On 2/22/21 11:26, Mel Beckman wrote:
What offended you? The term “Global Warmist”? It’s an accurate description of
people who hold that climate change is causing more frequent and severe
weather, due to heating of the atmosphere.
And your argument about “Forbes for something related to science” fails on the
classic logical fallacy “appeal to authority”. Just because Forbes states
easily verifiable public facts doesn’t make them untrustworthy. Scientific
knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued
through authority by “consensus”. Science is not a consensus enterprise.
I'm not offended in any way, but I did note that the cited link is an
opinion piece that is more than seven years old. Forbes states both of
these facts before the article even begins.
It claims that NOAA data shows hurricanes declining. Here's the NOAA
graph. Judge for yourself. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/202013
The opinion piece also claims that hurricanes are declining in number.
These numbers are also inaccurate (and at least seven years out of date).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane_season
http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm
In any case, it wasn't Forbes stating easily verifiable public facts. It
was Forbes publishing the opinion of the president of a petroleum
industry lobbying group who is now listed as a "former contributor".
Did I mention that the cited data is over seven years out of date?
Following the links shows that some of the quoted sources were from 2005.
--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
