[PrestonSturges]

Anyway there are hundreds of respectable independent science journals in the world

............From my years in science I'd say that 95% of science professors were liberals.........

You're saying there is a conspiracy that only targets white conservatives but gives women, Indians, Jews, and Chinese a free ride? Just trying to wrap my head around this.....

I'm uncertain what you're asking here.

Just wondering if you think science is an anticonservative conspiracy, or maybe it's just that conservatives hate science because they can't control it.

[eastbay]

Anyway there are hundreds of respectable independent science journals in the world

............From my years in science I'd say that 95% of science professors were liberals.........

You're saying there is a conspiracy that only targets white conservatives but gives women, Indians, Jews, and Chinese a free ride? Just trying to wrap my head around this.....

I'm uncertain what you're asking here.

You ain't the only one.

[dissident]

Just wondering if you think science is an anticonservative conspiracy, or maybe it's just that conservatives hate science because they can't control it.

The usual Rovian contempt for the "reality based community".

[PrestonSturges]

Just wondering if you think science is an anticonservative conspiracy, or maybe it's just that conservatives hate science because they can't control it.

The usual Rovian contempt for the "reality based community".

On the right, there is a consensus that AGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history.
Although it seems to be a very very slow conspiracy that isn't particularly frightening to the average person, so it's pretty lame as far as conspiracies go.

I've also seen remarks from the right that AGW is Obama's plan to "redistribute the wealth" (white peoples money) to countries full of brown people.

[PrestonSturges]

To be completely specific - people who want to claim that AGW is a global conspiracy that targets the academic interests of conservative (white male) intellectuals and the economic interests of predominantly white countries, just connect the dots for me and tell me WHO is behind this grand conspiracy. Maybe I'm slow, but I don't seem to have caught that part.

[Expatriot]

The fact that most people will not believe something that is untrue

So anybody still reading will now have something mealy to chew on.

Cid is on record as saying that he/she believes that "most people will not believe something that is untrue."

That is a big WOW for me.

From where I'm sitting, most of what most people believe is untrue.

But I'll throw another softball for you Cid, to help you see what a huge trap you set for yourself.

You and I agree that the following is untrue - "we have enough oil to have business as usual for 20 years."

But most people believe it to be true.

Just one example to contradict your thesis Cid - obviously, there are thousands more.

[Expatriot]

Just wondering if you think science is an anticonservative conspiracy, or maybe it's just that conservatives hate science because they can't control it.

I think science is mostly the same across most disciplines. I think most scientists are trying to get the truth out, while advancing their own theory. I think it's hyper-competitive and petty at times as well. It's one of the reasons I got out - just too much BS involved in fighting for grants, publishing, and so on. Not enough pure science.

But for the most part the folks out there in science are motivated by a search for how things work.

There are a few areas of science that are contaminated by politics, where scientists set aside their scientific method training and endeavor to get results that they want. Climate science is one obvious example, given the deceit that was brought to light recently regarding the destroyed data, blacklisting, and so on.

I don't see any conspiracies in science other than by the climate scientists, who have already shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

Regarding "conservatives," I'm not sure how that's defined. The only conservative, as I understand that word, in politics is Ron Paul. Pretty much everyone else, including all 100 senators, I'd call something other than "conservative". Most I'd call socialist, many I'd call fascist. But none conservative.
Today's conservatives are yesterday's moderate liberals.

Regarding "hating" science, I'd say only the religious folks who don't like evolution, and a few Luddites here and there, hate science. That's not too many people in the U.S..

[Expatriot]

I've also seen remarks from the right that AGW is Obama's plan to "redistribute the wealth" (white peoples money) to countries full of brown people.

In my view, there is no "right." There's only a mass of socialists pretending to fight over non-issues like gays and Roger Clemens.

I don't think AGW is a vast conspiracy. But folks have definitely conspired to suppress competing opinion.

Obama has no plan. He's a sock puppet.

There is no doubt, whether conspiracy or not, any move to "tax carbon emissions" to, pretextually, address global warming can eventually be used as a substantial control mechanism to price people out of using FF energy. In the wrong hands (and DC only has wrong hands), it can be used to wring wealth out of anybody and/or restrict the use of FF to the rich.

[Cid_Yama]

You and I agree that the following is untrue - "we have enough oil to have business as usual for 20 years."

But most people believe it to be true.

Just one example to contradict your thesis Cid - obviously, there are thousands more.

Another logical fallacy. A hasty generalization fallacy this time. You're just full of them.

And back to the red herring of peak oil. And of course this argument, the ultimate red herring to lead this thread off topic.

It's no wonder you can live with all of the internal inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in conservative (Republican, Tea Party, whatever you call yourselves) positions and ideology.

You either lack the ability to critically think, So you don't see the inconsistencies and fallacies, or you know full well, don't care and are mearly attempting to obfuscate.

Anything to serve your masters, eh?

For anyone interested, this gives pretty good coverage of logical fallacies.

For anyone wondering what the topic of this thread is, it's about the expanding tropical belt, which has pushed plant hardiness zones northwards, which is one of the clearest confirmations of global warming. Please see page one.

[americandream]

To suggest as you appear to, that planetary tilt alone circumscribe these "extremes", and not the thermal capacity of earth's gaseous envelope, is to be wilfully blind to the other planets in the solar system, each with their own thermal capacities (or not as may be the case), and with "extremes" that clearly indicate that said thermal capacities are significant drivers, planetary tilt notwithstanding.

But then, I guess it's all a socialist conspiracy and it really matters not a whit what a planet's gaseous envelope comprises.

Let's keep it simple.

The tropic of Cancer is the line that is north of the equator which is the further point north at which the sun will appear directly overhead.

The tropic of Capricorn is the line that south of equator - and repeat.

So the "tropics" or "tropical belt" is the region of the Earth between these two extremes.

And, axiomatically, given that the two extremes are determines by the tilt of the axis of the earth relative to the plane of revolution of the earth around the sun, the scope of the tropics is independent of climate and have not changed unless the tilt of the earth has changed.

But I guess when the Climate Change Cult wants to grab a headline, science is unimportant. Also, science can be disregarded if it is produced by non-members (see emails).

[Keith_McClary]

On the right, there is a consensus that AGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history.

The left think Iraqi WMD and Afghan contrib to 9/11 are the biggest conspiracy THEORIES.

[PrestonSturges]

On the right, there is a consensus that AGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history.

The left think Iraqi WMD and Afghan contrib to 9/11 are the biggest conspiracy THEORIES.

Samuel L. Jackson does a cartoon character riffing on Donald Rumsfeld and Pulp Fiction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc

[americandream]

The Marxist left think nothing of the sort.

We KNOW that were you to raise a child to devote it's life to greed and self serving preoccupations, you will end up with a society in which absurdity reigns.

Absurdities where frantic commodity wars are started by so-called free and advanced capitalist societies in their comical quest for non-existent weapons; are then prolonged on the farcical basis of advancing "freedom". Absurdities where these so-called free and advanced societies, whilst pursuing these farcical wars of freedom in the one country, quite brazenly embrace neighbouring countries as epitomising good governance, but where in said countries, women are subject to chattelisation and corruption is king; all in the name of their energy fix.

This picture is pathetic to the point of being tragic for the lives that are wasted in pursuit of this sham. The lives of children often enough, children lost for ever, no recourse to justice, no primal morality.

On the right, there is a consensus that AGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history.

The left think Iraqi WMD and Afghan contrib to 9/11 are the biggest conspiracy THEORIES.

[dissident]

Back to the thread topic:

1) OBSERVATIONS show that the Hadley circulation is slowly expanding. This is consistent with the warming of the tropics and in particular tropical sea surface temperatures.

2) Due to the Coriolis effect, aka rotation of the planet, any meridional flow is associated with a spinup of flow in the zonal direction (East-West). A stronger Hadley circulation therefore drives stronger subtropical zonal winds ("jets"). Stronger jets translate into more vertical wind shear and hence more available potential energy for baroclinic instability.

3) It is baroclinc instability which breaks up the Hadley circulation in the subtropics. The instability is associated with wave (or eddy) emission so it induces a positive Eliassen-Palm flux divergence and hence a meridional circulation in the opposite sense of the Hadley cell in each hemisphere. At the same time these eddies pump heat and momentum poleward where they spin up weaker middle latitude jets and give us our weather, a progression of low pressure systems in a meandering stream. Imagining a fictional situation without this instability, the Hadley cells would extend much farther poleward and there would be an enormous low and middle latitude zonal jet in each hemisphere and high latitudes would be much colder. In the real world there is a baroclinic adjustment process that prevents this from happening.

4) So the expansion of the Hadley circulation (or the tropical zone) is associated with intensification of baroclinic adjustment and it is directly related to block formation. One can expect more of this summer's Eurasian drought and rain dipole patterns in the future. There is more energy available for producing such features. Note that the zonal flow becomes more axially symmetric as eddy activity shrinks, blocks are highly non-symmetric features maintained by pseudo-stationary baroclinic eddy fluxes of momentum.

[Expatriot]

You and I agree that the following is untrue - "we have enough oil to have business as usual for 20 years."

But most people believe it to be true.

Just one example to contradict your thesis Cid - obviously, there are thousands more.

Another logical fallacy. A hasty generalization fallacy this time. You're just full of them.

Jesus Cid, you understand that intelligent people are reading this thread, right?
Your thesis is that, if something is untrue, most people won't believe it. You wrote it Cid. You do understand that people smart enough to log on to the Internets can understand your thesis, right?

A "hasty generalization"? Hasty? Did you watch me type?

Cid - it was neither "hasty" nor a "generalization." It was a specific counter example.

It's like I'm having a debate with a magic 8 ball. I say "your theory is weak, here's a counter example," you shake, shake, shake and write, "my sources tell me no."

[Expatriot]

To suggest as you appear to, that planetary tilt alone circumscribe these "extremes",

Can I get another "Jesus"?

I'm not "suggesting" anything. I provided the scientific definition of "tropics".

[Shar_Lamagne]

Actually you are a troll, off topic and attacking other posters because you don't like the topic of the thread and are attempting to shut down disscussion. I have reported you.

Also, I just looked at the link to logical fallacies, and guess what I found.

Hasty Generalisation Fallacy

Explanation
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.

Example
(1) My Christian / atheist neighbour is a real grouch.
Therefore:
(2) Christians / atheists are grouches.

This argument takes an individual case of a Christian or atheist, and draws a general rule from it, assuming that all Christians or atheists are like the neighbour.

The conclusion that it reaches hasn’t been demonstrated, because it may well be that the neighbour is not a typical Christian or atheist, and that the conclusion drawn is false.

Peak Oil is an atypical example as most people have never heard of it. People believe BAU will go on because they haven't heard anything that says otherwise.

As a shill, do they give you a list of phony arguments to use to try to shut down discussion? I'm just curious.

[Shar_Lamagne]

In early August, as the intensifying heat and spreading wildfires were becoming an ever growing threat to Russia’s security, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev publicly acknowledged that climate change had become a gruesome reality for his country.

His speech did not go unnoticed in international circles – with Belgium’s Ambassador to Russia Guy Trouveroy taking the opportunity to say that Russia and the European Union (EU)’s cooperation on climate policies were now an absolute necessity.

"This experience was, I must say, quite an experience. I must say that I have never lived in my life in such a situation. But maybe this was my baptism, now I am a true Muscovite,” Trouveroy said. “I am not a climate expert, I’m [just] an average diplomat, but even an average diplomat can notice [that something is wrong with the weather].”

Trouveroy said the unprecedented heat wave and the wildfires Russia had been hit with this summer were just some of the signs of climate change – just like the other climate-related disasters that the world has been experiencing in the past few months.

In those assessments, he seemed to have echoed the sentiments of Russian president Medvedev, who in a surprisingly candid statement posted in early August on the Kremlin’s website said Russia was in for a truly historic lesson.

“Our country has not experienced such a heat wave in the last 50 or even 100 years,” Medvedev said, speaking at an expanded Security Council meeting on fire safety measures being taken to protect Russia’s strategic facilities. “We need to learn our lessons from what has happened, and from the unprecedented heat wave that we have faced this summer.”

“Everyone is talking about climate change now,” Medvedev said. “Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past. This means that we need to change the way we work, change the methods that we used in the past.”

Indeed, recent reports indicate the smoke from Russia’s burning forests may be moving toward Europe, carried westward by changing winds. On the whole, Trouveroy said, the climate change situation is causing more and more concern for the Western European public, with winters overall becoming erratic and summers “difficult” to survive. In Belgium, in particular, preparations are in progress to protect the coastline from the rising sea level, which will require whole new infrastructure. Rivers that previously never had a drop of water in them suddenly are going over their banks. “Slowly, measures are being taken to react to these […] events,” Trouveroy said.

link

[Shar_Lamagne]

While denial is still popular in Washington, out in the nation's farm fields and gardens, orchards and vineyards, people know something is up with the climate.

Back in 2003, the American Horticulture Society used a decade of federal weather data to draw a new map of the nation's plant hardiness zones. It reflected warmer weather moving north as the years passed.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture establishes the 11 growing zones (1 is very cold and 11 subtropical). It initially agreed with the horticulture society's findings but then withdrew support, saying there wasn't enough data.

No doubt the Bush administration, which back then was denying the existence of human–generated global warming, was upset with any admission of the real situation and ordered a re–evaluation based on politics.

The latest group with the courage to amend the hardiness zone map is the National Arbor Day Foundation. Using 15 years of the federal government's own weather and temperature data, it has redrawn the lines for the growing zones. And no surprise to gardeners, farmers or tree lovers, it's getting warmer further north all across the country. That would be a trend that to a clear head would support evidence for global warming.

Using a nifty little computer–generated map at the Foundation's Web site, visitors can watch the new borders replace the old ones, in living color no less.

It's cute. It's also a tad scary, when you consider what it means. Beyond being able to grow a lot of plants you used to not be able to grow in your hardiness zone.

In 1990, the extreme southern edge of Zone 5 (which includes southeast Iowa), ran south nearly to St. Louis and across into Illinois, which was in Zone 6. Thanks to warming, the southern edge of Zone 5 now cuts diagonally right through southeast Iowa, leaving almost all of Missouri and Illinois in Zone 6.

That may allow gardeners to grow splendid plants and trees that previously would die in an Iowa winter. But that is not a good thing. Not really.

link

[Expatriot]

Actually you are a troll, off topic and attacking other posters because you don't like the topic of the thread and are attempting to shut down disscussion.

Clearly, if one reviews this thread, it is not me who is doing the "attacking" of posters.

On the contrary, I love the topic of the thread. That's why I'm posting. It is you who seems to "not like" my position regarding the tropic of the thread.

Hasty Generalisation Fallacy

Explanation
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case. It is the reverse of a sweeping generalisation.

Come on man. You're making it way too easy on me.

The "hasty generalization" you cite is defined as drawing a rule from an atypical, single example.
My neighbor's pit bull is nasty, therefore all pitbulls are nasty.
My blonde cousin is a ditz, therefore all cousins are ditzes [wink].

What I did was to provide a single, specific counter example to Cid's generalization.
Cid created the rule.
I provided the exception. A specific instance that does not fit the rule.

Anybody reading this thread who agrees with Cid's position on climate change want to simply acknowledge that Shar's point is wrong?

Hmmm?