Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment

The internet is abuzz with that headline as the Republican/libertarian anti-science echo-chamber is busy creating a new enemy du jour.  Interestingly, "punishment" doesn't appear once in the text of the story, or in anything Dr. Kraft said (I suspect their aggravation is an indication of denialista's guilty conscience more than anything)

The word was embedded in the headline, written by an editor seeking to sell copy.  Yet, yet, just like the Dr. Viner "no snow lie", these politically motivated folks couldn't give a damned about facts, or honestly, or learning, instead they are off and running with yet another maliciously misleading headline intend on slandering a respected productive scientist, while ignoring the substance of the article itself.
http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160411/michael-e-kraft-climate-change-deniers-deserve-punishment

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
By Michael E. Kraft
Posted Apr. 11, 2016 
 However, denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe. It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available. 
Dismissal of well-established climate science has parallels to decades of debate over tobacco use and its effects on health. Tobacco companies long denied any causal relation ...
Similarly, some fossil fuel companies for decades publicly rejected established climate science and the role of burning fossil fuels in anthropogenic climate change while their internal studies confirmed both.
... 

Saturday, April 9, 2016

This is what a scientist sounds like, Dr. Randall on Clouds and such.


In my recent series, "Profiles in Malicious Deception", one of the main characters was the notion that Solar influences and Cosmic Rays somehow control cloud formation via "micro-physical effects".  One Henrik Svensmark and other boosters of this notion go on to claim that clouds are the actual regulators of our planet's temperature, so we need not worry about the gigatons of CO2 we keep adding to our planet's atmospheric carbon cycle at ever faster pace.

It's quite irrational thinking, full of ignored non sequiturs and supported by nothing more than an absolutist self-certainty and ridicule towards all attempts at constructive debate, dialogue, or education.

I'd always intended to follow up with a good YouTube lecture of a scientist explaining the basics about clouds and their role in our global heat and moisture distribution engine.  It took some effort to find and a while to finish my notes, it was worth it, since it makes a heck of a contrast to 1000frolly's presumptuous, insult dripping approach to explaining science.  This man I enjoyed listening to.  Taking notes was an enlightening process rather than the drag 1000frolly's video was.  I've included my notes under his video. 
This is what a scientist sounds like.

Professor David Randall: 
The Role of Clouds and Water Vapor 
in Climate Change


Uploaded on Apr 14, 2011
Dr. David Randall: Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 

This lecture is part of SFU's 2011 global warming seminar series 
"Global Warming: A Science Perspective".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1:06 - Professor David Randall - Thanks very much for the introduction and for the invitation.  I'm very happy to be here.

Outline of talk
1)  Climate change on the back of an envelope
2)  Climate models
2)  Cloud and water vapor feedbacks

2:10  -   Climate change on the back of an envelope.
Why do we think that more co2 wall make the climate warm up?
Is it because of trends in the observational record (correlation between temps and CO2)?
    No.  That is not the reason.
Is it because of computer climate models?
    No.  That is not the reason.
It is a lot simpler than that.

The climate system does what it does because it's heated.  

There's a pattern of heating and cooling if you change the heating, you change the climate and this is basically why we expect a climate change in response to increasing greenhouse gases.

CAGW (CO2 science), let’s not jump to conclusions...


My splendid period of 'down time' has come and gone, my life is once again crowded with work and other obligations, so my 'puter and blogging time has been slashed.  I do have a couple projects close to finished, but nothing ready to post.  This evening I just wanted to share a comment I made over at Center For Inquiry.   It speaks to one of the issues I believe needs better enunciating and broadcasting.
Dude says: "As for the catastrophic global warming, let’s not jump from the frying pan into the fire."
Citizenschallenge writes: To my ears, this sounds like another fool ridiculing the notion of CAGW. 
That would be catastrophic anthropogenic global warming - that would be a warming of our Earth (and its climate system) causing our planet to become inhospitable to human wants, expectations, needs and ability to cope with.
Here are a few questions such individuals refuse to respond to:
CC:  What, you don’t believe in the reality of accumulating compounding interest?  What about acknowledging trends?
Why reject the evidence that Atmospheric Greenhouse gases are increasing at an unheard of rate; that we are responsible for it; and that they will remain in the atmosphere a very long time?  Science tells us these gases are atmospheric insulation. - Reality tells us temps are increasing and glaciers are melting at frightening and increasing speeds. - But Republicans/libertarians want to play word games and pretend away this reality with distractions into an endless smoke and mirrors labyrinth of trivial pursuits. 
Why do you think the trends in glacier melting are going to reverse themselves under the current regime?
                                                                                                         Why do you believe rising sea levels aren’t going to severely impact coastal cities, infrastructure and population centers in massive catastrophically disruptive ways?
Why, don’t you think the disruption of millennia’s old seasonal cycles and scrambling the interconnected coordination between a vast variety of living organisms is going to wreak havoc with our agriculture bounty?  
Here are some realities such individuals refuse to acknowledge:
CC:  We have a society today where most people don’t have a clue how complex and interdependent the public infrastructure, that enables all this, has become. People take the weather and moderate temperatures for granted never realizing what a knife edge society has always lived by. Tweak those parameters just a few degrees up or down and it makes a huge, life altering difference to the inhabitants of this planet.
Today in Earth's history, humanity with our fossil fuels burning are in the driver’s seat - what part of that doesn’t make sense to Republican and libertarian types?            Please someone explain!
How can the Republican/libertarian PR machine of supposed grown-ups justify pretending CO2 Science is a hoax?
Society has made incredible strides in the past couple hundred years, “escaping” ancient constraints - unfortunately we younger generations have become reckless thanks to our mass-media fed sense of entitlement that instills an apathy that inturn breeds ignorance, laziness and blindness.  
It’s a story that’s old as humankind, new generations thoughtlessly squandering the hard won achievements of their elders and winding up destitute.  Only this time around we’ve run out of new horizons for our children, and future generations, to escape to and start the cycle of exploitation and thoughtless destruction yet again.  
The only thing you can bet on these days is that there is a terrible reckoning barreling down on us, yet look to our political and business leaders.  All I see is smoke’n-mirrors from disingenuous scoundrels.
(This is comment 208 of a rambling affair about how to avoid Climate Model lessons, if you're curious, link here

Monday, March 28, 2016

"Climate Models: broken and unreliable" - You think? Check it out.

My "dialogue" with Lawyer continues.  Now she's displaying another favorite contrarian tactic - tossing out claims and quotes, then when I produce evidence and sources that explain 'the rest of the story' that puts said claim in a more realistic light, rather than acknowledging the new information, like an ADHD kid, she doesn't hear a thing instead busying herself with tossing more self-certain delusions into the ether.  Invariably these deflections consist of another know-nothing "authority," the latest being the satirist Delingpole that rabid writer and yet another demonstrable serial liar regarding actual science.

Lost in the flood of words Lawyer assured me that none of the climate models have accurately predicted anything.  Yet the truth of the matter is that many predictions have been made and come to fruition.  These predictions regard fundamental understanding.  Hello Lawyer, ignoring it, doesn't make the reality go away!

In any event, I want to share something Lawyer ignored.  It's an excellent summation put together by Professor Steve Easterbrook based on a talk given by Dr. Pierrehumbert.  He has given me permission to reprint his entire article unaltered.  

I thank Dr. Easterbrook and I hope this summary may come in handy for you.  Dr. Easterbrook assures me copying and sharing this information is A-okay, but please show both the courtesy of giving them credit.

Last week I was at the 2012 AGU Fall Meeting. I plan to blog about many of the talks, but let me start with the Tyndall lecture given by Ray Pierrehumbert, on “Successful Predictions”. You can see the whole talk on youtube, so here I’ll try and give a shorter summary.
Ray’s talk spanned 120 years of research on climate change. The key message is that science is a long, slow process of discovery, in which theories (and their predictions) tend to emerge long before they can be tested. We often learn just as much from the predictions that turned out to be wrong as we do from those that were right. But successful predictions eventually form the body of knowledge that we can be sure about, not just because they were successful, but because they build up into a coherent explanation of multiple lines of evidence.
Here are the successful predictions:

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Viner 2000 - No More Snow - SAY WHAT?

My dialogue with Lawyer continues, even as it's turned into another Whac-A-Mole exercise, where every response from me, is answered with avoiding my answers, along with ignoring my counter questions, instead willy-nilly piling on one rotten red herring after another.  

One of her diversions, hit the mark because it's such a perfect example of their contempt for accuracy - and in fact, an example of their practice of malicious manufactured slander with intent to harm and vandalize an honorable professional and his work - that saturates the climate science contrarian community


Specifically, the claim that Dr. David Viner predicted in 2000 that “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” - when in fact he never said that, an editor fabricated that copy selling headline.  It was nothing more than bait to sell papers and confuse people, not anything that Dr. Viner actually predicted.  


While researching this on the internet I was astounded at how well the Republican/libertarian PR machine has saturated the internet with repetitions and variations on this piece of malicious, I dare call it "criminal" mischief.


That's why I believe a DeSmogBlog Repost is in order.  This time it's an article by Graham Readfearn with more details about this fraud:

Climate Science Denier James Delingpole Calls For "Alarmists" To Face Court With Death Penalty Powers

I IMAGINE only a small percentage of people reading this have had any journalism training, but don't let that stop you from pondering the following ethical question. If you read a newspaper story that included a direct quote from someone - let's say, for instance, UK climate scientist Dr David Viner - would it be acceptable…

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Reflecting on lawyerly questions

There's a YouTube video called, "Mocked Meteorologist Gets Last Laugh - Piers Corbyn Wins Again!"  Hideous five year old, one-sided contrived nonsense, republished last year.  I don't have the time or interest to get into that one.  But, I did leave a YouTube comment, which in turn has lead to quite the lengthy dialogue with a lawyer defending the contrarian party-line.  Not that she's claimed to be a lawyer, but I'm calling her lawyer because of the character and substance of her grilling, er questions.  Reminded me of the prosecutor focused on conviction:  "Yes, no, shut up. No details!  I didn't ask you that, shut-up.  And don't you dare question the validity of my questions or you're in contempt."

I mean 60 comments long and eleven hundred words all told.  I've thought about using it for another post, but I have way too many other projects piling up.  My last comment however describes the way I see her tactics.  Since it's a summation of another text book contrarian tactic, I'm using it as the basis for this post.
_____________________________

Dear Contrarian Lawyer, 

It would be one thing if I thought you were an innocent just learning about this stuff, but obviously that's not the case.  I think you are very aware of your game of lawyerly manipulation of questions - probably got high marks on the collegiate debating squad.  Too bad you don't appreciate that's gamesmanship.  It has nothing to do with honest curiosity and learning about how things function!

Your "acceptable info window" keeps shrinking.  All intended to shield you from important and real down to Earth observations and understanding.

You are playing a debate game - intend on winning the moment and nothing else.  Your approach offers no chance for learning - and in fact, I fear learning is your enemy.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Citizenschallenge, what's with the anger?

The other day I spoke with an accomplished friend, I was trying to get some feedback on this blog.  His take away thoughts were: "contains too much anger."  
"turn that anger into a force for good, positive things." 

I've been chewing on that quite a bit - critical self-reflection you could say.  

Anger?  My anger?  Climate Science Contrarian anger?  The anger that allows people to maliciously slander honorable productive experts?  

It is true that I do confront various spokespersons for this concerted attack on serious science.  Yes, I call individuals out for repeatedly lying and slandering.  But, I'd call that thoughtful confrontation, supported by evidence, not anger.

Confrontation doesn't need to be about anger, in my case it's about desperately, you could say passionately, trying to have a rational constructive dialogue.  

But, all these spokesmen keep running from constructive debate.  So what choice is there?  It's about evidence and constructive learning and if they keep running away from it, what's left but to confront them with it?

Their disinformation campaign is about destroying all attempts at constructive dialogue and learning and preparation for this brave new world barreling down on us.  

They believe out and out lying about real down to Earth facts, is their "Free Speech Right"  - Why should we the people be satisfied with that?  How can we prepare for this challenging future if knowingly lying about physical facts is okay?

After some soul searching I believe I can honestly say that I don't feel any personal malice towards the people who's lies I confront.  Be they Steele, Poptech 1000frolly or any of the others.  I don't have the time for that, or them on that sort of personal level, I have my own life and living it with dignity fills my time.  Why would I want to stoop down to their level of dogma driven personal emotionally charged hatred - come on, we're all just humans trying to get through our day to days.  

It is the lies and malicious slander and confusion and stupefaction they peddle to which I take umbrage.  For whatever deterministic reasons I am passionate about that and it seems to me a thing worth writing about.  

As for the poor formatting and such, I'll keep working on it.  If anyone out there 'gets' what I'm trying to do here and would care to lend some assistance, please do contact me.  You'll find me an attentive and appreciative student. 



Cheers, thanks for looking in and best wishes.

PS.  "We need each other to keep ourselves honest."