SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two bloggers have made a stunning claim that has spread like wildfire on the Internet: They say the Northern Hemisphere jet stream, the high-altitude river of winds that separates cold air from warm air, has done something new and outrageous. They say it has crossed the equator, joining the jet stream in the Southern Hemisphere. One said this signifies that the jet stream is ‘wrecked‘, the other said it means we have a “global climate emergency.”
But these shrill claims have no validity — air flow between the hemispheres occurs routinely. The claims are unsupported and unscientific, and they demonstrate the danger of wild assertions made by non-experts reaching and misleading the masses.
Source: The Washington Post
Related: Gigantic Gravity Waves to Mix Summer With Winter? Wrecked Jet Stream Now Runs From Pole-to-Pole
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 04 2016, @04:17AM
Oh, boy! A car analogy right here on SoylentNews!! Be still my beating heart!
But it fails. Drunk driver does not intend to so wrap, but you seem to imply that control of how data relates to the story is like the drunk not intending to go around both sides of the tree? So it is not the fault of the climate scientists, that their data supports anthropogenic global warming? Or are they controlling how the data relates to the story, so they are doing more than confirmation bias? I am confused about what you are trying to say, khallow.
The better analogy is the "tar baby". Do you remember this from Disney's "Song of the South"? Anyone who touches climate-denial will get stuck to it, they will have to admit that they are anti-science, pro-petroleum, maybe fundamentalist christian, and probably owned by the Koch Bros, Halliburton, and the Dark Lord. This has nothing to do with control, in fact, it is the antithesis of control, it is being out of control, and attempting to wrap the whole planet around a tree: but at least it is not intentional. How could it be, because why would anybody punch a tarbaby?
Impasse! Either climate scientists are in control, and intentionally deceptive, or they are not, so unintentionally proving AGW is true. Or Conservative Deniers, what if I told you that deniers know exactly what they are doing? Would they not be Marco Rubio?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 04 2016, @04:43AM
s not the fault of the climate scientists, that their data supports anthropogenic global warming?
Like it is not the fault of the drunk driver that the tree darted right in front of them? Who knew something that big could move so fast?
So it is not the fault of the climate scientists, that their data supports anthropogenic global warming?
While I'm sure there is someone out there who doesn't believe in AGW, that's not the real problem to me. The real problem is calls for costly restructuring of society on the basis of flimsy evidence.
Anyone who touches climate-denial will get stuck to it, they will have to admit that they are anti-science, pro-petroleum, maybe fundamentalist christian, and probably owned by the Koch Bros, Halliburton, and the Dark Lord.
I notice that hasn't happened yet. No one has had to admit anything.
Impasse! Either climate scientists are in control, and intentionally deceptive, or they are not, so unintentionally proving AGW is true. Or Conservative Deniers, what if I told you that deniers know exactly what they are doing? Would they not be Marco Rubio?
It has to be one extreme or another, but not an excluded middle? Pay no attention to that excluded middle.
I'd take these arguments more seriously, if they weren't fallacy-ridden, and gave greater weight to consensus, credentials, references, and all the other superficial trappings rather than evidence. There have been many terrible and unscientific reasons given by scientists and laymen for why we should take AGW more seriously than all those other problems of man and nature. We don't need a thousand crappy reasons for acting on global warming, we need a few good ones.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday July 04 2016, @07:20AM
I'd take these arguments more seriously, if they weren't fallacy-ridden, and gave greater weight to consensus, credentials, references, and all the other superficial trappings rather than evidence.
Oh my poor lost and wandering khallow! Your sickness is more serious than I first thought! Tarbaby fully engaged! You are hosed, bro! Even without control, especially without control, the consensus of the credentialed experts to whom everyone refers (except, evidently, Republican Senators from Oklahoma!!) are the evidence, they are the experts, they are the ones who have an objective view of the question at hand.
So, our question is, who is lying? Those with evidence, but also control over the "story" (also known as the "scientific consensus"), or those who take campaign contributions from oil companies, and cite the bible to prove Global Warming is not biblically possible? Who, khallow? The tarbaby wants to know, and nobody can lie to a tarbaby!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 04 2016, @12:37PM
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday July 05 2016, @07:42AM
Tarbaby, khallow! You are stuck now. Not answering the question is just digging in deeper. Who is lying? The Scientists, or the Republicans? (Hint, to actually be lying, you have to know you are lying, the intent to deceive is an essential part of the lie.) So now you are permanently branded as a climate-change denier. You did your best to mask it as reasonable scientific scepticism, but that is not fooling anyone. Even frojack has sort of given up on this ploy lately. So happy Fourth, and roll some coal for me!