Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[TimG]

You are actually 'twisting' my posts to suit your reasoning and it's not jiving, at least not with me.

No. I am just pointing our your hypocrisy when you lecture others for "not caring". All policy is about making choices. You seem to be blind to harm created by your "choices". Edited May 19, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

No. I am just pointing our your hypocrisy when you lecture others for "not caring". All policy is about making choices. You seem to be blind to harm created by your "choices".

My argument with you on this matter had to do with your remarks about 'hardships' to others that you perceived were minimal. I agree that there is no turning back. I think I admitted that. But, please, let's have empathy for those poor souls who have to relocate with (no hardship).

[On Guard for Thee]

No. I am just pointing our your hypocrisy when you lecture others for "not caring". All policy is about making choices. You seem to be blind to harm created by your "choices".

I trust you have boned up on the difference between "sea level" and "tides".

[eyeball]

Do you have proof or evidence for these implicit claims or is it another of your posts that contain unjustified nonsense?

None that you'd be interested in I'm sure. I can't justify ignoring the consensus of the vast vast, and growing, majority of scientists, experts, national science academies, associations et al worldwide who keep predicting catastrophe if we remain on our present course.

In the meantime human civilizations have a long history of failing to adapt to ecological change including that which was wrought by their own hand.

[eyeball]

The real question is what to do if we have no information? My position is all climate predictions (good and bad) are garbage and making decisions as if any are likely to be true is delusional. That is the rational position.

The position of hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of scientists and experts yadda yadda is that you are the irrational one. What is one to do with that reality hanging over the debate?

[-1=e^ipi]

You are listing hypotheticals which I am not discussing or even disputing.

I am discussing real (a.k.a. measureable) effects that we can see today. There are none.

The ocean has risen by a few extra millimeters over the past few decades from the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations due to human emissions. That is a real measurable effect that has a negative effect. Admittedly it is a small effect, but your original claims were that there were no negative effects, which is ridiculous.

I can't justify ignoring the consensus of the vast vast, and growing, majority of scientists, experts, national science academies, associations et al worldwide who keep predicting catastrophe if we remain on our present course.

Can you at least define what you mean by consensus on climate change?

[TimG]

Admittedly it is a small effect, but your original claims were that there were no negative effects, which is ridiculous.

An effect so small the negative effects can't be measured means no effect for the purpose of the point I am making. Edited May 19, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

Can you at least define what you mean by consensus on climate change?

Can you define what you mean by define?

I mean consensus as it's commonly understood by people who converse in English.

[TimG]

I mean consensus as it's commonly understood by people who converse in English.

Except you constantly make claims of consensus when there is none. You throw the word around with no reference to the specific point which you are claiming consensus as if your unsubstantiated claims of consensus should end any discussion of a topic.

[eyeball]

As if this will make any difference whatsoever...

Policy-makers and the public who are not members of the relevant research community have had to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of often conflicting descriptions provided by the media regarding the level of scientific certainty attached to studies of climate. In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.

Article

Clear and persuasive it says....end of topic?

Edited May 19, 2014 by eyeball

[TimG]

Clear and persuasive it says....end of topic?

Oreskes is a dishonest alarmist loon who constantly uses 'bait and switch' propaganda. i.e. she claims that there is a consensus on point A and then claims that no one can dispute point B despite the fact that is there is no consensus on point B.

[eyeball]

Oreskes is a dishonest alarmist loon....

I don't see your reference that clearly and persuasively proves Oreskes is a dishonest alarmist loon.

Has she been stripped of her degrees and such by the appropriate scientific and educative bodies?

[TimG]

Has she been stripped of her degrees and such by the appropriate scientific and educative bodies?

She is a historian. She is no more more qualified to comment on climate science than any poster on this forum.

[eyeball]

She's not commenting on climate science per se, she's commenting on consensus amongst scientists, vast vast numbers of them.

She is commenting on the history of consensus more specifically, apropos for a historian don't you think?

Edited May 19, 2014 by eyeball

[TimG]

She's not commenting on climate science per se, she's commenting on consensus amongst scientists, vast vast numbers of them.

Again - the bait and switch tactic dishonest yet typical of alarmist zealots that are more interested in spreading their religion than understanding. Oreskes constantly uses the bait and switch tactic and therefore has nothing useful to say. Edited May 19, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Zealots spreading their religion of peer-reviewed scientific research. Tim, you can't hardly tell that you're a biased ideologue spreading your propaganda. Once again, you should stick to accepting the science and arguing that it's too costly to do anything about it.

[TimG]

Zealots spreading their religion of peer-reviewed scientific research.

Zealots completely misrepresenting what the peer reviewed literature says in order to promote a political agenda. Just because someone *claims* they repeating what the peer reviewed literature says that does not mean they actually do. Oreskes is notorious for creating bogus meta studies that cannot be replicated and then engaging in smear campaigns against those that point out the failings.

[eyeball]

Oreskes is notorious for creating bogus meta studies that cannot be replicated and then engaging in smear campaigns against those that point out the failings.

Then where is evidence of her having been officially stripped of her credentials? If she's used public funds to conduct her studies why hasn't she been arrested and charged with fraud?

[Keepitsimple]

As I mentioned above, I left off plenty of other places that should be on that list.

Point being - you.... and the alarmist media (because there's nothing that sells media more than impending catastrophic stories) choose to ignore that the Florida Keys are one of the most vulnerable, populated land masses in the world. As I've said, the Keys are the canary in the coal mine. If the Oceans truly are rising at an accelerated rate, the Keys will be our early warning sign. So far - in spite of the dire predictions of the past 30 years, the Keys are unaffected.

Edited May 19, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[TimG]

Then where is evidence of her having been officially stripped of her credentials? If she's used public funds to conduct her studies why hasn't she been arrested and charged with fraud?

Ah - more logical fallacies. In this case, you seek to suggest that she can't be wrong and dishonest unless she is also guilty of fraud. A nonsensical suggestion.

The fact is you know nothing about what she says and the criticisms of her work. You blindly assume that it must have merit because she says things that you want to believe. If I explain the criticisms to you will will simply assume that I am wrong because believing in this stuff is your religion and the belief is not founded on logic.

Edited May 19, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Except you constantly make claims of consensus when there is none. You throw the word around with no reference to the specific point which you are claiming consensus as if your unsubstantiated claims of consensus should end any discussion of a topic.

So you seem to think there is consensus that it isn't happening?

[TimG]

So you seem to think there is consensus that it isn't happening?

Again - You CANNOT say because there is a consensus that X is TRUE that Y must be TRUE. If there is a consensus that X is TRUE then the consensus only applies to X. i.e. it is dishonest say that there is a consensus that the planet is getting warmer therefore there is a consensus that this is a bad thing. If you want to establish that there is a consensus that it is a bad thing then you must look specifically at that question.

Oreskes does not do that. She simply goes through a formal process to rationalize this dishonest bait and switch tactic. She never looks at the questions which skeptics care about yet claims skeptics are wrong because there is a consensus on questions which skeptics don't actually disagree with. It is nothing but propaganda.

Edited May 19, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Sounds like a bit of head in the sand to me. Do you really think that NASA is in the propaganda business? They have been studying the antarctic ice sheet and specifically the Thwaites sheet for 40 years and claim it's sliding into the ocean and will raise the SL 4 feet and could spawn movements of connected ice shields. I don't think such huge sheets of ice start slip sliding away due to global cooling.

[TimG]

Sounds like a bit of head in the sand to me. Do you really think that NASA is in the propaganda business?

The part of NASA that does climate related stuff has nothing to do with the part that sends rovers to Mars. If the NASA climate modellers had to meet the same standards as NASA's space exploration division they would not be making the claims that they do. It is easy to make predictions when you are never held accountable for failed predictions.

[On Guard for Thee]

The part of NASA that does climate related stuff has nothing to do with the part that sends rovers to Mars. If the NASA climate modellers had to meet the same standards as NASA's space exploration division they would not be making the claims that they do. It is easy to make predictions when you are never held accountable for failed predictions.

The part of NASA that did/does this is called JPL, and they are certainly not the only people who have similar conclusions. The lack of consensus on this issue isn't if, it's when. Or more specifically how fast because it's difficult to predict how fast it will accelerate.