Hot Times
It has been hot, very hot in the US, and the bunnies have noticed Richard Alley's guy in the corner shouting bloody murder. In weather like the US has been having, it is no longer a discussion between the guy on the blue side and the guy on the green side
This is certainly not both sides. If you want both sides, we would have to have somebody in here screaming a conniption fit on the red end, because you are hearing a very optimistic side
A few weeks ago, Eli pointed out that the question is not whether similar heat waves can be found in the meteorological records but how frequent such heat waves were in the past and are now. Here one finds a significantly higher percentage of extreme (three sigma) events and assigns the recurrence of such events and the events themselves as markers of climate change. Kevin Trenberth on the PBS news hour pointed out that an excellent marker is the balance between heat and cold records, which in the 1950s ran 1:1, in the last decade 2:1 and this year over 10:1. Something is happening out there folks.
To end the interchange Judy brings the churnalism
JUDY WOODRUFF: Something for scientists like you and others who study the climate to keep you busy, it sounds like.Trenberth is having no part of this minimalism
KEVIN TRENBERTH: Well, this is a view of the future. So, watch out.There is, dear bunnies, a push back acomin, because record high tempertures and tornadoes open minds. Bill Nye put it well
“I appreciate that we want to show two sides of the stories — there’s a tradition in journalism that goes back quite a ways, I guess — but the two sides aren’t equal here. You have tens of thousands of scientists who are very concerned and you have a few people who are in business of equating or drawing attention to the idea that uncertainty is the same as doubt. When you have a plus or minus percentage, that’s not the same thing as not believing the whole thing at all.”Nothing that has not been said, and this quote was picked up at Lawyers, Guns and Money. What really was interesting was the comments (more at the link). The folks over there know how to do the dozens on denial
Quail Runner says:
The problem with the climate change crowd is the deliberate conflating two separate issues.
1) Is the climate changing?
2) If so, is this caused by processes that can be controlled.
The first is easier to sell since the earth is always changing. It’s been warmer, it’s been cooler.
The second is much more problematic. We’re told it’s ‘Science’, but it’s not. There is no scientific process involved. It’s really opinions of scientists.
And maybe they have the edge on this who knows? But just know that it’s opinion, non the less and not science.
Just stop trying to fool the public, tell the truth and make your case honestly.
-
1) Yes. Above and beyond any historical trend.
wengler says:
2) Somewhat, though there are differing projections about the effects. They run the gamut from bad to really bad to fuck that is horrible. These can be somewhat mitigated by stopping the illusion that the atmosphere is a free dumping ground.
-
Just stop trying to fool the public, tell the truth and make your case honestly.
Oh, fuck you. That’s exactly what they’re doing. They’re making observations, seeing how they compare to expectations, and drawing conclusions – but often only after collecting a shit ton more observational data.
And guess what? That is the very definition of science. Science isn’t limited to experiments done under controlled conditions in a state-of-the-art lab. Science is pretty much any knowledge gleaned through the scientific method.
You may not like the conclusions, but you can’t refute them – and neither can the denialists who rely on deception, shoddy science and an incomplete understanding of how the natural world works. You may not like the fact that the effects are often indirect – but nature often works that way. So please, take your “but it’s just their opinions” false equivalency bullshit and cram it up your ass.
-
Muddying the waters is an effective tactic for the denial crowd. Denial is a powerful force that says that nothing has to change.
-
-
… climate science isn’t science?
Murc says:
What the hell is it then? Spending years studying the climate as closely as possible and making hypotheses based on your observations is the very definition of science, it seems to me. And yes, if you’ve done the aforementioned years of studying, and submitted your findings to peer review, and conferred with others who have independently verified your results, your ‘opinion’ matters a lot more than people who haven’t done any of that.
-
… climate science isn’t science?
Please tell us what scientific process was completed that showed that global warming is arthopogenic.
Maybe you could link to it.
-
Here you go. This ought to keep you busy for the next decade or until your lips get tired. You know there is this thing called “Google” that can help you answer those kinds of questions. You might try it somnetime. I also highly recommend “Google Scholar”, as that weeds out the conservatard horseshit you have been reading and only presents the real scientific and scholarly publications.
DrDick says:
-
No, you see, he can’t research that himself; the onus is on us supporting proven facts to prove those facts every single time, will they can always scream, “No, I say the sky may be hot pink; now prove to me it isn’t!” without ever having to provide reasoning evening though all the evidence proves that they are wrong.
JMP says:
The same rules apply to creationists and the “vaccines cause autism” crowd.
-
DrDick – please have that answer bronzed. It should be immortalized.
Still laughing about “until your lips get tired.”
-
-
Guess what? No matter how many times you useful idiots claim that we still don’t know if the world is flat or round, that doesn’t change the fact that it is round and that is proven scientific fact.
-
-
lol my thought too – it’s all caused by a plot of the evil spider queen
firefall says:
-
Go read the rest over there.Quail Runner is right. I am unaware of any scientific process demonstrating that global warming is arthopogenic. Also, no science has demonstrated that it is entomogenic (or, even, etymogenic.)
-
-
-
Posts
