Considering the Contrarian Mindscape

This is about Intellectual Confrontation and my pal 'n sparing partner over at CFI, MikeYohe, who's tenacity in the face of my steady stream of explanations, references, links, counter-questions has been impressive.  He stands his ground where other climate science contrarians have slunk away in silence.

I'm appreciative of the opportunity it allows me to unpeel his layers of self-deception.  He also makes a bad habit of slandering Dr. Michael Mann with outlandish, but widely believed fabricated nonsense. Thus I've promised myself to share that discussion over here, but it takes time he's so good with the gish gallop.  In the meanwhile, I want to start the ball rolling with this recent exchange.  It's a screen shot and not of the best quality but the link is there, come on down, join the discussion. ;-)  Food for thought.

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

Breaking news, released November 4th: 

Climate Science Special Report

Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov

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

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19555/P420/#237363

My response to Mike's ramble are in red,
click for clearer image.

                                                                                     

How climate science denialists employ the "Serengeti Strategy"

Here's an informative post worth passing along, it's a good description of one of my pal Mr. Steele's main strategies, right up there with misrepresenting what scientists have actually written and said.  I tip my hat to SkepticalScience.com for making me aware of this article

Posted on 9 January 2015 by Guest Author Deirbre Fulton

Climate Deniers Employ Predatory Tactics in Fight Against Facts: Scientist 
by Deirdre Fulton 
was originally posted on Common Dreams on Jan 6, 2015.

Michael Mann writes that the strategy 'is similar to what happens when a group of lions on the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable individual zebra at the edge of a herd.'

"The 'Serengeti strategy' is often employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the world’s scientists about the underlying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change," Mann writes. (Photo: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists/Brocken Inaglory)

Like lions targeting lone zebras in the Serengeti grasslands, industry-backed climate change deniers prefer to target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once, climatologist Michael Mann writes in a paper published this month in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

In "The Serengeti Strategy: How Special Interests Try to Intimidate Scientists, and How Best to Fight Back," Mann describes a concerted effort on the part of fossil fuel interests who find themselves facing overwhelming scientific consensus about the threat of human-caused climate change—and, by implication, the necessity to reduce global carbon emissions.

"By singling out a sole scientist, it is possible for the forces of 'anti-science' to bring many more resources to bear on one individual, exerting enormous pressure from multiple directions at once, making defense difficult," writes Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "It is similar to what happens when a group of lions on the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable individual zebra at the edge of a herd."

Surely you're joking Mr. Weingarten - updated with invite

Back by popular demand a reposting of my January look at the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn*, the reporter who believes there's no place for honesty or integrity in today's media or political landscape.  
{"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"  Ben Weingarten | The Blaze | Jan. 27, 2014 }

Steyn, Weingarten and friends are fighting a tooth and nail PR campaign against one of the world's experts on paleoclimate studies - {which alone is a good enough reason for the Republican/libertarian machine to make him enemy number one - despite the fact that recognized experts in the field, who actually understand the details of Dr. Mann's work consistently side with Dr. Mann's interpretation rather than the disjointed rhetorical attacks of the science rejecting, faith-based Republican crowd}.

I've shared some links to further information about court developments since this was originally written.

*  (Wednesday evening) 
Over the course of the day I've been wondering about my words: 
"the base insanity of Ben Weingarten's defense of Mark Steyn" - was I too extreme, could I support it? 

After much deliberation, YES, I can support the insanity claim.  Here's my defense.  

To begin with Weingarten assumes that truth doesn't matter.

Think about it, Weingarten and Steyn's and the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and in fact, the entire Republican/libertarian political machine's argument (for way more than denying climate science ! ) is built on the demand that truth doesn't matter - faith and a good story is enough for them to reject down-to-Earth-facts and believe what they want, rather than what the observed facts are telling us.

...

...

I actually had further "points" written up, 
but you know . . .  what's the point?

Until that main insight is appreciated and plugged into how we/you deal with them, the rest won't make sense.

The bottom line is that to the Republican/libertarian crowd the truth of scientific fact doesn't matter.  

All they care about is winning their power-political games.  Nothing else in our world, nor our children's actual future living planet matters to them - they got their ancient beliefs and their fortunes to defend - to hell with the real world surrounding us.

That is the enemy you young ones are up against, watch this:

I challenge Weingarten, Steyn, or any 'champion' to explain in a rational good-faith manner where any of what I have written in this post is wrong. 

Objectively, rationally...  we don't need to like one another to have a civil dialogue.

~ ~ ~ 
{Here's my prediction, you will hear nothing but the sounds of silence to my challenge, another failure to get through.

Fortunately, I'm almost 60 and on my way out, but I do worry about younger generations and I wonder do you have what it takes to crack that Republican/libertarian/evangelical faith-based shell of willfully imposed ignorance???  Lordie knows my generation failed big time.  

PS. you are welcome to grab anything I've written and rework it and make it your's.  Sharing and spreading information and ideas is what it's all about. }

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

If you are trying to understand the "right wing" approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an "even playing field" - here's an article that highlights their contempt for a civil and honest exchange of information.  

It relates to Dr. Mann's lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he's guilty of scientific fraud.  In response to another ruling in the plaintiff's favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s).  But, do his claims stand up?

Here's my review, along with links to further information.

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

"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"

Ben Weingarten | Jan. 27, 2014

Examining denialist dodges #4 K gets down to brass tacks

{edited Wednesday morning}

Slowly wrapping up my virtual dialogue with K at the OurChangingClimate "Is Climate Science Falsifiable" thread, he has drifted a long way from discussing how falsifiability in science works, instead preferring to dodge my questions with diversions into politics, so I figure it's a good excuse to consider the Libertarian Mind in a bit more depth by going through his comment and offering my responses.   As mentioned previous this exercise offers interesting insights into the workings of the contrarian mind and might come in helpful for some.

==================

krischel Says: 

August 18, 2014 at 01:27

@citizenschallenge: You are a natural climate change denier :)

What's that mean pray tell? How can anyone deny natural climate change? 

It appears K hasn't figured out that it's impossible to grasp Manmade Global Warming without first understanding the science of "natural climate change." 

A reminder, K never did respond to my explanation that his "null hypothesis" doesn't make sense, since there's nothing "unnatural" about increased CO2 levels increasing our planet's insulation, nor that humans increasing GHGs will increase global average temperatures.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

K writes

CC: “You dismiss the guy’s academic record”

K: "Because Mann’s academic record doesn’t make up for his lies and fraud."

~ ~ ~ 

{WHAT LIES AND FRAUD?}

I've addressed this echo-chamber fantasy regarding Mann's alleged misdeeds in essay  #3 of this series.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC: “Your McIntyre doesn’t understand the science”

K:  "On the contrary, he’s incredibly well educated, and shows his work. Mann hides it behind lawsuits :)" 

~ ~ ~

How's being incredibly educated in mining, and investment strategies qualify him to judge climate science?

Also, what the lawsuit want's isn't Mann's work which is readily available for any serious researcher to examine {don't believe it, click here} - the lawsuit basically want's every piece of paper Mann ever wrote on.  It's a political witch hunt nothing more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Examining denialist dodges, this time re Dr Mann #2

[new comments added Sunday 8/17 evening]

Here's an update on yesterday's response from my virtual dialogue pal Krischel over at the OurChangingClimate thread "Is Climate Science Falsifiable" - unfortunately I'm stuck working outside all day, so once again don't have the time to compose the post I'd really like to, so here's a quickie instead.

It is intended for folks interested in peaking into the workings of your typical climate science denialist's mind.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

k Says: 

August 16, 2014 at 19:27

@citizenschallenge: “Why not try learning from a wider source pool than WUWT and the Great White Auditor.”

K says: Racist and dodging the issue. Good job! :)

~ ~ ~ 

So sorry, an attempt at levity ... read great white hope ... great corporate free marketeers hope ... 

or perhaps I was thinking of the color of America's right-wing heavy weights.

Either way racism isn't a part of it, but then my intentions won't stop your gross misrepresentations.  ;-}

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

k Says:

CC says: “in deep time those climate fluctuations were initiated by the so-called Milankovitch cycles”

K asks: Tell me, what does a milankovich model predict the global average temperature should be next year? When does a milankovich model predict the next trigger that overwhelms CO2’s greenhouse effect, and drives us into an ice age, while CO2 still increases?

Be specific :)

~ ~ ~ 

CC responds: Sure I'll be specific about where you can start learning about this:

Examining denialist dodges, this time re Dr Mann (#1)

Here's another installment examining the nonsense denialists try to shove down our throats.  Still focusing on the discussion at OurChangingClimate and krischel's gems.   If you are interested in learning about the dishonest tactics of engagement contrarians depend on, please read on.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

citizenschallenge Says: 

August 16, 2014 at 00:32

krischel Says (August 15, 2014 at 22:15):

"Exactly how do you justify hiding a divergence between proxy data and observations? In your own words, please :)"

~ ~ ~

Where did Mann do that? The divergence problem was an area of active study and no one was hiding anything.

Can you come up with a source independent of McIntyre's creative reconstruction ?

krischel responds: 

August 16, 2014 at 01:09

@citizenschallenge: “Care to define odd and novel?”

Sure. The idea that a factor that *lags* temperature change must be the *cause* of temperature change, much less a factor that is measured in parts per million, could overwhelm any other factors is odd and novel :)

~ ~ ~

K's dodge in this case is that he ignores the known fact that in deep time those climate fluctuations were initiated by the so-called Milankovitch cycles which are regular changes in our planet's orbit and rotation.  

These periods of ancient warming were initiated by Earth receiving more of the sun's energy with CO2's impact kicking in later.  The facts surrounding how this process operates has been studied and defined with increasing resolution for the past hundred years.

Misrepresenting such simple facts is another sign of the dishonest nature of your typical contrarian.

Can You Help The Climate Science Defense Fund ?

This latest round in the Dr. Mann case vs. CEI, Steyn, etc. reveals that the opposition to a rational review of the scientific evidence for manmade global warming remains as ruthless and disconnected from Earth's realities as ever.  Instead of learning they want to stifle and silence.  

Considering the war chest that these corporate interests have amassed to further their campaign of dirty tricks and that awful repetition of slander and out'n out lies they depend on - scientists need lawyers on their side.  

"MICHAEL MANN FACES BANKRUPTCY AS HIS COURTROOM CLIMATE CAPERS COLLAPSE"

Ahhh, the echo-chamber seems on fire.  Mr. O'Sullivan has spoken: 

Surely you're joking Mr. Weingarten!

This article seems so popular I felt compelled to add an invitation to Mr. Weingarten:  Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Surely you're joking Mr. Weingarten - updated with invite

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/09/youre-joking-mr-weingarten.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

{edited 1/29/14 evening}

If you are trying to understand the "right wing" approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an "even playing field" - well, here's an article for you.

It relates to Dr. Mann's lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he's guilty of scientific fraud.  In response to another ruling in the plaintiff's favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s).  But, do his claims stand up?

Here's my review, along with links to further information.

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

"CLIMATE CHANGE VERSUS FREE SPEECH"

Ben Weingarten | Jan. 27, 2014