(Sd7) Abuse of Our Free Speech Rights (LandscapesandCycles-Steele)

August 2018, Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado 

    

   

Back in January, my Four Corner Free Press column was built around a talk by climate scientist Dr. Trenberth, an authority on our planet’s global heat and moisture distribution engine. In March there was a Letter to the FCFP Editor offering an alternative. 

The writer offhandedly dismissed the scientific “consensus” as though it were just another opinion, while lamenting the politicization of science (Apparently oblivious to the reality that his letter was nothing but a gross politicization). 

Ironically to underscore his legitimacy the writer encouraged us to read Jim Steele’s “LandscapesAndCycles” collection for a second opinion. As it happens, I’ll bet there are few who have studied Steels’s collection more than I have and I welcome this challenge to write about it.

You see, from my first introduction it seemed to me that what Steele was doing was a perfect example of “malicious abuse of our free speech rights,” though I didn’t have the words for it then. 

That started me on his trail.  I did a detailed review of Steele’s 2014 talk to the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers, I also transcribed his January 27, 2015 interview with Heartland’s Sterling Burnett in order to dissect his method. That one required fourteen topic-specific posts to do his torrent of misinformation justice. 

A look at Scientific Consensus, by Dr. Keith Strong

   
I like to think I get around YouTube pretty good, until I get reminded of just how narrow my bandwidth is.  Last week while researching some project I stumbled onto the YouTube channel drkstrong and a totally new collection of refreshing climate science enlightening videos and he's been producing a lot of them.  An accomplished scientist himself, he brings that expert's ability for level headed clear explication to these videos.  My kind of roll model for what serious teaching and learning is all about.

He's actually been around for a few years, near as I can tell he joined YouTube 2010, though his first videos were in 2012.  But, it seems like in the past year or so he's refined his technics and caught fire.  With nearly three million views to his credit, I hate admitting I'm late to the party.  I hope to make up for it by featuring some of his videos since they fit right in with what I'm trying to convey with my parade of blog posts.  I follow the video with my usual notes and I finish up with the text of the April 20, 1998 National Academy of Sciences statement regarding Fredrick Seitz's Oregon Petition cover "paper" fraud.   

The scientific method and scientific consensus what's it mean?

THERE IS NO CONSENSUS 

Dr. Keith Strong  |  10:24 min  |   Published on Feb 23, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGV7Su4Q_pg

What is the scientific consensus?  

A LOOK AT WHAT CONSENSUS MEANS

0:25  -  The Scientific Method

A review of the Scientific Method

Confronting Malicious Ignorance (2/2) - a look at Idso's co2science game

The manmade global warming discussion is supposed to be about learning how our planet's climate system operates, yet rather than discussing the actual details of our planet's geophysical system, all they come up with is frothing at the mouth and that tribalism.  Here's a sampling of comments I've received in the past few days.  Which I follow with some observations of my own.  

After that I share a trove of information about a favorite source of self-certain authority among the climate science denying crowd, the shady Idso family cottage industry "co2science-org" and "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change."

I'm sharing my experience, hoping it may help others better understand and confront that Republican/libertarian hostility and revulsion at learning about our planet, it's biosphere and the climate system we depend on.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bull shit they will not debate as the skeptics have the data and the alarmists have nothing but GCMs.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Because co2science-org is an organization of actual scientists that reference scientific literature.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maybe you should take your head out of the sand and acknowledge the fact that a lot of evidence supports skeptical arguments. But no, you'll just cherry-pick some false graph from some alarmist blog and act like you proved me wrong. Jeez, you people are worse than creationists...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I object to the claim that humans have caused a majority of the observed warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution. 

Confronting Malicious Ignorance (1/2) - a look at Poptech's game

Another diversion, but so it goes.  My YouTube profile must be growing, as reflected by the creepy clowns crawling out of the woodwork to take pot shots at me, reminds me of some cheap zombie horror movie.

A favorite meme is: CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past, as though that has anything to do with today's world and the reality of adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2 on top of the natural flux into our climate system every month after month.  One would think Republican types would know all about accumulating compounding interest and what that can do to numbers in a hurry - it doesn't just work that way in the financial world.  Why they ignore such simple rational fundamentals, is beyond me.

Another favorite, goes like this:

CC writes:  

Great so you object.  Now do you have any objective evidence to support what you believe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dude (I'll going to start using the generic Dude for multiple YouTube characters) writes: 

A lot, actually.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/co2climatehistory.php

Here's a small (but informative) collection of evidence. If needed, I can provide a lot more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC writes:

All you folks seem to point to co2science, watts up with that, has it become your bible or something?  It's run by the Idso Clan who are paid spokesmen for Heartland Institute and ExxonMobil - it has been shown to dishonestly represent the science.  But that's all you got - and you refuse to look beyond your smug little certitude.

But, learning requires some times getting out and assessing the reality going down on this one and only planet of ours - that we depend on for everything.  A bit of healthy self-skepticism would go a long way too.

~ plus~

What about all the information and detailed explanations and the hundreds of referenced papers that are collected in there???

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf - 

also see:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test 

Posted on September 9, 2013 by Climate Science Watch 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dude writes: 

The IPCC? You are really going to reference people who still believe in the hockey stick graph and a 97% consensus? OK.

Here's a lot more papers (1,350+):

www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Union of Concerned Scientists' compilation of the Scientific Consensus

This is the final repost in my little walk down memory lane, in honor of the Paris Climate Conference, (well and also for my pal AL with his gross misunderstanding of what science and the human learning process is all about.  This was originally posted at my Citizenschallenge Blog over four years ago.  It is a bit out of date, still the information it holds has been reaffirmed with each succeeding year - despite the fact that the Republican/libertarian community refuse to recognize or consider any of it.

______________________________________

Here is a list compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists presenting the “consensus” as formalized by a great many scientific organizations.

I've done this because the way the contrarian community has bastardized the notion of expert consensus.  This information becomes more important with every new unreasoned politically motivated attack on science we witness. Thus, it is worth considering in more detail, and that's why I've brought it up at a couple discussion boards, now I've got this collection of supporting documentation to point to.

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html

Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science.

A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus. 

97 hours of climate scientists courtesy of SkepticalScience - the rational folks

I look at plenty of folks who love telling us what the scientists have been saying, unfortunately too many of those folks are telling you what they think, or what they want you to believe scientists are saying.  How can anyone be sure what's what?

Why not listen to the actual scientists?

Here's a chance to learn about what actual scientists are saying about the consensus surrounding manmade global warming?  

Check it out:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

97 hours of consensus: caricatures and quotes from 97 scientists

Posted on 7 September 2014 by John Cook

Climate scientists from across the globe feature in our 97 Hours of Consensus campaign addressing one of the most significant and harmful myths about climate change. Each hour, beginning at 9am Sunday EST, September 7th, we'll publish a statement and playful, hand-drawn caricature of a leading climate scientist. Each caricature lists the scientists’ name, title, expertise and academic institution.

97 Hours of Consensus communicates the fact that 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are causing global warming. The research, conducted by scientists at The University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, University of Reading, Michigan Technological University and Memorial University of Newfoundland found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorsed human-caused global warming. The paper was published in the academic journal Environmental Research Letters in May 2013.

In contrast, less than 10% of Americans are aware of the 97% consensus on climate change. This ‘consensus gap’ matters. When the public aren’t aware of the overwhelming scientific agreement on global warming, they’re less likely to support action to mitigateclimate change. 97 Hours of Consensus seeks to close the consensus gap.

The campaign begins on 9/7 (the date itself reinforcing the 97% consensus). An interactive webpage featuring the quotes and caricatures is available at http://sks.to/97

How You Can Help

• Retweet our tweets, sent out via @skepticscience every hour for the next 97 hours. Tweet excerpts from your favourite quotes, using the #97Hours hashtag, or retweet your favourite caricatures (Raymond Pierrehumbert is a personal fave)
• Share our Facebook posts, also published on the hour every hour.
• Share our images posted on skepticalscience.imgur.com.
• Blog about #97Hours and embed our quotes/caricatures (which are all creative commons licenced and free to be republished)

Acknowledgements

97 Hours of Consensus began as a whim when I thought it might be cool to caricature 97climate scientists. I fast learnt what a big task I was taking on. This project was made possible by a dedicated collaborative effort by the Skeptical Science team. Tracking down short, pithy, stand-alone quotes from climate scientists is not as easy as it sounds and required digging through interviews, articles and long YouTube talks. Many thanks to Dana, Things Break, Rob Painting, Bob Lacatena, Sarah, John Hartz, Baerbel and Kevin C for helping track down the quotes. The task of posting a new cartoon every hour for 97 consecutive hours was made substantially more manageable by Doug Bostrom who automated much of the process. The amazing interactive webpage at http://sks.to/97 was coded by Bob Lacatena. And this whole project wouldn't have been possible without the tireless collection and organizing of information by Baerbel.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

Since Anthony Watts took up a bunch of my time recently, I figured it would only be right to add this glimpse into who the man's brain operates.

Talk a look, you'll understand why I include the link here:

Conspiracy theorist Anthony Watts counting down to "sue the pants off" SkepticalScience.com

Sou - September 6, 2014 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/09/conspiracy-theorist-anthony-watts.html

Weather and Climate Summit - lecture series

I've come across this series of lectures and since they speak directly to teaching the reality of climate change.

I love these sorts of videoed lectures because I get to listen to actual scientists, people who are on the front lines doing the difficult work.  They consistently impress and educate.  And they bring home the point that uncertainly does not equal not knowing!

In my recent conversations at the JudithCurry discussion forum, I'm struck by their long winded grandiloquence, such as: “defenders of the IPCC consensus have expended considerable efforts in the ‘boundary work’ of distinguishing those qualified to contribute to the climate change consensus from those who are not [4]."  

~ ~ ~

Trying to inject distrust, simply by making claims, never appreciating or sharing that what we are talking about is dedicated people - researchers and scientists and support staff going out in the field to conducting studies and doing the research and trying to be as accurate as possible in recording their observations.  No perfect at/in any part of this endeavor {like every other human enterprise} - but it works and it works well and they have learned a lot that does not deserve the contrived ridicule the "Free corporate Marketers" have orchestrated. 

There is a base dishonesty about folks like Curry and commenters at her website - when they are basing all their thinking on an assumption that the science has been inferior.  They don't provide actual specifics regarding ~ our actual factual world full of knowledge and experience that climatologists and related field of researcher have been accumulated ~ but they sure do continue believing themselves. 

I think we've reach the point it's obvious that this is all about desperately clinging to one's fictitious world view (Free Market, no Anthropogenic Global Warming, no need to change a thing about the way we lead our business and lives.) and not about the state of our knowledge.  Fear, fear and anger overriding objectivity and reason.  OK I'll get off my soapbox and invite you to listen to some very smart hard working scientists tell their own story:

This is a work in progress, right now I'm at step one getting it up here to share the links:

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 3, Session 6 

Dr. Jennifer Francis, Rutger's University

Wacky Weather and Disappearing Arctic Sea Ice: Are They Connected?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Session 9 

The Arctic Paradox

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Session 

Jim White, University of Colorado

Climate Change Impacts Are Happening Faster and Faster- 

Greenland, Sea Level Rise and Some Atmospheric Chemistry

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Breckenridge Weather and Climate Summit Website:

http://www.stormcenter.com/wxcs2012/index.html

Glen Gerberg Weather and Climate Summit 

The Weather and Climate Summit was established in 1985 to bring together television weathercasters and meteorologists from top U.S. and Canadian markets with leading scientists and researchers. This summit allows for dynamic and frequent interchange between the media and scientists in order to foster improved communication and collaboration between these diverse professions.  

The Weather and Climate Summit enables television meteorologists to learn more about upcoming technologies and research findings that will lead to improved public awareness. The Weather and Climate Summit also helps the attendees and scientists understand how each one operates, produces information, conducts research and communicates. The ultimate outcome of this summit is the establishment of improved media-scientist relationships that fosters continued dialogue for improved scientific communication to the public.

Goal of Summit Participants

• To learn about advanced technologies that can help improve weather forecasting and warning dissemination;

• To understand the latest on the state of the climate and climate science research;

• To better understand how extreme weather and climate change may impact their viewers;

• Foster improved relationships with the speakers, scientists and subject matter experts.

http://www.stormcenter.com/wxcsummit/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look.

It's ironic that I know this Roger Cohen fellow, who's become a regular at the Wall Street Journal's OpEd page, and one of the three signees of the most recent example of Wall Street Journal's disregard for honesty and scientific integrity. He used to do lectures around town and he's very good at ignoring the science when presented to him - while continuing to repeat dishonest spins on what climatologists have been learning and observing.  In fact, Roger was instrumental in my become more activist and vocal about the lies being spread by folks who's only real interest is in protecting profits.

Thus, I dedicate this repost of a Skeptical Science article to another one of the over the hill cold-warriors who'd rather stick to ancient dogmas and who display a contemptible disregard for what we are doing to our children's future -

Here's to you my pal Roger Cohen, you old fraud.

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

The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 24 July 2012 by Andy S One of the perennial Skeptical Science top ten climate myths is “There is no consensus” (currently at number 4 in popularity). Consensus means the elements of knowledge that research scientists tend not to discuss or actively investigate any more. Consensus is…