Announcing "Confronting Science Contrarians" blogspot

The title of this blog has received many complaints over the years and I've finally taken steps to remedy that by starting a new blogspot that's more explicitly titled and that reflects my own developing perspective.  It's still pretty bare bones but come on down for a visit anyways - let me know somebody is out there.

Confronting Science Contrarians

https://ConfrontingScienceContrarians.blogspot.com

Examining roots of our collective failure. George Monbiot

Finally, someone telling it like it is.  George Monbiot wrote an article that ought to appear on every single politician, business person and especially every limp journalist's plate tomorrow morning.  

Monbiot's article is copyrighted by the Guardian.  Thanks to their generous open license policy I have selected 486 words worth of quotes that I hope will make an impression, or at least interest you enough to read his full article.

The climate crisis is already here - but no one’s telling us.

by George Monbiot | August 3, 2016 | The Guardian

What is salient is not important. What is important is not salient. The media turns us away from the issues that will determine the course of our lives, and towards topics of brain-melting irrelevance.

This, on current trends, will be the hottest year ever measured. The previous record was set in 2015; the one before in 2014. Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998. … 

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment

The internet is abuzz with that headline as the Republican/libertarian anti-science echo-chamber is busy creating a new enemy du jour.  Interestingly, "punishment" doesn't appear once in the text of the story, or in anything Dr. Kraft said (I suspect their aggravation is an indication of denialista's guilty conscience more than anything). 

The word was embedded in the headline, written by an editor seeking to sell copy.  Yet, yet, just like the Dr. Viner "no snow lie", these politically motivated folks couldn't give a damned about facts, or honestly, or learning, instead they are off and running with yet another maliciously misleading headline intend on slandering a respected productive scientist, while ignoring the substance of the article itself.

http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160411/michael-e-kraft-climate-change-deniers-deserve-punishment

Michael E. Kraft: Climate-change deniers deserve punishment
By Michael E. Kraft
Posted Apr. 11, 2016 

… However, denying the best scientific evidence we have is neither smart nor safe. It could lead to greater societal harm than if we had taken sensible action when reliable knowledge was first available. 

Dismissal of well-established climate science has parallels to decades of debate over tobacco use and its effects on health. Tobacco companies long denied any causal relation ...
Similarly, some fossil fuel companies for decades publicly rejected established climate science and the role of burning fossil fuels in anthropogenic climate change while their internal studies confirmed both.
... 

Citizenschallenge, what's with the anger?

The other day I spoke with an accomplished friend, I was trying to get some feedback on this blog.  His take away thoughts were: "contains too much anger."  

"turn that anger into a force for good, positive things." 

I've been chewing on that quite a bit - critical self-reflection you could say.  

Anger?  My anger?  Climate Science Contrarian anger?  The anger that allows people to maliciously slander honorable productive experts?  

It is true that I do confront various spokespersons for this concerted attack on serious science.  Yes, I call individuals out for repeatedly lying and slandering.  But, I'd call that thoughtful confrontation, supported by evidence, not anger.

Confrontation doesn't need to be about anger, in my case it's about desperately, you could say passionately, trying to have a rational constructive dialogue.  

But, all these spokesmen keep running from constructive debate.  So what choice is there?  It's about evidence and constructive learning and if they keep running away from it, what's left but to confront them with it?

Their disinformation campaign is about destroying all attempts at constructive dialogue and learning and preparation for this brave new world barreling down on us.  

They believe out and out lying about real down to Earth facts, is their "Free Speech Right"  - Why should we the people be satisfied with that?  How can we prepare for this challenging future if knowingly lying about physical facts is okay?

After some soul searching I believe I can honestly say that I don't feel any personal malice towards the people who's lies I confront.  Be they Steele, Poptech 1000frolly or any of the others.  I don't have the time for that, or them on that sort of personal level, I have my own life and living it with dignity fills my time.  Why would I want to stoop down to their level of dogma driven personal emotionally charged hatred - come on, we're all just humans trying to get through our day to days.  

It is the lies and malicious slander and confusion and stupefaction they peddle to which I take umbrage.  For whatever deterministic reasons I am passionate about that and it seems to me a thing worth writing about.  

As for the poor formatting and such, I'll keep working on it.  If anyone out there 'gets' what I'm trying to do here and would care to lend some assistance, please do contact me.  You'll find me an attentive and appreciative student. 

Cheers, thanks for looking in and best wishes.

PS.  "We need each other to keep ourselves honest." 

Now Republicans are cheering for Global Warming

Now that the Paris Climate Conference is over, it's been astounding, and heart wrenching, seeing how the Republican anti climate science crowd has double-downed on their incessant campaign of contrarian crazy-making, I mean YouTube and the internet in general has been getting carpet-bombed with contrarian talks and arguments of the most juvenile rung, but it seems to satisfy their constituency, no one is complaining.

I mean ignorant dismissiveness stuff such as:

R Jr. wrote: CitizensChallenge, We live in an Ice Age. You know those little white things at the poles? Warming is good, otherwise when the Holocene ends, the cold, lack of rain, increased deserts and extreme storms will kill 7+ billion. Oops!

End the Ice Age. Promote Global Warming. Warmth promotes life.

(informative links explaining the science behind my claims is offered at the end of this post)

_________________________

R Jr. has never taken the time to learn about how important those big white things at the poles (along with the pretty white things on top of mountains throughout the world) are to this biosphere humanity evolved within, and is dependent on.

Losing the Arctic's ice cap is going to force radical changes onto ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, along with allowing the ocean water to directly absorb sunlight that used to get reflected back to space - all this will profoundly disrupt the flow of the Jet Streams along with the weather that they create.

As for the glaciers throughout the world, they are keystones of regional hydrologic and weather patterns, along with stabilizers of river flows.  But, Republicans are thoughtlessly cheering on the end of those patterns that our society has become dependent on.  Why?

Don't people understand that our farms, transportation, energy infrastructure, even daily quality of life are all intimately connected to relatively benign and predictable weather patterns.  Losing the polar ice caps and mountain glaciers means radically disrupting those weather patterns and the hydrologic cycles that regional economies and people are dependent on.

Part 3 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Alrightie then, time to get back to my debate with Will H the ClimateDepot acolyte.  I'll give him credit he held up a spirited debate in the comments of my first post, even if he did constantly repeat himself while steadfastly ignoring all the information I tried offering.  His next to last couple comments I held in moderation since I didn't have the time and I believed they deserved their own posts as I wrap up this particular debate. I'm splitting this comment into two because I'm using this opportunity to share the extensive outline of Professor Archer's excellent online lecture series explaining the fundamentals of global warming - "Global Warming - Understanding the Forecast" / University of Chicago.

Will H.  at 5:00 PM, Oct 26, 2015

Will wrote: "Concerning: "But you do realize both processes are at work? Right?" You already yourself posted an excerpt form a Wikipedia article which agrees with me. The warming of a real greenhouse is all explained by a convective greenhouse effect and not a radiative greenhouse effect. Experiments were performed near the beginning of the 20th century that showed that whether the glass passed or did not pass LWIR radiation did not effect the temperature in a greenhouse. There is no radiant greenhouse effect. "

______________________

Will won't grasp the fact that it is understanding our atmosphere's gases and their interactions with the sun's incoming radiation and outgoing infrared radiation - along with their impact on Earth's climate conditions - that's the critical issue.

He'd rather play gotcha with silly analogies that ignore real world interactions.  As for claiming "there is no radiant greenhouse effect", how in the world does Will think the sun's heat get's into the greenhouse to begin with?  

___________________________________________________

Will continued:  "I watched the videos concerning climate history. It is true that warmer climates coincide with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. It is well known that warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 so there is a reason for it." 

______________________

A fanciful combination of facts, but Will's implication underscores his disconnect from the real physics of the world out there.  Yes warmer water holds slightly less CO2, but our increasing atmospheric concentrations far outweighs the ocean's slight reduction in holding capacity.  It seems Will expects us to ignore that society is injecting over 2 gigatons month after month after month.  
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov
(Will is also lost when it comes to appreciating the difference between deep geologic time and the human societal time frames current AGW is occurring within.)    

Part 2 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Will H. responded over at ClimateDepot, so I will share his comment along with my three part response.
___________________________________________________________

Will H. responds to citizenschallenge • 
October 21, 2015 at 3:52 PM at ClimateDepot

I have no idea as to how I can respond at your political site. Right up front you state, "Will, I don't get your point." That really sums up your entire response. I cannot help that. The problem must be with you. You do not understand what I have been presenting but you are trying to twist it in terms of the AGW religion so as to make political points on your very political site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me say this about that, in three parts:

citizenschallenge to Will H. on Oct 21, 2015 at 5:54 PM

Will, for starters it would be good if you didn't use fragments to misrepresent what I wrote. Or perhaps I should write: Why am I not surprised you would pull such a decoy?

Allow me to explain, you were going on about: "... greenhouse gases has nothing to do with how real greenhouses stay warm. ..." My response read:

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/10/debating-climatedepot-fan.html

CC wrote: Will, I don't get your point. Of course, everyone knows that when talking about "global greenhouse effect" we are using a figure of speech, such as "Black Hole" or "Big Bang" - they are catchy and they stick but everyone knows they are labels. We all understand that Earth's global "greenhouse" is very different from a gardener's greenhouse. What's the point in bringing it up?

Incidentally, here's some information on that:

"The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Will, as for not knowing how to respond - there's a comments section right below the article. Responding is as easy as filling in the text box. If you wanted to do a more extensive rebuttal I've assured you I'd even be willing to offer you your own civil 'guest blog post' and promise not to alter it, though I will be following up with my own review in a subsequent post.

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

citizenschallenge Will H. (a second comment)

Oh, and Will I'd like to correct something else. "Right up front" what I stated was:

"CC responds: Will, I agree with you. There is a plethora of valuable information out there for those who want to learn about our planet and how society is impacting our Earth's eco-systems and its climate engine. I myself have been learning about it since pre-internet days, ever since my long ago high school science classes in the early 1970s.   

As for people "who came up with these ideas" - keep in mind who they really are. You know the very curious, smart, focused students who after years of dedicated study, evolved into skeptical professional full-time scientists, who have gone on to investigating and learning about our climate -  generations worth with the goal of better understanding how planet and its climate system workings.  

It really is that simple. Here, let one explain it.

-----------

Richard Alley - what drives scientists?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4
from

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

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

citizenschallenge responds to Will H. • (yet a third comment)
October 21, 2015 at 6:44 PM (link here) 


OK Will, there is something else, now that I've had time to think about it. 
You call my site political - (full disclosure I am mirroring this dialogue over at WUWTW.)


Since I'm the kind of person who is always questioning myself, I once again reviewed my blogspot article "Debating a ClimateDepot fan about greenhouse physics" trying to see it from your perspective.


But, still what I see is me explaining my position best I could followed by referring to one authoritative study after another. My focus is constantly on better understanding what's really happening upon our fantastic Earth and continually learning more about her. … and sharing that information - yet you yell that I'm political and that AGW is a religion.


I mean that's hysteria talking there - just like that Lord of the Flies land I mentioned at another comment recently.       [let me add - Political !?  
How about a little introspection here? Just, look at ClimateDepot's Morano he's a certified alpha political-operative, Mr. Swift Boat himself, politics it's all he knows and winning is all he cares about - and his blog CD is about as political as it gets.]

I mean think about what you are doing !


Why you gotta think I'm some flaming enemy? - Dude, if we found ourselves on a job-site working together, just a couple people with a job to do - bet we'd get along just fine and get the job done, shake hands and go home feeling good about the day. (That is, if you, like me, possess a sense of integrity and pride in workmanship and a job well done. As a Navajo friend used to say: "I put my pride into that job.")

I'm not an idiot and I'm not your enemy, you simply choose to hate me out of your own insecurity and fears."

Explaining how the "greenhouse effect" is calculated. repost Gavin Schmidt Jan, 2006 article

I'm taking the liberty of reposting this detailed description of how real world scientists calculate the greenhouse effect.  It's a follow up to my previous post and my conversation with another character who thinks climate scientists have their calculations all wrong.

Calculating the greenhouse effect

By Gavin Schmidt  (Gavin who? link here) @ 21 January 2006  @  RealClimate.org 

Filed under:  Climate Science  Greenhouse gases 

In another forum (on a planet far, far away), the following quote recently came up:

{And get's regurgitated ad nauseam to this day, thus the need to repost this authoritative and most informative article.}

….the combined effect of these greenhouse gases is to warm Earth’s atmosphere by about 33 ºC, from a chilly -18 ºC in their absence to a pleasant +15 ºC in their presence. 95% (31.35 ºC) of this warming is produced by water vapour, which is far and away the most important greenhouse gas. The other trace gases contribute 5% (1.65 ºC) of the greenhouse warming, amongst which carbon dioxide corresponds to 3.65% (1.19 ºC). The human-caused contribution corresponds to about 3% of the total carbon dioxide in the present atmosphere, the great majority of which is derived from natural sources. Therefore, the probable effect of human-injected carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.12% of the greenhouse warming, that is a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC. Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity⁸.

We’ve discussed the magnitude of the greenhouse effect before, but it might be helpful to step through this ‘back-of-the-agenda’ calculation and see what the numbers really give. (Deltoid has also had a go at some of these mis-statements). 

Part 1 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics

Recently in my snippets of free time I've been commenting at a couple Republican/libertarian climate science denying blogs (yeah, I'm still trying to make sense of what's going on inside their heads).  At ClimateDepot.com I've had a couple go-arounds under a story that declares lying about serious science and what scientists are reporting is some kind of "free speech right" - rather than the act of malicious fraud against the people that it is.  

One character has responded to my debate challenge by giving a fairly lengthy account of what he believes.  I am happy to use it as a learning opportunity for interested onlookers.  As it is, my response has too many words and links for posting over there, so I'll post it over here and invite Will to have a look.

Climate Depot - 'Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?!'  9/17/15

(I'm leaving out our initial exchanges.)

citizenschallenge to Will H. • Oct. 17, 2015 - 10:12pm

Will, are you really up for this game? If so - can you please explain precisely what you mean by "convective greenhouse effect" - I ask you not because I'm confused by what CGE is, but rather I want to find out if you actually know what that means, so that we can establish a level playing field.

Also I notice you didn't offer any links to anything that hints of scientific inquiry - do you have any links to support your claims and notions? Please share. I look forward to a productive dialogue.

cheers, cc

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

I was surprised to receive Will's lively response.  Though he didn't share any links to sources he'd learned from, I appreciate the opportunity to respond and point out his deep misunderstanding and his various attempts at deception.  

I reproduced Will's entire comment below - I have not deleted any words, only added breaks to make room for my commentary including links to authoritative sources for some solid background information.

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

Monday Oct. 19, 2015 - 5:07 p.m. (link to comment) 

Will H. writes:  I am not playing games. I will explain it but not very precisely. 

I am not the one who came up with these ideas. For a more precise explanation you can look it up on the Internet yourself.

___________

CC responds:  Will, I agree with you.  There is a plethora of valuable information out there for those who want to learn about our planet and how society is impacting our Earth's eco-systems and its climate engine. I myself have been learning about it since pre-internet days, ever since my long ago high school science classes in the early 1970s.

As for people "who came up with these ideas" - keep in mind who they really are.  You know the very curious, smart, focused students who after years of dedicated study, evolved into skeptical professional full-time scientists, who have been investigating and learning about our climate for generations with the goal of understanding its workings better.  
It really is that simple.  Here, let one explain it.

Richard Alley - what drives scientists? 

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Considering Steve Goreham's clueless "climatism" in a mad, mad, mad world

Even when I try to get away from the climate science contrarian campaign it seems like there's no escape.  I was looking for a few sites that shared good information about our planet's hydrologic cycle and how a warming world is impacting that.  I came across "Earth’s water cycle, over Carbon Dioxide, cause of Global Warming" by one Steve Goreham at Communities Digital News.  When I first opened it I went straight for the article so missed the first red flag, or more accurately small banner: "Climatism: A Mad, Mad, Mad World."  In any event, I started reading it and it's pretty good, sticking to basic facts, but then the thing goes right off the tracks.

It's appalling the crap these people keep recycling so I'm going to share my observations regarding Mr. Goreham's piece of disconnected nonsense.  I welcome his response.

http://www.commdiginews.com/health-science/earths-water-cycle-over-carbon-dioxide-cause-of-global-warming-26603/

Goreham writes: "But for the last 16 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide." ~~~

- WRONG - to begin with the rise continued, but at a slower pace then some expected.  But, more importantly, an incomplete (it left out polar regions among others) surface temperature data set comprises about 8/9% of the heat within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Ignoring what's been happening in the ocean (90%) is dishonest in the extreme and not at all helpful if you're interested in understanding global patterns.

http://earthsky.org/earth/global-warming-hiatus-never-happened-study-says
____________________________________

Goreham writes:"All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data." ~~~ That's a totally bogus claim. It's not backed up by a serious review of the available information.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.Vhoao-lyHww

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/models_are_reliable.asp
____________________________________

Writing: "Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends." ~~~

considering our climate system

(June 21, 2015)

Goal of this article: A) To convey a recognition and appreciation of the fundamental components of our planet's climate system.  B)  To explain the difference between "Global Surface Temperature" and the "Global Temperature" (Something everyone conflates way the heck too often!).

Our Earth's climate is a global heat and moisture distribution engine consisting of three major components.

There's the atmosphere with it's distinctive layers, the lowest one is called the troposphere, it's where our weather lives.  The troposphere varies in height from around five miles at the poles up to around twelve miles at the equator.  

3d_hadley_md.v3.jpg

http://serc.carleton.edu/earthlabs/climate/5.html

The troposphere is held in place and insulated from space by the stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere and finally the exosphere topping out in the neighborhood of three hundred miles - actually, on the leeward side of Earth it goes way beyond, but that's a different story.

Fortunately for life, our atmosphere contains certain greenhouse gases that act to slow down the heat escaping from the surface thus acting as insulation that keeps our planet livable.  The troposphere holds pretty much all the water in the atmosphere, scientists calculate it adds up to a little over 3,000 cubic miles of liquid water.  If spread over the Earth's surface it would amount to an inch. 

Instigators of "seepage" more Bush Administration suppression of climate science

It seems to me we as a society were supposed to be having a public education dialogue with two components.
  
First, to learn about how our global heat and moisture distribution engine operates. 

Second, resolving the great debate on how best to deal with slowing down the increasing levels of insulating greenhouse gases we're injecting into our thin atmosphere.

Both required good faith debates where learning from the best facts presented was the goal.  Instead we've been forced into lawyerly debate games that have nothing to do with honesty, or learning, or resolving important questions and everything to do with winning political battles at any costs.

This exhibit picks up where the previous one left off, as the Bush Administration continued their campaign of suppressing the climate science that was being collected while intimidating the scientists doing the collecting.

I suggest it's another example of the dynamics of forcing political Seepage into what's supposed to be reporting on the science as it is (not as they wish it).  This article was written by the late Rick Piltz from Climate Science Watch (which is a project sponsored by the Government Accountability Project). 
_______________________________

Court Rules that Bush Admin. Unlawfully failed to produce Scientific Assessment of Global Change

Posted on August 22, 2007 by Rick Piltz

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/08/22/court-rules-that-bush-admin-unlawfully-failed-to-produce-scientific-assessment-of-global-change/

"A Federal judge says the Bush Administration has violated the Global Change Research Act by failing to produce a national global change research plan that was due by July 2006; and a scientific assessment of global change that was due in November 2004. The last scientific assessment, the US National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, was submitted to Congress in November 2000. Climate Science Watch has long maintained that the Bush administration’s suppression of official use of the first National Assessment report and its termination of the national climate change assessment process for connecting scientists to policymakers and society is the central climate science scandal of the administration. 

Instigators of "seepage" Case Studies on the Abuses of Science, UCS

I've been preoccupied with other concerns lately so haven't done much on this project.   Still in doing some thinking about it I did remember this Union of Concerned Scientists collection of studies that seem to me classic examples of "seepage in action."  

1. Check it out.  An example of the actual dynamics in action.  In this instance the Bush Administration, their muzzling of scientists, and artful misrepresentations and always raising the expectations of proof.  
   
   I think it's a good addition to my collection.
   At the end I include a list of the full series 
   Union of Concerned Scientists 
   "Abuses of Science: Case Studies"   
   
   Consider it background history and a peek at how the Republicans "instigate scientific seepage."
   

   Highlights: 2001, President George W. Bush established the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI). One of the initiative’s two main priorities was to study “areas of uncertainty” in global climate change science. 

   May 2002, President Bush expressed disdain for a State Department report to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the accumulation of heat-trapping gases and detailed the likely negative consequences of climate change ...   

   September 2002, removed a section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual air pollution report, ... 

   ____________________________________ 

   Abuses of Science: Case Studies

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/manipulation-of-global.html

1. 
   
2. CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND DEMOCRACY
3. PROMOTING SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY

Manipulation of Global Warming Science

NOTE: The following is one of a series of case studies produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program between 2004 and 2010 to document the abuses highlighted in our 2004 report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.

---

Since taking office, the George W. Bush administration has consistently sought to undermine the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global warming.1  Despite promises by the president that “my Administration’s climate change policy will be science-based,”2 the past several years have seen widespread political interference in the work of federal climate scientists, edits to official scientific documents and a general attempt to foster uncertainty about robust scientific conclusions.

Exhibit One: Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? re CC/Steele Debate

As I'm slowly working on my next step, summarizing the 14 chapters of my recent Landscapes and cycles debate with Mr. Steele, (in order to enable me to present a concise complaint to the powers that be at San Francisco State University), I'm thinking maybe I should explain what this is all about, but first about me.

I'm no scientist, I'm no scholar, I'm a skilled worker with a respectable mastery of two trades under my belt and a good reputation within my community.  More importantly, I have been paying attention to Anthropogenic Global Warming dialogue since 1970 high school science classes.  My bias is a visceral appreciation for our Earth's infinite folds within folds of constructive harmonic complexity - yes, I love my planet and I hug a tree now and then with genuine spiritual emotions of thanksgiving.  But, I'm also an active member of our modern society with it's many marvels and growing up in Chicago I learned to appreciation it and how to navigate within the city before I did the mountains and natural places.

Though I may not be able to keep up with scientists on the nitty gritty of the details, I most certainly have achieved a deep understanding of climate basics through being an attentive witness to a half century of Earth Science discoveries and observations. 

I have also been paying close attention to the public "debate" which actually should be a public learning process - if not for the deliberate cynical interference of a small clique of egomaniacal "masters of the universe" with more money than brains or foresight or empathy or compassion - folks who for personal gain have purchased an alternate universe based on faith and personal desires coupled to a religious rejection of rational evaluation of the evidence all around us and making everyone who knows differently an enemy. 

Enough about my background, now, why am I doing this?  Filling a vacuum I suppose… because too few people who know better are taking responsibility and confronting deliberate misinformers such as our Mr. Landscapesandcycles. 

What am I trying to achieve?  A rejection of deliberately lying about known science and respectable scientists.

For my Exhibit One in this summation compilation of my CC/Steele Debate I'm reposting the work of Professor Torcello who asks the key question:

How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?

1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. 
   

The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

Lawrence Torcello  |  March 13, 2014

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

Professor Micha Tomkiewicz's thoughts on "Denial"

While wrestling with composing a concise point by point critique of SoD's naive The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof article and comments thread I had a chance to communicate with Florifulgator (link) {who made a couple of excellent observations that SoD deftly avoided with sarcasm.  Interesting, considering avoidance is a characteristic of denial}.  He pointed me towards Professor Tomkiewicz's blog ClimateChangeFork, in particular his first post from nearly three years ago where the professor considers this very controversy.  

Dr. Tomkiewicz is in a unique position and offers an authoritative assessment that belongs in any discussion looking at climate science denial vs. Holocaust denial, so I figured it would be a good addition to my collection of hopefully thought provoking information. 

I thank Prof. Tomkiewicz for permission to reprint his essay, I've placed his introduction at the end of the main course.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

by Professor Micha Tomkiewicz, PhD.

Climate Change and the Holocaust

http://climatechangefork.blog.brooklyn.edu/2012/04/22/first-post/

{I've added highlights and links to supporting information.}

“Deniers.”

The term itself triggers angry responses and, recently, it’s been used in a tumultuous series of climate change opinion pieces, responses and blog posts – now numbering in the hundreds –

Denial games at ScienceofDoom

One of the few websites I recommend at this blog is Science of Doom.com 
(Correction, The more I thought about his words the more he seemed willfully duplicitous, 
February 25th I finally deleted my link to SoD )
because it's done an impressive job of getting into the nitty gritty of the physics of greenhouse gases.  I'll admit I don't actively keep up on it, since I don't pretend to be able comprehend the deeper physics and higher math any better than 99% of the other commenters on the state of the climate science "debate".  That's why we have a community of well trained very smart experts who have devoted their lives to understanding it.  You know, recognition of one's limitations is as important as developing one's strengths.

I any event, I was shocked by SoD's recent bizarre departure into social commentary.  In it he belittles folks who dare apply the term "denier" to people who lie about what climate scientists have been learning.  I think Pekka Pirilä summed it up best in his 2/14/15/ (9:53am) comment:

"I see the real issue in the acceptance of the diversity of people."
"Words are, however, just the tip of the iceberg, the more general issue of tolerance of diversity is really the core."

To me, he underscored SoD's blindspot, which I want to bring to light.  
First off, serious science isn't about "tolerance of diversity", it's about pinning down the facts as well as possible.  
Secondly, making a career out of lying about what climatologist are learning isn't about "tolerance of diversity" - as the Republican/libertarian PR machine want's us to believe - it's about fraud!  
A fraud that deserves the label "climate science denial."

______________________________________________________

{This is a slightly expanded version of the comment I shared with SoD.  Sadly I know he's deeply offended, which unfortunately tends to mean that he won't try to consider a thing I wrote.  Another sad commentary on the state of human dialogue these days.  Maybe someone else can find a gentler way to reframe these thoughts.}

February 14, 2015 at 3:09 am 

citizenschallenge

You know SoD, I’ll admit, first time I read through your post – I got all caught up with the comments section. Since then RD got me to revisit W’s cartoon comment, which got me to reread your original article. Seems my first read-through was superficial, biased by my high regard for you, (earned by some of your fine posts explaining the physics of greenhouse gases). I now appreciate that in my focus on various comments I overlooked much in your words and thoughts worth taking issue with. 
So now I have a few questions for you SoD.

______________________________________________________

SoD writes: “Everyone knows what this (Denier) word means. It means people who are apologists for those evil jackbooted thugs who carried the swastika and cheered as they sent six million people to their execution.”

– – –
Who says?  By what right?  Unidirectional skepticism equals denial – period. Whether it’s about a historical atrocity or lying about the critically important lessons climate scientists have to teach us.

The Holocaust doesn’t own the “D” word, nor does it have a corner on the dreadful sin of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence! What’s repulsive is the Republican/libertarian machine highjacking the Holocaust to fabricate yet another counter-productive distraction.