Comments 1 to 10:

1. jef12506 at 12:06 PM on 17 March, 2019

   Just wait until those kids learn the truth. Unfortunately there are still many layers of lies and hopeium yet to be thrown at them before the truth comes out.

   We need to stop all of it and just make sure everyone is ok, help them through what is coming, work together, mutual aid.

   0 0
2. scaddenp at 13:44 PM on 18 March, 2019

   If the only thing we used petroleum for was manufacture of plastics, then CO2 emissions from petroleum would not be much of an issue. On the other hand, if they go onto choose frequent flying, petrol SUVs, and coal-based electricity, then you could call them hypocrites.

   However, individual action only goes so far, and especially if it is only inacted by a relative few. Government action is needed  deal with the main problems:

   • transition away from coal and gas for electricity (priority no 1 for most countries and the biggest way to make a difference)
   • transition away from petroleum-based transport

   If you can solve these quickly without government intervention, then we are all ears. In my opionion, cynism and name-calling dont do much.

   0 0
3. citizenschallenge at 16:07 PM on 18 March, 2019

   John, thanks for the heads up,  Great example of the point I keep trying to make.  ;- )

   Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, Mar 8, 2019

   {hat tip to skepticalscience.com - https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/03/climatefeedbackorg-factcheck-fails.html}

   
   CLAIM
   "The science is clear, climate change is making extreme weather events, including tornadoes, worse.” SOURCE: Bernie Sanders, Facebook, 4 March 2019
   ClimateFeedback.org's fact checking verdict was misleading.
   Overstates scientific confidence: Research clearly shows that certain types of weather extremes are increasing as a result of climate change, but it is not clear how tornadoes are responding to a warming climate.
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   ClimateFeedback misses the point.

   It’s not about tornadoes and score keeping, it’s about learning to appreciate how our climate engine operates.

   Take back the narrative !

   Research clearly shows us that our global heat and moisture distribution engine has accumulated a degree Centigrade worth of extra heat since the advent of the steam engine.

   Weather's job is to circulate this heat (and moisture) from the broiling equator to the poles.

   This warming also increases the moisture holding capacity of air.

   Physics tells us this added energy gets circulated throughout the global weather system.

   This extra heat is now available to be released through various destructive forms, not limited to tornadoes, consider destructive macrobursts, microbursts, downbursts, derechos, bomb cyclones, hurricanes and others.

   It doesn’t much matter which particular climatological conditions come together, the point is when they do, they now have increasingly more energy, heat and moisture available, meaning more intense events must to be expected.

   It’s elementary. It's physics. It's certain as people can be about anything.

   It’s about establishing an appreciation for what’s happening within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Well that and learning to appreciate the fragility of the biosphere upon who's health we all depend on for everything.

   0 0
4. John Hartz at 05:58 AM on 19 March, 2019

   citizenschallenge: 

   Climate Feedback's review of Bernie Sander's claim about the link between tornados and climate change is not about scorekeeping as you have asserted.

   Here is Climate Feedback's statement on the matter:

   It is likely that a warmer, moister world would allow for more frequent instability as measured by the convective available potential energy which is fueling tornadoes[3]. However, it is also likely that a warmer world would lessen chances for wind shear, leading to fewer tornadoes. Climate change also could shift the timing of tornadoes or the regions that are most likely to be hit, with less of an impact on the total number of tornadoes. 

   You would do well to carefully read Climate Feedback's entire review of this matter — especially the Scientist's Review section of it.

   Senator Sanders’ claim that climate change is making tornadoes worse isn’t supported by published research, Edited by Scott Johnson, Climate Feedback, Mar 8, 2019

   0 0
5. citizenschallenge at 10:44 AM on 19 March, 2019

   Who's kidding whom, this handwringing about tornado trends is nothing but cyncial political score keeping intend on distractiung.  Just like that ludicrous obsession with the nonexistant "global warming hiatus."  That's politics in action not science, even though it deeply impacts science.

   I did read it all - and again just now for you.  It spends more time focusing on uncertainties, lossing the opportunity to explain some fundamentals.  Of course, it's all accurate, I'm not disputing that.

   It's the messaging that fails, as it has for decades!  You may not admit it, but words in that FactCheck were all about playing second-fiddle to the contrarian storyline, rather than taking the moment to refocus on the important stuff. But, no, instead, repeat it, underscore it, get lost in more details that fly by people's heads - because the headline will have already told them all they need to know:

   'oh still no connection between tornadoes and global warming.  When will the climate scientists finally figure out this global warming thing?

   Please, the worst part of those write ups, none of them helped convey any fundamental gut level understanding of what our global heat and moisture distribution is all about.  

    

   Perhaps it wouldn't be the worst for you to read with a bit less prejudgementn yourself - and a bit more attention on what I've actually written?

   My question:

   Why continue spending our time focusing on the inconsequential uncertainties, while ignoring the huge certainties and what they have to tell us for certain.  

   Why not actively steer the dialogue alway from the cynical distractions and back to the real world basic fundamentals that few seem to grasp.

   I invite you to show me where my above statement is factually wrong?  I'll take any lesson you want to teach me.

   ______________________________________

   Here's an offering for you, a different perspective perhaps, but definately based on down to Earth facts as revealed by science and learned about over a life time.

   a) Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant? 2018

   d) Considering our dysfunctional public dialogue in 14 verses.

   e) Map v Territory Problem, Statistical Certainty vs Geophysical Realities

   also - 

   https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-missing-key-gould.html

   0 0
6. John Hartz at 11:37 AM on 19 March, 2019

   citizenschallenge: 

   Based on the analyses of the issue presented in the Climate Feedback's post and on other articles I have read on the topic over the years, I conclude that there is no scientiifc consensus at this point in time about the relationship between man-made climate change and the frequency and intensity of tornados in the US. If I am correct, it plays right into the climate deniers' hands to assert otherwise.   

   0 0
7. citizenschallenge at 00:54 AM on 21 March, 2019

   John:  This isn't about the minutia of scientific consensus !

   This is about explaining what science knows to unscientific people - this is not about the inner workings or arguments amongst scientific community. Why won’t you acknowledge that importance distinction?

   Shouldn't we be Communicating WHAT IS KNOWN - and creating a clarifying dialogue that converts our global climate engine from some untouchable abstract notion to something tangible, that carries some visceral enlightenment that leads to a real sense of awareness.

   ClimateFeedback's did not do that. Below the screen shot I took was another explanatory paragraph that crammed nearly 300 words into it. That may work great for serious scientists who are trained to digest copious amounts of written information, but it doesn't work for the rest of us regular mortals.

   John, you conclude that there is no scientific consensus between the man-made climate change and the frequency and intensity of tornados in the US.

   Well than what about the damned consensus that extra heat is accumulating in our climate system? Or the consensus that our current biosphere is custom fitted to our planet's heat budget and that provided radically more energy to the system will be reflected in increasing destructive weather phenomena?  Why not redirect focus?

   Seems to me in real life when we find ourselves in the weeds (so to speak) - the sensible thing is to pull back from our overwhelmingly confused situation and back into territory that we understand. Then we start with what we know for certain and continue forward with that, in light of the new lessons learned.

   What you keep ignoring about my message is: Stop focusing so much on the uncertainties. Don't talk to kindergartners as thought they are thoughtful adults. Come on, look at whom America* gave it's presidency to - that is not the conduct of an introspective thoughtful people. (* not that others are doing much better)

   That's an indication of a people who do things by shallow impulse, swayed by pretty one-liners and gut feeling, rather than digesting substantive words and seeking out information.

   You may be correct that there is no scientific consensus regarding "frequency and intensity" - What I take issue with is advising to toss up our hands in the air - list all the minutia you can think of to prove how thoroughly scientists are investigating this and call it good.  

   Never noticing your crowd is walking away more confused than clarified - that my dear friend is exactly what plays into the hands of climate science denier! Those who created this phony tornado distraction expressly to confuse and waste time, to begin with.

   Now you tell me that's the best we can hope for - and you wonder why I'm disillusioned at the powers that be.

   Considering the Kochs' have been doing all the winning of passionate hearts and minds these past decades, even as the evidence does nothing but become more solid, I find it humorous that you are so entrenched in repeating the same sloganeering that hasn't worked for oh so long.

   Moral of the story stop focusing on tiny uncertainties - Redirect the dialogue back to the known certainties - Because they certainly tell us enough!

   0 0
8. citizenschallenge at 01:05 AM on 21 March, 2019

   correction:  Sad. Nothing humorous about it.

   0 0
9. nigelj at 05:33 AM on 21 March, 2019

   Citizenchallenge

   I havent followed this issue too much but I gather Climate Feedback "corrected" Bernie Sanders on tornados and did so in a very extensive and fairly hyper critical sort of way.

   I think they probably did this to avoid sceptics and the right wing accusing them of ignoring mistakes and suffering from tribal group think. So climate feedback were trying to be very "proper and objective". I think "warmists" do  need to ensure we don't ignore bad science.

   Unfortunately it kind of distracts from the big issues and undermines Sanders. So I know where you are coming from. Damn frustrating. Climate feedback should have been smarter and kept it short and simple and less hostile towards Sanders "Theres no evidence climate change is making tornados worse yet but several models predict it will cause changes (this is my underdtanding). Details can be found in.." So dont make a big issue of it.

   I think messaging climate science for the masses is very challenging. If its too complicated and nuanced many peoples eyes will glaze over. If its too simple it will bore people with a scientific curiosity. This website does do quite well by having basic and advanced explanations.

   There are no magic answers. Style of communication is going to obviously depend on the audience and must be tailored to fit.

   There is a lot to be said for keeping things simple, especially if media interviews are short. We had a prime minister (sort of a similar role to president) who was a brilliant communciator. He kept the message simple, but with just enough of the critical details to give substance. There was no waffle or generalisations either.

   0 0
10. John Hartz at 09:42 AM on 21 March, 2019

    citizenschallenge: You conclude your most reponse to me with:

    Moral of the story stop focusing on tiny uncertainties - Redirect the dialogue back to the known certainties - Because they certainly tell us enough!

    Which is exactly why Bernie Sanders shouldn't have said what he did about tornados and climate change.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.