[Bn2f]