Monday, February 8, 2016

Considering the Republican/libertarian need to slander intellectual opponents


In musing on recent rabid (I used that word deliberately) attacks on me, I can't help but think about that Republican/libertarian passion for transforming every 'opponent' into some target for the most underhanded, grade-school level, personalized, totally distracting and irrelevant attacks.  

I've watched impeccable scientists and politicians and spokespeople trashed with the most demeaning garbage, all intent on keeping our eye's off the prize. 

Unfortunately their audience accepts and endorses such behavior and want to see issues melodramatized.  It's literally like our collective moral fiber has dissolved taking with it peoples' curiosity to understand their world.

In the past decades special-self-interest groups have calculatedly worked very hard to suppress that good old American awareness and impulse towards respect and friendship with diverse individuals.  Tragically, seems they've succeeded.

What's up with that?  Why that constant obsession with stripping us of our humanity?

It's important because after decades of increasingly better understanding, including improvements in teaching climate science, not to mention the changes being documented throughout our biosphere - that political/ideological barrier hasn't soften a bit.  

It's as though the concept of Enlightened Self Interest has never occurred to them.  Either that or their own short term self-interest eclipses everything.  I don't believe it's possible to make any significant dent without first figuring out how to grapple with that most fundamental emotional problem out there: 

The Republican/libertarian inability to recognize and acknowledge the humanity in their opponents and enemies.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

{5b} Earth's Earliest Climate - By Angela Hessler


I believe unfamiliarity with our planet's life story is at the root of society's inability to grasp serious climate science.  This in turn makes people frighteningly gullibility when it comes to falling for the most pathetic of con jobs that the Republican/libertarian PR Machine keep producing and broadcasting.

Listen to them deny basic Earth observations and geophysical fundamentals, or that favorite, denying the science by attacking messengers in order to ignore the scientific information.   It's like the Inhofes and Kochs and Christies and Lindzens, all them, possess a mind's eye concept of our planet with the depth of a post card.  

No appreciation whatsoever for the complexity of what we have here, or the eons of evolutionary "tinkering" that created this fantastic planet we were born into.  Nor any conception of the massive momentum that goes into our weather systems and global circulation patterns.  All they can see from within their protective bubble is resources to consume, power and money.  That their attitude is infantile and suicidal don't seem to matter.

That's why I started this project , because I wanted to share some of the learning process that's gone into building my own understanding and appreciation of evolution and in turn our climate system.  Admittedly I'm no scholar, but I sure am a student of my Earth and have some valuable information to share.  I challenge you to try and do a better job.  Please!

In this fifth installment I rely on an expert to present an excellent summation of the state of our understanding regarding the evolution of our climate system.  Ironically, after I finally finished working on condensing Dr. Angela Hessler's paper, (not an easy task for such a compactly written report), I started researching getting permission to post this, only to find the following:
TERMS OF USE - You may reproduce this material, without modifications, in print or electronic form for your personal, non-commercial purposes or for non-commercial use in an educational environment.
Well, okay if that's how it's got to be, he says with a smile, I wasn't feeling that good about my trimming anyways.  I did venture to highlight key sentences.  With no further ado, here's Dr. Angela Hessler's informed grand tour of the evolution of our climate system.
________________________________________________________

Earth's Earliest Climate
By: Angela M. Hessler | now with the Deep Time Institute  
(Chevron Energy Technology Company) © 2011 Nature Education 

Citation: Hessler, A. M. (2011) Earth’s Earliest Climate. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):24

When we discuss climate change today, we are mostly concerned with how such change will impact our environment and our lives. We look to the past to help understand climate cycles and how our current anthropogenic changes fit into natural change. Even more, we look to the past to help us find solutions.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to understand “deep-time” climate change is in how it relates to the origin and evolution of life on Earth, and possibly beyond. Despite the stark differences between today’s world and that of the Archean, it is clear that at both times, climate has impacted — and been impacted by — life on Earth.

This paper will take you as far back in the climate record as is currently possible, to the Archean Eon, from 3.9 to 2.5 billion years ago (Bya) (Figure 1). Peering so deeply back in time, far beyond the resolution of many isotope analysis methods, we invariably lose the details about climate and atmosphere chemistry that we can achieve — for instance, analyzing 500,000 year-old gas bubbles in Antarctic ice cores. Instead, we must ask fundamental questions: What was Earth’s surface like? Was its climate hot? Was it icy? Was there a greenhouse effect? For answers, we look to three far-flung Archean terranes.

Isua in West Greenland, Barberton in South Africa, and Pilbara in Western Australia.
________________________________________________

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Return of Lord of the Flies (#10…)


Oh dear, my ol pal AL can't leave it be.  
He again provides me with such an excellent example of what the Republican/libertarian PR Machine is all about and the tactics they are reduced to, I'm not letting it go to waste. 

It is posted with his words unaltered, no courtesy spell correction here.  I carry on a rhetorical conversation with AL, since he never listens to what his 'opponents' are trying to explain.  I figure it might help some appreciate what is going on out there in the Republican/libertarian alter-universe, since this is the way they go after any messenger of climate science education.

It's worth making a big deal out of, because this is how they keep us away from addressing the real issues, instead we continue wasting yet more precious irreplaceable time.
_________________________________________________
Arne wrote - February 6, 2016, 6:15 PM 
+Dave Smith Jesus, you're retarded. Just go back and read you own wall of text you have posted here. But I'm not surprised if you won't, since they are just dishonest ramblings.  (If you take the time to scroll up the interminable thread, you'll notice that Dave knows very well how to read scientific papers and respond to challenges in a even toned, polite, informative, I dare say, constructive, manner.)

{5a} The Most Beautiful Graph on Earth - A. Hessler

I've been sporadically working on my next post regarding the "Evolution of our Atmosphere," but it's challenging, I can't find a nice clean presentation to work with.  Excellent bits and pieces, none of it specifically what I'm looking for.

My favorite lead is a paper by Angela Hessler "Earth's Earliest Climate" which I'm trying to summarize -  but days are crowded and surprises may lay in wait, making it impossible to write for a while and it's been so long since my last installment I at least want to share the gold nugget I found in her paper, the following graph.

It's a wonderful collection of our planet's geophysical vital signs.  Okay, I'm not positive it's the "most" beautiful graph on Earth, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - but I am sure it's a fantastic window into the physical reality of our Earth and how the pageant of time has created the biosphere we humans take oh so for granted.  Hope to be back soon.

Earth's Earliest Climate
By: Angela M. Hessler (Chevron Energy Technology Company) © 2011 Nature Education 
Currently director of the  Deep Time Institute


thin red line, that drops dramatically and then has a couple spikes = Impact rate
doted red line = Solar luminosity
dark green line = CO2 
light green line = CH4 (methane)
red line = O2
blue line = Ocean surface temperature
Two vertical bands, in the Archean = earliest sedimentary rock formation (continent building)
Dark gray vertical bands = glacial episodes

(The moon would have formed shortly after accretion ended (the white bar), early in the Hadean)
(The reign of humanity would fit within tiniest vertical sliver at the far right end of this graph)


Citation: Hessler, A. M. (2011) Earth’s Earliest Climate. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):24   
Lead Editor:  Figen Mekik

_________________________________________________________




Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Mr. Landscapesandcycles, Jim Steele weights in (#9 ...)

Every time I think I'm done with this, there's another surprise waiting.  This morning I woke to this comment from my old pal Jim, who's claim to legitimacy comes from his years as San Francisco State University, Sierra Nevada Field Campus nature trail guide, caretaker/director, and bird watcher Jim Steele, before he became spokesman for climate science denial industry.
My experience has been that poptech is far more honest than citizenchallegne/meisler . Meisler is just experiencing the time honored truth, What goes around comes around!

Jim has made quite the reputation himself.  He demands we debate climate science but then runs from anyone willing to debate him on the nonsense he's spewing out.  Then back within the confines of his protective echo-chamber, boy can he blast me.  It's no wonder he feels such a kinship with Poptech.  I don't have any more time for him today - but his comment has inspired me to share a couple lists of detailed reviews and the itemizing of his many lies and theatrical manipulations:
_____________________________________________________________________

Monday, January 12, 2015
INDEX - Jim Steele's climate science horror collection, Landscapesandcycles, 2014

This blog has been a personal learning process and I'll admit some posts are duds, others aren't all they should be, but then, a few hit the nail.  

Since the past decade has taught me that climate science denialism is an insuperable ideological point of faith with many - I've switched my focus to the few who want to study the tactics and dynamics that climate science denialist types employ in order to misrepresent and distort the science.  These tactics are dedicated to confusing and misleading people.  

Thereby turning what should have been a sober learning process into a contorted dishonest political farce.  A farce forced on us by special-interests employing disingenuous jokers such as the "Lord" Monckton or this current rising star Mr. Jim Steele.  
His message: 
'Think locally, ignore the global.' 

His tactics:
    Obsessive focus on flaws in extremely challenging wildlife population studies.
    Misrepresent the scope of those flaws and the learning process. 

As an excuse to:
     Ignore the physics of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
     Ignore the fact that industrialized society has increased our planet's atmosphere's insulation medium (GHGs) by nearly 40%.
     Ignore the fact that our climate system is a global heat distribution engine.
     Ignore the overwhelming observational evidence of continued global warming.

Employing:
    Political theater to dismiss well established science.
    Political theater to disparage dedicated professional scientists.
    The magician's tactic of distraction and sleight of hand.
    The Serengeti Strategy which is explained here and here.



Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Lord of the Flies (#8 Poptech's Truth)

(did some morning touch up edits 2/2/16)
I thought I could avoid Anthony Watts and Poptech's attack piece on me, figuring I'd get to it later.  But my old pal AL (a debate mate from this past November 23 to December 13th in the "debating sock-puppet" series.) just couldn't resist rubbing it in my face, and since his link went to Poptech's post, I figured, OK in for a nickel, in for a dollar.  
AL writes Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 1:19 citizenschallengeYT Hahahahaha…:P  http://www.populartechnology.net/2016/01/the-truth-about-whatsupwiththatwatts-et.html?m=1
Oh boy, talk about desperation to dig up shit, well they dug and they dug and oh the facts and links they've unearthed. But, even more impressive than what they unearthed - is the bizarre theatrical spin they put on everything.

All dedicated to maligning me and ignoring the evidence and the ideas I challenge them with.  What they deliberately ignore is that I'm just a messenger talking about the science and I am always ready to support my claims with references back to the authoritative science I learned from.  If you don't believe me, try me.

On the other hand these clowns spend all their effort putting their fantastical labels on people and spinning hallucinatory yarns while claiming superiority and victory... as though it's their's to claim.  They make lots of noise about the science, yet they never produce any serious science when they are challenged.  Instead it always reverts to a malicious mud fight.  It's worth making a big deal about because powerful leaders like Inhofe and Barton and the rest hide behind this sort of insanity to justify doing nothing and wasting precious time.

I've copied Poptech's "Truth about WUWTW" and pasted it below and diluted the 'horror' with some more facts and commentary.  I eliminated some links, but I kept most, to be honest it was cool revisiting some of those pages.
__________________________________________________
The 'poopie' color Comic San font seemed appropriate for Poptech's words.  

Saturday, January 30, 2016
The Truth about What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al. according to Andrew Poptech.
______________________________________

"Your resident dummy reviewer... [referring to himself]"
- Peter Miesler, Skeptical Science Forums
{What's wrong with that?  
At least I don't take myself so seriously, nor do I have illusions about being smarter than actual scientists.  Yo, poppy do you have any sense of humor, or self-skepticism?}

Sunday, January 31, 2016

"Keep the Debate Alive!" (#7 moral of the comments)

Thanks to Hotwhopper and it's tracking of Anthony's latest antics, I found out a little while ago that WattsUpWithThat has featured me in a rather scathing post.  I haven't looked at it, no time for that distraction right now.  I'm sure I'll get to it eventually.  

See, I want to stick with some thoughts I woke up with and wrote down before having to run off to get on with other chores.  Now I only have a few moments available and want to keep my eyes on the prize, as some say.
________________


I woke up thinking about the Climate Science Contrarian's plaintive refrain: 
"Keep the Debate Alive!" 
yet when someone like me comes along who wants to debate with them for real, it's always the same song and dance. 

First the self-certain wildly mistaken claims.  

Then, ignoring all the evidence I provide, dismissing my argument with a wave.
Then, the denial and resentment at being questioned.
  
Then rather than counter-arguments, and getting specific about where my errors in logic or facts are, they resort to insults (occasionally threats - kudos to Poptech for not climbing into that gutter.) 
and arm waving, basically whining that - It's not nice to challenge someone's faith.  

Then they back out of the discussion with their chorus of "Debate is healthy - you are stupid..." while their ears, eyes and minds remain firmly plugged.

{Then he/they slink off to their club houses and let me have it.  So it goes.   Poptech and Steele's claims are ever more convincing when kept within the sanctity of their self-imposed echo-chambers.}

_________________________________________

One of the important basic questions Poptech refused to discuss is:

What kind of DEBATE is worth having?

The debate I keep chasing is a constructive affair.  
It's about a willingness to expose one's own ideas/understanding to skeptical reviews. 
It's about considering and better understanding competing information and ideas. 
It's about being willing to hear about flaws in one's own understanding.  After all, that is how we learn!
Poptech's debate is the political/lawyerly affair, where "winning" the argument is all that matters.
  
That sort of debate feeds on conflict and confusion rather than on learning anything constructive.  Nothing more than a sort of ad hoc exercise in self-justification.  

It's a wretchedly dishonest affair, the stuff of power politics.

Not the stuff of learning or understanding.