This is what constructive learning looks like - millimeter sea level precision impossible, or is it?

This post was inspired by one of the comments at the WUNC debate.

Dude to CC:

“You have written perhaps the stupidest justification for producing agitprop garbage and calling it science that I have seen so far.

It would not be fair to ask you how they derive their millimeter precision from measurements that are at best accurate to a centimeter.”

____________________________________

CC responded:

Why the attitude? 

There's nothing wrong with asking the question, or others.  

My question is have you ever tried to find the answers to those questions?

Simply because you don't understand something doesn't mean others don’t.  

After all, that’s why we have experts who have dedicated their careers and lives to their particular field of expertise.  Our society would be impossible without it don't you know.

Let me start with honest curiosity and a constructive question: How do “they” derive millimeter sea level precision from measurements that are at best accurate to a centimeter?

CO2 Science dependent modern marvels. For your consideration.

In light of recent 'dialogues' I've had with Dave NC-20 Burton and others which reveal a profound self-inflicted ignorance and an even worse disinterest in giving climate science a fair shake, (that would be sans politically motivated fantasizing about grand conspiracy theories, slander towards accomplished experts and such paranoid thinking.) I'd like to share the reasons I, a non-expert, feel comfortable trusting the scientific community rather than passionate partisans of profits über alles.

This post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort.  
You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and grads.  Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy people with more important things to do.

But for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. 

I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their responses. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "CO2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I want to send out a big Thank You! to my informed anonymous heroes!  

Also see: February 21, 2016

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

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

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You just have to poke around*, you'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.      *Or you can check out this one stop resource:

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

The Republican/libertarian PR machine makes its career out of ignoring all those treasure troves of valuable valid information, because they are scared of it.  It's very human, but cowardly just the same, but I digress.}

You may ask, by what right am I so sure about it? 
It comes down to, down to Earth reality over self-serving fantasizing.

Please consider the real life modern marvels that would be impossible without such understanding:

NC-20 Burton's five 'challenging' questions - a study in deception.

Looks like we've got a debate doing after all.  Dave Burton has challenged me with a series of questions.  It's in the comments section after Dave Dewitt's  "The Changing Carolina Coast: Managing The Threat Of Rising Water," at http://wunc.org/post/changing-carolina-coast-managing-threat-rising-water#stream/0

As these things go it's gotten confused and convoluted in a hurry.  That's another tactic, Gish Gallop, tons of distracting questions that offer nothing, so far a learning is concerned, more like playing catch the ball with a dog, but using a bucket full of balls.

Though I'll admit Dave was kind enough to come up with 5 "straight forward" questions.  In this retelling I've been able to add a little more information.

____________________________________________

Dave Burton to citizenschallengeAE • June 15, 2015

Nobody has identified any inaccuracies in what I've written, 

{“AnOilMan” certainly pointed out a bunch in his discussion with you, http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media#comment-2381652596 among other places in that thread.}

either here or on my web site. {Perhaps that has more to do with your lack of introspection and inability to admit being wrong and learning from said mistake.} But do feel free to try, Pete. Please be specific.  I suggest that you start with my list of five things which are surprising to many climate alarmists:

1. Do you dispute the fact that the new NC Sea Level Rise Report abandons the 2010 Report's erroneous claim that sea-level rise has accelerated due to global warming?

2. Do you doubt that the Obama Administration's Dr. Steven Koonin has acknowledged that sea-level is rising no faster now (at ~400 ppmv CO2 & 1.8 ppmv CH4) than it was 70 years ago (at ~310 ppmv CO2 & 1.1 ppmv CH4)?

3. Do you dispute the fact that incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 levels have a diminishing effect on temperatures?

4. Do you doubt that Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 "The Precious Air Fertilizer," because it is so dramatically helpful for agriculture?

5. Do you question the fact that most of the apparent rise in sea-level at Duck, NC is because the land near the southern Chesapeake is sinking, rather than because the sea is rising?

Can you answer "yes" to any of those questions, Pete, or do you acknowledge that I am correct about all five?

_____________________________________________

Please note, how NC-20 Dave’s response has devolved this into a lawyerly word game.  Tossing down carefully crafted misdirections cloaked in questions, and demanding only a simple Yes/No answer.  No details please.  That’s how political games work.  But, that is not how any of us learn anything, nor how science works.

These global warming dialogues, exchanges, debates (whatever you want to call them) should be about constructive learning experiences so I’ll try to make some lemonade out of the lemons NC-20 Dave dropped at my feet.

Poptech's hermetically sealed echo-chamber, case in point.

      
What I'm doing here is dissecting and documenting the contrarian debate.  
I share these experiences because I believe rational students and others who want to communicate serious science and engage in a constructive learning debate, (as opposed to the political circus debate), should become aware of what they are dealing with when trying to rationally dialogue/debate with Republican/libertarian characters as they endlessly parrot their bankrupt jingles and ignore everything you try so hard to explain.

It will help younger students and scientists to be aware that every marginally effective communicator of serious science will find themselves under the sort of malicious venomous attack by dogma driven zealots that I've walked into.  The particulars will be different, but just as disconnected from actual reality.  Oh and yeah, they will toss every descriptive back in your face - though they never show the integrity to actually support their labeling with thoughtful arguments or real world facts. 

The thing to realize is that constructively engaging with others seems anathema to the new Republican/libertarian types.  Ridicule, marginalize, demonize seems their only response to challenging facts.  As for learning about what our society and we ourselves are doing to our Earth's biosphere and climate system, which enables that life-support system our society is dependent on - there, confusion and stupefaction is their goal.

Now to the funny, but sick, irony I want to share.

NC-20 Dave Burton runs to echo-chamber, Poptech's clubhouse.

As predicted I might add.  Rather then engaging in a good faith dialogue (or dispute if you like) Dave went running to his echo chamber to complain about what a nasty character I am and Poptech was happy to provide a stage.  

He posted the following comment at his blog, after marching over to that Republican/libertarian climate science attacking crowd to do his whining.  With their typical nasty brand of barroom derision, they are having a field day piling it on.  That it's contrived bull-shit purely intended to demean the messenger and self-justify their willfully ignoring the substance of the information I've confronted him/them with, goes over their heads.  They seem to feel oh so holy, not a doubt in their minds.

But that is one of the big tragedies, these people won't even honestly listen to what one is trying to explain to them.  They simply cannot handle crediting anyone they disagree with, everyone who opposes their self-certain fantasy, becomes the enemy and is open to any and every attack.

They reframe every fact to suit their faith-based conviction.  It's like they've created their own fantasy world from start to finish, one founded on their political dogma and paranoia - one frighteningly devoid of all basic awareness/appreciation for the physical world we depend on.  

My bias is understanding and appreciating this planet and I stand prepared to engage in a constructive debate with any climate science "skeptic-contrarian" type who has the intellectual integrity to actually listen to what his opponent is saying!  

And then to respond directly to those points, without juvenile meaningless distractions.  

As for my character references, what can I say? http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2016/05/considering-character-references.html)

Open note to Dave Burton (NC-20).

I received another upset (code loaded) comment from Mr. Burton at my CC blog, he feels very put out that I haven't posted any more of his comments and accuses me of deleting stuff, when his repetitive code loaded comments are sitting in moderation.  Though odds are I won't ever post them, I don't do spam either.  Which is exactly what he's expecting of me.

I'm posting my latest communication with Dave Burton of the NC-20 so that we're all on the same page.  I expect Dave to respond to critique, not simply repeat his mantra.

_________________________________________

citizenschallenge said...

Mr. Burton @ 10:45PM, I have made myself clear. Let me do it one more time. This time please shut down that dialogue in your head long enough to listen to what I'm telling you.  This is not a negotiation. You won't even show me the courtesy of writing straight text, you still feel compelled to pack it full of your tricky dick coding, despite my request. You don't kid me, you aren't acting in good faith. You've got a malicious game going, rather than an honorable attempt to communicate with an 'opponent.'

I have made myself clear:  Straight text, no tricky dick coding. I'm not your billboard!

Furthermore, I have taken the time to review your first comment and write up my observations. It is your turn to systematically respond to my claims, in a clear good faith matter.

I don't care about your games or how many points you score within your echo-chamber.  I deal in the real world! Come on down.

If you have the intellectual integrity you are welcome to continue this dialogue by visiting WUWTW and responding to the thoughtful constructive critique of your claims. We don't need to like each other to have a constructive dialogue.* Respond to the specific and clearly defined critique of the comments I've posted.

Heck, send me an email for a guest post, I'll post it,
So long as you respond specifically to one of those three posts,

each of which seriously examines, critiques, and describes your various claims, while providing supporting evidence for why your claims are rhetorically crafted but fundamentally misleading and willfully deceptive.  

Can you handle scrutiny sir?

#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html

The Seamonster does Dave Burton's sea level claims.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/seamonster-does-dave-burton.html

HOTWHOPPER does Dave Burton's sea level claims

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/hotwhopper-does-dave-burton-claims.html

Incidentally Dave, Citizenschallenge.blogspot has become my non-confrontational, debate free zone. My more assertive, let's debate, activities moved to WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com five years ago, which explains why I've moved this to over there. Just in case you are wondering.

Over there the rules of serious constructive debate hold sway! 
*That would be as opposed to the lawyerly politician's circus-debate

June 12, 2016 at 12:25 AM 

Dave Burton complains, yet remains a no-show.

ncdave4life, aka David Burton, the NC-20 guy, showed up to offer two comments at my CC.blogspot today. I'm only sharing his one important line:

"Are you ever going to approve the rest of my comments, citizenschallenge?"   

Mr. Burton, here's my response:

Hell no.  Not until you rationally respond to my critiques of your first comments.  Like I told you before, I'm not a billboard for you, I'm about engaging in a constructive dialogue!

Now Mr. Burton, my question to you: 

ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE IGNORING MY ITEMIZED CRITIQUE OF YOUR FIRST COMMENT?

May 17, 2016

#1 considering malicious mischief in action: ncdave4life

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/05/1malicious-mischief-ncdave4life.html

________________________________________

I even published your second and third comments with the intention of reviewing them, but the weather cleared up and life is busy and I have my priorities.  

Besides, it didn't take much searching to find that much more informed individuals than I have taken the time to describe the many falsehoods you employ.  It gave me an easy out, and I produced the following posts.  

A Look at Republican Rejection of Equal Justice Under Law !

This is a digression to remind folks that US elections matter and a critically important, (if not downright frightening), election is coming up.  An election that demands rational folks, progressives, liberals, tree-huggers, humanists, science appreciating folks, all of us, line up and vote.

Please don't whine that elections are rigged and that they don't deserve your participation.  That is exactly why elections NEED your active participation!  It is the only time, when your opinions actually matter, by way of your VOTE! 

Why play right into Big Money's plan by squandering your vote?

Recently, US Senator Elizabeth Warren gave a short speech that does a superb job of explaining who this Donald Trump is, and what's at stake in the coming election.  Definitely worth thinking about.

Elizabeth Warren- Equal Justice Under Law - speech

https://medium.com/@SenWarren/equal-justice-under-law-4346ea773b6c#.6lby9xu1q

Documenting Peabody Energy's failed courtroom deception - John Mashey

A month ago I posted: Judge rules: Drs. Spencer, Lindzen, Happer are not credible expert witnesses! about the rejection of the nonsensical claims of a number of expert climate science contrarians by a court of law.  It was a reminder that truth really does matter.  Today I saw that John Mashey has done a review of that court case and its highlights, including links to most the relevant documentation in this DeSmogBlog Repost.  It's a data gold mine for the serious student who wants to delve into the details of how contrarians try to deceive and I'm happy to add it to my collection:

Peabody's Outlier Gang Couldn't Shoot Straight In Minnesota Carbon Case, Judge Rebuffs Happer, Lindzen, Spencer, Mendelsohn, Bezdek

Overview On 04/13/15, Peabody Energy followed other major coal companies into bankruptcy, and days later lost a battle in a landmark legal war on Minnesota's Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). The "best" gang1 of climate denial outliers they could hire tried to confuse the court with absurd claims in both science and economics. The Judge was…

Five Reasons to Pass the Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act (SB1161), J. Barbose

The following is a straightforward Reposting of the arguments Jason Barbose presented in favor of passing SB1161*.  This time no running commentary, or eye catching highlights, simply Jason's succinct explanation.  My thanks to Jason Barbosa and Union of Concerned Scientist for allowing me to Repost his article.

Five Reasons to Pass the Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act (SB 1161) March 29, 2016, Jason Barbose.

1) Some fossil fuel companies have long known about the risks of climate change.

2) The fossil fuel industry has spent decades deceiving the public about the science of climate change.

3) There are real costs to fossil fuel industry deception.

4) Deceiving the public is morally wrong.

5) A movement is building. California can stay at the forefront.

* It is true that SB1161 has been withdrawn, for the time being.  Nevertheless, this continues to be an increasingly important issue that won't go away, thus Jason's assessment is quite relevant.

Jason Barbose, Western states policy manager | March 29, 2016 

http://blog.ucsusa.org/jason-barbose/climate-science-truth-and-accountability-act-sb-1161

Sometimes the truth hurts. And when it does, it can be tempting to try to cover up the facts. But ultimately it’s better to face them honestly because eventually the facts catch up to you. While I learned that lesson a long time ago, the fossil fuel industry seemingly has not.

After all, they have spent millions over decades to convince the public that consumption of their product would not lead to dire consequences for the planet. To date, they have yet to fully reckon with that, but I’m hopeful that the truth is catching up to the fossil fuel industry and 2016 will be a turning point.

This year there is an opportunity for the California Legislature to help redress this long-standing deception by passing the Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 (SB 1161).

SB1161 - Response to Kyle Feldscher's misleading 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article

Regarding the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 - CB1161

Kyle Feldscher, 

you wrote about Democratic State Senator James Monning withdrawing California Senate Bill 1161, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees and can be reconsidered at a later date. The reason I want to examine your article is because you used that opening to launch into a Marc Morano love fest while completely misrepresenting what this bill was about, or why many people believe such action is needed.  

In this post I will quote your 6/3/16 Washington Examiner article while explaining why your arguments don't hold any water.  In fact, your retelling is typical of the conniving disingenuous misrepresentation of facts that has made many feel they have no choice but to try and legislate honesty - extreme though that may seem.

__________________________________________

"Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" by Kyle Feldscher  (Nope, if anything the bill wants to make deliberate malicious misrepresentation of true down to Earth facts and findings legally actionable!)

"... According to the reports, which have been criticized for being funded by anti-fossil fuel groups, {It doesn't matter who unearthed them!  What about acknowledging that the facts are accurate?  

Why no show of concern at such systemic disregard for critically important fundamental scientific facts, and honestly representing them?} 

the company then just known as Exxon, knew the burning of fossil fuels could cause global warming as early as the 1970s. However, the company suppressed that knowledge and continued with its practices, and even funded groups to promote an anti-climate change agenda, according to the reports. {They were much more than "reports."  Kyle why didn't you use the more accurate "according to overwhelming evidence"?}

Those reports have sparked a larger investigation into Exxon Mobil's practices by four attorneys general, and 16 others have promised to cooperate in some way. ...
{Kyle have you read some of this stuff?  
Why shouldn't citizens be outraged?
Please explain, how do you justify what Exxon executives and their PR bullies have done?}

The Road Not Taken: Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.

By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer, September 16, 2015

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

~ ~ ~

Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act SB1161. What it really says.

The latest round of right-wing internet hysteria is over the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 (full text enclosed).  Right now they are celebrating a victory since State Senator James Monning withdrew the bill, though the bill had passed both the state Senate's environmental and judiciary committees.  What I've found more interesting than the merits or failing of SB1161, is the Right Wing Media's melodramatic misrepresentation of the bill.  Here's a sampling.

May 31, 2016 by California Political Review's Stephen Frank: "SB 1161: Makes Questioning “Climate Change” a Sue-able Offense. Criminal?" ~ June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner's Kyle Feldscher: "Calif. Senate backs away from bill criminalizing climate change doubt" ~ June 2, 2016 Washington Times' Valerie Richardson: "California Senate sidelines bill to prosecute climate change skeptics" to name but the three that I've read.

Marc Morano's June 3rd Climate Depot post sums up their mentality quite well via Kyle's puff piece, it reads:

June 3, 2016 Washington Examiner: "Marc Morano, a climate change doubter who runs Climate Depot, said the California bill is the logical end point of the debate between believers and doubters. 

(Morano) said those who believe in climate change have been trying for years to silence doubters and now, given the calls to investigate Exxon Mobil for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations and the California bill, there are attempts to actually charge people for their beliefs.

"You can't even question the predictions of 50-100 years from now or that's considered hate speech," (Morano) said. 

"That goes against everything this country was founded on." Morano said climate change believers want to delegitimize their critics instead of engaging in any sort of debate over the science. 

He said the bill proposed by Allen is another step in silencing dissent. "This is the language of religion, not science," (Morano) said.

Sounds quite frightening and extreme, but then I know a bit about this Morano character, a true master of malicious misinformation campaigns.  So I decided to look at California SB1161 myself.  Surprise, it's turns out to be nothing like how Morano represented it.  

Here we have yet another example of how the right-wing PR machine misrepresents issues from the gitgo, reframing everything to suit their own simplistic and painfully myopic storylines.  I mean they refuse to even listen to what's being said.  Instead they are busy constantly spinning their paranoid machinations about the bad greenies.

How can rational constructive adult dialogue exist if one side refuses to hear what the other is saying?  It's no wonder that our critically important Anthropogenic Global Warming education dialogue of the past decades has been such a tragic endless dog-chasing-tail squandering of precious time.  

Back to SB1161, let's look at what this bill actually says.