Home » Global Warming, Off Topic » MIT Atmospheric Scientist Reverses Position on Global Warming

MIT Atmospheric Scientist Reverses Position on Global Warming

Author of the theory that global warming breeds stronger hurricanes recants his view

Noted Hurricane Expert Kerry Emanuel has publicly reversed his stance on the impact of Global Warming on Hurricanes. Saying “The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us,” Emanuel has released new research indicating that even in a rapidly warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity will not be substantially affected.

“The results surprised me,” says Emanuel, one of the media’s most quoted figures on the topic.

Read more…

I love being right.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to MIT Atmospheric Scientist Reverses Position on Global Warming

  1. Emanuel evidently has the courage of Denton, Behe, Sternerg, and so many others. Gratefully, there are scientists with enough fortitude to speak honestly and openly.

    Somehow, it may be that these people who do risk ridicule will influence the others who are less willing to stand outside risking their careers.

    And I am glad you are right also, DaveScot.

  2. I don’t know Kerry Emanuel, but am glad that there are some honest scientists who are willing to admit that their bias was wrong.

  3. Break out the comfy chair and soft pillows — he’s going to need them.

  4. Interesting to hear about the issue of climate crisis here….
    It’s kind of funny, a site dedicated to the discussion of one imaginary lineage in time through biology, discussing an imaginary lineage in time through climatology….

    It’s not shocking that theoretical models fail.. We attempt to quantify situations we come across, to simulate “what will we done when..”

    I find that adorable since our species has had a very infantile amount of time on this planet, and therefor has no actual data to predict such events with.

    Something tells me the mainstream media probably wont make much mention of this either.

    Politics, how I do hate rationalism… Politics, philosophy and theology all lovely for bumper stickers and cereal boxes, but worthless beyond that…There was a time the news was objective…

  5. stone

    Anthropogenic global warming and evolution by chance & necessity are the leading examples of highly questionable bandwagon science being employed to gull the public into supporting social and economic agendas. I love science and hate how it’s being corrupted and abused. Whenever you hear the word “consensus” being used to defend a scientific position or principle then you can rest assured that science has left the building. Science is not defended by polls. Science is defended by reproducible observation, experiment, deduction and inference.

    I’m confident the CO2 bogeyman is false and this is going to become evident in the near future. When it does we’ll have a wonderful example of what happens when science is supported by opinion polls.

    In order of importance CO2 is a plant food first and greenhouse gas second. It’s beyond dispute that plants grow better with higher concentrations of CO2. It’s also beyond dispute that longer growing seasons (warmer, wetter) are preferable to shorter (colder, drier) growing seasons for agricultural output. Plants are the primary producers in our food chain. Before you start commiting vast resources that will lower the output of the primary producers in the food chain you better be extremely confident that the alternative is worse and it’s hard to think of much worse than escalating an already growing problem of starvation in the world. I predict this is going to play out by nature reminding us of the consequences of a climate growing colder instead of warmer. It won’t be a pleasant reminder and when it happens we’ll be left wishing that we could warm it back up with more manmade CO2.

  6. “Whenever you hear the word “consensus” being used to defend a scientific position or principle then you can rest assured that science has left the building. ”

    Of course, objective truth doesn’t rely on our consensus it just is.
    Funny though that the scientific community would go that route, when every generation has been correcting the ones prior.

  7. [...] bothered to read the paper in question doesn’t challenge climate change (as some deniers have claimed) nor does it challenge the link between climate change and increasing hurricane intensity, it just [...]

Leave a Reply