Diary 9/12/17 - (9/13 revised) how dare I use modern marvels and demand honestly looking at science

So how many of you climate change scientist (or communicators) are not buying any items made from or by fossil fuels to save the planet? How many? 

Last night while looking at Michael Tobis’ blog  he mentioned a malicious editorial character assassination attempt on Michael Mann by “Investers Daily" editorial written August 31, conveniently linking to it, but I won't.  No author listed but then I can understand no one wanting to take credit for it.  Michael Tobis did make a point of affirming Michael Mann's integrity:

“I've disagreed with Mike in the past on science communication, and probably will again, but I have no doubt about his rigor, honesty, and competence as a scientist. 

His productivity under the bizarre adverse conditions that have surrounded his career is a remarkable and impressive achievement, and my hat is off to him as far as that goes.”      M. Tobis

The Investers Daily editorial seems to me an example of malicious criminal libel, one that at the very least demands a line by line take down.  A simple listing of their lies, trash talk, libel, and other tactics employed by the GOP climate science bashing machine with such tragic success.

Unfortunately, I'm on another assignment, spent 9 hours hanging sheetrock with more tomorrow.  So I spent the day frustratedly biding my time, sneaking peaks line by line and making mental notes.  

Then I come home and rather than having some time to start in on the Investers Daily editorial, I got caught up in responding to E. Varnado.  Since he wasted this chunk of my precious time I’m going to share my comments.  It’ll add some personal background to the bigger debate I’m striving to push.

E Varnado commented at Howard Hayden’s one-letter disproof of global warming claims - examined  ... 

So how many of you climate change scientist are not buying any items made from or by fossil fuels to save the planet? How many? 

Are you not driving or flying and etc. to save the planet. 

September 12, 2017 at 5:54 PM

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

E Varnado,

Can you explain what that has to do with honesty looking at and learning about what's happening to our planet from serious climate science ? ? ?

What does it have to do with deliberately lying about what scientists have actually said and done?  Instead all your type can offer is full on dirty fighting attacks, that go for the throat that disregard honesty and looking at the actual facts - and never, ever any interest in learning anything.

What's the matter with you?  Why do you have to fantasize we're your enemy or some stupid stuff like that?

Monbiot Considers The Problem With Freedom

As I've lamented before, my passion for writing about these issues is at the bottom of my real life duties and expectations priority list.  The spring-time jobs are coming in fast an' furious, three posts laying there waiting for some free time.  I did notice an interesting read worth sharing while I'm out on assignment.  Once again George Monbiot nails it.
___________________________________________________________

The Problem With Freedom Posted: 07 Apr 2017 01:05 AM PDT Freedom is used as the excuse for ripping down public protections on behalf of the very rich. By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 5th April 2017 http://www.monbiot.com/2017/04/07/the-problem-with-freedom/ Propaganda works by sanctifying a single value, such as faith, or patriotism. Anyone who questions it puts themselves outside the circle of respectable opinion. The sacred value is used to obscure the intentions of those who champion it. Today the value is freedom. Freedom is a word that powerful people use to shut down thought. When thinktanks and the billionaire press call for freedom, they are careful not to specify whose freedoms they mean. Freedom for some, they suggest, means freedom for all. In certain cases, this is true. You can exercise freedom of thought and expression, for example, without harming other people. In other cases, one person’s freedom is another’s captivity. When corporations free themselves from trade unions, they curtail the freedoms of their workers. When the very rich free themselves from tax, other people suffer through failing public services. When financiers are free to design exotic financial instruments, the rest of us pay for the crises they cause. Above all, billionaires and the organisations they run demand freedom from something they call “red tape”. What they mean by red tape is public protection. An article in the Telegraph last week was headlined “Cut the EU red tape choking Britain after Brexit to set the country free from the shackles of Brussels”. Yes, we are choking, but not on red tape. We are choking because the government flouts European rules on air quality. The resulting air pollution frees thousands of souls from their bodies. Ripping down such public protections means freedom for billionaires and corporations from the constraints of democracy. This is what Brexit – and Trump – are all about. The freedom we were promised is the freedom of the very rich to exploit us.

(#B) Further dialogues with the disconnected

It wasn't an hour before my pal fired back (If you want to know about the background to this thread, check out the previous post).  

If you're someone who wants to confront climate science contrarian types, this will be worth your time.  I dare say valuable background for your future endeavors.   Others need not waste their time.  

The Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine series would be a much better use of your time.  {fixed typos and other edits 2/20/16, 12:45 PM}
_______________________________________________

Dude writes:

I think you're in the mood for battle. I've read your blog post. Nobody with half a brain, outside of yourself, believes carbon dioxide has historically been the primary global climatic driver. Co2 traps a little heat, but it is not the primary driver. 

ENSO is a massive signal in comparison. Maybe we should say ENSO drives climate? 

___________________

CC:  How can you say that considering those were NASAGoddard videos and data, not mine?

"Primary driver", that would be the Sun, but it's been closely observed and it's been very steady for a very long time.

Can you explain the difference between driving weather patterns and the state of the planet's climate regime?

Do you not believe our atmosphere acts as insulation for our planet and the climate system within?

How does ENSO produce or take away heat from the global climate system?

_______________________________________________

Dude:  Some, and I disagree with these, believe that Co2 drives our current climate. Now comes the easy part. Please provide evidence that Co2 drives climate today, but if you stray from  empiracles... You lose.

___________________

That's pretty confusing not sure what you're claiming.  

The whole way you're looking at it seems backwards.  CO2 is an integral part of our atmosphere and is a major regulator of the amount of heat that's held within the global climate system.  The temperature at which our climate engine is running is profoundly tied to the amount of warmth our atmosphere holds, and the way the ocean basins are formed and its waters are circulating, even land masses and plate tectonic behavior, volcanoes, all, and more, interact with our atmosphere.

We are talking about complex systems science that won't submit themselves to your simplistic disingenuous lab bench expectations. 

Where is your empirical evidence showing that experiments establishing CO2's "greenhouse properties" are wrong?

Then perhaps - can you explain why we have dozens of modern marvels that would be impossible without that thorough empirical understanding of how greenhouse gases behave in the atmosphere?

Further dialogues with the disconnected

I left a simple comment at the following YouTube video, basically sharing notes I'd put together.  Next thing I know I wind up in another textbook exchange with a climate science contrarian type, I swear Heartland must have brigades of faithful combing the internet.  Since it turned into another vehicle for explaining my position and exposing the tactics of climate science contrarian pros, I'm going to share it, first the short build up, then I have a closer look at his most recent challenge.  His words are unaltered and in Comic Sans font.  
{sorry about the typos - touch up editing 2/20, 10:30 AM}

CO2 & the Atmosphere

Earth: The Operators' Manual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eGzPxA1Dg#t=36

0:00  -  What CO2 does was confirmed by Air Force atmospheric research.

0:10  -  Studying the physics of the upper atmosphere for communications and heat seeking missiles.

1:00  -  "The air force hadn't set out to study global warming, they just wanted their missiles to work.  But physics is physics.  The atmosphere doesn't care if you are studying it for warring or warming.  Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat."

1:20  -  Works in the other direction also, remove CO2 and planet cools.

1:30  -  Glacier studies

3:00  -  Glacier cross-section, deposition, accumulation, record of the past.

4:30  -  Orbital and rotational variations and their impact on sun's insolation.

5:10  -  Ice ages

6:00  -  Glaciers as earth mover

6:35  -  Time-lapse animation of glacial advance retreat

7:15  -  Orbital/rotational driven insolation variations interaction with Earth's many CO2 reservoirs and cycles.

8:00  -  {eye witness to a disintegrating glacier}

8:50  -  Place thermometers any where on this planet and they show warming.

The evidence is clear, the Earth's climate is warming.

__________________________________________________________

Dude writes:

Co2 was not the driver of climate over the last several thousand years.  The AGW debate today,  centres  around  the  notion  that  carbon  dioxide  drives today's  climate due  to  its  volume.  But  according  to  the  ice  core record,  rising  levels  of  Co2 followed warming by  several  hundreds of  years. 

Accepting the Challenge: What's so special about today's AGW

There's a new commenter at CFI (Center for Inquiry) forum who tossed down a challenge that I took up this morning.  Since putting together my response required plenty of time and effort I'm going to add it to my WUWTW's 'considering debate' collection.  

I haven't changed his words though my response is a bit more detailed than over there and as usual I share many authoritative links to support and explain the claims and arguments I make.  

I figure it's an interesting case study others may find helpful.  

_______________________________________________________

Dude writes:  Nice evidence and empirically referenced discussion so far. 

Here are my questions regarding this vital topic. It is only vital due to the implications of mass destruction of our planet. Otherwise, who GAF (give a *&#$%$F word)

1. What is the evidence that warming of the surface of the planet is happening today?

_________________

Your phrasing is telling.  Why do you single out "surface of the planet"?  

Don't you appreciate that the oceans are an integral part of what's happens to surface temperatures?

For starters there are copious thermometer records that are recording a warming surface.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us

https://www.wmo.int/media/content/wmo-2015-likely-be-warmest-record-2011-2015-warmest-five-year-period

There is also plenty of real down to Earth physical evidence, among the most obvious,

A)  Cryosphere is melting throughout the world

B)  Hydrologic Cycle has intensified

C)  Lakes and river temperatures are increasing

D)  Sea level rise
E)  Ocean warming

To the best of my knowledge

Sharing some thoughts about debate and developing understanding that came to me while putting together the 350.org post.

When a rationalist such as myself makes a claim, there's always an undercurrent of "to the best of my knowledge."  Meaning that, yes, I firmly believe this and this, for such and such reasons.  Yet, I appreciate there's more to learn.  Here is the place for one's constructive-debate opponent to add new information to my store of knowledge.  

Give me stuff I hadn't considered; point out my weaknesses; make me think through why I'm making my particular argument; make me question my own certitude, you bet I'll reexamine my understanding in light of new information.  And though I'm no scientist, I do know that this is also the scientist's way.

Being shown to be wrong may hurt my ego, so what!?  It's an opportunity to understand my topic even better.  That's why I've spent many hundreds (actually thousands all told) of hours chasing down and trying to understand contrarian arguments.  They've been fabulous learning experiences.

The tragedy is realizing that no such love for intellectual adventure and learning about the planet we depend on exists within my Republican/libertarian debate opponents.