#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life

I have a three year old post over at my CC site, "Jerry Mitrovica: The Fingerprints of Sea Level Change... the video" and in the past few days it's received a half dozen comments from one ncdave4life, who disputes Dr. Mitrovica's conclusions with echo-chamber science.  Ncdave's comments are tricky-dick affairs loaded with coding that blossoms when approved and posted.  Since I'm not into those sorts of devious games, and WUWTW is not a billboard for contrarian lies I've kept the rest of his onslaught in moderation until I have the time to review them.  Since today is an unexpected day off I'm going to look at his first comment.

To me his work seems another excellent example of devious rhetoric intent on dumbing down readers, that goes beyond the realm of healthy constructive dialogue and "free speech' and into the realm of malicious mischief that ought to be legally actionable.  I believe this ncdave4life has provided me with excellent examples of "criminal negligent" in action, as argued by Professor Lawrence Torcello' and written about at "Is misinformation about climate science criminally negligent?" - I want to be clear - though I often bring up Professor Torcello's work, this is my independent reading and my arguing his case is totally unaffiliated with the professor's own work.

Among ncdave's dishonest tricks in this first comment, are dismissing AGW's hand in damaging and threatening global agricultural productivity with a chart of six US states and their agricultural productivity that ends at 2004.  As if the past dozen years can be ignored, or that six US states are a proxy for the global situation.

Furthermore, he fantasizes a struggle going on between plants and animals for available oxygen and CO2 and that society increasing atmospheric CO2 level is a good thing.  Conveniently ignoring the heat issue; and the resultant biosphere disruption; and ocean acidification damaging and disrupting our ocean's food web.  That's the short version, now on to DB's own words:
__________________________________________________                                                          

ncdave4life said…

Your complaint that I “don’t allow for comments” on my critique is misplaced. I first posted my comments on YouTube, on Prof. Mitrovica’s video. The reason you can’t see them there, and respond to them, is that the NAS won’t let you. If the NAS hadn’t “ghosted” my comments on Prof. Mitrovica’s video, you could have responded there. But they don’t allow critical comments there, so I posted my comments on my own web site.

________________________________

… which does not allow critical comments either.  

Why do I already sense you are an adept at the art rationalizing?

_____________________________________________________

ncdave:  My sealevel.info web site is not a blog. It doesn’t run Wordpress or any other CM or blogging software, so there’s no provision for reader comments. But if you (or anyone else) find any errors, please let me know, and I will correct them. (highlight added)

________________________________

I'm finding all sorts of mistakes, we'll see if DB's word is worth anything.

Learning from mistakes and replicating contrarian claims - recent study

Considering the developing theme over here is highlighting the fundamentally fictional, self-delusional nature of the Republican/libertarian mindset I've decided to reproduce the complete text of a recent study that attempted to replicate 38 of the most popular AGW contrarian go-to science papers. 

What the authors found is further evidence that the Republican/libertarian rejection of science is driven by a deeply held ideological, (if not religious), conviction that rejects objective evidence and down to earth logic.  

Since the paper has a CreativeCommons Copyright and there's too much in it I'd like to quote, I've decided to Repost the full text over here - after letting Dana Nuccitelli (one of the authors) give an introduction (taken from his August 25th, 2015 article in the UK Guardian.), enjoy and draw your own conclusions.

Dana Nuccitelli - The Guardian - August 25, 2015 

Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong. 

To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature? …   ( http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers?CMP=twt_a-science_b-gdnscience )

_________________________________________________________

{I have taken the liberty of adding extra paragraph breaks for clarity and  highlighting what seems to me important sentences.}

Original Paper appeared in

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

First online: 20 August 2015 - pp 1-5

Learning from mistakes in climate research

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5/fulltext.html

10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook

Abstract

Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. 

An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. 

A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. 

Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

A digression, the Piers Corbyn Story

I'm active on the internet, commenting and responding to responses.  Once in a while a dialogue comes along I feel needs to be shared over here because of it's text book quality example of disconnect and climate science denial.

Although I didn't have time for this, especially not today, I'm a sucker for chasing such bones and since the name Piers Corbyn rang a bell but I couldn't place him.  I found myself googling him.  Oh yeah, that guy, Mr. the CO2 story is over Corbyn and his mini ice age machinations.  Eventually, I found myself listening to his YouTube "Weather Action Meeting 27/2/12" video which turned out to be an epic example of Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Since I wasted so much precious time on this joker I'm going to get something constructive out of it by posting my findings over here.  I'll begin with P.M.'s phenomenal 700 word gish gallop dodge of the Earth observation sources I was sharing, such as NASA's summation of the evidence.  Following that I look at Piers' "Weather Action Meeting 27/2/12." 

Then I share a most excellent documentary that looks at our global heat and moisture distribution engine's various components and how they interact, followed by a couple video shorts from a real expert on greenhouse gases Professor Richard Alley as he explains the reality of CO2.

This in turn is followed by a score of links spanning 2005 to a couple months ago - for those who are interested in learning more about this example of Unidirectional Skepticism Piers Corbyn.
  
M.P. wrote:

Exhibit Two: The Fundamentals of Critical Thinking. re CC/Steele Debate

Exhibit Two is a quick review of the Critical Thinking skills that are required for honestly evaluating the difference between serious science and tactical misinformation created within a politically motivated echo-chamber.  First I repost Professor Robert Ennis' outline, followed by a short and simple video from YouTube's QualiaSoup which does a wonderful job of summarizing key components of critical thinking.

Then I share a couple videos that introduce an interesting recent study:

"The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks" - 2012

A study that finds political social associations are often more powerful than scientific knowledge when it comes to rationally evaluating climate and other scientific information.

I close out with links to Craig Rusbult's "Critical Thinking Skills in Education and Life." 

______________________________________________________

The Nature of Critical Thinking: 

Outlines of General Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities 

Robert H. Ennis  2013

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/

http://www.criticalthinking.net/longdefinition.html

Memories, an appreciation of science

There's a forum, CenterForInquiry that I visit once in a while, it's a space where I can feel comfortable and converse, and let the thoughts ramble on amongst some like minded friends I haven't meet yet.  Well we have met, virtually speaking ;- )  A number of us are of the same age so there's also that generational link.  In any event, this evening I shared something I want to bring over here.  

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/17756/

Any of you old timers remember 60s, 70s all that awesome incoming Earth and solar system science information, Plate Tectonics, geology and Earth’s evolution and Moon’s origin, humanity and the diversity of life and what made it tick? 

DNA was discovered a couple years before I was born and the shocked amazement was still rippling through schools during my grade school years.  It was that transition when it still seemed like many of the big questions about the origins of man and life and the moon and the planets, were still unknowns and speculation.  

Then one by one the scientific discoveries revolutionized understanding.  The first one I remember was Plate Tectonics hitting the headlines and piecing together that story of moving continents in my imagination, then looking into the deepest depths of the oceans;  Leaky and all who followed helping to unravel humans fascinating origins. 

The moon, I can still remember it as the unachievable dream.  At fourteen I was watching as those first steps went down and following visits unfolded and the moon never looked quite the same anymore.  

That Earth rise picture hit me like only the first time for a teenager can, too bad that shared sense of amazed discovery will never come around again. 
  
Then the Voyagers and the planets finally became real individuals with characteristics we didn’t get close to imagining.  Then holy moly, who’d have thought the moon was a product of a collision; not only that, the moon was intimately linked to, if not the key to life developing here on Earth; and how about those Black Smokers at the bottom of the ocean, wow.  We’re even getting a grasp on billions of year old mineral evolution and its intimate link to life processes.  And you mean, that atmosphere is a product of evolution, wow. 

Astounding, but have we learned anything important, like appreciating our home planet and wanting to nurture her? 

{I'm learning to understand that I probably wouldn’t know about the half of it, if not for my preschool years, when I fit on grandma’s lap, and she’d go through her old Encyclopaedia Britannica (40/50s ? probably way older), and entertain me with mysteries of mammoths and ice ages and dinosaurs, the horrors of polio and Salk’s child-saving and history changing discovery.  Tours of planets when we barely had a clue and questions overwhelmed known facts.  It was fun and I was hooked on wanting to know those answers, like countless generations before.  I have the feeling we fed off each other, she enjoyed the sharing, I enjoyed the hearing and it lasted a nice little while until I outgrew her lap and moved onto other adventures.  

One of the things that's fun getting older is how those forgotten recollections have a way of resurfacing, then they weave themselves into a coherent understanding of the path one has taken, at least if one is a mediative type.} 

____________________________________________________________

If you found that interesting I stepped it up another notch over here:

You, me, we don’t need a scriptural “God” - Knowing Evolution Is Enough!

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2015/03/plz-no-god-evolution-enough.html

Secret Life of Trolls Part 3: Hoyt's Showdown - examined

Continued from Trollus Maximus, HoytC, Secret Life of Trolls #1 examined.  I'm skipping the second video and reviewing #3 of ClimateDesk.org's series "Meet the Climate Trolls." The "showdown" between Rosi and Hoyt provides a good study in contrarian tactics vs. science messenger mistakes.
{last edited 11/23 morning}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Rosi did something most hide from and for good reason. Going face to face with a contrarian, a long time insurance exec no less, a man who's got the domination thing down, not to mention the tactical speaking skills, is a formidable challenge. Rosi broke the ice, I want to build on that with this long winded review. Besides my own learning exercise, I want to share it with anyone interested in better understanding climate science contrarian tactics. 

Prequel

For starters, anyone who steps out into that arena should be aware that contrarians aren't into hearing your concepts or arguments. They are about emotional gamesmanship. Your opponent will deliberately sidestep the essence of what you are conveying and launch diversions to throw you off balance, as this video demonstrates.

They will scramble your prepared remarks by matching what you are trying to explain with something from left field, then inappropriately cutting and pasting valid objections from one topic into another. Then while you're back peddling to straighten out the misinformation, they pile it on.

Keep in mind most of these intelligent serious global warming science denialists types, were men of power in previous lives. They've got decades worth of business/negotiating skills and a ruthlessness you won't learn in college. Get to recognize how the truth of a matter doesn't interest them in the slightest. Notice how it's all about the game of f'ing with your presentation. Unfortunately, it's always been easier to be a vandal than a builder, so beware all who enter within.

I'd be awful at the public debate myself. I want it in writing. Sitting here behind this keyboard absorbing the exchange and having all the time in the world to ponder each sentence and response allows me to do a better job than Rosi did. Rosi, James my apologies if the following seems hard ball, it is, but it comes from a constructive desire; and it's the only way we learn and grow.

VIDEO: The Secret Life of Trolls

Posted by James West and Tim McDonnell on Monday, May 20, 2013  

http://climatedesk.org/2013/05/video-meet-the-climate-trolls/

Secret Life of Trolls Part 3: #Showdown

Trollus Maximus, HoytC, Secret Life of Trolls #1 examined

In May 2013 ClimateDesk.org put together an interesting series of short videos looking at the phenomena of internet trolls who disrupt serious dialogue thus taking everyone's Eyes Off The Prize.  I came across it in preparation for Steele's videos, wanting to take my review up a notch.

The Climate Desk video's contained revealing footage and seems like an effort begging for some further attention including a bit of serious commentary.  I'll give it a try, outlining the talk and sharing Hoyt's quotes along with my commentary.  

No quotations = my description // {...} = my commentary // Courier font = Hoyt's words.

Based on ClimateDesk.org's

VIDEO: The Secret Life of Trolls

http://climatedesk.org/2013/05/video-meet-the-climate-trolls/

Posted by James West and Tim McDonnell on Monday, May 20, 2013  

Climate Desk’s three-part series explores who gets to define the truth about climate change in the digital age.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Considering the demarcation between valid science and pseudo-science

I'm having some fun before I get back to Jim Steele's recent YouTube videos, where he uses every underhanded trick to distract from, and minimize, our manmade global warming situation.

You see, after digesting his second video I got sidetracked into wondering about the mind's ability to ignore important valid information.  And I took an excursion into Massimo Pigiucci's "Nonsense on Stills."  His book inspired me to look him up on the internet and among other information I found some interviews.  I think he does a good job of outlining the problem for a novice like me.  

Since I like to imagine there are some other novice students of life looking in on these pages, I've put together highlights from his interview at "For Good Reason" and interjected some links to further reading, including a couple important videos related to climate science and the public dialogue in particular.  Given by Naomi Oreskes and Ben Santer respectively.  For good measure I've included the "Six Rules of Critical Thinking in Science".

The Unspoken Backbone of Climate Science Denial

{edited Monday evening}
I've become convinced that the unmentioned backbone of climate science denial is Faith-based Thinking with it's accompanying absolutism that creates a profound disconnect from Earth's "environmental" realities and the needs of future generations.

I believe communicators would benefit from better incorporating (heck, understanding) the mindscale of these folks who believe they understand Thee Word and Will of Thee God Almighty of Time and Space, something all the "Holy" books warn us is absolutely incomprehensible, but that all too many presume to have figured out.  

It matters because this faith-based refusal to look outside their bubble get's translated into the way they avoid and "evaluate" (or should I say evade) real world Earth observations and other scientific information.

For instance, Republican's still despise "Environmentalists" or anyone who wants to defend or speak on behave of our planet's biosphere and its animal/plant inhabitants with a contempt that reveals a profound ignorance of, and hubristic disregard for, our planet's miraculous folds within folds of inter-connected life-support systems that sustain each and everyone of us.

My musing was inspired by this response that Dan Barker offered to a Christian waving scripture around. He did an excellent job of defining the issue with a clarity I can only dream of achieving.  Thus I'll share his words. I have taken the liberty to transcribe his response and I hope some will find this of interest and pass it along.

This video is not about climate science, it's about recognizing who you are dealing with and considering how to better represent and defend your own rational approach in the face of Faith-based attacks and evasions.

Dan Barker - On Needing A Personal God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hpI-OdwxDw&feature=youtu.be

Bantaawan lagundong

2:15 - ... maybe there was this self-proclaimed messiah named Yeshua, ...

2:30 - But the things that he said were put into his mouth many many many many years later.  One thing he said, if he said it, that I think is actually worthwhile.  

He (Jesus) said: They who are a whole, those who are healthy don't go to a doctor.  

It's only they who are sick. 

Christians have a pessimistic view of human nature, 

you (Kyle Butt) think human beings are sick and need a doctor to be fixed up,

you (Kyle Butt) think there's something wrong with us and we need to be "saved"

you (Kyle Butt) think that if we would submit to the doctor that he would heal us 

But we atheist and agnostics don't view ourselves as sick, we don't view ourselves as sinners, we don't feel a conviction of wrong.  We make mistakes, we don't buy into this supernatural mythological lie that you people are promoting that there's actually something spiritually wrong with humanity. 

3:25 -  Suppose you were convicted of a horrible crime, you were in prison, and then you learned that you were being released, 'wow, you'd feel free. Wow, I'm being saved, you'd feel wonderful and I would feel better too. 

But what would make you feel better, knowing that you'd been released because of the good graces of the Governor who decided to bestow mercy upon you and pardon you and let you free, which would be pretty neat if that happened.  Or knowing that the reason you were being released was because you were found to be innocent of the crime in the first place.  What would give you more dignity, what would make you feel better for the world to know, 
'Hey I didn't even do that crime' ?  

4:00 - That's how we atheists and agnostics are, (holding up the Bible)

we don't buy into this ancient primitive book of contradictory and unhistorical, unscientific words.  These are just words on a page.

This book was written by human-beings, human-beings make mistakes.

What were they exempt?  Were they super-humans or something? 

Did they never misinterpret? Did they never goof?

Why are you conferring some supernatural authority to these human beings -

their in all religions as well.

4:30  -   If you look at the Bible, with not a bias of faith and loyalty, you can see very easily that this is not a reliable book to base our life on.

But most of your arguments are based on quoting the scripture as if it were some kind of magic talisman - oh quote the Bible that will make everything important.  

Well it doesn't!

And if you don't buy into that myth in the first place, if you don't see yourself as sick, if you don't see yourself as needing a savior, if you rise above that toddler mentality of putting yourself down, of denigrating your rationality, denigrating you... whatever urges you have to sin, and we all have them.  

5:00  -  But view yourself neutrally as a natural creature in a natural environment doing the best we can to truly figure out how to be moral human-beings with reason and compassion, then you could be a better person.  I'm not saying your a bad person, but get rid of the baggage, get rid of the monkey off your back.  And take some advice of Jesus, don't be one of the sick people that has to go to the doctor.

Clap your hands and say I did not commit the crime.

Most Christian are afraid that people are going to start thinking for themselves, the Bible says very clearly, Paul says "Bring into captivity every thought onto the obedience of Jesus Christ."  Captivity is not freedom, and in Proverbs, "Lean not on your own understanding.  

Most Christians are afraid that people will think for themselves, most atheists are afraid that they won't.    

Dan Barker 

Freedom From Religion Foundation 

https://ffrf.org/about/getting-acquainted/dan-barker

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

Here's a full version of what Dan has to share

Dan Barker - Losing Faith in Faith Lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmPqUkB-mVE

BPofABC

Uploaded on Nov 9, 2011

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, 
presents his "Losing Faith in Faith" 
lecture at Chico State University in the Fall of 2011.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

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.