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.

"Denying denial at Science of Doom #1c Flori's comments" only links

Just the links from 
Denying denial at Science of Doom 
#1 Florifulgurator's comments

____________________________________________
Summary of key points:

Why trust scientists?

CO2 saturation?

Political leaders and public's right to learn without malicious interference!

Serious science is not about "tolerance of diversity" 
Science is about pinning down the facts as well as possible
and always learning. 

Good prima facie evidence?

Syria, conflict and drought?

Do full bellies dictate a people's sense of wellbeing and satisfaction?

It's not about relying "only on what others are telling us."   

It's about trusting a huge community of experts 
who keep each other honest !

Moral "equivalence" and coming catastrophe.

What is Catastrophic Climate Change?

________________________

Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU

Richard Alley: Who says CO2 heats things up?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JoR4ezwKh5E

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An Essay Concerning Our Weather 1995

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/An+essay+concerning+our+weather.-a017529280 

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/essay-concerning-our-weather.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"EXPOSED - The RealClimate.org's "McKitrick and McIntyre" Files"

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/07/exposed-realclimateorgs-mckitrick-and.html

~ ~ ~

Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends

 Nature by Jochem Marotzke and Piers Forster

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/nature14117/metrics

~ ~ ~

1956 American Scientist Gilbert Plass article explores AGW

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate

~ ~ ~

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

~ ~ ~

"Denying denial at Science of Doom #1b Flori's comments" condensed version

The condensed version of

Questions for SoD plus other observations.  

The following still isn't for the faint of heart and though I've cut out a third of my origin version only a serious student of "Republic/libertarian attack on science tactics" will find it interesting.  I cut out all the fat I could and got it down to main points and links, though I can see I need to make a third version with links only.

I've undertaken this project because Science of Doom's shockingly naive "The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof" article, along with its following 'smoking guns' comments thread, provided an excellent vehicle for my struggle to grasp the proclivity of humans to lie to themselves about Earth sciences.  

{...}

The issue is the public's right to honestly learn about our planet's geophysics and 

what climate scientists and Earth scientists have learned!

_________________________________________________

The following gets a bit complicated so here's an introduction.

Prelude: SoD wrote a blog post bemoaning the use of the term "climate science denialist" because there are also "Holocaust Deniers" and he feels that's worse than denying geophysical facts; or dishonestly interfering with scientists' ability to teach our leaders and the public.  

SoD also makes a vague argument implying: 'we still don't know enough to make certain conclusions about basic global warming physics' - such as the cascading consequences of injecting 500 gigatons of extra manmade greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere, in a geologic blink.

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof

Posted February 4, 2015 by scienceofdoom

____________________________________________________________

Florifulgurator   wrote on February 6, 2015 at 8:39 pm

{...}

“Smear by association” ? No. ...

Denying denial at Science of Doom #1 Florifulgurator's comments

(As usual I've been doing some touch up editing, 2/24 evening.)

Questions for SoD plus other observations, including links to further resources

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

The following is not for the faint of heart, only the serious student of the Republic/libertarian attack on science tactics will find it interesting.  Though it includes a large collection of links to useful resources for further learning.

I've undertaken this project because Science of Doom's shockingly naive "The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof" article, along with its following 'smoking guns' comments thread, provided an excellent vehicle for my struggle to grasp the proclivity of humans to lie to themselves.

During the crossfire of comments one man's offerings stood out.  Florifulgurator recognized the scope of SoD's blindspot and made a good effort to explain some realities that SoD hadn't taken into consideration. 

I was disappointed to watch SoD deftly sidestep Flori's critique and instructive thought-challenges with sarcasm.  I had expected more from SoD, and am starting to think his awareness doesn't extend beyond mathematics and dog-chasing-tail collegiate debates. That won't do.

Not when the issue is the public's right to honestly learn about our planet's geophysics and what climate scientists and Earth scientists have learned!

There's an abbreviated version (1b) of this review,

and another one stripped down to only the links (1c)

_________________________________________________

The following gets a bit complicated so here's an introduction.

Prelude: SoD wrote a blog post bemoaning the use of the term "climate science denialist" because there are also "Holocaust Deniers" and he feels that's worse than denying geophysical facts; or dishonestly interfering with scientists' ability to teach our leaders and the public.  

SoD also makes a vague argument implying: 'we still don't know enough to make certain conclusions about basic global warming physics' - such as the cascading consequences of injecting 500 gigatons of extra manmade greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere, in a geologic blink.

Profiles in climate science denialism, David Rose the yellow journalist

The folly at Science of Doom's denying AGW denial thread keeps building, and now a regular commenter has added climate science denier extraordinary David "AGW is Hoax" Rose the reporter from the UK Daily Mail tabloid into the mix.  Here's what he writes:

R.D. February 21, 2015 at 1:29 pm

Although only a sporadic lurker on this blog I couldn’t agree more Paul. ...

{With nearly 80 comments in this SoD thread, hate to think what happens when he's a regular.}

"... Because that sleepy Sunday morning I’d just read this piece by a well-known Jewish journalist in London called David Rose. I’d recommend every remaining lurker on this thread to do the same. For along with the d-word come some very ugly words and thoughts indeed, at least if you put your head above the parapet to the extent David has in the UK."

~ ~ ~
"Well known" "journalist" Rose may be, although notorious yellow journalism expert is closer to the mark.  What I can't comprehend is why doesn't it matter to RD and his "sceptical" crowd, (or SoD for that matter), that David Rose has been shown to be guilty of malicious misrepresentation of established facts and broadcaster of slanderous lies on numerous occasions. 

Here's another recent blog defense at "Breitbart's blog," Donna Edmunds started a February 3rd article with this splendid rendition of David Rose the victim, rather than the predator that he is:

"David Rose is a journalist who sometimes writes about the grey areas within the climate change debate. As a result, he has already endured calls for his own children to murder him, been compared to Hitler despite being Jewish, and had his personal contact details published on Twitter. ..."

~ ~ ~
And so the Republican/libertarian echo-chamber goes.  Without that fabricated foundation of lies they have nothing to defend.  Then they wonder why some call them Denialists!

For instance to claim that Mr. Rose writes about the "grey areas" of climate science is a bald faced lie!  Mr. Rose has been denying the most fundamental of contemporary geophysical facts, fabricating lies in order to deny that our planet has kept right on warming and that this warming is caused by our greenhouse gases that we and our society are injecting into our thin atmosphere (and oceans).   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1J09xL0NGQ

2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record

climatecentraldotorg

Worst, no matter how many times David Rose is given learning opportunities by experts who actually understand these matters, or scientists he's misrepresented, he ignores them all, in order to stick to his malicious, some call it treasonous, "Hey, it's all good, AGW is a hoax" storyline.  

But, do any members of the Republican/libertarian community care that Rose's news stories are based on lies and misrepresentations???  
Does SoD care?  

I have collected a list of articles and responses, that share various details of Mr. Rose's many frauds against the public's interest to be allowed to honestly learn about climate science and how we know we're impacting our life supporting Earth.

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.