Although no trend has been found between global warming and hurricane frequency, a link with increasing hurricane intensity has been seen. An article on this correlation, produced by MIT professor Kerry Emanuel, was recently published in the scientific journal Nature. Also, work over the years by NOAA scientists at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory has produced increasing robust studies predicting that as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, so too will hurricane intensity rise. (A GFDL webpage on global warming and hurricanes has a readable overview with excellent graphical content that summarizes their work.) Thus, we’ll be seeing more storms classified as category-5 (the most intense rating) but not more storms in general.

Another troublesome failing occurs in the writer’s choice of support for an argument. Liberties are too-often taken with the evidence. Cherry-picking– taking a statement out of context– can frustratingly give the appearance of thorough reasoning if the reader is not familiar with the source from which the statement was lifted. This case and other instances of writers utilizing flimsy evidence are symptomatic of “conventional wisdom” usage. I use “conventional wisdom” along the lines of how the originator of the phrase, John Kenneth Galbraith, used it. Consider this statement (which I’m borrowing from the recent book Freakonomics) from Galbraith:

We associate truth with convenience with what mostly closely accords with self-interest and personal well-being or promises best to avoid awkward effort or unwelcome dislocation of life. We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem.

Thus, a writer may seek validation through the act of posting his views on webpage for the world to see, not in the strength of his argument.

Moreover, readers supporting the writer’s point of view may provide weight for the writer regardless of whether or not an argument holds. The volume– be it in terms of number of people or degree of loudness– behind a claim does not strengthen or validate the claim. The purpose of online discussion should be to tease out why we believe something (to actually debate). It is not meant to be a megaphone for our individual beliefs like the one the jerk on the street corner yelling at us all to “REPENT!” uses. No one wants to listen to that. What, if anything, do we gain if we’re all screaming and failing to engage those of differing opinions? Whose mind are we going to change that way?

I praise Slate‘s ‘dialogues’ because they’ve forgone the megaphones. Debate actually occurs, allowing both the writers and the readers to gain something more from the exercise than a headache.