What’s natural about Steele’s take on Carl Sagan? - 97% - Pacifica Tribune 2/20

A study guide to Jim Steele’s  “What’s Natural?”, featured in the Pacifica Tribune.

What’s Natural? (#5)  Jim Steele, Pacifica Tribune, February 20, 2019

The Scientific Baloney Detection Kit. 

This is the second half of the previous post, please refer to it for an introduction.  

Basically Jim Steele is lecturing us on how to interpret Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit.  It promises to be an insightful journey into the workings of the libertarian deception.  

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a point by point review of libertarian deception in action.

(please click on image for sharp view)

Before we begin, let me share Sagan's (or was it Feynman)  sage advice for us science spectators: “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jim Steele writes:  “To overcome our biases and strive for a greater scientific truth, our discussions will be well served if guided by Sagan's principles. Below I paraphrase the most pertinent points in Sagan's Scientific Baloney Detection Kit. (I add my comments in parentheses.)” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wait a minute.  Check out what’s going on here, reread that first line.

“To overcome our biases” and “striving for a greater scientific truth.” Those are two very different things and must be recognized as such. 

Carl Sagan’s book was written to and for us regular people, non-scientists, we who look at the scientific community and their studies from the outside.   

Recognize that not everyone can be an Earth scientist.  It takes a particular perspective on life and a burning curiosity to understand nature, along with a disciplined character that’s always striving for greater scientific truth.  

The point I’m trying to get across is that before we can continue with this discussion - we must openly recognize who’s who.

Forget about the 97% consensus, focus on the 99.999% scientific certainty !

{edited 9/20/14}
In "the beat goes on" department.

Another study, this time, reevaluating data, incorporating information from multiple studies, using refined modeling approaches to crunch the numbers from all that extra data.  These authors make clear that humanity is having an ever greater impact on our global climate engine.  

And what is the reaction of our Republican/libertarian friends and fellow citizens?  Dig in deeper and allow their level of disconnect from understanding our life sustaining biosphere to drive them to down right crazy levels of claims. 

Think I'm exaggerating, spend some time reviewing the increasingly bizarre posts by our Mr. Anthony Watts, {which are then spread like astro-turf throughout the blogosphere in order to confuse an apathetic public}.  Sou at HotWhopper.com has been doing an excellent job of documenting Anthony's on-going war on rational learning. For instance, http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-gets-slam-dunked-in.html.  Or consider Anthony's recent disingenuous claims against the National Geographic Magazine's reporting
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/anthony-watts-attacks-national.html

But this post is about a new study that once again reconfirms what everyone who's been paying any sort of attention knows, we are seriously impacting our climate system.

I'll let the report speak for itself,  followed by the thoughts of some others:

Climate Risk Management

Volume 3, 2014, Pages 1–12

A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes

Philip Kokic, Steven Crimp, Mark Howden

Richard Tol's big mistake, or malicious behavior?

It's dumbfounding that even in the face of increasingly clear evidence for the seriousness of manmade global warming and the fact that important global geophysical changes have been initiated, changes that will undoubtedly radically rearrange the world we have come to love, the contrarian community, {you know, that god-fearing Republican/Libertarian community of deep pockets}, have been ramping up their attacks on science with an increasingly bizarre disconnect from the facts on the ground.  

It's hideous watching all these powerful people who will never admit to any mistakes - nor show any interest in constructively learning from the information at hand.  Faith over Fact!  Or is it simply disregard?  

James L. Powell PhD Examines: "What AGW Consensus?"

{final edit 12/5, 18:45}

This website will be changing its character over the next couple months.  Up to now I've seen it as a kind of Information Kiosk, but I believe it's time to get a bit more personal and expand on the 'virtual dialogue' I've been pursuing through various venues.

You see, considering the steady stream of venomous personal attacks I've experienced while traversing the internet  -  and realizing that this is exactly what every person, who has ever talks about the 'State of Climate Science' (and the dangers manmade global warming is creating for the wellbeing of the future), has been put through - I figure it's time to stop ignoring the behavior.  

There needs to be more done to expose this tactic of hysterical personalizing and demonizing for the cynical act of misdirection that it is.  We need to learn about and discuss the substance of the problem and the science, not get distracted by contrived scandal and hurtful personal attacks.

I'm thinking of fighting back by getting down'n personal myself, but I intend to be more constructive about it, since learning and teaching, not bullying, is my ultimate goal.  Besides, I've led an interesting multi-faceted life and may as well share some of it before it's over.   Towards that end, I will try to approach this blog as a journal project of sorts.  Won't happen immediately, lots of other things going on, besides I've never been able to keep a journal so it's something I'm going to have to work into.  But, I did want to mention it.

~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~  ~

Finally, to the feature of this post, which I'll admit is a direct reaction to some of the relentless vile, misrepresentations and hate mongering of a certain debating-mate over at SkepticForum.  

The character keeps getting spookier in it's attacks on SkepticalScience.com  for being who they are -  that is - an information resource that provides peer-reviewed published science papers in a learning atmosphere geared to the lay-public.  Articles that are well researched and linked back to original sources, followed by one of the healthiest comments/discussion boards on the internet.

I'm still trying to comprehend how the SkepticalScience's style of open exchange of valid information can be rejected by rational people.

The Forbes conversation continues - 13 points examined

As the world warms the "manmade global warming" debate gets ever more surreal.  

Seems that no matter how much evidence accumulates, the Republican power-politic devotees come up with ever more disconnected claims and rationalizations.  

Couple days ago I was confronted with the following 13 points, (15 including the intro and closing), by someone named "scottar" over at the Forbes' comments pages.  After his jabbing introduction he begins his list with "You-all have failed to account for:"

It turned out, his items are very well accounted for and the list of 13 was little more than a list highlighting scottar's profound misunderstanding of climatology.  

Rather than swapping claims and opinions I thought I would simply share a variety of educational videos that directly speak to his various claims.  And then I invited some calm fact-based defense of his various claims and commentary on the lessons offered in the videos I shared.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

From the Forbes comments section to "Global Warming Alarmist Caught Doctoring 97% Consensus Claim"

Forbes, James Taylor and Critical Thinking - 97 percent part two

This is a continuation of my previous post since it's based on the discussion thread over at James Taylor's "Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims" article has become quite the circus.

There's one comment I want to touch on here. 

James Taylor Caught Doctoring the '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

{edited 11:00pm May 31}

Heartland Institute's James Taylor is at it again with his latest Forbes article: "Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims"

It's the usual mix of misrepresentation and smooth manipulation.  The only way to do it justice is to once again copy the whole thing, divide it by paragraph and add comments along with links to authoritative information resources that set the record straight.

Taylor is complaining about: 

"Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature"

Posted on 16 May 2013 by dana1981, John Cook