Part 8 - sock-puppet calls it like he sees it, Dave sticks to the science.

Never say never folks.  They went another round and it's a text book example of the two different debate styles in action.  I think "debate incompatibility" could also describe what went down.  This time I kept my comments and additions to a minimum since there's not much to add.  Though there is a lot to think about.

Please consider that AL is absolutely certain of what he knows.  He is sincere to the bone, so much so that all attempts to confront what he knows to be the 'truth' is seen as a hostile act.   If entire communities of independent experts spread over the globe and generations develop an understanding that's contrary to his core Truth, he can't help but blame it on some hostile conspiracy.  It makes no sense to him that his understanding could be wrong.

On the other side, we have people for whom the pursuit of better understanding and new discoveries is the goal.  Self-skepticism and a willingness to subject one's own convictions to the toughest tests and then allowing the evidence to direct what one trusts or rejects is the order of the day.  

If one's pet theory, or one's understanding, turns out to be wrong, one learns from those mistakes and moves forward, hurt feelings be damned.  

Unfortunately your climate science uni-directional skeptics aren't built like that. 

They don't have the imagination nor desire to look beyond their own limited socio-economic/political perceptions, they don't care about the world out there, only the one in their heads.  Crack that nut and you'll deserve a Nobel Prize.

What makes this round so fascinating is that Dave managed to never sink to AL's level.
Instead he took the time to review and comment on the 30 peer-reviewed papers AL cut and pasted and tossed at Dave as though they were self-evident proof that the MWP was no different than today's warming.  And the ending is classic.  

I don't know who Dave is, but I like his style and depth of understanding, it would be very cool if others (of like capability and disposition) might be inspired by his example of standing up the peddlers of scientific nonsense.

______________________________________________________________

AL to Dave Smith Jesus, you're a big joke.

You don't even realize the stupidity to reference IPCC's political nonsense, when it's the validity of that very thing we are discussing?

It's exactly like in a discussion about gods existence with a religious nut, and the idiot starts referring to the bible to prove it's real and that god exists. 

But thank you for pointing out exactly what I said in my previous post: You totally indoctrinated and don't have a clue about the science outside of what the IPCC feed you. 

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #2

Here's my last post regarding the denial games over at SoD.  I actually started with this review, but then Florifulgurator's comment came along and since it was much more interesting I took that digression.  Now I feel I still owe RD a rational accounting of Dr.LW's many fallacies since RD puts so much store in his spoof.

___________________________________________

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof 

February 4, 2015 by ScienceofDoom

RD wrote on February 12, 2015 at 11:47am
The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from L.W. Based on what he’s written, and your definition, and any additional concern you would have given because he’s Jewish, would you call him a climate change denier?
{...}
{CC: never did find any questions...}
RD wrote  February 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm
 ...    The questions have appeared, as have two very thoughtful comments from LW ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.

___________________________________

LW wrote: February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am

I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And I started out learning about our planet's geophysics and its atmosphere...

For the more complete response see:

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. (opening gambit) at SoD #1

_______________________________

LW wrote: However, I am a scientist, and looked in far more detail before I would accept it fully. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The discussion is supposed to be about discussing those details, not about self anointed authority.

_______________________________

LW wrote: I do not deny the basic science as stated by SoD and others. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Words are cheap.

_______________________________

LW wrote: With me, the issue is how much the human burning of fossil fuel affects the net result, and what is the supporting evidence of consequences.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

To understand any of that one must first understand our planet's CO2 cycle.  

As for supporting evidence, one must make the effort to become familiar with it, not hide from it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

~ ~ ~

IPCC Working Group 1, the physical basis

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

~ ~ ~

SkepticalScience.com explaining the science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

~ ~ ~

The Carbon Cycle

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

~ ~ ~

The Global Carbon Cycle

University of Michigan

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.html

Considering the silliness of Dr. L.W. at SoD #1

I'm home alone and have been musing so instead of finishing my review of L.W.'s much commended comments, a reread had me turning my response
 to his opening gambit into a full length editorial of sorts.

___________________________________________________________

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof

February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom

__________________________________________ 

L.W. wrote February 12, 2015 at 1:26 am:I started out conditionally accepting the AGW position because many experts claimed it was so. 

~ ~ ~

Well there's the first mistake.  How about this:  

I started out learning about our Earth in high school (early 1970s) science classes, that led to the atmosphere, which inevitably led to learning about AGW.  The instructors with their text books (consensus) laid out the fundamentals of our atmosphere and how greenhouse gases behave.  That is, by allowing short-wave ultra-violet rays enter and warm Earth's surface and then catching the outflowing long-wave infrared rays.  Or more accurately slowing down their escape.

We also learned about the incredible amounts of fossil fuels our society (we) were burning.  This stuff was/is increasing our atmosphere's Heat Retention Ability.  That extra CO2, plain and simple was going to warm our planet.  Like putting on extra layers of clothing when you're already comfortable.  Simple down to Earth logic!

This atmospheric property doesn't turn on and off at will.  So when an incredibly complex  globally (actually, excluding polar regions) averaged surface temperature data set jogs up and down or stays down a little longer than most expected, I understood the place to look was within natural and manmade variability, and the measurements. not in pretending that the physics of greenhouse gases had gone on a vacation so that global warming could go on a "hiatus".  

Think about it, there is a big difference between the warming water in a kettle and our ability to measure the temp. profile of said steaming kettle. 

Considering the defensive offense at SoD, (R.D.)

One reason I'd have made a lousy scientist is that I get easily distracted, it's such a big fascinating world out there.  In any event, my Florifulgurator post was actually an offshoot of my review of one L.W.'s "highly recommended" comments.  Here's another offshoot of that since RD brings up a point of etiquette.

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof

February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom

__________________________________________

RD wrote  February 13, 2015 at 7:04 am:

     cc wrote: If that’s the best you have for a “question” I’m sorely disappointed.

You were expecting something good from me then? Where did that expectation come from? You’ve given me the impression only of having complete contempt for me. Am I wrong? Did you have some previous experience with me that was positive? I’ll single out, if I may, my latest question, lightly edited. I don’t know when it came out of moderation and therefore when you may have seen it.     The questions have appeared, as have two very   thoughtful comments from L.W. ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.

        _____________________________________________________

I didn't know RD from Adam, I was commenting on his words, the ideas he was sharing.  Rather than responding to my comments RD played the offended victim card.  I know it all too well, it's a rather typical defensive strategy (right up there with sarcastic dismissal) that deflects attention away from bankrupt arguments and affords an easy escape from considering the substance of the dialogue.

What ever happened to honest curiosity, grappling over the issues themselves, striving to understand what's being discussed on both sides?

What's wrong with being told: "you're 'wrong' and here and here is why I believe you are mistaken!"  Then slink off to examine and think about the here and here.  It's nothing personal.  It's about the desire to learn and understand, even to take learning from mistakes in stride.  Our egos, mighty important though they are, shouldn't supersede our honest desire to understand the world around us and our place in it.