Tuesday, November 24, 2015

part 2 - Debating a sock-puppet

AL won't respond over here, so I'm sharing his response to my previous post made regarding Prof Ivar Giaever's pathetic YouTube PseudoScience talk where he denounces the scientific understanding of CO2 with truly childish distractions and misrepresentations that any honestly interested person ought to be able to see right through.  

Unfortunately most of his fans are not honest, they are brainwashed into thinking the whole world is against them and that if scientists have information they don't like, they should ignore it - in fact it's worse, in their minds it's OK to misrepresent the facts, fabricate scandals, attack scientific leaders and champion kindergarten arguments if in support of their political ideology.
(touch up edits 11/25/15 am)

AL (9:46 AM -11/23/15) writes: 
+citizenschallengeYT Not sure what you want with that link, but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with

"This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science"

isn't directly proof of anything. The links on that page are just links to other blogs and not scientific papers (You should take a closer look.  Plus you'll find links within links, just gotta poke around.).

I already know the alarmists point of view and as I said it's easily refuted with science and the latest data that we have. (OK, so when are you going to share some of that!?)

AL, I don't believe you do understand anything of substance about the "alarmists point of view." 

I infer this from your shallow response that indicates you won't even allow yourself to actually read any of that information. Let alone digest any of it, nah you're too busy throwing up transparent defenses.  Pretending you have some "science and latest data" that disputes the accepted understanding - but never coming up with more than arm-waving, which I looked at in my previous post.

" but trying to prove anything with a personal blog that starts with  isn't directly proof of anything."

AL, you serious?  Looking for "direct proof" from an internet dialogue?  

Why are you playing this game?  Serious people appreciate that there is no "proof" in Natural Sciences.

It's always been about a preponderance of evidence, appreciation for understood natural laws and the flow of time, good faith assessment of evidence and learning from mistakes, along with a healthy sense of self-skepticism, such is the currency of "science" and learning to understand our planet.  

AL, I wonder if you appreciate the concept of consensus and to the best of our current understanding.
Beyond that I think you're confused about our discussion.  Let's go back to the start of our "debate" - you said:

Monday, November 23, 2015

debating a sock-puppet and another collection of informative links

This time we're at a comments thread to a YouTube video
By virtue of sharing a Nobel for "experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors" back in 1973 - contrarians bathe Ivar in an aura of climate science authority which the old guy certainly does not possess.
(fyi - http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html )
Heck he even admits he's only done the most cursory reviews of articles - evidently he hadn't been paying attention to anything outside his microscopic tunneling and solid state physics for the past half century - not much of a background for pontificating on climate science, but oh boy, pontificate he certainly does.  Incidentally, it's not too difficult noticing that he nurses a grudge.

In any event, I owe "AL" an apology, he did post this list of specifics way back on the 9th, sorry for missing that, glad I stubbled on it this evening.   I don't want to ignore your challenge so better late than never (I have not changed or eliminated any of your words).  I'll keep it simple and let the links fill in the rest of the story. (I did some touch up editing 11/24/15 am)

AL wrote Nov 9, 2015:  +citizenschallengeYT
"Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis."

Nonsense - You can find countless sources explicitly explaining that mankind is to blame for the warming of the past 50 years.  Claiming otherwise is an out and out lie!  Stop denying the CO2 we've put in the air, and the impacts of that increased atmospheric insulation on our climate.  Besides human drivers of global warming are not limited to increasing greenhouse gases, but that's a whole different compounding story I'll save for another time.

IPCC 2007
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report 2. Causes of change
Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says
Summary - Climate Change 2013 The Physical Science Basis - 27 September 2013
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Considering US Rep. Lamar Smith's hate-on for NOAA 

There are times I feel like setting up another blog simply to mirror Sou's steady flow of quality news regarding climate science contrarians.  Why?  In order to add some counterbalance to the phenomenal amount of right-wing astro-turfing going down on the internet these days.  But, I can't even keep up with what's on my plate, so it remains a vague notion.  Instead, I have to self-censor myself and keep my reposts of Hotwhopper's many informative articles to a minimum. 

The other day she wrote one that is a must addition to my collection looking at climate science contrarian dirty tricks.  With thanks to Sou for all the work she does at Hotwhopper..

Sou | Hotwhopper.com | Friday, November 20, 2015

You may have read about US Congressman Lamar Smith's ongoing vindictive harassment and smear campaign against scientists at NOAA. You might have also read about his latest allegations of "whistleblowers". If you are wondering if there is anything behind this, other than a deranged attack on science, scientists and the NOAA, then wonder no more.

There is not.

To prove this point, just read the letter to Lamar Smith from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, a member of the committee of which Lamar Smith is chair - the Committee on Space, Science and Technology.

I'll quote some segments damning the unconscionable actions of this vindictive, out-of-control, grandstanding US congressman, Lamar Smith. The bolding and some paragraph breaks are mine.

What exactly is Lamar Smith alleging? That the scientists are doing science!

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Koch bros, private surveillance, plan of attack

Read a jaw dropping story by Kenneth Vogel today that's mortifying but sadly believable.  Another indication of how much our democracy has been crippled by little minds with mega war-bucks.  A foreshadowing of what rationalist types are facing in the coming election.  So much for fair play and a sense of cooperation as we prepare for coming challenges.  
I share these excerpts because people should know what's going on and I encourage you to read the entire article at Politico.

The Koch Intelligence Agency   

(takes aim at 2016)

As the billionaires’ network works to reshape U.S. politics, it keeps a close eye on the left.

The political network helmed by Charles and David Koch has quietly built a secretive operation that conducts surveillance and intelligence gathering on its liberal opponents, viewing it as a key strategic tool in its efforts to reshape American public life.  …

The competitive intelligence team has a staff of 25, including one former CIA analyst, and operates from one of the non-descript Koch network offices clustered near the Courthouse metro stop in suburban Arlington, Va. It has provided network officials with documents detailing confidential voter-mobilization plans by major Democrat-aligned groups. It also sends regular “intelligence briefing” …

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Explaining Why AGW Is No Religion

My pal left with one final pot-shot to the effect: "Yes it is a religion. so there!"

Imagine my surprise this morning when I saw that Dr. Joseph Romm has recently written a book, that from the reviews, does an admirable job of explaining the scientific basis for our Anthropogenic Global Warming understanding in a clear question and answer format.

So for those who think AGW is a religion, you now have yet another opportunity to learn about the details of why AGW is a physical fact supported by much (… mega) research and observational evidence.

But then you'd first need to extract yourselves from your own faith-based bubble of perception and be open to taking advantage of objective learning opportunities.  Can you do it?

Book review: Climate Change, What Everyone Needs to Know

Posted on 17 November 2015 by John Abraham

new book makes the case that those who understand the basics of climate change and clean energy will be the “smart money” in the coming years. Those who don’t, however, will make bad decisions for themselves and their family. They might, for instance, end up holding coastal property after prices have begun to crash due to due the growing twin threats of sea level rise and storm surge.
In short, climate change isn’t just something every educated person ought to know about because it will impact future generations or because everyone will be talking about it during the upcoming Paris climate talks. It is something everyone needs to know about now because “Climate change will have a bigger impact on your family and friends and all of humanity than the Internet has had.”

Monday, November 16, 2015

Part 6 - Debating ClimateDepot fan: AGW religion (epilogue)

Will responded to the final installment of my series back at #1, and considering that he tossed the "AGW is religion" turd at me, I decided Will's comment deserved the spotlight and a closer look.  (supporting links at the bottom)

Will at 3:48 PM November 16, 2015 wrote:

Yours is not a debating site (1) but instead is an AGW religious site (2). I destroyed the AGW conjecture with one of my arguments that you did not disagree with but then decided just to ignore. (3) There is evidence that the climate sensitivity is 0.0 (4) and hence CO2 does not affect climate. (5)


Will, good to hear from you, sad to hear you didn't learn a thing.  
Now let me say this about that:

Yours is not a debating site (1)

    If not, it's because AGW contrarians hide from anything that forces them to produce rational responses in writing.  They fear it because it exposes their weak underbelly, no substance, just a lot of flimflam.

but instead is an AGW religious site (2)

    Then as if to highlight the hopelessness of attempting to communicate with one of your persuasion you lob that idiotic religion meme at me.  Religion is a belief system, our climate understanding is based on a huge body of scientific facts - even if you choose to ignore most of it and misrepresent the rest.

I challenge you, or anyone else, to explain how you arrive at such a conclusion?  Heck, can you even explain what it means; what do you think makes AGW a religion? 

Saturday, November 14, 2015

So, you wanna debate Michael Crichton's fraud?

I made some edits for clarity this morning, I can't deny this post is about Crichton - but the more important point is examining and understanding how serious science gets twisted and manipulated for fun and profit.

The obscene conflation of fiction and reality - it has terribly disconnected people from an awareness and "appreciation" for this planet we depend on for everything, and it's going to bite us.  Those who intend to get through need to get to understand these tactics.  (10:25am 11/15/15)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

A fella was offended that I dissed Michael Crichton in the comments section of a YouTube video of his 2008 appearance on the Charlie Rose show.  Considering I still hear people using Crichton's science-fiction thriller State of Fear as though it were some serious guide which justifies distrusting and ignoring today's fact based climate science understanding, I find the once quite interesting writer turned himself into a sociopath and I'm not going to let Mr.X.'s criticism go unexamined.  I'll back up my opinions with links to many more authoritative and informative articles that dissect and explain his intentionally malicious errors.

Mr.X.  (11/14/15) writes
(1/4) +citizenschallenge, Michael Crichton was a vastly more intelligent man than you and I both could ever hope to be stranger. The man was far more than a "fiction writer". He was a doctor, anthropologist, biographer, and yes a talented writer and motion picture producer. 
Oh dear, I though climate science contrarian types loath appeals to authority?  Aren't you forgetting this is about misrepresenting important climate science for political motives?

Mr.X., please why does Crichton's excellent background in etcetera - trump the education and acquired knowledge of professionals such as a Schneider, or Santer, or Mann, or for that matter, the collective consensus of a huge global community of experts who have dedicated their lives to studying various aspects of our global climate engine?

What part of Crichton's biography gives him dispensation to misrepresent and lie about the real climate science consensus?  

(2/4) Mr.X. continues:  He used his "fiction" not only to entertain people but also to provoke a social commentary, and make the common man question things.