NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike

'Likely' is an opinion. Like the IPCC which does not quote scientists but has a small cadre of people, some scientists, some activists, that give their 'opinion' of the science.

 

There were multiple links in the OP predicting increased hurricanes frequency and intensity. We are now in year 11 of calm hurricane seasons. Yet another scary doomsday AGW prediction fails.

 

Decades of the trend.



Last 4-decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency -- 12-month running sums. The top time series is the number of TCs that reach at least tropical storm strength (maximum lifetime wind speed exceeds 34-knots). The bottom time series is the number of hurricane strength (64-knots+) TCs.

 

Keep looking. And the terminology table is based on opinions and not on statistical tests. Anyone who professes knowledge of the global warming issue and the workings of the IPCC would know that. And stating that there is a 2 out of 3 chance is pushing a narrative.

So you too are stating that the IPCC has never communicated the idea that global warming would result in cyclones of greater intensity and freqency ??

Many scientists have now recognized that global warming will not result in cyclones of higher intensity including Dr. Judith Curry who is a global warming realist who did "predict" that global warming would do just that. The data however have not shown this trend which is so stated in the IPCC AR5. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has written a book about it - "The Rightful Place of Science - Disasters and Climate Change" which documents the lack of correlation of global warming with hurricanes/cyclones and other weather caused disasters.

 

Exactly - those designations which are falsely linked to statistical probabilities resulting from data and calculations are purely opinion. An opinion of a 2 out of 3 chance is clearly pushing a narrative.

 

You mean like smoking cigarettes for 30 years will likely give you cancer

 

Sorry , no. Not gonna do your homework for you.

Wrong again. And you must totally be a riot when you go to the doctor. Doctor: "we need to test that lump on your back. It could be cancerous." AFM: "That's just, like, your opinion man. Why are you pushing a narrative on me?? My plumber told me that it wasn't cancer and that you doctor dudes are just are trying to run up my bill"

'Likely' does not mean 'will'. I swear I could teach a class on recognizing bad arguments and logical fallacies just using your posts as teaching material.


Here is the intro to the guidance notes which shows just how precise they are with using language. It shows how they are in fact very careful to not be seen as 'pushing a narrative'.

See? You can't have it both ways. If they were "pushing a narrative" they had much stronger language to use. Why would they not use 'Very Likely'? ...or 'Virtually Certain' for that matter?

 

I've done my homework - I'm suggesting that you do the same.

Clearly you know nothing about statistics as well. Those are guidance notes which you obviously have not read.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that you cannot discern the difference in the two statements is telling.

 

The fact that this is your response is hilarious.

 

Actually what is hilarious is that, after all this time, you still don't know you are presenting logical fallacies.

 

Dammit Hoosier! ... I just got my irony meter repaired from the last time you did this and now you've gone and broken it again.

 

I take it you can't recognize a logical fallacy either?

 

You should have had your homework capacity generator repaired. Here's some other homework questions. Do scientists write the IPCC Assessment Reports (AR's) ?? Which is written first: the IPCC AR's or the IPCC "supporting" technical reports ?? Why does the IPCC purport to study global warming but in fact only studies Anthropogenic global warming ?? If there is no functional relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from Anthropogenic sources how can the singular focus of the IPCC be justified ??

I don't expect answers but who knows, the Thames could freeze over again.

 

Sure I can. Let me demonstrate.

My statement that:

...is a statement made ironically. It is intended poke fun at the very ironic fact that you (someone so prone to logical fallacies) is attempting to point out logical fallacies in others.

What this statement does not do is to offer any truth statement on the veracity of the claim of a logical fallacy elsewhere. So your reply of

is a non sequitur. (Latin for "it does not follow") meaning that your conclusion in no way stems from the premise. It could also be viewed as a "Red-Herring'. a red herring is an argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of the argument.

 

All this falls apart because you do not recognize the original logical fallacy which has been pointed out.

 

You responded to my response to someone else's logical fallacy so I guess you just can't follow a thread.

 

Which is itself, yet another logical fallacy. The truth of my statement is not dependent on the truth of his. You are a goldmine, I tell you. I told you elsewhere to print out that list. It will really help you out.

- - - Updated - - -

I followed it fine. It was great irony.

 

Who cares? You are arguing trivia. The real story is that AGW is a scam, its amazing how much effort people still put into this BS as if it actually means anything.

 

Of course it is. Your inability to recoginize the logical fallacy in the AGW narrative is the basis for all your subsequent mistakes in critical thinking. I doubt that you even recall what the logical fallacy is.

 

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

 

So are you saying that these questions are rhetorical? (Ah-ha! Maybe that's what the double question marks mean!)

 

You do, apparently.

 

Hilarious, notice he started off with a logical fallacy. Proves my point.

 

True, but only because the warmist alarmists are trying to push their religion on everyone.

 

Only you can answer that by doing the homework for your own benefit. And that is the meaning of the double question mark as I described previously.