#3 E.M. has his say. Debating the Republican Disconnect from Earth's realities.

E.M. has accepted my invitation and here is his guest post taking issue with my commentary.  As agreed I have only added formatting for clarity and tried correcting for the list numbers error that I don't have time to figure out.  I'm hoping E.M. leaves a comment acknowledging that I've left his words untouched.  I will be responding in a following post or two.  Hopefully I'll have the first one finished and posted by this evening.

___________________________________________________________

E.M. writes:  I’m going to start this post by pointing out that you are taking the substance of my thoughts completely incorrectly. I put this on myself, as my thoughts were quickly written in a comment section and not articulated nearly as clearly as they could have been. My original statement came out poorly, and the questions I posed were intended not to critique the science of AGW, but to point out the limitations that arise from scientific modeling, easily the hardest task any research team is faced with.

I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time. 

I’m sure you’ll give me the “bull shit!” response, but this is not at all a bullshit statement. Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new and we certainly can and will improve our holistic knowledge in the subject in the coming months, years, and decades. No real climate scientist, or anyone with knowledge of the scientific process for that matter, denies that increasing our knowledge of our planet is necessary. I get my information from the same research you do; you could draw the same conclusions I do from the research, because the scientists who do the research acknowledge just as much. Models speculate, and this creates uncertainty in any findings, no matter what kind of modeling you are doing. Here’s a dandy link to the benefits and drawbacks of scientific modeling, because clearly you believe that I’m denying the existence (I’m not) of AGW. 

I will now try, to the best of my ability, to respond to your specific critiques, many of which are judgments based on, wait for it, assumptions that you have made about my background, my knowledge, and my character. 

1. 1)  CC wrote:  “Dude , I don’t believe you are the innocent you pretend to be.  If you were that naive you wouldn’t be commenting on AWG over here!  That doesn’t mean we can’t continue a constructive dialogue, I just want you to know where we stand.”  
1. E.M. writes:  What isn’t “innocent” about questioning models? Climate scientists question modeling all of the time; this is how we refine modeling. It is a crude process where adjustments (see #20) are made over and over. I am not naïve; I am cautious with speculation. 

1. 2)  CC wrote:  “You have provided me another excellent vehicle to examine the subtle dishonest rhetorical game that the Republican PR machine broadcasts through thousands of astro-turfed mouthpieces.  It brings me back to what this blog was all about before the 11/8/16 catastrophe and I thank you for that opportunity.”
1. E.M. writes:  Not sure exactly what the “Republican PR machine” has to do with climate-system modeling. And no, I don’t agree with the shit that is spewed from the mouths of people whole claim that AGW doesn’t exist, because I’m not fucking stupid. Me not wanting to cripple the national economy has absolutely zero to do with not believing in AGW or the “Republican PR machine”. It has to do with a basic understanding of economics and government’s role in society. 

1. 3  CC wrote:  “Nonsense!  The right wing media machine is saturated with people denying the fundamentals of AGW.  Just need to google it, or try YouTube for hundreds of real zingers.  {This deception is the first “tell” that we are dealing with a disingenuous individual.}”
1. E.M. writes:  Disingenuous? Okay, but even still, MOST (not all) rational individuals, whether they believe that we should dramatically reduce emissions or not at all, believe that the Earth is warming and that this warming can be contributed to human carbon emissions. Yeah, some people tell themselves that AGW doesn’t exist, and they often have loud mouths. This doesn’t mean, however, that everyone (Republicans, Libertarians, the fucking Whig party; it doesn’t really matter what label you attach), who doesn’t believe that government market intervention is the way to solve the issue is a liar, a schemer, or a societal-parasite. It means they have a different opinion on how to deal with the issue. Or maybe they don’t want to address the issue, but that doesn’t make supply-side social and economic theorists “climate-deniers”. 

1. 4)  CC wrote:  “You say you don't want to argue about the existence of the human-contribution to climate change and then proceed to do just that in a wishy-washy way.  What gives?”
1. E.M. writes:  Because it does exist. As I’ve said many times at this point. The wishy-washiness of my post can be attributed to a lack of articulation, not deception.

1. 5)  CC wrote:  “Why do you think the scientific community has been self-serving?  Please offer some examples.”
1. E.M. writes:  I never said the scientific community is self-serving or disingenuous. However, if you think that all climate lobbyists are doing what they do only in order to “save the planet”, you are being extremely naïve in your world view. When there is money to be made, as with any issue, it becomes highly publicized. This is my biggest critique of the the entire AGW debate (debate in regards to response, NOT existence). It’s truly a travesty that our two-party system turned this issue into a political one instead of a humanitarian one. Climate sciences would benefit greatly if AGW was viewed outside of the political spectrum. And here we agree: republicans/conservative and all of these AGW deniers have played a huge role in the polarization of the issue. But, so has the other-side. Both sides have chosen their “response” to AGW inside a political vacuum, with no room for negation or concessions on either-side. This isn’t only problematic for science, it’s also problematic for creating any real change. If we have a progressive agenda that has no regard for the concerns (economic, not causal) of the other side like we have seen from the current administration, there should be no surprise that the agenda of the incoming administration aims to undo what they see as a slight from the other side. 

1. 6)  CC wrote:  “I’m curious have you listened to any climate scientist lectures, such as UCTV Perspectives on Ocean Sciences?” 
1. E.M. writes:  again, not denying any of this.

1. 7)  CC wrote:  “On one side we have scientists who have dedicated themselves to understanding how our planet operates and doing so as accurately as possible.  They are reporting on what their instruments and evidence is telling them.”
1. E.M. writes:  Still not denying science…

1. 8)  CC wrote:  “On the other side we have a small group of right-wing politically motivated outlier scientists, supported by a “think tanks” network which was created by some very wealthy, and oil drenched special interests and their bought Republican (and libertarian) politicians.”
1. E.M. writes:  Political polarization at its finest. I don’t think this minority of “outlier scientists” supported by free market think tanks should come as any surprise to anyone. An entire industry is being threatened and so is a lot of wealth. The reality of situation is that the livelihood of many, many Americans (approximately 170,000) is threatened by regulations on the oil and gas industry alone. So, yes, there are special interest groups that exist to protect their, wait for it, interests. These groups know that there will be no concessions from the market intervention thinkers, so in a time where the federal government has largely consisted of these thinkers (and executive orders, no less). They’ve resorted to denial in order to fight legislation, which in and of itself is tragic.

1. 9)  CC wrote:  “Sad thing is I don’t believe you rely on real experts.  I believe from the way you’re framing your argument, that you get all your news from within the Republican news feed and a narrow circle of outlier scientists who have made themselves irrelevant to the real science going on.”
1. E.M. writes:  Again, broad assumptions about my world knowledge. I will start with the (individual) news research process, especially in our current news environment. I usually start with daily headlines from places like politico and realclear. I do like realclear, even with their slight-right slant, as they usually publish pretty detailed news stories from both major media outlets with varying political opinions (usually MSM media such as NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, etc.). They also publish content from sources like The Atlantic and The Economist, which I feel offer much more substance than MSM outlets (especially their opinion pieces). In addition, they offer publications from academic and other journals that are vastly more detail and fact oriented than anything that can be found at the major outlets. I pride myself on knowing what both sides are saying about issues. I like to be able to point out the hypocrisies of both sides of our system, and you can’t construct your own world-view if you only understand one side of the thought process. 

1. 10)  CC wrote:  “Sentences like that are so fundamentally dishonest its ridiculous but such are the tactics that have squandered precious time we don’t have to waste. {Another “tell” that we are dealing with a disingenuous individual.}
1. E.M. writes:  Woah, it’s dishonest to say we don’t know all we can? I’m nor squandering precious time or justifying inaction in anyway. Simply an observation (and a fact).

1. 11)  CC wrote:  Dude, name one serious scientist who says we know all we can about manmade global warming and the climate changes it drives, or the full extent of long-term effects?  We do know an awful lot.  What we don’t know is about fringe details that are of no-count to the fundamental reality of what we are doing to our Earth and today’s life supporting biosphere. Oh and we certainly do know what our role in its prevention would need to be.  Drastically reducing the amount of Greenhouse Gases we inject into our atmosphere.  It really is that simple!”
1. E.M. writes:  Zero. There are none, so again, calling me disingenuous for literally referencing this fact is a weak argument at best, and highly ignorant at worst. I ask you this: how? How do we, as the United States of America, drastically reduce global greenhouse gas emissions? What is your plan of action? Please, I would love to hear an explanation of how you would shape our energy policy in a way that would drastically reduce emissions.

1. 12)  CC wrote:  “Either you didn’t have the curious to go and read Issac Asimov’s essay, or it went right over your head.  Try it again.  Hint, the essay is about the refinement of fact based understanding.”
1. E.M. writes:  I did read it, and you assuming it went “right over my head” shows your arrogance. I understand exactly what he’s saying, that the science is not wrong, it is incomplete. This is literally my entire point, so thanks for helping me make it. Get over yourself and your reading comprehension; you aren’t my intellectual superior. 

1. 13)  CC wrote:  “Well I’m sorry but I have the evidence of repeated and gross lying about the scientific facts, not to mention the malicious misrepresentation that’s been committed by Republican “think tanks” and PR fronts.
1. E.M. writes:  See #8

1. 14)  CC wrote:  If you look at this blog you’ll see plenty of very specific critiques, were I offer objective supporting evidence for my claims.  I know what I’m talking about and ignoring my critiques doesn’t make their substance go away.
1. E.M. writes:  I have neither the time nor the desire to read all of your blog posts, as this site is not easy to navigate and I have other things to do than read through all of your (all pretty much the same) posts. I don’t argue with the evidence you present; because I’m not arguing AGW’s existence or the fact that rising global temperature is a net-negative for the planet. I will give it to you, you seem relatively well versed in the realm of climate science. Kudos to you, but don’t misrepresent my concerns over necessary action-steps as an attempt on my part to run away from objective realities.

1. 15)  CC wrote:  Oh and no immediate about it!  I’ve been studying Anthropogenic Global Warming and the public dialogue since the early 1970s.  I’ve been trying to have a serious debate with a AGW contrarian since the 90s and Roger Cohen’s dishonest lectures at our local college.  What I get instead is big up front claims.  When I respond and watch my responses sidestepped with a descent into silliness that totally avoids the points I’ve presented, then with parting insults they disappear back into their self-certain echo-chamber. That’s by way of explaining why I’m not coddling and all nicie-nicie anymore.  Sorry if it hurts your feelings.”
1. E.M. writes:  Don’t worry about hurting my feelings, I’m not as easily triggered as many in our society are nowadays. I love having conversations like this one, as you are challenging me to present my thoughts in a coherent manner and to defend my beliefs. I hope you feel the same way through this and don’t see it as a personal attack on you. This is the discussion that should be happening more, but isn’t. 

1. 16)  CC wrote:  “Bull shit, have you even read through any of my critiques?  Why not start with Mr. Landscapes and Cycles, the infamous lying Jim Steele and my documented dismantling of his nonsense.  You’ll find the specifics upon which I base my “generalizations.” Why avoidance?  I’ve issued a bold invitation for a rational substance based constructive debate regarding climate science and the way the Republicans have maliciously misrepresented and lied about the facts. We don’t need to like each other to have a constructive honest debate.”
1. E.M. writes:  Read through a couple, again, well thought out and I have no objection to your disdain for the spread of false information. I never said I don’t like you; I don’t base who I like and don’t like on someone’s personal political beliefs. That is no way to go through life or to achieve anything that can be considered productive in society. 

1. 17)  CC wrote:  “I’ve never claimed to be an expert, but I have been paying attention since the early 70s.  I’m a spectator, an enthusiast, which is why I add so many links back to original sources, so folks can learn for themselves. Dude, It’s not about “dismissing the opposition” it’s about exposing base deception and malicious lies.”
1. E.M. writes:  But, you are dismissing my views. However, I chalk that up to my own comments short-comings in its articulation rather than your method of debate.

1. 18)  CC wrote:  “You are confusing yourself, the mainstream media is not the “climate community!” Do you understand the difference between scientific projections issued within the scientific literature - and news reporters stories about that science?? That is important.  Don’t you think? Dude, I ask because I’d like to invite you to share these “failed predictions” of yours - but I would expect you to stick with actual scientific papers. Then we can look at those “failed predictions” and see what the failures are and what we can learn from them.  How about it?  You made the claims.  Can you support them with objective evidence? Well heck on second thought, never mind, lets see your sources - provide whatever climate predictions you’d like.   We can take it from there.”
1. E.M. writes:  Okay, you’ve got me on this one. I did in fact confuse myself between climate science in the media vs the climate science community. I was mainly referencing outlandish claims from Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth”. I.e. Kilimanjaro won’t have year-round snow at decade end; no arctic left by 2013; etc. Even you must see the obvious scare tactics Gore uses, and in my opinion Al Gore is one of the main reasons that anyone doubts AGW at all. He was one of the first to politicize it. However, I don’t necessarily fault Gore’s hyperbole, because hyperbole is inherently an effective method to rally the masses around a cause. 

1. 19)  CC wrote:  “Why is that a problem for you? Don’t you think it is important for people to learn as much as we can about our Earth, its biosphere and climate system? Satellites and Earth sciences are expensive, no?  Why do you think that money should not be getting spent?  Please explain how that rationale works.  Where would you divert that money to?” 
1. E.M. writes:  It’s not the funding I dislike, it’s the bureaucratic nature of the funding process and the lack of accountability that follows this funding. I would simply like to see a tightening in program oversight with measurable goals and a desire to actually create solutions; not an endless tap of funding that produces minimal results. We focus to much on pushing legislation and too little on improving the current ways that we use energy. Let’s clean up the power-grid with some that funding. How about in addition to funding research and implementation alternative fuel sources, we also give some funding to these evil coal, oil and gas companies to research ways of cleaning up their own emissions? I’m saying that our impact on our climate is a huge, global issue that won’t be fixed by simply implementing federal legislation, and instead will require us to address AGW on a global scale, starting primarily in private markets and on local government policy. It’s easy to throw money at a problem; the hard part about coming up with solutions is identifying areas where change are likely to occur, setting goals to bring about the change, and constantly working with all interest groups in a manner that respects their beliefs (where you believe they are just plain wrong or not) and identifies concerns. As nice as it would be if everyone was on-board to, as you put, drastically decrease emissions, this is not the reality of the world we live in. The AGW problem is just that, a problem, but we will get no where if concessions can’t be made by either side of the date. Rather, we will get policy that crowds out the other-side of the debate (Trump will undo Obama, the next democratic will undo what Trump does, so on and so forth for generations). 

1. 20)  CC wrote:  Right, and adjustments are made to economic data people rely on everyday too. Don’t you appreciate that science is about striving for ever more accurate data, using ever more sophisticated instruments and processing methods?  Checking and cross checking always knowing that mistakes are possible and need to get ferreted out.  What’s wrong with that? 
1. E.M. writes:  Touché on this one. Goes back to modeling, and you are correct to call me out on this. As a student of economics, you a wholly correct; economic models make adjustments and assumptions all the time, which is why economic models are consistently inaccurate, and sometimes blatantly incorrect. Again, not saying the models are incorrect for AGW, but modeling certainly has limitations. 

1. 21)  A)   CC wrote:  You’ve admitted that you know nothing about climate science, yet you feel in a position to label legislative efforts misguided. How’s that work? That reminds me, what are your favorite news sources?
   a.    I have admitted no such thing. I said that I am not a climate scientist. Which is true. I do, however, consider myself to be a student of science; whether that be climate science, social science, or political science. I like to read about things, research current events, and learn about world history (these are great ways to procrastinate studying the boring stuff!). I enjoy pondering about how things have happened in the past, how they are happening now, and how they may happen in the future. I learn for the sake of learning, and I’m not trying to forward any type of agenda into the climate-change argument other than my own personal insights on what I’ve seen, how its worked, and where we may be on the topic in the future. And the truth is, I have no idea which direction the world is going in and the scale of the damage that we will cause. Because no matter the amount of lobbying that is done, no matter how much legislation we push through, nothing will stop the industrialization that is occurring and its incurring drastic rise in emissions rates that we are experiencing in the developing world (I include China and India as developing countries, on the grounds of standards of living and mode income brackets). The Paris Agreement (which I support FYI) looks good on paper, but it is just that. A piece of paper. A hope. I wish there was a consensus, not about the existence of AGW, but on the actions to be taken to limit our environmental impact. Not actions as broad as “dramatically reduce carbon emissions”. If this were an easy goal to reach, there would be no opposition. I believe denial stems from pessimism regarding what we can really do, and it grows into such a strong preference for the gains to be made now (both on the political and corporate fronts) over the costs down the road, that their arguments inherently become denials of AGW. Because saying it’s not real is easier (and more politically effective) than the fear that rises from saying, “I don’t know what’s going to happen, or how we can effectively deal with it. If you view the arguments of “deniers” through this lens: the lens of the same fear that the other side feels about the possibly horrible consequences, however with much more doubt about our ability to stop it, it really isn’t so outlandish to see how these views manifest as “the great climate hoax”. And you can see how, because of this, talking about the issue of where we are headed must be done without the lens of AGW proponents and deniers, and with a lens of mutual respect and consideration. This isn’t to save anyone’s feelings; on the contrary, it is to understand the others’ thought process. Not only domestically, but internationally as well. We are, after all, a planet. One country’s actions alone will do nothing; one bloc of nations’ actions will do nothing. This battle will be won not through forced legislation and unchecked funding, but through achievable goals and mutual respect for both our planet, and our opposition. I don’t really care where you stand, as a proponent or denier, an interventionist or a deregulationist; who doesn’t want to pollute less? Who doesn’t want to make energy cleaner (traditional energy can be made cleaner; it just takes some of this nifty science stuff!)?
   
   
2. 22) A)  CC wrote:  You’ve admitted that you know nothing about climate science, yet you feel in a position to label legislative efforts misguided. How’s that work? That reminds me, what are your favorite news sources?

1. E.M. writes:  I have admitted no such thing. I said that I am not a climate scientist. Which is true. I do, however, consider myself to be a student of science; whether that be climate science, social science, or political science. I like to read about things, research current events, and learn about world history (these are great ways to procrastinate studying the boring stuff!). I enjoy pondering about how things have happened in the past, how they are happening now, and how they may happen in the future. I learn for the sake of learning, and I’m not trying to forward any type of agenda into the climate-change argument other than my own personal insights on what I’ve seen, how its worked, and where we may be on the topic in the future. And the truth is, I have no idea which direction the world is going in and the scale of the damage that we will cause. Because no matter the amount of lobbying is done, no matter how much legislation we push through, will stop the industrialization and drastically rising emissions rates that we are experiencing in the developing world (I include China and India as developing countries, on the grounds of standards of living and mode income brackets). The Paris Agreement (which I support FYI) looks good on paper, but it is just that. A piece of paper. A hope. I wish there was a consensus, not about the existence of AGW, but on the actions to be taken to limit our environmental impact. Not actions as broad as “dramatically reduce carbon emissions”. If this were an easy goal to reach, there would be no opposition. I believe denial stems from pessimism regarding what we can really do, and it grows into such a strong preference for the gains to be made now (both on the political and corporate fronts) over the costs down the road, that their arguments inherently become denials of AGW. Because saying it’s not real is easier (and more politically effective) than the fear that rises from saying, “I don’t know what’s going to happen, or how we can effectively deal with it. If you view the arguments of “deniers” through this lens: the lens of the same fear that the other side feels about the possible, however with much more doubt about our ability to stop it, it really isn’t so outlandish to see how these views manifest as “the great climate hoax”. And you can see how, because of this, talking about the issue of where we are headed must be done without the lens of AGW proponents and deniers, and with a lens of mutual respect and consideration. This isn’t to save anyone’s feelings; on the contrary, it is to understand the others’ thought process. Not only domestically, but internationally as well. We are, after all, a planet. One country’s actions alone will do nothing; one bloc of nations’ actions will do nothing. This battle will be won not through forced legislation, unchecked funding, achievable goals, and mutual respect for both our planet and our opposition. I don’t really care where you stand, as a proponent or denier, who doesn’t want to pollute less? Who doesn’t want to make energy cleaner (traditional energy can be made cleaner; it just takes some of this nifty science stuff!)? 
1. CC wrote:  “Absolutely nothing”. Really, how do you figure that? What do you know about it?
1. E.M. writes:  I’m just going to assume you get what I’m trying to say at this point.

1. CC wrote:  Finally you seem to believe that ignoring the science is okay if it’s inconvenience or challenging for what you believe
1. E.M. writes:  Last thought on science; it is time for us to get over the science – AGW is real, and I truly believe that most people believe this, whether it is evident or not. However, we cannot get over the climate science, the economic science, the political science or the psychological science that contributes to this key issue.