Monday, February 3, 2014

A conversation with "Real" Science's "stevengoddard"

My previous Lindzen post was inspired by a video a commenter shared over at a blog that fancies itself "Real Science" - it's put together by someone who goes by "stevengoddard" but who really isn't Steven Goddard.  {But, it sure sounds great if you're going to try and impress people.}

In any event, this exchange does such a good job of underscoring the point I'm making, namely that the "Global Warming Science Denial Community" is dependent on rhetoric over science ~ as opposed to a constructive rational dialogue with learning as the main objective
that I've decided to share it.


R says:
January 19, 2014 at 4:30 pm
But remember CO2 is still killing our oceans. So it is still one of the useful tools for the ongoing power grab of governments...

{Regarding this paranoid claim - Seems it would be better to first learn about it before assuming a government plot. 
I offer a serious lecture by Dr. François M. M. Morel, it's an excellent primer into what's known about the complexities of ocean acidification.}

~ ~ ~ 
R inserted the Lindzen YouTube short: 
{It's what inspired the post I'm linking to}
~ ~ ~ 
citizenschallenge says:
January 31, 2014 at 5:13 pm

Yea, quite the interesting video – let me say this about that . . . Friday, January 31, 2014
“Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer”
~ ~ ~ 
g says:
January 31, 2014 at 5:18 pm
What have you been smoking?

~ ~ ~ 
citizenschallenge says:
January 31, 2014 at 7:54 pm

hahaha, very funny. I could ask the same of the disjoined, reality disconnected stuff I’ve read over here.

But, since you seem curious, here’s a little of my intro – it’s applicable to much of silliness presented over here:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Friday, January 31, 2014 
“Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer” 
Or, Science By Rhetoric As Opposed To Science By Evidence and Learning. 
Based on the YouTube video short “Lindzen – Why you should not worry” 
After watching this video, I went through the comments and discovered that Dr. Lindzen and the fiction writer Michael Crichton were pals. What an interesting insight, the cynical scientist and the master of science fiction story telling. Given Lindzen’s performance in this video, and every other one I’ve watched, I can see how the pupil learned his lessons well. 
Look at this, or any other, YouTube performance of Dr. Lindzen mocking climatologists and you will see echoes of rhetoric over evidence reinforced by drama substituting for substance. Hallmarks of the successful science fiction fantasist. 
But, Dr. Lindzen, what does that have to do with understanding what is happening within our atmosphere and the greater global heat distribution engine?
~ ~ ~
g says:
January 31, 2014 at 8:01 pm
OK, got it, it’s crack.

~ ~ ~
citizenschallenge says:
February 1, 2014 at 7:09 pm

That’s the sad thing about you folks, you think it’s all a joke that can be dismissed with insults and ridicule. But, the real world outside your window follows the laws of physics. And all your ego-centric rhetorical tricks (such as the one-sided misrepresenting of the how and why of temperature record adjustments) and your insults – don’t do a thing to change that.
~ ~ ~
stevengoddard says:
February 1, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Ooops. Temps are below zero emissions scenario C. It is a joke.

~ ~ ~
citizenschallenge says:
February 2, 2014 at 5:34 pm

stevengoddard writes: 
“Ooops. Temps are below zero emissions scenario C. It is a joke.”
~ ~ ~
What joke? What are you taking comfort in? Can you explain?

To me it seems like a bunch of belly button gazing (aka cherry picking)
considering all the realities you folks keep choosing to ignore.

Such as the stuff reviewed in here:
This week’s top six rebuttals to David Rose’s “warming has stopped” claim 
~ ~ ~ 
Or “The new IPCC climate report” 
~ ~ ~ 
Oh yea, then there is this compilation of information.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here’s an example of the type of approach that impresses me – rather than just attacking, it attempts teaching and explaining:

The Beginner’s Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways 
By G. P. Wayne
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Misrepresenting uncertainty and statistics doesn’t trump what’s happening out there in the real world.
Please, person who goes by stevengoddard, 
can you explain why you take comfort in your above claim? 

What do you think you’ve proven, or disproven?
What lesson do you think we should learn from your claim?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~
stevengoddard says:
February 2, 2014 at 8:39 pm

“Global warming is a joke, as are its proponents.”

~ ~ ~
citizenschallenge says:
February 2, 2014 at 9:27 pm

”That the best you can do?    :- |
You know, it sounds like an emotional thing for you -
rather than anything rational, let’s discuss the science and learn from it sort of thing.”
~ ~ ~
stevengoddard says:
February 2, 2014 at 9:30 pm

“Your scam has run its course. Time to move on to the next scam.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Oh boy, now I got a scam going?

What is it?

Being willing to challenge you face to face?

Trying to ask you some simple questions?

Pointing out what an un-scientific performance Lindzen made?

What’s wrong with thinking about how we live within a virtually closed climate system?

What’s wrong with thinking about the geophysical reality of what greenhouse gases are doing in our atmosphere and how that impacts the entire global heat distribution engine?

I’ll be honest, to my way of thinking all these contortions over V1 / V2, now that’s a pretentious joke – All your high brow technical talk, is little more than biased science in a vacuum to an uncritical crowd of believers. 

You dismiss fully educated professionals with such dripping contempt – it’s no wonder you don’t think you can learn anything from them. It also frees you up from having to meet difficult professional standards.

But, where does that leave us people when we are supposed to ignore the real experts?

Tell us “stevengoddard” have you produced any constructive science?

Can you offer links to some useful explanations regarding what’s going on within our biosphere?

Because it seems to me, it’s like your crowd is all about tunnel focusing on the dings in the paint job, as if that’s what makes the vehicle take us places.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

{not so fast...}

. . .  Because it seems to me, It’s like your crowd is all about tunnel focusing on the dings in the paint job, as if that’s what makes the vehicle take us places.
~ ~ ~ 
What paint job?
You alarmists have never disproven natural variability. You have nothing but models!

~ ~ ~

Gator, it’s a LIE to claim global warming “alarmists”* don’t know about climate variability and it’s different sources.
Your comment is exactly what I’m talking about when I say your community is dependent on the repetition of verifiable lies, as though the knowledge weren’t out there.
And even though you can read about it, you continue pretending the knowledge isn’t out there:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis 
1.2.2 Natural Variability of Climate 
Internally and externally induced climate variability ~ ~ ~ 
IPCC - Climate Change 2007: 
Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis 
9.1.1 What are Climate Change and Climate Variability? 
*And yes our situation is getting danged alarming !
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge says: February 4, 2014 at 1:45 am
OK, let me look at this again:
“You alarmists have never DISproven natural variability. …”

I read it too fast the first time.
That’s sort of like a trick question, ain’t it.

Of course, no one has “disproven” natural variability !As I showed you, all climatologists know about variabilities.
So there is nothing to disprove.

So what are you trying to prove?

Please think about it,
all the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere is “natural”,
sun and the carbon cycle put these fossil fuels into the ground, an “organism” (us) has now come along and is injecting huge quantities of this carbon back into the atmosphere,
CO2 that took millions and millions of year to accumulate is being releasing in decades,
all very “natural”.

This increases our planet’s atmosphere greenhouse gases,
all very “natural”.

Increasing our planet’s atmosphere greenhouse gases warms the planet,
all very “natural”.

This warming of the planet’s climate system intensifies weather patterns,
all very “natural”.
~ ~ ~

Gator, please excuse my misunderstanding – now that I got you straight; could you please explain what the above non-claim is supposed mean, or to tell us? What am I supposed to learn from that question?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

g says: February 4, 2014 at 12:21 am The verifiable lie is that they can measure natural variability.
Just destroyed your verbosity in one sentence.
You are welcome.
~ ~ ~

citizenschallenge says: February 4, 2014 at 1:47 am
And just how accurate are you expecting those measurements to be?

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


stevengoddard says:
February 2, 2014 at 2:19 am

“Hopefully you will get your turn in front of the judge for libeling Lindzen.”

citizenschallenge says:
February 2, 2014 at 6:01 pm

“What libel? Please be specific”
~ ~ ~
Still waiting for specifics.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Keep waiting for something serious and constructive and will be sure to add it this post.  

Then again, we'll see if that happens or if stevengoddard takes the easy way out, banning me then hiding from my questions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
While tracking down information I came 
across this interesting blog that's been 
having some fun with Mr. Real Science:

A look at Climate Change and its portrayal in the media.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

For a little relief and some good old science, here is a video explaining that global heat distribution engine I keep bringing up.

Earth From Space HD 1080p / Nova

Published on May 29, 2013
The groundbreaking two-hour special that reveals a spectacular new space-based vision of our planet. Produced in extensive consultation with NASA scientists, NOVA takes data from earth-observing satellites and transforms it into dazzling visual sequences, each one exposing the intricate and surprising web of forces that sustains life on earth.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
This is how science should be discussed.

Ocean Acidification: Causes, Time Scales and Consequences - 

Published on Mar 12, 2013
The recipient of the 2013 Dickson Prize is environmental scientist François M. M. Morel, who is world-renowned for his contributions to the understanding of biological and chemical processes that influence the cycling of elements in the Earth's ecosystem. Morel has completed extensive research that elucidates how trace metals impact the growth and activity of phytoplankton, which are a critical component of the ocean's food chain and a key regulator of carbon dioxide levels. He also has discovered a new class of enzymes that play a crucial role in the transport of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

Morel's work has been widely recognized by the scientific community. He was awarded the C.C. Patterson Medal from the Geochemical Society, the Maurice Ewing Medal from the American Geophysical Union, the Urey Medal from the European Association for Geochemistry and the ENI Award's Protection of the Environment Prize. He has also been elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care? - 

Perspectives on Ocean Science

University of California Television (UCTV)

Uploaded on Mar 12, 2009
The ocean absorbs almost half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities, changing its chemistry in ways that may have significant effects on marine ecosystems. Join Scripps marine chemist Andrew Dickson as he explains what we know -- and what we don't -- about this emerging problem. Series: Perspectives on Ocean Science [3/2009] [Science] [Show ID: 15754]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

No comments: