"Seepage" - Mann's "Hockey Stick" and Santer's sentence

Not so random thoughts recalling seepage in action - gotta run today, so it's rough notes, 
I hope someone can do something with it..  (edited 3:15, May 29th}
(I've added a couple interviews with Dr Santer and Dr. Mann - from the UQxDenial101 MOOC May 30th)

Considering the process of learning.

Learning is a cumulative process.

For example in the late 1990s a team of scientists led by Michael Mann pioneered paleo-climate studies.

They produced a graph that told a story that Republican/libertarian interests did NOT want to hear.
… I don't need to repeat the history.

The take away point is that nowhere have R/l individuals been interested in learning from incoming evidence.  It's all about stonewalling with their God-given self-certitude and disinterest in evaluating any information that might threaten their perceived interests.

But learning is about taking in all the information you can, objectively evaluated all of it.
In the real world mistakes are teaching tools that we learn from and that constructively inform future actions.

But Republican/libertarian interests only seek bludgeons for battering down all they don't want to hear or think about.

So we have this scientific graph, "Mann's Hockey Stick" paleo-temperature record.
It's a pioneering effort, the "flaws" it has are all extremely minor and part of the learning process.  Similar exist in most studies, and any short comings were actively investigated to learn what happened and why.  That's the scientific process -  study and understand mistakes, and learn your lessons, then move on to doing more accurate work in succeeding studies.

Subsequent studies repeatedly have shown that the Mc/Mc alleged errors were small and when plotted out on a graph indiscernible to the unschooled eye.  They did nothing to change the factual integrity of the work.

But look at what we've allowed to happen.
Even today I can't count the times I read "broken hockey stick", etc.

Yet, in the real world one study after another repeats, the "hockey stick" shape.
The personal experience of our own lives over the past half century support the impression of sky-rocking changes like none our planet has experienced since deep time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Another seepage incident, the Ben Santer diversion.

A carefully penned generally agreed to sentence: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."  IPCC, Madrid, November 1995  (see his video interview 20:50)

Then very crafty Republican/libertarian political word factories twisted the story and dictated the story,  making an enemy out of Ben Santer who was doing his duty as lead author
the last step, physically inserting said sentence into the final IPCC report.

And the public discourse runs right off the rails.

Republican/libertarian spin masters dictated the entire discuss.

I have to wonder, why was there never a huge scientific outcry -
loud enough to force the "talk of a nation" back on track.
"Well the human influence is discernible stupid"
let us count the ways . . . 
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science#.VWjVpOtyHww
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
and so on and so forth.
_______________________________________________________

Or my latest favorite beer glass inspiration:
"It's atmospheric insulation stupid, it holds in heat" 
now can we get on with dealing with what we know we have done and continue doing to our life sustain planet Earth ….
_______________________________________________________

UQx DENIAL101x Interview with Michael Mann

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=12&v=k3j9j6WNpRM

Published on Apr 27, 2015

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

__________________________________________________________________

UQx DENIAL101x Interview with Ben Santer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOrUYQhGzT8

Published on Apr 27, 2015
UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX.

Denial101x isn’t just a climate MOOC; it’s a MOOC about how people think about climate change.

Join us in the edX discussion forum at http://edx.org/understanding-climate-denial.

__________________________________________________________________

Earth is more than a pretty postcard

It's deeply heartbreaking realizing how uncaring and disconnected people have become from the planet that sustains all of us.  It seems that the Republican/libertarian crowd despise our Earth and everyone who cares about her in the bargain.  I don't get it, though I keep struggling with understanding it and failing to find the words to describe both the resentful attitude Republicans have adopted towards our life giving Earth and to convey a sense of the wonder that people like me feel for our home planet.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, but when it comes to something as grand as our dynamic living planet it takes thousands of pictures to begin to touch on it's complex magnificence.

That's why I want to share three standout documentaries that are available on YouTube.  They are standouts because of how well they convey a realistic impression of this global organism we are all dependent on, and how it operates, along with a glimpse at how we are changing her.  Sure, there are some flaws and certain items I could take issue with, but learning is a cumulative process so minor flaws don't detract from the overall quality of these rich fact-based stories about our planet and it's ways.  All worth watching by those who are interested in learning about our mother Earth.

________________________________________________________

Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine

Considering examples of Lewandowsky's "Seepage" at the MET Office.

A spectator's perspective

Recently a team of researchers published a paper titled "Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community" - it looks at examples of how the fabricated contrarian talking points are impacting the way scientists describe their work and even what they study. 

It caught my attention because I've long been interested in better understanding, why that increasing disconnect between what most people believe about global warming and the reality unfolding upon this planet?

It's like the more information is gathered and the deeper the details we focus on, the less we're accepting what's happening.

It has been obvious to me that the cause of much misunderstanding has been decades worth of deliberate effort.  Fabricated confusion by a plethora of politically motivated groups such as the Marshall Institute, CATO, Heartland Institute - organizations who make no bones about their "mission," which was/is a ruthless dedication to winning and holding on to their "free" market political/economic agenda.  

Read their literature nowhere does learning how our planet operates appear among their stated priorities.  Yet, they are calling the shots of what's supposed to be a public education dialogue about climate science.

Why Protecting Rio Grande Source Waters Trumps Destructive Development

Changing the subject for a moment.  Because this is down home and personal and since the struggle to save Wolf Creek's Alberta Park has reignited and I want to broadcast this information far and wide as possible.  Never know were help might come from. 

{Could say this was a work in progress, it's finished now.  Final edit 5/24/15 mid-day}
{For more information visit No-VillageAtWolfCreek.blogspot.com}

Up in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado, below Wolf Creek Pass, an epic wetlands-preservation struggle has been going on.

The smoldering mess was reignited in May when the Rio Grande National Forest released its final decision regarding the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. This decision allows the exchange of 205 acres of prime Rio Grande National Forest, including some 1500 feet of highway frontage, for 177 acres of difficult-to-develop and landlocked property owned by the Leavell-McCombs Joint Venture. Talk about a smooth poker play.

Exhibit 3c: HotWhooper's "Seeps and SCAMS" a closer look at Lewandowsky et al 2015

Sou at HotWhooper has written three insightful posts regarding Lewandosky et al 2015 that belong in this WUWTW collection of exhibits for my eventual complaint/presentation to the SFSU administration...  

The following was copied verbatim from HotWhooper.com.  Then I starting deleting it down to it's core points, my "cliffnotes" so to speak.  A couple long sections are complete, but most have been reduced.  Please read the full versions.

On Seeps and SCAMS Part I: Lessons for Climate Scientists
On Seeps and SCAMS Part II: Pat'n Chip'n David Fake a Debate
Seeps and SCAMS Part III: Richard Betts misunderstands (and misrepresents) a paper

I have added some paragraph breaks and highlights.  
I thank Sou for her excellent research and getting this information out there and tip my hat to HotWhopper's CC policy.

Highlights: HotWhopper's "Seeps and SCAMS" 

________________________________________
On Seeps and SCAMS Part I: 
Lessons for Climate Scientists
HotWhopper  |  Sou |  May 14, 2015
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/05/on-seeps-and-scams-part-i-lessons-for.html

If you thought that dispassionate scientists, when doing scientific research, are immune from denialist propaganda you'd be wrong. It's not just when scientists talk about climate that they can demonstrate they've been influenced by denialists' campaigns. Even their scientific publications can be so influenced.

"About seepage - of denialist memes and framing - into the scientific community"

The paper is all about seepage. How denialists' talking points have "seeped" into the scientific community. The authors define seepage using two criteria. To be considered seepage the following two criteria must be met:

1. the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices. 
2. those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community. 

Exhibit 3b: Lewandowsky responds to Betts critique re "Seepage" study.

For this exhibit #3b I'm reposting Prof Lewandowsky's response to Prof Betts (bio) prefaced by a comment and question I have for any takers.

What mystifies me to no end, is that although scientists thoroughly understand the physics of atmospheric greenhouses, the impression experts such as Professor Betts project is that until we achieve totally complete and absolutely correct measurements of every component of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine - we can somehow pretend greenhouse gases aren't doing their job 24/7/365 - specifically relentlessly increasing the heat and energy within our climate system.

What happened to our appreciation that the map is not the territory?

Can anyone explain how that rationale works?

______________________________

Voices from the climate community on "seepage"

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskySeepageII.html

By Stephan Lewandowsky

Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol

Posted on 14 May 2015

Our recent article “Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community” in Global Environmental Change, authored by me and Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell, and Michael Smithson, has attracted a bit of attention over the last few days. I sample a few comments here and reply to a lengthy post by Richard Betts, Head of the Climate Impacts strategic area at the UK Met Office, that critiqued our paper.

A Critical Voice: Richard Betts on “seepage”

However, not unexpectedly, there are also some critical voices. We expected that our paper would evoke some spirited disagreement, and so Richard Betts’ critique of our paper is most welcome as it provides us with an opportunity to restate our argument and address some of the objections raised by Professor Betts. 

To facilitate discussion, I begin by noting that there is much in Betts’s post that we can agree with—for example, the increased role of social media, the increased focus by governments on the need for adaptation and hence decadal predictions. No disagreement there. But then again, none of those points pertain to the issue of seepage.

Invitation to debate Piers Corbyn's claims (… another example of hoaxer's fear of honest debate)

My recent blogpost regarding Piers Corbyn offended the gent who's 700 word comment I mirrored, he accuses me of ignoring his facts and it's true my post focused on my discovering why Piers Corbyn is anything but a serious scientist, in fact, arguably from an objective legal standpoint he's a malicious fraud.

For those seriously curious about Mikeyp's talking points, or "facts" as he calls them, check out this wonderful resource geared to the layperson.

Global Warming & Climate Change Myths  

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php  

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says. Click the response for a more detailed response. You can also view them sorted by taxonomy, by popularity, in a print-friendly version, with short URLs or with fixed numbers you can use for permanent references.

Given this morning's exchange with Mikeyp, I sense there's a genuine learning opportunity in all of this.  

That is why I'm formalizing my invitation to Mikeyp for a debate regarding my characterization of Piers Corbyn*, by mirroring our YouTube comments exchange where I invite him to send me a Guest Post which I'll publish unaltered in a standalone WUWTW post.  
(*Or the state of climate understanding for that matter.)   

I'm certainly no expert, but I dare say I know the basics pretty well.  Plus I have a leg up on climate science skeptical types, in that it's not my ego I'm defending.  I'm defending my understanding of the science as it is.  I fully appreciate that my understanding doesn't always agree with the reality.  I embrace being proven wrong as learning opportunities, even if it bruises my ego.

Meaning, my learning continues and is not confined to defending what an echo-chamber feeds me.  Mr. Landscapesandcycles runs and hides from a straight up debate, let's see if Mikeyp has more intellectual fortitude.
__________________________________________

This exchange was inspired by my blogpost 
"A digression, the Piers Corbyn Story"

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/05/piers-corbyn-story.html

Then this morning at YouTube, and I quote:

(5/14/2015 - 4:30pm) citizenschallenge wrote:

I looked into your "realist" Piers Corbyn, you won't believe what I found. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/05/piers-corbyn-story.html

_______________________________________________________ 

(5/15/2015 - 8:23 am) Mikeyp wrote: 

As expected you switch off if you see something that you cannot comprehend. Your inability to consider the very real counter arguments to your chosen set of truths does weaken your case. I find your comments to be extremely dismissive without due cause. The Piers Corbyn presentation was obviously dumbed down so it could be understood by a wide audience (yes you), Have you ever considered that the jetstream is affected by a number of different things including magnetic forces,  sunspot activity etc?  {I took the liberty of linking those to some information regarding said claims.}