[edejong]

This kind of rhetoric is fueling the opposite camp. It really doesn't matter which camp you are in: we should admit to the vagueness this video is full of: "some scientists believe...", "this scientist thinks...", "there is at least some influence of...".

It reemphasizes the climate sceptists standpoints. They (most) are not denying there is a problem, but claiming there is widespread misinformation and propaganda around this topic and a strong exaggeration of the scale of the problem.

We have a kernel of truth around climate change. Let us cherish the kernel, instead of watering it down by popular media and scientists trying to jump the bandwagon by making vaguely substantiated claims.

[pier25]

There is no misinformation or propaganda in this video.

The indisputable observable facts are:

1) The polar jet stream is slowing down.

2) This creates meandering air currents which produced the current heatwave in Europe and the so called polar vortexes in the US.

[pier25]

If anyone wants to get more in depth, here is a great talk by Jeniffer Francis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtmuBoolHQg

[edejong]

"Scientists are finding that as temperatures in the arctic rise, changes here may be contributing to extreme weather thousands of miles away."

keyword: may. This statement tells us nothing new. Everyone already knows that local changes in climate have global effects. That's why we have global climate models.

(cue: extreme forest fires, partly caused by mismanagement of forests)

"Temperatures are rising in the world, but the warming is strongest in the arctic."

Nothing new.

"Here the warming is twice as fast as the global average."

Interesting: we know that the polar jet has been slowing since the 60's, but the warming of the arctic seems to be equal to global warming in the first part of this graph. Also, very shoddy time-series analysis, imho.

"And that's causing the ice to vanish."

"...international group of researchers who've come North to see how it has been rapidly changing."

So here I really wonder. Why would you do that? We've got great sensor networks and satellite measurements.

"Without the ice, more water evaporates, contributing to more greenhouse gasses."

True, but locally. Increased cloud cover also has a net negative effect. It really depends on a complex interplay and requires a sophisticated simulation.

"Some scientists think this is supercharging extreme weather across the world."

This seems highly hypothetical. Why not make a factual claim, such as: "Scientists have proven this actively contributes to the number of extreme weather events."

"Call atmospheric scientist... who explains how the polar jet stream effected the US this past winter."

"There was a huge northward swing in the jet stream over the west coast, bringing lots of warm air over Alaska."

So, this is true, but the jet streams are not constant, and have never been. Connecting it with a slowing down of that stream is intentionally left to the viewer.

... news report ...

"Took a southward drive over the rockies and dipped way down into Florida."

... another news report, claiming that such events have happened in the past??? Wouldn't that debunk this line of thinking? ...

"At times 20 degrees above average, and warmer than NY city."

These local fluxes of temperature are normal in this region.

... more claims of the jet stream, causing problems. No scientific claims, however, just news reporting. ...

"Tokyo had its coldest day in 48 years." So what happened about 48 years ago?

"Some prominent climate researchers are skeptical."

Good for them. We'd better be.

"Scientists can't definitively say whether any one weather event was caused by the warming Arctic, conditions elsewhere, or by random chance."

So, this is one of two scientific claims. At this point I am wondering why I just watched 4 minutes of melting ice bergs.

"But Francis and others think the warming Arctic is loading the dice for extreme weather."

Think? What does that mean? They don't agree with the other scientists? Have they found proof?

"FRANCIS: We can confidently say that some amount of the increase in extreme weather that we're seeing, is because of climate change."

So... eh, what about the jet stream? The arctic? I agree with this statement, because... it is obviously true! When global temperatures rise, we obviously get more droughts and more extreme temperatures.

KINTICH: "One thing is for sure, extreme weather in North America is occurring more often."

And the relationship to the Arctic? The jet stream? Tell me more!

"Climate scientists have given this phenomenon a new name: cold arctic, warm continents."

But, this has always been the case! This does not automatically prove the opposite.

... summary ...

So my conclusion: nothing new has been said! The only true statement is that we cannot conclude anything yet.

Now, multiply these kind of videos by hundreds, and you might start to understand why certain people are getting tired. Stick to the facts! The facts are scary enough as they stand.

[tempguy9999]

> keyword: may

Because saying 'they do' is setting an extremely high bar. It would be saying the matter's settled, and some people will not accept any level of evidence. Even a very few climate scientists don't, as you yourself recognise.

> Why not make a factual claim, such as: "Scientists have proven this actively contributes to the number of extreme weather events."

Ditto. If you are saying these things, what 'proof' would you find incontrovertible?

I don't understand your post, it talks about 'proof' in a way that scientists would be very wary of doing outside mathematics.

To "Temperatures are rising in the world, but the warming is strongest in the arctic." you respond "Nothing new" so you seem to be accepting climate change is happening

You then quote "Some prominent climate researchers are skeptical" and respond "Good for them. We'd better be" so you seem to think strong doubt is appropriate about climate change.

Which is it?

I can't even tell if you've any qualifications in this area (you may well have), and whether you accept or reject anthropogenic climate change, could you elaborate please?

[edejong]

I intentionally leave my position on climate change out of the discussion, because it is irrelevant. Also, my qualifications on this topic, how little I might have, should not interfere with finding common grounds. However, if it helps, I do not have any ties with scientific research, pro, or contra groups wrt climate change.

The situation is painted black and white by popular media and social websites. There are, however, many shades of gray. Most climate scientists are not on either end. However, due to duplicitous media coverage the discussion is quickly polarizing.

The polarization is the bigger issue. For example, we can agree global warming is happening and we can agree this causes increasingly extreme weather conditions. However, there are many secondary and tertiary effects. These, alleviating or contributing to global warming, are not part of our climate models.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, we should acknowledge the limitations of our understanding and our scientific findings. The foundation (IPCC climate models) should be discussed. Where are they accurate? How can they be improved? Does it help us predict local climate change, so we can prepare migrations and structural changes?

[tempguy9999]

Thanks for the answer. I notice that you have not stated, per my request, what type or quantity of evidence you would need before accepting climate change as incontrovertible ie. proof of climate change.

> Also, my qualifications on this topic, how little I might have, should not interfere with finding common grounds.

You tell me which is more valuable: the testimony of an expert, or of someone with no qualifications? I think the former - do you disagree?

> The situation is painted black and white by popular media and social websites.

My fear is we're quite possibly terribly damaging the planetary ecosystem. That's pretty black and white to me.

> Most climate scientists are not on either end.

If you are going to claim this, please back this up when you say it. Claims without references are useless.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-conse... - "Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists."

<https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-06-15/97-per... - a more careful look at those figures.

> due to duplicitous media coverage

duplicitous - please justify that.

> However, there are many secondary and tertiary effects. These, alleviating or contributing to global warming, are not part of our climate models.

These being...? Specifically? I actually need to know these because I take a (non expert) interest in climate models. It's actually tangentially related to my current job.

> Instead of jumping to conclusions

At some point we have to accept or reject a hypothesis that we're putting ourselves at enormous risk. Or we can keep putting it off until we find out for sure whether that lump is or isn't cancer, by which may be too late.

[edejong]

There does not need to be a 'quantity' of evidence. Merely that the evidence can be refuted (not taken at face value). A 'proof' is what I associate in popular media with scientific evidence. 'Think' is code-word for: hypothesizes. Especially when the weasel words 'may', 'might', 'could' appear.

W.r.t. qualifications I think the answer should be obvious. I am addressing (as a layman) the mode of communication as it appears in popular media, and try to distance myself from the contents of whatever is communicated.

> My fear is we're quite possibly terribly damaging the planetary ecosystem. That's pretty black and white to me.

Yes, that fear is on my mind as well. There is irrefutable evidence in coral bleaching and there are other globally occurring phenomenon. And because of that, we need to be extra careful on how we convince our fellow earthlings.

> > Most climate scientists are not on either end.

> If you are going to claim this, please back this up when you say it. Claims without references are useless.

Well, it depends on how you define 'the ends'. There are those who believe we are all going to die within a decade. There are those who reject all evidence. There are those who believe it is irreversible and those who think we are able to cope.

So, this is on the predicted effects of climate change and its extend. Most models are relatively accurate globally, but subcontinental predictions can still be way off (2-5 degrees either way).

In my opinion, the media goes either way: left wing brings us doom and gloom scenario's, while right wing paints a rosy picture. That should be a clear sign that we are not making progress. We should be finding common ground! I believe the viewership still has common ground, but the media is creating a Babylonian tower.

Then there is the whole discussion about what to do about it. People come up with all kinds of ideas, such as carbon tax (how to deal with CO_2 from imported products), solar panels (could be a real option, but requires heavy investing in infrastructure), biomass, political and diplomatic approaches, underground storage, etc.

And each of these approaches comes with another doom-and-gloom story, connected with these 'solutions'. Consider what it does for the non-scientific oriented population. Climate is now seen by many as a means to push products. Many switch to ignore mode.

Take this [1] article in National Geographic for example. It's all due to climate change! Not a word on bad forest management, bad water management, increased population density and more. It's outright duplicitous to not mention the other factors. And it's also sad, because the 'opponent camp' can now point at these articles and say: "You see! This is what they feed you!". Global warming is calculated to be around 24% accountable for these wild-fires.

> > However, there are many secondary and tertiary effects.

> These being...? Specifically?

Precipitation is still very difficult to model. Increased temperature means increased evaporation, increased cloud cover and increased precipitation. It depends on what kind of cloud cover is generated whether this will have a net cooling or heating effect.

Another factor is the mixing of salt and sweet water, which due to the melting of the polar ice has effects that, if I'm not mistaken, is not yet precisely modeled.

We can accept that we are putting ourselves at risk. However, I am sure we will come to the right conclusion faster if we let people make their own conclusions and not make this into a polarizing shouting match.

[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/clima...

[vixen99]

We take your anonymous word for it that every single creditable researcher in the field agrees on this?

[pier25]

These are observable facts, it's not a matter of agreeing.

[edejong]

Please, if you down-vote, engage with my arguments. I am intentionally not picking sides, but pointing out flaws which I believe need to be fixed.

[lumberjack]

Do not buy into this stupid nonsense trend of late to attack the legitimacy of science. "Scientists say" is a perfectly legitimate way to convey scientific results. There is neither misinformation nor propaganda in the video. The climate deniers are not acting in good faith and will be intellectually dishonest no matter what you do. No reason to give them heed.

[edejong]

Where do I attack the legitimacy of science? Could you please quote me?

The phrase, 'scientists say...' is often connected to hypotheses scientists have, which are partly backed up by models or proof. Often popular media falls back to "Johnny said X" to dumb down the complex findings for their ignorant viewership.

The following statements show that there is a proof:

- <person> proved <statement> - <person> discovered <statement> - <person> found <statement> evidence

Too many times I've looked up scientific results based on 'X said Y', only to find that the effect was more marginal than claimed, or purely hypothetical based on other findings. This is not isolated to climate change, but all of popular science.

[patrick5415]

I agree. Also common is what basically amounts to lies through omission. They showed X, but it actually only holds in a very limited set of circumstances. And the manuscript is worded in a very clever way to dance around this fact.

[patrick5415]

The legitimacy of science is getting attacked because science is losing legitimacy. C.f. Every other thread on HN about science/acedemic publishing that’s not specific to climate change. If researchers would lose the sales tactics and just do the science, maybe they can win back our trust.