Monday, March 12, 2018

Greenman, Rahmstorf - "Red Team" Kelly killed it. Opportunities missed, it's a shame.

From a scientist's perspective Dr. Rahmstorf is correct and I completely agree with him.  What everyone seems to be overlooking is what a fantastic public education opportunity a Red Team Blue Team showdown could be.

Blue team, not of scientists, but a team of savvy climate science communicators with thorough understanding of GOP contrarian arguments and tactics along with their scientific understanding.  Why not set it up to provide the public with a close-up examination of the evidence and arguments on both sides?  My thoughts on the opportunity it would provide after Dr. Rahmstorf explains the scientist's perspective.

greenmanbucket  -  Published on Mar 12, 2018
Interview with Stefan Rahmstorf 
There will be no "red team" debate about the settled science of climate change. 
Even supporters of the fossil fuel agenda were too embarrassed to participate.

John Kelly killed Pruitt’s climate science debate
By Timothy Cama  - 03/09/18 

2:15 exactly "it's just a public show" - that's the point.  

Think about this a little - could be golden opportunity - but rather than climate scientists, make the Blue Team savvy climate science communicators - and then turn the tables on the contrarians!

Demand evidence and facts - when they produce their tainted manipulated evidence and juvenile arguments - call them on it!  Bring it back to the basics - "Just the facts Ma'am."
Intellectual Confrontation, expose and describe the game they're playing as they play it.  Of course, it would require very sharp, well spoken individuals with cojones to go with their smarts.  Individuals ready and wanting to dissect and expose the details of how the contrarians' dishonesty and siren song unfolds.

Tear apart their juvenile arguments one after the other, it would be a golden opportunity, the smarter folks at the WH realize it better than we, so it's not happening.   What a lost opportunity, I myself believe taking their bluff in this election season could be a shrewd move.  

Why not put together our own R-B team - either with actual contrarians, or with videos of their words, since they never seem ready to debate on an even playing field.  Put contrarian arguments, and their reason on trial.

It might also offer a great platform to proclaim that, a sane society requires that we honestly represent our opponents' positions - yes, also to listen to corrects - life is a learning process.  Mistakes are learning opportunities and should not get frozen into bludgeons.  

Repeatedly and willfully ignoring corrections (object facts and data) to one’s own mistakes is a whole other story that needs to be exposed when it happens.

We have a duty to honestly represent known physical facts and evidence.

Repeating factual lies, should be called out, and dogged, dogged, dogged until the errors get acknowledged.  Not attacking people, attacking the idiotic lies!  That would be so much better and more productive than the silent acquiesce that extends a free pass for malicious lies to flourish.  

Seriously, think about what's happening in public media and the news, we've allowed the Alt-right to own and dominate the narrative so completely that in politics lying about the most important of facts and using malicious dirty tricks have become standard operating procedure, enjoyed with a ghoulish joy.   

Start with a simply factual review of our global heat and moisture distribution engine and the atmospheric insulation that makes our Earth habitable.  A quick review of our complex biosphere (of a sense of its folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity) and how all within it is a product of the available energy and the resulting climatic regime.  

How changing the mean temperature of the Earth impacts this biosphere and its inhabitants.  It can be done in a fairly short period of time.  Perhaps touch on uncertainty vs. certainty issues; map vs. territory problem; "How exact does our data need to be to know enough?"; and such.

Then turn the discussion over to the competing arguments, logic and evidence.  

Turn the klieg lights on the GOP's dishonest maliciously fraudulent debate tactics. 

2018 is a frightening election season with more at stake than in any time in America's history (suggest a rival if you can) my nightmare is that too many people still don't appreciate what's at stake, or even the game being played  - what we don't know, will hurt us.

If we don't all start engaging, and networking, and learning, and informing, and engaging more friends, and doing it now, things could get very dark indeed.  Check out this info kiosk

Dr. Schneider 2008 - Do we know enough to warrant action?

Stanford  |  Published on Sep 15, 2008  |  Stephen Schneider
July 24, 2008 presentation by Stephen Schneider for the Stanford University Office of Science Outreach's Summer Science Lecture Series.  
Professor Schneider discusses the local, regional, and international actions that are already beginning to address global warming and describe other actions that could be taken, if there were political will to substantially reduce the magnitude of the risks. 
The Stanford Summer Science Lecture Series is a set of informal lectures about cutting edge research from four of Stanford's most esteemed professors.

1 comment:

citizenschallenge said...

The EPA is letting key staffers keep their political consulting side gigs

It’s “a secret revolving back door in the dark alley.”
By Umair Irfan, Updated Mar 10, 2018,

… Shortly after his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order barring lobbyists and consultants with private clients from working for government, some for five years, some for the rest of their lives.

But we learned Thursday from the Associated Press that at least 24 senior officials in the White House and executive branch agencies have received exemptions to this rule. And dozens more workers from private industries have gone on to work for the agencies that regulate them.

The influence of the private sector over the public sector is especially stark at the Environmental Protection Agency. The AP tracked 59 key positions at the agency and reports that one-third previously worked as registered lobbyists and attorneys for clients that are regulated by the EPA, like oil and gas companies. …"