Monday, November 12, 2012

Dear Judith Curry fans and other Republicans,

In light of the fruitless dialogue I'm having with Curry fans at her: 
"Climate change: no consensus on consensus" thread:
I though I'd write a letter.

Dear Judith Curry fans and other Republicans,

Recently I listened to an interesting talk given by Dan Leonard, of WSI (The Weather Channel): 
"Seasonal Forecasting - How is it Possible?"
It was part of a series taken at the "Weather and Climate Summit" this past January
[ ]  and though it has to do with forecasting temperatures more than long term climate issues I still found it interesting.

Particularly when a good deal of the last half of Dan's talk was about examining WSI's bad forecast for December 2011.  It's a fascinating review of the complexity of our atmosphere's heat distribution engine

Towards the end it got me to thinking about the way "skeptical" folks and denialists "frame" their arguments and justifications.  Always making out the "consensus" scientist as the bad guy and any little flaw as a "smoking gun" to attack.

During this talk it was interesting seeing how professionals go at their tasks.  They made a very bad forecast, they focused on examining and understanding what went wrong and now they were sharing that learning process with other meteorologists.  Just another day in the continuing education that is science.

I bring this up because I am disturbed by the extent to which the "AGW skeptical" community depends on character assassination, sinister implications, heck even out and out paranoia and the one-world government and black helicopters thing.  With never a straight answer to be offered.

You claim I'm naive because I don't see it your way - after all it's so freak'n obvious.  So obvious none of you bothers to provide any objective list of evidence justifying your demonization and distrust?  

Why should I believe your claims of the supposed sins and frauds the community of climate and Earth scientists have committed - when you can never offer straight answers?

Why am I naive, because I believe serious professionals - folks who are dedicated to understanding and learning and figuring out how our planet's global heat distribution engine operates?  Why do you find it more naive than believing something you can't objectively support?

And you with the denialist mindset... ever consider your own naivety?  I believe your problem is that you can't admit to yourselves that you're dreadfully scared of changing anything about your lives and business?  Thus you refuse considering anything that might upset your boat. Like the guy who refuses to see a doctor for those chronic pains because the doctor might have bad news.

How naive is it assuming scientists are all part of a world conspiracy to take away your god blessed life-style?  

How naive is it to assume that evidence across dozens of disciplines and nations of researchers - can be coordinated in order to trick us into a one world government?  

The real world isn't that simple.  Scientists are competitive and intent on outdoing the next scientific team.  Flawed or manipulated evidence get's discovered and exposed by competing teams.  

But the denialist expects me to believe that's all a front?  Even though, you don't produce any simple objective lists outlining all these supposed frauds.

Instead you endlessly flog Mann and his hockey stick as though dynamic science doesn't include mistakes and ragged edges.  You never mention that all those flaws and uncertainties you consider so sinister where in actuality discussed and were part of the science moving forward.  Rather than accepting such facts of science - you intend to continue distracting, misdirecting and avoiding the real issues by forcing your paranoid beliefs {that your life style is under attack and that climatologists are an enemy} into swamping what should be a sober discussion.

Shame on you.

There's an educational seven part series of videos that explains the fundamentals of what is happening within our global heat distribution engine.  I challenge any "skeptic" out there to explain why I should ignore this sort of information.

This isn't the stuff of conspiracy, this is Earth Observation.
I wonder how "skeptics" find it so easy to dismiss this sort of basic understanding of our global heat distribution engine.

For more:

Climate Change Line of Evidence - videos: Part I
Filed under: 

 — group @ 9 October 2012 
The US National Research Council has been doing a lot recently to expand background knowledge of the climate system and of climate change. In tandem with a new report discussing strategies for advancing climate modeling, they have put up a an introductory web site on climate models (including some interviews with some actual climate modelers). 
More comprehensively, they have helped put together a series of videos discussing everything from the definition of climate to attribution of climate changes and future projections. 
The series is in seven parts, viewable here. 
There are additional resources here.

No comments: