The condensed version of
Questions for SoD plus other observations.
The following still isn't for the faint of heart and though I've cut out a third of my origin version only a serious student of "Republic/libertarian attack on science tactics" will find it interesting. I cut out all the fat I could and got it down to main points and links, though I can see I need to make a third version with links only.
I've undertaken this project because Science of Doom's shockingly naive "The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof" article, along with its following 'smoking guns' comments thread, provided an excellent vehicle for my struggle to grasp the proclivity of humans to lie to themselves about Earth sciences.
{...}
The issue is the public's right to honestly learn about our planet's geophysics and
what climate scientists and Earth scientists have learned!
_________________________________________________
The following gets a bit complicated so here's an introduction.
Prelude: SoD wrote a blog post bemoaning the use of the term "climate science denialist" because there are also "Holocaust Deniers" and he feels that's worse than denying geophysical facts; or dishonestly interfering with scientists' ability to teach our leaders and the public.
SoD also makes a vague argument implying: 'we still don't know enough to make certain conclusions about basic global warming physics' - such as the cascading consequences of injecting 500 gigatons of extra manmade greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere, in a geologic blink.
The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof
Posted February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom
____________________________________________________________
{...}
1.) The psychology of denial is stunningly similar.
{…}
3.) The very first shoah deniers were Jewish Germans:
{...}
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The issue is deliberate, and in fact malicious, misrepresentation of the substance of the IPCC report and the state of the scientific consensus.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
on February 7, 2015 at 12:33 am
- {...} their claim is simply a claim taken on faith of what other people have told them. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Other people" ???
We're talking about a huge scientific community of people from around the globe, spanning generations! A large competitive community of educated skeptical experts who do work in these fields and who do have a thorough understanding of these issues and challenges?
These people are constantly cross checking each other's work and adding new information... the debate is alive and well and the learning curve has been breathtaking, but one needs to take the time to listen and learn to know that.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- SoD: No one has demonstrated a proof of AGW being simple.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What kind of standard of proof are you expecting?
Define your expectations!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{…}
SoD it would be interesting to hear you say a few words about the importance of self skepticism and humility in the face of professors and professionals who are better informed than we ourselves.
Perhaps a few words about the weirdness and intellectual dishonesty of getting mad at and maliciously attacking recognized experts in their fields, simply for pointing out errors in one's pet theories and mistaken assertions?
Why never learn from lessons taught?
Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists
- on February 7, 2015 at 12:49 am
- Also, even if an academic researcher, a physics professor ... have work to do.
- {...}
- So, show us the simple proof that everyone can grasp ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It's like SoD is holding basic learning and understanding hostage by setting up impossible expectations that a lay-person should be convinced of matters they don't even fully comprehend.
Want simple proof? Here's a quicky.
Professor Richard Alley's video:
"Who says CO2 heats things up?"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Explain again, why should we allow politically motivated thinktanks and dilettante's to tell us to stop trusting the trained professional experts?
{...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- on February 7, 2015 at 3:28 am
- Yes, climate science is hard. But hardness is relative. (Like, QM can be easy if you love Hilbert space math. Like, the burden of complexity being distributed over many shoulders of giants.) The rough picture is known since Arrhenius (if not Fourier and Tyndall) (modulo some ocean chemistry). The rest is observation and well-grounded (not ego-disturbed) intuition.
- Some caring and love of reality required beyond your wallet. Incl. observing scientists (E.g. observing string theorist Lubos M tripping over the CO2 saturation thing…)
- Heck, climate is basically steam engine physics. Steam engines work. Why don’t the den*ers den* QM or relativity?...
Counter question: Who can prove me that the Earth circles the Sun? (That it isn’t flat is easy, now that we have airplanes.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
An Essay Concerning Our Weather Nov/Dec 1995 Humanist magazine
2005 version
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- on February 7, 2015 at 8:59 am
- R.D.
- Disgusting and dangerous nonsense. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What I find particularly disgusting and dangerous is a political agenda stopping people from honestly learning about climate science simply because of their biases.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- R.D.: ... But do deployers of the D-word ever make any distinction to exclude Nic Lewis and his publisher Steve McIntyre from its baleful scope? ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Considering some Nic and Mc's cherry picking, misrepresentation, manipulation, and politicized commentary, why doesn't the label climate science denier fit? Please explain?
Incidentally, "EXPOSED - The RealClimate.org's "McKitrick and McIntyre" Files"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- R.D.: Or, as SoD says, take CO2 saturation. ...
- We’re waiting. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here's a start:
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics
An exponential increase in CO2 will result in a linear increase in temperature
Can anyone clarify the CO2 band saturation thing?
Why some gases are greenhouse gases, but most aren’t, and some are stronger than others
The carbon dioxide theory of Gilbert Plass
Carbon Dioxide and the Climate
A 1956 American Scientist article explores climate change
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Regarding CO2 saturation and the "debate"
fyi. Marotzke & Forster Respond to Nic Lewis
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Trivializing and sarcasm are nothing but devices of avoidance.
Besides, since when hasn't the past informed our understanding of the future?
Besides, since when hasn't the past informed our understanding of the future?
Can SoD specify what level of resolution he expects before we the people can learn from what the professionals have learned?
I'm convinced all it takes is a good faith interest in learning about our planet Earth.
Climate change: How do we know?
~ ~ ~
Global Climate Change Indicators
~ ~ ~
Evidence for global warming
~ ~ ~
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{SoD ...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
More sarcasm, intent on deftly avoiding Florifulgurator's point, which was:
"... But to get it, you have to open your mind just like with any nontrivial reality: Not only probe the details (and the detail arguments).
You need to try to get hold of as much as possible of the whole web of things – which requires a different kind of pondering and looking than just accounting the machination of details.
This second kind of minding can make the whole edifice of climate science easier and rewardingly beautiful to behold."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- on February 7, 2015 at 7:10 pm
- Pekka {...} When most people can base their beliefs only on what others are telling, the next question is, how they can decide whom to believe.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It's not about relying "only on what others are telling"! It's about trusting a huge community of experts who keep each other honest.
Which is more than can be said for the perpetual refusal to absorb new information, which is the defining hallmark of the alternative Republican/libertarian science in a vacuum "it's a hoax" "keep the debate alive" attitude which SoD seems to embrace.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- Pekka: Again they are not capable of judging the merits of of the various sources. They have sources that they trust more and these sources have their sources.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Why not object to clearly politically driven interests spreading demonstrable disinformation about basic climate science and global observations?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What happened to a little self-skepticism and the desire to learn?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
on February 7, 2015 at 8:34 pm
- HAS
- {...} Just like our tendency not to trust the shiny suit who has “a deal for you”. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
... For instance this claim of scientific advocacy, activists and shiny suited shysters - why not look at our Republican/libertarian friends?
Why no concern for their twisting of scientific facts and observed truths?
I use the term Republican/libertarian as a deliberate descriptive for the source of today's public confusion - here's some of the supporting evidence:
Conservative Think Tanks and Climate Change Denial Books
- - -
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
- - -
Right-wing think tanks are often quoted, rarely labeled
- - -
Climate Change Denial A Bargain At $1.2 Mil
- - -
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
- - -
Heartland Institute
- - -
The Googlization of the Far Right
- - -
"The troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- HAS: ... without good prima facie evidence to back it up. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Would HAS and pals pay attention to it, if they saw it?
Infrared radiation and planetary temperature
~ ~ ~
Or how about good 'ol Earth observations?
Climate change: How do we know?
~ ~ ~
Global Climate Change Indicators
~ ~ ~
USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map
~ ~ ~
Would some background information about the long history of climate science help?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{...}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- T.S.: I’m also interested in how one can accept “climate change” caused the situation in Syria. ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
T.S. we are talking "conflict multiplier" not "caused".
Don't suppose you'd want to learn about it?
WikiLeaks, Drought and Syria - Thomas Friedman
- - -
MARCH 3, 2012
by Francesco Femia & Caitlin Werrell, in a Center for Climate & Security repost
[Addendum by Joe Romm]
- - -
September 10, 2013
Drought helped cause Syria’s war. Will climate change bring more like it?
By Brad Plumer
- - -
May 30, 2014
The age of climate warfare is here. The military-industrial complex is ready. Are you?
by Nafeez Ahmed
- - - - - - -
- - -
On Point: California Drought And The U.S. Food Supply
- - -
Leading Scientists Explain How Climate Change Is Worsening California’s Epic Drought
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It's not accurate to say that droughts haven't increased globally, it's an extremely complex thing to track. Here's an informed description of the situation - plus an example of way science works - notice a couple of these authors have written papers arriving at different results, now they are working together to resolve the confusion, that's the scientific method at work:
Global warming and changes in drought
Trenberth, K. E., A. Dai, G. van der Schrier, P. D. Jones, J. Barichivich, K. R. Briffa, and J. Sheffield, 2014: Nature Climate Change
- - -
No Doubt It's A Climate-Change Drought, Scientists Say
Jeff McMahon - January 1, 2015
The scientists had gathered in part because a recent study from NOAA has been interpreted to suggest the drought derives from the natural variability of the climate. But these three scientists say that interpretation derives from NOAA’s focus on only one aspect of the drought—mean rainfall. When you look at the drought as an extreme event, they said, and when you look at its probability of recurring, and when you look at not only rainfall but also temperature and evaporation, there’s no doubt what’s behind the drought.
- - -
Global Warming and Drought
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
{...}
R.D., do full bellies dictate a people's sense of wellbeing and satisfaction?
Billion Dollar US Weather Disasters, 1980-2013
Source National Climate Data Center
- - -
The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist
- - -
2014 World Population Data Sheets
Download Full Report: 2014 World Population Data Sheet (PDF: 2MB)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
- on February 9, 2015 at 2:44 am
- ... And it’s the claim of such equivalence that is the subject here.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
RD, SoD, and pals, what's the moral "equivalence" of willfully tearing apart our planet's natural life support system (not to mention our complex manmade infrastructure - think coastal cities and farms for starters) you know, the stuff that's made life so easy for "the haves"?
§ Is there evidence that our burning of fossil fuels is causing our "global heat distribution engine" to warm up?
§ Will warming (read, energizing) our global heat distribution engine impact the rhythms of the global biosphere that humanity and society has developed within?
§ Will a warming climate system energize our atmosphere's hydrology, both by increasing the amount of water the troposphere holds and by increasing the energy that needs to be dissipated? (read, less, but more intense rain/wind storms).
§ Are our food supply systems dependent on the established rhythms of our 'current' seasons and rain patterns?
§ Will an increasingly warming planet cause it's cryosphere to melt at increasing rates?
§ Will that melting and warming cause global sea levels to rise?
§ Will rising sea levels impact coastal installations such a shipping ports, oil refineries, coastal cities and subsurface infrastructure, tourist hotel strips and barrier island real estate holdings, to mention just a few?
Sea level rise blog
§ Is the math of compounding interest for real?
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
CC's "Denial Games at ScienceOfDoom" Collection
No comments:
Post a Comment