So how many of you climate change scientist (or communicators) are not buying any items made from or by fossil fuels to save the planet? How many?
Last night while looking at Michael Tobis’ blog he mentioned a malicious editorial character assassination attempt on Michael Mann by “Investers Daily" editorial written August 31, conveniently linking to it, but I won't. No author listed but then I can understand no one wanting to take credit for it. Michael Tobis did make a point of affirming Michael Mann's integrity:
“I've disagreed with Mike in the past on science communication, and probably will again, but I have no doubt about his rigor, honesty, and competence as a scientist.
His productivity under the bizarre adverse conditions that have surrounded his career is a remarkable and impressive achievement, and my hat is off to him as far as that goes.” M. Tobis
The Investers Daily editorial seems to me an example of malicious criminal libel, one that at the very least demands a line by line take down. A simple listing of their lies, trash talk, libel, and other tactics employed by the GOP climate science bashing machine with such tragic success.
Unfortunately, I'm on another assignment, spent 9 hours hanging sheetrock with more tomorrow. So I spent the day frustratedly biding my time, sneaking peaks line by line and making mental notes.
Then I come home and rather than having some time to start in on the Investers Daily editorial, I got caught up in responding to E. Varnado. Since he wasted this chunk of my precious time I’m going to share my comments. It’ll add some personal background to the bigger debate I’m striving to push.
E Varnado commented at Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined ...
So how many of you climate change scientist are not buying any items made from or by fossil fuels to save the planet? How many?
Are you not driving or flying and etc. to save the planet.
September 12, 2017 at 5:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E Varnado,
Can you explain what that has to do with honesty looking at and learning about what's happening to our planet from serious climate science ? ? ?
What does it have to do with deliberately lying about what scientists have actually said and done? Instead all your type can offer is full on dirty fighting attacks, that go for the throat that disregard honesty and looking at the actual facts - and never, ever any interest in learning anything.
What's the matter with you? Why do you have to fantasize we're your enemy or some stupid stuff like that?
When I’m lucky enough to fly, I’m a ten year old again fascinated by the whole complex operation of the airport. Then, take off, paying close attention for the moment those wheels leave the grown and the wings lift the play. I tell you, the thrill remains as I always seem to recall my first take off at ten in a 140 taildragger pulling a glider. In the air my head is flattened against the window in awe of the country unfolding below me, trying to absorb as much as I can.
I wonder, when you drive off or hop on that plane do you spend any time wondering at the marvel and achievements and the huge complex pulsing infrastructure and all the things it takes to keep that humming, and how lucky you are to be able to experience, or are too worried about making money to notice?
Ever experience that deep appreciation for how fortunate we are and the wonder of the complexity behind making these luxuries possible?
Our parents, grandparents and beyond strove to achieve all this for us, and you take it all for granted. Every think of what it takes to keep those shelves at your local grocery store filled with all that plenty?
But you don't care about any of that. Do you? You just want to pick on “warmists". What about healthy farm land or rivers and oceans. You know, the things that sustain our lives? Actually guess you don’t know. Or you’d show more interest in Earth sciences.
Instead all you got is spouting ignorance nonsense, never interested in learning about the rest of the story. I also imagine you don't possess a shred of self-skepticism either. Thus with ignorant contempt you help destroy the future of our younger generations. So tragic, so stupid.
Me, incidentally I'm no scientist. I'm a passionate student, and it seems in my old age becoming a bit of preacher, life is interesting. My deal is about honestly, truthfully conveying what scientists have learned - I deeply resent people who believe it’s their free speech right to slander and libel while refusing to learn a damned thing. When I offer my opinion I happily share what I learned from. It's supposed to be a constructive learning process here, after we have gambled away our society's future, and at the rate we're going, perhaps humanity itself, along with that awesome world I inherited.
I was born wanting to understand how my planet Earth functions and I've spent six decades actively adding to my understanding and appreciation. I can't for the life of me figure out why I seem to be so rare. Why is the world filled with so many ciphers such as E Varnado, people who are alive but have no curiosity no sense wonder, or fair play, or interest in constructive learning. What ever happened to America’s spirit of Enlightened Self-interest.
If you ever wanted to discuss the actual science and our global heat and moisture distribution engine please do return.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Further thoughts on a related topic, "Appreciating Earth's Climate
Who says understanding Earth’s Evolution is irrelevant?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do have an observation/question people keep dodging,
if anyone wants to step forward,
please do.
Consider Mann and “his” hockey stick.
All it takes is a closer reading of those two early Mann et al hockey stick papers to appreciate Mc/Mc were trumping up a con job. It was clearly a pioneering ground breaking piece of science, it never claimed to be perfect, it even recognized some of its own weaknesses. It was part of a work in progress that's continued produced ever more exacting results in subsequence years with increased data and analysis.
Mc/Mc final "corrected" adjustments made almost no difference to the overall shape of that graph.
If I'm wrong about my assessment someone let me know. If I'm not wrong, it's an indictment of the entire scientific community that no one could convey that simple truth to leaders and the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment