Saturday, December 14, 2019

Examining an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent, ‘Anonymous, Dec12, 2019

This video is dedicated to Moscow Mitch McConnell

I’m sick and tired, quite literally. Many decades of burning the candle at both ends adds up, now thee ol’body ain’t as tough as it used to be and the extreme stress of watching us destroying what hopes we had for an already guaranteed difficult future are manifesting themselves in physical illness.  
Thus rather than continuing with chores or getting back to working on my Black Tuesday videos and blog post, I wound up going down for the count Thursday afternoon.  Tough times for empathic people who appreciate what we are doing to our planet, all its creatures, not to mention our children’s futures.
Guess this is by way of explaining why I’m not pulling punches in the following virtual debate with Anonymous12/12.  

Why virtual debate?  Because the cowards always hide, it’s been the only way to have a constructive debate with the GOP science slandering contrarian types. 
This post is built around a comment I received Thursday (12/12/19) night.  
(click on images for better view)

I rejected the two part comment because I won’t be played and used as a propaganda billboard for liars.  If you have something to say, or a link to share, be upfront with it, don’t try sneaking in tricky-dick coding.  
If you gotta hide it, you reveal yourself to be a dishonest political operative rather than constructive thinker having a serious discussion.  
Anonymous 12/12 starts out with:  

Peter, Having looked at some links your partner in crime here has links showing a clear political motive
I find it amusing you finish citing propaganda when that is actually what you represent. Let us try to be civil then and stick to the science.   {I added the highlight colors} c

Interesting way to start a discussion. 
It Demonstrates the double standard they depend on.  
“Partners in crime.”   What kind of nonsense is that?
What crime?  Name calling and slander without substance is vicious, it ought to be criminal in itself.
It was you that responded with baseless sarcasm. FYI I looked at the emails from Frolly and agree with his motives in the name of science. 
What is wrong with that? 

His motives?  Tell me about Frolly's motives.  I'd love to understand them.
Science depends on honesty and truth telling and Fair-Play and an appreciation that we need each other to keep ourselves honest!  It also depends on curiosity and a desire to learn.
How can you justify lying about well understood and explainable facts of nature?
Where are your specifics?  Or?  Insinuations the best you got?  We should be satisfied with that?
Smoke and mirrors, that’s politics and not science!
from experience there is too much feeling as if we are all going to die because of CO2 yet that insanity can only exist inside a cult

This is an example of science by rhetoric and ridicule, worse it’s based on a casual acceptance of profound ignorance on the topic being discussed.  
It’s childish, but oh so effective in today’s Hollywood-World.
Sure buddy, of course CO2 is not going to kill us.  That’s downright silly.
It’s the cascading consequences we need to watch out for. 
The thing you are too deliberately stupid to absorb is that atmospheric CO2 is what insulates our Earth.
We are adding to that insulation at unimaginable rates.  

Don’t distract with our steady sun.  Think CO2 physics!
The unavoidable physics of radically increasing our planet’s insulation means accumulating radically increased amounts of extra heat within our climate engine.
Why does that matter, you ask?  
It’s elementary, more moisture in the atmosphere, more heat and energy fueling more chaotic storms, increased droughts followed by torrential downpours, and other extreme weather events, as our cryosphere melts into our rising seas.  
But that requires an appreciation of Earth and her story to understand.

>  All our human systems are dependent on this biosphere that evolved within a fairly narrow range of global temperatures.  That is coming to an end. 
We are taking our climate engine far outside normal operating range and a society that is self-obsessed and that knows only consumption - While disregarding our Earth's global heat and moisture distribution engine - ... Not Good.

There will be cascading consequences and it is those that will be killing us, that is when we're not killing to ourselves in the corporate avarice driven dystopia were watching being created by sociopathic minds that only know self-interest, and obsession with increasing profits and power.

Pumphandle 2014: History of atmospheric carbon dioxide

Peter, call me what you want, I live here too and I have 3 young children! 

So what?
We are talking about honestly relaying what scientists know about our planet - but anonymous has taken the GOP's prompting and called these scientists criminals.  When honorable productive experts are labeled "criminals" because they carry bad news about physical reality - where does that leave civil society and any hopes for intelligent discussion?  
Siring kids doesn’t automatically make anyone a good dad, nor intelligent human, so save that snow job for someone else.  
Lying about science is contemptible and hateful towards your, and my, children’s future.  Period!  In essence it's criminal behavior - see here, here, here (*), here, among others
Besides you were supposed to be teaching me about my scientific errors?  What happened to that?  Anonymous, got anything intelligent or informed to share about the science?
Not sure what has gone on here, calling a man a fraud is pretty harsh with no basis other than a disagreement. 

I’m calling Frolly/Holmes a fraud because he does not tell the truth about what climate scientists have done, or what they know, nor what they’ve observed!
I’m calling him a fraud because he feels free broadcasting lies about critically important topics - with an absolute disregard to the consequences of misleading the public, all for the oligarch's political agenda.

Guess that's what happens when a society allows self-interested Profits-over-People corporations to become bigger and more powerful than national governments of the people, by the people, and for the people.
His work on the missing cosmic cycles is supported by other papers. 
What other papers?  Seriously?
How many of those actually contain original scientific work? 
And what does that work actually say?  
Why not name a couple?  
Nope, instead it’s smoke’n mirrors.
I am not Holmes! 
I resent your attack based on bed wetting resistance to an important topic! 

“Bed wetting resistance”  

This was my inspiration and it explains why it was so easy labeling you an "Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent".
You have nothing constructive to offer, just snot nosed attitude.
why attack what you don't understand? 

That’s really funny you silly goose.  Guess you’ve never taken the time to get familiar with my decades of learning about our Earth and its global heat and moisture distribution engine, and watching the global situation unfold in front of my curious engaged eyes and mind this past half century and more.
I’m the one who’s willing to investigate the challenges put before me.  I speak based on the experience and education accumulated while investigating every contrarian claim tossed at me.  In a good faith manner at that.  One does need to put in the homework.
What learning do you have under your belt Anonymous12/12? ______________________________________________
I don't attack all religious people because my belief is they can on

What does that have to do with anything climate related?
This is the same as throwing shit at the wall to distract from the evidence and facts.
Religion belongs to our mindscape, science belongs to the physical world and understanding the Earth that sustains us.
….. continued D. "have the gaul to..." 

I got the gaul here?  Seriously?  Look in the mirror!
We are supposed to be having a constructive discussion about the notions that Holmes (and Nir Shaviv) are broadcasting the insanity that it's the sun causing current global warming.
To repeat, rather than offering straight-forward explanations and links to your supporting evidence - you gotta play the dick and try to smuggle items into the comments at my blogspot.  
That would be using my comment page as your political propaganda billboard.
Something I explicitly refuse to do.  I demand real discussion with real people, not meaningless one dimensional boilerplate.
Honest exchange is expected and that means being truthful about what you are sharing.  Notice I’m truthfully conveying your words.
I have never suggested the research into our climate composition is in question here or measurable CO2 levels. I am saying the warming is not primarily because of CO2. E. 

That’s crazy.  You never suggested the research is wrong?
Seriously?  You’re just claiming the Earth is flat, … and that Frolly/Holmes knows more that actual practicing experts!
Oh, by the way, who cares what ‘you’ are saying or thinking?  
What do you know about it? 
What’s important is what’s happening upon our physical planet, and that you’re type steadfastly ignores.
Thanks for pointing out we do not live on Venus (eye roll) you miss the point entirely. 

What, you think sarcasm is illuminating?  
The point was that using Venus, to "prove" that current global warming isn’t caused by CO2 is delusional.  

You pretend that the experts haven’t thoroughly studied that line of reckoning.  They have and we’ve known about it a long time.
Frolly, Holmes, Shaviv - all of them use simplistic math that ignores much that experts appreciate and must work into their expert understanding.  
Then F, H, S present their dilettante scribbling to gullible non-experts and mesmerize them into thinking they are smarter and can sort the facts for themselves.  It’s a sick joke.  Crazy making, even.  But oh so politically successful.
Frolly, Holmes, Shaviv, et al. want to tell us “consensus” means nothing and should be disregarding in favor of thoughtless ridicule and the embrace of Willful Ignorance.  

Oh, and claiming consensus is to be disregarded is seriously insane.  Why insane?  Because our modern world would collapse without “expert consensus.”  

Why can’t Democrats and rationalists counter that sort of crazy bullshit talk successfully?  Why keep talking past it and them ! ?
The inconvenient point that the composition of the Venusian atmosphere and the measurable temperature from 60KM to the surface ALSO shows how current "Greenhouse gas" theory needs revisiting. F & G. 

Why “revisiting” - scientists have thoroughly studied that line of reasoning and it simply does not hold up in the way Shaviv et al. claims.  It starts with realizing that the physical impact of current atmospheric CO2 is happening at the top of our atmosphere.  NOT at the bottom !  I wonder if Anonymous has a clue about what I'm talking?  But, don't take my word for it!

A guest post by Spencer Weart, in collaboration with Raymond T. Pierrehumbert

“The simple physics explanations for the greenhouse effect that you find on the internet are often quite wrong. These well-meaning errors can promote confusion about whether humanity is truly causing global warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. …
… Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.
What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. 
The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. 
As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.
What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. 
So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. 
The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.
Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862:…”

Some Simple Physics of Global Warming

By Jeff Tsao, Physical, Chemical and Nano Sciences Center Sandia National Laboratories


Global Warming


Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

LuAnn Dahlman and Rebecca Lindsey  |  August 1, 2018


The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming

By Sabrina Shankman, Paul Horn, Oct 3, 2017
The oceans hold the story of a planet warming as fossil fuels are burned. Here is what scientists have discovered, in four charts.

The 2 links from you about the sun isn't causing warming are opinions based on what is measurable not cycles. 

"Based on what is measurable not cycles"?  You got a problem with that?  Who's "cycles" are you trusting?  

You're a funny fella.
What’s wrong with basing our understanding upon the measurable physical evidence?
Instead, ya want us to trust some wannabe’s amateurish interpretation of the "cycles".  It's a disingenuous joke.
I’m an Earth Centrist, it’s the physical evident, not our florid imaginations that holds the true trump cards.

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.
Quirin Schiermeier

"... If the climate were affected in the long term, the Sun should have produced a notable cooling in the first half of the twentieth century, which we know it didn't," she says.

The idea that scientists might not have quite understood the Sun's effect on climate should not provide ammunition for climate-change sceptics, says Martin Dameris, an atmospheric scientist at the German Aerospace Center in Oberpfaffenhofen.

"The findings could prove very significant when it comes to understanding, and quantifying, natural climate fluctuations," he says. "But no matter how you look at it, the Sun's influence on current climate change is at best a small natural add-on to man-made greenhouse warming."

"All the evidence is that the vast majority of warming is anthropogenic," agrees Lockwood. "It might be that the solar part isn't quite working the way we thought it would, but it is certainly not a seismic rupture of the science."
The IPCC report mentions 1 solar cycle and TSI not the other 15. 

Actually, I don’t believe that’s accurate.  But, don't have the time to play Fish with this one.  Been spending way too much time on this project already.
Still, either way, that doesn’t diminish anything about the physics of the incredible amounts of atmospheric insulation society’s fossil fuels burning is injecting into our atmosphere!

Republicans have refined this sort of diversionary tactics to an art form, never face mistakes, never face unprofitable facts, always divert attention, never learn a thing, never care about people or this planet.
The 2nd link does the same. (carbon brief also conveniently starts at the 70's) "
So what?  Why not try to actually explain something?
I have nothing?" Wrong again pal, but since you ask here are 3 separate studies on solar cycles and how the solar energy reaches earth: 

Hey Anonymous12/12, have you ever visited GoogleScholar?  There are literally tens of thousands of scientific papers looking at aspects of sun and global warming connections.  
More importantly for this discussion is that scientific studies are worthless if you’re not going to read them and learn from them! 
If you want to engage in a good faith argument about a study, then you must be capable of focusing on specific issues, define them and explain why you think the item is in dispute.
Simply proclaiming how bad scientific studies are without ever explaining the supposed details for that assertion is fraud.  
Works the same way with malicious personal slander towards honorable accomplished scientists.  
Simply calling them criminal, but never ever being able to define what those crimes are, … that should be criminal.  At least unacceptable, but it seems just fine for today’s self-serving GOP.
Prof Nir Shaviv and his findings of Solar forcing Usoskin, I on Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly PhD. Conman is, as Conman does.

I’m not restricted to waving at a dubious video with its cherry picked three papers and deceptive rhetoric.  Any good faith Google Search on the topic reveals many thousands of studies from every corner of the world, and dozens of articles that do a nice job of explaining it to laypeople.  
That’s the stuff the scientific consensus is made out of.  A realist knows to respect expert consensus.
In a serious world if you object, you pull out specifics from the articles shared, specifics you can dispute with rational logical arguments, based on facts that you can enunciate (as opposed to gotcha riddles).
Unfortunately given a big enough megaphone, along with a general ruthless disregard for others, or for honesty, or for our future, nurtured by relentlessly broadcasting repetitive bullshit at a coddled apathetic electorate, all horrors are possible.  
Now, here I sit watching the fabric of American civil society being attacked and vandalized by Me First emotional juvenile delinquents and intellectual midgets, and who is standing up to it?  The past decades of attack on climate science is merely where they honed their chops, now it infects every arena, (happened while we slept).
Makes me glad I’m old, which is really heartbreaking if you think about it.  Old men, especially those who’ve had an awesome interesting life are supposed to be wishing they could start all over again once the diminishing starts creeping in.  Not me.  My heart couldn’t handle what’s barreling down on us, our society and this planet we depend on it.


Educational opportunities for learning about the sun climate connection:

Solar Influence on Earth’s climate

Open Source Science Foundation.US

Observations of sunspots began in the time of Galileo, about 400 years ago. Heinrich Schwabe recognized the 11.1 year solar cycle average in 1843. Science is working to improve our understanding of solar activity but beyond 400 years it becomes increasingly speculative.
IMAGESolar Influence — OSS Foundation

Does the sun cause global warming? Yes.

It would be very cold on earth without the sun. But that's not the whole story. It turns out there are multiple factors that determine the temperature of a planet.

Explainer: Why the sun is not responsible for recent climate change

ZEKE HAUSFATHER,  August 18, 2017

A slight decrease in solar activity
It is also worth noting that almost all of the minor warming contribution from fluctuations in the sun’s output occurred before 1970.
In recent decades, when global temperatures have risen most steeply, TSI has been flat or even slightly declining, says Schmidt:
“The period of greatest warming – since about 1975 – has coincided with a slight decrease in solar activity.”
Solar output in the satellite era, when we have much higher confidence in the records, is shown in the figure below. Each black dot represents daily total solar irradiance, while the red line is a longer-term average. …


Global Warming FAQs


Global warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans?

100 percent of the global warming over the past 60 years is human-caused, according to the IPCC's latest report

Dana Nuccitelli, 9/27/2013

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming. Many media outlets have reported that this is an increase from the 90 percent certainty in the fourth IPCC report, but actually the change is much more significant than that. In fact, if you look closely, the IPCC says that humans have most likely caused all of the global warming over the past 60 years.
Spot the Differences
Here is the relevant statement from the fourth IPCC report in 2007:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations
Now here is the statement from the fifth IPCC report:
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
Did you spot the differences? The 2007 IPCC statement focused on human greenhouse gas emissions, while the 2013 statement pertains to all human influences on the climate. This includes the cooling effect from human aerosol emissions (pollutants that scatter sunlight).
Cooling from human aerosol emissions offsets about one-third of the warming from human greenhouse gas emissions. The new IPCC statement says that even taking that aerosol cooling effect into account, humans are still the main cause of the global warming over the past 60 years.


In a serious constrictive dialogue my opponents would be ethically bound to read through what I’ve shared.   Think about it, then if they find problems with it they would share specific quotes and sections - then explain their perception/corrections along with references to their facts and figures that support said objections.  
I, in turn, would then be ethically bound to silence my opinion while listen to their arguments, this includes looking through what information they've shared.  Only then would I be able to offer an informed, worthwhile response.
This is how a constructive educational argument unfolds.  But in today’s politically bastardized public arena, that sort of interest in objective education and consensus building efforts seems to have been abandoned.  Replaced with a ruthless faith-blinded lawyerly political debate mentality, where winning is everything - while truth and learning is dismissed with ridicule and contempt.

(yup, looks like I'm repeating myself, sorry, guess it's therapeutic, forgive me.  Read on.)

Moral of this sorry story - Stop allowing the GOP and extreme Right to reframe the entire story and control the narrative!  

Notice how Anonymous is compelled to portray me as totally ignorant - This is because he’s incapable of dealing with the real me.  Respecting me would invite too much cognitive dissonance and just might explode his head.

Refusing to acknowledge my lifetime of study, and my willingness to pursue and investigate “skeptical” assertions, in order to learn about the details of these issues and our climate system, allows them to feign superior intellect.  

The Frolly, Holmes, Shaviv, Trump types are dependent on delegitimizing, if not dehumanize everyone who disagrees with them.

Not only me, but the entire community of learned scientists and experts past and present.  They do this by creating a contrived paranoid image for themselves to embrace, no matter how removed from actually reality.  They don’t care.  

Self serving rationalizing is their game.

How else was it possible to brainwash so many into believing scientists make it up as they go along?  {Or even worse, their notion that petty self-serving humans can know God’s Will, or can be “God’s own warriors” - it doesn't get unhealthier than that.}

They surely never produce evidence to support their proclamations of fraud and crime, or of any real wrong doing among climate scientists.  {Climategate?  If any contrarian wants to bite, go for it, offer a serious challenge in the comments.  Follow the rules of an honest constructive debate.  Lets have at it.  Feeling lucky punk?}
Of course, on the other hand, they ignore the strange case of John Christy and Roy Spencer who have consistently fudged satellite data interpretations to support their hatred of taxes and government.  That would be politics, not honest science.  But those guys get a free pass.  More right-wing double standard.

Science contrarians believe regular citizens should buy into the self-delusion that they are smarter than experts, it’s loony .

They refuse to learn about the science, in fact they resent those who do embrace learning.  

Then every correction or counter is taken as a vicious personal attack.  

When it comes to discussing the scientific issues, they never do.  

It’s always with the projections and transference and science by rhetoric and emotional personal attacks a la Seitz/Singer along with their chorus of politically motivated self-serving disciples.

They did so well, ultimately they tricked America into electing a life long con artist, celebrity narcissist, and all around nasty guy who never outgrew his adolescence, someone who doesn’t know history, hates our government and reading, though he loves strong men and Putin, as our President.  

Inconceivable, but here we are, Hollywood-Nation with Putin at the wheel.  But I digress. 

Before finishing I also wanted to point out the double standard which enables them to create countless traps and gotchas that they weaponize in order to stop all serious discussion.

In true bully fashion they believe they have the right to commit any insult, any slander, oh but you’d better not smack back at the bully.  Or they go ballistic with melodramatic self-righteous outrage.

They are ruthless and Democrats keep demonstrating that they are inarticulate wimps who wilt before this GOP bluster.  

That’s why the extreme right-wing keeps energizing their 40% of the population into this paranoid frenzy that demands that they imagine every Democrat or liberal, or rationalist, or scientist as a subhuman enemy to be loathed and crushed.

Just listen to FOXNews, Limbaugh, Evangelical radio, every time I do I’m shocked, horrified and frighten at how vicious and disconnected from humanity and reality their rage has become.  

These people literally want to destroy any free thinking person out here.  They are explicit, ignoring that is suicidal.

Be strong, actually look at their arguments and thinking, their complaints and fears never rise above the worst of me-first junior high school bullying mentality runamok.  Hateful and reflecting a fear-driven, education-hating, juvenile-delinquent emotional state of mind, rather than adult reasoning. 

What I keep wondering about is why do rationalists, you know the children of the Intellectual Enlightenment, keep allowing this dark ages thinking to thrive and grow unopposed?  

Closing thought, stop talking past them:

Democrats, Liberals, Children of the Intellectual Enlightenment must talk directly at that 40% in order to address their delusions!  

I don't think it all needs to be nice nice either, civil, humane and honest, but damnit start standing up to their ruthless bullying and dishonest attacks on facts.   Rattle their complacent dishonest minds!  Make it a challenge to see if there's an objective conscience hiding in there somewhere.

Why not make Republicans doubt their bizarre self-serving dishonest conceit that God Almighty is something they own.  That's a totalitarian attitude from which all else has flowed these past ugly decades of power politics and the Weaponizing Of Religious Faith.

Unless we are changing minds we are losing!
How to achieve that is the challenge.  I would have loved to be part of the change, but it's so quiet out there, seems like nobody's home.


A down to earth reality check -
Earth vs. Dishonest Rhetoric:
 Dec 10, 2019, PBS NewsHour

What a 'sobering' 2019 report on Arctic ice loss means for global sea levels

Tuesday marked the release of yet another stark report detailing how the increased warming of our atmosphere is transforming the planet. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s annual Arctic Report Card includes some grim news for wildlife, native communities and global sea-level rise. William Brangham talks to Dartmouth College’s Erich Osterberg about the impact of melting ice.

No comments:

Post a Comment