Considering the faith-based mind. What is science's sin?

I would suggest an argument could be made that at the core of much of the emotionality of Republican resistance to scientific understanding, and climate science in particular, is their submersion in the ego-centric Bible and the accompanying presumption that they are gifted enough to know ultimate truth.  

Don't get me wrong, it's not just the Bible, it's the entire Abrahamic Family of self-obsessive "holy" books.  That faith system may have worked great for humanity when it existed on an infinitely large planet, with scattered warring tribes running around - but, lordie, lordie is it a disaster in today's over crowded planet of diminishing resources, rising populations, anger and rapidly transitioning weather systems.

In younger decades I spent a lot of time wrestling with and thinking about god, evolution, my/our place in creation (that is, our wonderful planet and beyond) and such lofty musings.  That period culminated in three essays that I still feel good having written.  I want to share two (the third is ripe for a serious rewrite) before getting into trying to explain this Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine I keep going on about. 

This is important because good communication demands understanding your audience and tailoring your message to what they are capable of comprehending.  Thus we need to spend more time considering, and hopefully starting to understand, the mind of the faith-based reality denying beholder.

  

Here's some food for thought, no doubt with gaps and in need of improvement, have at it, make it yours.  I sure don't have any answers, I'm just wrestling with the problem and sharing my experiences.

Note: As for gaps in my essay I want to acknowledge two worthy comments.  In one Victor, in Germany, argues that this brand of self-induced Christian-blindness is unique to Americans and that internationally Christians are far more accepting of scientific observations and facts.  

The second one, from Kevin, exposes an important omission in my essay, he makes an argument that Fear more than religion itself is at the root of today's mass disconnect from our planet's physical reality.  I agree with him, but on the other hand, people have always framed their religions around their own expectations rather than some holy constant - their religions act as a justification and shield for their own innate attitudes. Still, Kevin is correct in shining the spotlight on our Fear of not being in control, Fear of losing what we have, Fear of our threatening unknown future.

Kevin writes: I think a better explanation than religion is laid out in Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. Their brand of religion is more a symptom of their personality traits than a driving force. ...

____________________________________________________

What is Science's Sin?

August 2008

Recently, I discussed Creationism with a bright young student.  She challenged me with remarks about the Earth's "true" short age; Grand Canyon being evidence of Noah's Flood; even claimed evidence that coal can be produced in a matter of months.  She went on to explain God's plan included an imminent Armageddon - that is, destroying his own Creation.  When I countered with facts and observations debunking these notions she became defensive, saying that attacking someone's faith was a horrible thing to do.

It made me wonder:  Why do so many feel compelled to embrace willful ignorance? By this I mean willful ignoring masses of real, verifiable and available evidence simply because it conflicts with one's own preconceptions and challenges one's fears.

Considering the heart of faith-based science deniers

I would suggest an argument could be made that at the core of much of the emotionality of Republican resistance to scientific understanding, and climate science in particular, is their submersion in the ego-centric Bible and the accompanying presumption that they are gifted enough to know ultimate truth.  

Don't get me wrong, it's not just the Bible, it's the entire Abrahamic family of self-obsessive "holy" books.  That faith system may have worked great for humanity on an infinitely large planet, when it was warring tribes running around - but, lordie, lordie is it a disaster in today's over crowded planet of diminishing resources, rising populations, anger and rapidly transitioning weather systems.

In younger decades I spent a lot of time wrestling with and thinking about god, evolution, my/our place in creation (that is, our wonderful planet and beyond)  and such lofty musings.  That period culminated in three essays that I still feel good having written.  I want to share two before getting into trying to explain this Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine I keep going on about. 

This is important because good communication demands understanding your audience and tailoring your message to what they are capable of comprehending.  Thus we need to spend more time considering, and hopefully starting to understand, the mind of the faith-based reality denying beholder.  Here's some food for thought, no doubt it could use improvement, have at it, make it yours.        

{edited 1/4/15 PM}

_________________________________________________________

God flowing into the Word

I've been told I don't understand the reality of the Bible.  It's been explained God acted infallibly through his human agents.  At every stage along the Bible's evolution God was there flowing into the pages to make it perfect.

The last time I listened to this opinion an image came to my mind:  There was a patient in an operating room, undergoing brain surgery.  The world's foremost surgeon was there, a doctor of vast knowledge and skill.  But, instead of performing the operation, the expert stands over a child giving step by step concise and complete directions, while the child performed the actual task.  What are the chances of the child getting it right?  Can it be any different when God communicates with myopic self-centered children?

Behind Marc Morano's facade

A bit of unfinished business.  In my last post of 2015 I wrote about Marc Morano's contempt for learning about our Earth and his disregard of anything beyond his own ego-centric interests.  At the end of my thoughts, I tacked on over a dozen links to further articles giving various details into the ways and means of this climate science denial fabricator.  

Since sharing authoritative information with others is one of my main goals, here's an easy to copy and share index of articles that look behind the facade of Marc Morano.

 The Hustler arrives for his Paris "Red Carpet" entrance.

A look behind the facade.

This peek courtesy of Baerbel W

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

________________________________________________________________

Here's a look behind the faux science of the hustler,

courtesy of Graham Readfearn

The faulty science of the Climate Hustle documentary 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM62eTr8gqA#t=11

____________________________________________________________________________

The Fakery of the Paris ‘Red Carpet’ Premiere of Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Film

By Graham Readfearn • Wednesday, December 30, 2015 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/30/fakery-paris-red-carpet-premiere-marc-morano-s-climate-hustle-documentary

About this blog and me

I'll start 2016 with some rambling about this blog and where I'm coming from.

Back in 2011 I started commenting at Anthony Watts' blog, WattsUpWithThat.  I did it with trepidation since I knew Mr. Watts had quite the reputation for banning skeptical commenters regarding his insinuations and pronouncements.  I tried being rational and civil, but the contrarian tactic of baiting to divert the conversation must have suckered me over his tolerance-line for alarmists and I found myself joining his legion of the banned and effectively being censored from his online "debate".  Ironically his compatriots seem to have no limits on the hysteria, insults and fabricated claims they are allowed to inject - oh but you better not confront them with facts, that's unacceptable in their echo-chamber "debate."

What's a little go-getter to do?  Roll over for Anthony?  Why?  When I could respond with a blog of my own.  Thus, "What's Up With That Watts et.al" was born.  Dedicated to examining contrarian claims; learning about their debate tactics; confronting their arguments with reason and links to authoritative sources for learning; and sharing that information with other concerned students and citizens.  Deep down I was also hoping to spur some dialogue with other like minded individuals, perhaps even encourage some to engage in the public "debate" themselves.

Marc Morano, Champion of Willful Ignorance, contempt, and oblivion

(Final touch up edits shortly before midnight 12/31/2015, my time)

Another year has come and gone and what do we have to show for it?  More Earth observations confirming that our 'global heat and moisture distribution engine' is in a state of increasing transition towards a hotter more energetic regime.  More climate science and communication outreach programs (and here and here and here and here). 

The COP21 climate agreement in Paris?  To be honest, I have no idea what it actually means or how it will impact the climate or me, and I doubt anyone else does either.  What about the most important thing?  Did we as humans in a global society learn anything?

Have the folks who've been battling climate scientists moderated their outlandish attacks in light of what's been happening before our eyes?  Has the Republican PR machine slowed down enough to learn anything?

ClimateDepot's (and Senator Inhofe's pal), Marc Morano is happy to supply the answer:

(This article is followed by a dozen+ interesting Marc Morano related articles and links, 

for the curious.)   

Looking at that picture I can't help wondering, did Marc transport that thing over there for this one show of utter in-your-face contempt towards people who think our finite physical planet is worth worrying about and conserving?

His display of contempt underscores a profound disconnect from the physical realities of our planet.  These people remain in love with their Reaganomics mantra of Greed is Good and Too Much Is Never Enough - they can't see through the lie because they are on top of the heap and honestly don't give a rat's ass about the rest. 

It really is that simple.  It's why observation and fact-based rationalists continue losing this "debate" - which is supposed to be a learning process, not a PR game.  

Dave Smith critiques Bob Armstrong's Luft Gesheft

This past Saturday I posted "Regarding Bob Armstrong claims - seeking technical information" where I picked out Bob's loftiest sounding claims and asked someone with a thorough understanding to comment on the substance of  Armstrong's claims.  This evening I received an interesting response from Dave Smith to my request for a more authoritative explanation, which I'm happy to post.   If you want to see Bob's quotes in context, visit  http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/12/investigating-armstrong-claims.html

_________________________________________________

- "the deep relationship between equilibrium temperatures and gravity" - 

The only obvious one is the change in temperature of a gas with adiabatic expansion or compression. This then leads to a Lapse Rate -  the rate at which atmospheric temperature decreases with an increase in altitude (see Lapse Rate in Wikipedia). 

In reality, due to the inhomogeneity of the atmosphere and interactions with radiation the Lapse Rate is just an idealised figure (see Atmospheric temperature in Wikipedia). There is certainly no simple application when comparing different planets.

As to greenhouse gases, they actually interfere with the idealised calculations of lapse rates as they assume some sort of even warming, and do not calculate radiative heat transfers. In short increases in CO2 result in increased warmth in the troposphere with cooling in the stratosphere and above.

- "But I see no evidence that the journeyman "climate scientist" has anywhere near that background in "thermostatics"" - 

They most certainly do, this sort of physics is the simple basics of what they need to understand. Bob seems to be making some bizarre claim of a greater understanding of climate physics than climate physicists. 

From this he also appears to be hinting at the impossibility of radiative forcing changing the temperature by assuming that simplistic idealised physics are the be all and end all of reality. 

Lord 1000frolly's echo-chamber debate style - "Ghosting" challenging comments

edited 12/30/15 am
There's a character out there in YouTube land who's been pumping out incredibly deceitful videos at a prodigious rate.  Rumor has it, it's none other than Lord Monckton.  When I asked him directly he was very coy about it.  I would expect no less from one of the world's foremost political entertainers.  I'd already had a couple comment go-around with 1000frolly, and I have an acquaintance with the Lord going back five years now, so I wasn't surprised that he (er… 1000frolly) has chosen to "Ghost" me at the 1000frolly YouTube channel.

This from men who self-righteously demand that serious full-time working professionals stop everything to run off for a kangaroo debate with self-certain dabblers.  Interestingly, these same people never stand up to a constructive debate themselves?  Nor do they ever learn from information that's been shared?

To underscore the disingenuous nature of their challenge, they refuse to follow through on serious fact based rational debates that they are challenged with, instead opting to remain within their echo-chamber.

One tactic is "Ghosting" - challenging commenters on one's YouTube channel.   
How "Ghosting" works is that a targeted individual can see his/her own comments when logged in, making it appear that your comments are a part of the discussion.  However, if you log out of your account and return to the same video you will see that your comment has disappeared, for example: 

See, nicely cleansed of all questions and information challenging their party-line.