Sunday, January 5, 2020

Anonymous12/12 (Veizer?) drops by with more complaints.

I received some more comments from Anonymous12/12 yesterday.  Same games, so once again his comments get rejected.  Though, I’m certainly not going to ignore them because they so perfectly represent what rational people are up against and what I’m trying to write about.  

Anonymous12/12’s three comments offer another good vehicle for me to try to convey what I’ve learned from decades of listening to the disingenuous contrarian monologue.  Mostly I’m addressing Anonymous12/12, but occasionally I switch my attention to readers, all of it is food for thought.  The embedded images show that I haven’t changed any of his words.  

What's the point.

Dissect the debate, understand what they are going to come at you with.
Be prepared! 
(latest edit Jan 5, near midnight)
Unknown at 11:56 AM  (2/3)
(click on image)

Peter, Firstly happy new year to you. 

Hopefully less insults hypocrisy about insults 

when there have been many more from your side*. 
*I think not!

The irony of your type complaining about hypocrisy isn’t lost on me.  

Yes, I did say your previous comment typified the behavior of an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent.  After reading these comments, I see nothing has changed. 

You continue exhibiting a certain thuggish behavior.  
Why not respect my rules?

I’m ready for a serious dialogue, but you aren’t offering one, you have games on your mind.

A good faith dialogue is upfront and with a free exchange of information and references done in plain english.  That said, I will share your comments on my terms and with appropriate commentary.
Can you please send a copy of the interaction between 14 scientists and the work of Drs Shaviv & Veizer the link isn’t working. 
Send a copy?  Sure, give me an email address.

Or you could look for yourself:  (the following is a fraction of what you can find over there.)

… Other contrarians have made arguments along lines analogous to those of McIntyre and McKitrick. In an article in GSA TodayShaviv and Veizer, 2003 claim that long-term CO2-induced warming will not be as great as most General Circulation Models (see Climate Modeling) predict. They echo (though on a very long time scale) the Soon and Baliunas view when they say "...celestial phenomena may be important for understanding the vagaries of the planetary climate." 

Their comments that "global climate produces a stabilizing negative feedback" and "A likely candidate for such feedback is cloud cover" are similar to the views of Richard Lindzen, another long-time contrarian, who believes that climate sensitivity will be much less than most climatologists are predicting. (See Lindzen, 1997Lindzen et al., 2001; and the figure Estimates of Climate Sensitivity, in which Lindzen is Scientist 5. 

Hartmann and Michelsen, 2002 prepared a rebuttal to Lindzen, 2001, which prompted a response from Lindzen et al., 2002, followed by additional comments from Hartmann and Michelsen). See also a comment by Phillip Stott, a biogeographer at the University of London who is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, and who cites both Soon and Baliunas, and Shaviv and Veizer to support his opinion. 

Many climatologists found it telling that Shaviv and Veizer failed to mention Hoffert and Covey, 1992Crowley, 2000Crowley and Berner, 2001; all of which are written by climate scientists and provide striking evidence for CO2 climate sensitivity from paleo-climatological data.
A group of fourteen scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PICIR) responded to Shaviv and Veizer with a short letter discussing the "highly questionable methods" the two authors employed. This was followed by a response from Shaviv and Veizer, followed by additional comments from the PICIR scientists

A more formal rebuttal has since been prepared by Rahmstorf et al., 2004

The authors conclude that the correlation of cosmic ray flux and climate is not as strong as it appears in the Shaviv and Veizer paper; they claim that Shaviv and Veizer adjusted the data to make the correlation more pronounced than it actually is. In addition, Rahmstorf et al. are skeptical of Shaviv and Veizer's estimate of the effects that a doubling of CO2 levels would have on the climate. 

They contend that Shaviv and Veizer's regression model used for making this determination is incomplete and oversimplified, which does not suit a complex, nonlinear system like the climate. Thus, Rahmstorf et al. believe that Shaviv and Veizer's work is not grounds for revising current climate sensitivity estimates. 

This is yet another example of a contrarian pretending to be the next Galileo, which is very unlikely in my opinion, but for more replies by Shaviv and Veizer, see this website.

Many of the claims of contrarians like these rest on temperature inferences made using satellite data rather than surface temperature measurements. The contrarians insist that satellite data contains little or no evidence of global warming, and many members of the Bush Administration and their supporters agree, commenting that the lack of evidence for tropospheric warming from satellite data suggests that those who believe global warming is occurring are using scare tactics, as James Schlesinger argues in "Cold Facts on Global Warming"

This is unsurprising, perhaps, given that Schlesinger is currently a director of Peabody Energy, the largest coal company in the world, and was Secretary of Energy during the Carter Administration, Secretary of Defense during the Nixon and Ford Administrations, and director of the CIA. One thing he never was is a climate scientist. 

Both David Hawkins, Climate Center Director of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and John Holdren, Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard, wrote letters to the editor of the LA Times (which published Schlesinger's op-ed), revealing the telling biographical information about Schlesinger and warning that global warming is real and will become an increasing threat over time, which calls for action over delay. 
Holdren continued on by stating that Schlesinger's "...principal assertions about the findings of climate science are wrong." 

He reminds his audience that the satellite data Schlesinger cites is still not well understood, that the claim that temperatures were higher in 1100-1200 AD is not supported in mainstream peer-reviewed science, 
and "scare tactics" are not actually "scare tactics", but scientific findings and well-informed projections on future climatic conditions, which indeed have the potential to be frightening. To my knowledge, neither letter to the editor was ever published -- hardly an example of "fair and balanced" media coverage. …  link
What -&-quat-;-code-&-quat-;- was contained in my post you blocked? only lists of other papers and www links to those places the same as you post here. 

Anonymous12/12, it’s a tricky dick move just the same; 
you’ve offered no reason to trust your word; 
I won’t be your billboard; 
it’s against the rules here; 
we’ve been through this.

Posting links is fine, expecting me to be your billboard not so much.
I see many use the lectures of one man and while Archer has some good lectures and is clearly no idiot, his lectures are based on current climate thinking which is out of date (as I put forwards) 

Oh but you have no problem pretending that William Happer is some lone authority more trustworthy that a community of thousands of scientists (across the globe and generations), who incidentally are always looking over each other’s shoulders searching for errors.

     out of dated science” ?  Seriously?

It's nonsense.  Calling climate science “out of date” is bullshit politics, not science.

David Archer is a professor, an extremely knowledgable professor, who teaches his students the fundamentals of the current state of climate science understanding, which is not out dated because it’s been constantly refined as more and better information becomes available.  

Yes Professor Archer does teach the consensus, which is after all the thoroughly considered expert understanding.  

I suppose next you’re going to suggest that “consensus” should be laughed off or ignored all together because of your opinion?

Oh and for the record, in the grown up world of today, there is
no modern arena where the expert consensus doesn’t hold sway, and for good reason!  

Ignoring consensus only works in comic book reality, which is why I consider Anonymous12/12 comments an examination of Intellectual Juvenile Delinquency at work.  Vandalism and confusion is it’s intention.

     as I put forwards?  

Hmmm, so am I conversing with the geologist Jan Veizer?  I’m honored you’ve taken the time to write.  Now I only wish you would be honest and serious about explaining why you believe your personal perspective trumps a global community of scientists.
CC quoted: “You can start here: The Band Saturation Effect - New Modtran Model 1

My reply. -Will Happer is far more qualified in this area and one of those annoying sceptics too. 
How do you figure that?  Please, what are Happer's qualifications?

Will Happer was never a climatologist, his expertise was in atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.  The fruits of his labors probably went into some of the instruments that helped Air Force atmospheric scientists study our atmosphere’s physics and dynamics, but that certainly doesn’t make Happer any sort of authority on climate science itself!

Besides Happer is as biased as can be.  He is a paid advocate for coal industry.  Hell, William Happer founded the “CO2 Coalition” based in Arlington, Virginia, to promote more coal consumption.  You don’t think that reveals a clear bias that taints every utterance he makes on the topic?  

Whereas real climate scientists are in it to learn about Earth’s climate.

Besides, don’t contrarians constantly tell science respecting people that appeals to authority are pointless!  

Why are you making this appeal to your authority of one talker?  
In the lectures I have looked at from Archer, he doesn’t even acknowledge the overlap between H2O and on Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly PhD. Conman is, as Conman does.
Actually Professor Archer certainly does discuss H2O’s absorption bands, you simply weren’t looking for it.

Chapter 4. Greenhouse Gases

Anonymous12/12 wants us to ignore that it’s increasing CO2 molecules higher in the atmosphere above the moisture holding troposphere where most of Earth’s increasing CO2 insulation is happening.

It is a clearly dishonest omission intent on confusing rather than clarify.


Anonymous at 1:26 PM  (3/3)

Hi I am the poster on the -&-quot-;-blog-&-quot-;- with zero scientific interest in the work of Frolly or the other scientific papers I put forwards. 
One more time.  I’m not going to be a billboard for your propaganda!

Science papers have titles and links, use them.

You lie about me, I am very interested, but I’m not going to be played by you.
If you look at everything I wrote that has not been removed, the insults actually started from a blog at a man not in a position to 1. Know about it or 2. Comment. 
The other papers I put forwards and links where labelled as spam and -&-quat-;-containing-code-&-quat-;-
Still no titles, or simple links.  You’re playing games.

“The other papers I put forwards”

You’ve got me wondering, might you be Jan Veizer?  Process of elimination guess. 
because what I put forwards did not agree with a common belief that CO2 is driving the climate.
The ease with which you dismiss tens of thousands of hours worth of research and observations that go back easily a couple hundred years is revealing.  

Your’s is the behavior of a kid in the school yard making fun of the professor, totally self-certain of your own superiority and oblivious to the silliness of your position.

The Blog was set up (as I suspect this new blog is) to distract, diversify and suffocate true scientific debate and why I am a -&-quot-;-sceptic-&-quot-;- of the AGW narrative. 
Still no titles, or simple links.  You make it pointless for me to post your comments.  Not that I won’t share them and discuss them  ;-)

My blogs are my own individual effort.  I’ve set them up over time as my response to the horrendous level of maliciously dishonest astroturfing happening in the news and social media I was seeing.  As much my own learning vehicle since I’m rather isolated that way - as a teaching effort.

I felt patriotically compelled to try.  I thought I’d find an interested scattering of equally frustrated science loving citizens who’d want to network, perhaps even strategize to help combat the malicious weaponized disinformation campaigns.  

Campaigns driven by a blind obsession to maximize personal profits, while ignoring, obscuring, confusing our understanding of essential global processes.   

Unfortunately, we needed a couple hundred more like me, pushing urgency to the glacial powers that be, of all camps.

Instead, we were stuck with inept leftie groups that come across more like country clubs than serious efforts to confront the lies/misrepresentations and educate the public.  

Under performing Democrats and lefties who never really appreciated the forces working against them, who never took ‘this moment in time’ seriously, failure after unheeded failure, never learning lessons, allowing the alt-reality narrative to dominate our communal complacency.

Too “in the moment” to appreciate the importance of the moment.  Too distracted enjoying the good times to work double hard on developing a grassroots understanding of the issues - and how to defend the reality of the science and our physical living Earth against the contrived destructive con job that the "Prosperity God" Fearing Republicans have been circulating with fire hose efficiency.  

But all that is under the bridge, we’ve given a gang of corporate vandals free reign over our government and the lasting damages will be many and painful.  The runway behind us doesn’t do us any good and all that.

Sure that’s harsh and tinged with brokenhearted bias, but seems pretty clear at this point that we have collectively failed future society.  We’re all guilty.  Some worse than others, still even apathy is also a choice with cascading consequences.
I am not American, I don not live in America. 
So what?  

This fraudulent trash science of your’s has been paid for and used by Americans, you are part of the Republican disinformation machine.  Don’t pretend neutrality.
I have some interest in American politics (and how bad it is) but my interest is science
“Interest in science”, your other words reveal that boast to be a travesty.
Science is founded on honesty representing others, especially their scientific data.  It’s found on serious good-faith debate that’s dedicated to learning more than personal goals.

Science also expects you to be your own biggest skeptic.  But you have been nothing but an advertising man trying to slap up posters.

Otherwise we’d be discussing the science instead of playing this PR game of yours.  

Unidirectional skepticism equals denial.
and moreover how the media only voice one side of it.
Yeah and unfortunately it’s the sensational melodramatic contrarian side that far out screams the rational side.  

Republican climate science by rhetoric and bullying - where everything is confusion dedicated to confusing the physics of what we are doing to our planet.
I do not live in the US I live in Germany. I am not 1000frolly either. 
and you aren’t trying to engage in a serious discussion.
This NEW blog seems to reinforce my position that the climate is being used as a political tool. on Examining an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent, ‘Anonymous, Dec.12, 2019
Rather than actually discussing some climate science, you’ve spent all your energy dismissing me. 

You are the political tool, I am a not so simple citizen who’s been paying attention to climate science and Earth’s biosphere and history since before starting high school in 1969.  

Sure, I have my bias, I’m all about respecting and nurturing our planet’s biosphere and her creatures, including people.  Ever hear of Earth Centrism?

I’m ready for a rational fact based discussion.  

Anonymous12/12 (Jan Veizer?) we could start with why do climate science skeptics believe it’s okay to misrepresent the findings and statements of legitimate honorable climate scientists?

One of the most well-known paradoxes of tolerance was outlined by Austrian philosopher Karl Popper in his 1945 book The Open Society and Its Enemies.
Popper was a non-religious Jew who witnessed the rise of Nazism in the 20s in his hometown of Vienna and fled to England, then in 1937, to Christchurch, New Zealand, where he was appointed lecturer at Canterbury College (now the University of Canterbury). There, he wrote The Open Society, where the famous passage appears in a footnote:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. 
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
This last sentence has “been printed on thousands of bumper stickers and fridge magnets,” writes Will Harvie at Stuff. The quote might become almost as ubiquitous as Voltaire’s line about “defending to the death” the right of free speech (words actually penned by English writer Beatrice Evelyn Hall). 
Popper saw how fascism cynically exploited liberal toleration to gain a foothold and incite persecution, violent attacks, and eventually genocide. As he writes in his autobiography, he had seen how "competing parties of the Right were outbidding each other in their hostility towards the Jews.”
Popper’s formulation has been …


What drives scientists? - Richard Alley's Golden Nugget

Published on Aug 24, 2015

Prof Alley gets passionate about the motivation of scientists.

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.

Any research used to develop this content has been cited on a references page within the subsection for this lecture. 

To register and learn more:


Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2

NAS member Richard Alley presents on 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2, during the Symposium—Earths, Moons, Mars & Stars at the National Academy of Sciences 152nd Annual Meeting

Anonymous at 11:10 AM, January 4, 2020  (1/3)

Anonymous12/12 wrote: 
            “Comments here will be deleted that do not agree with the misleading intentions of the blogger.

Please explain yourself…    
           “misleading intentions of the blogger ? ? ?

If you expect a comment to get posted, you at least need to be honest and able to support your claims, so far all you’ve done is call me names and paint a deliberately misleading slanderous image of who I am.  At least I present evidence when I disparage specific peddlers of dishonest information.

So lets have it, where do you get off stating “my intentions are misleading”?  

Provide the objective evidence that led you to that conclusion?

I’m pretty sure you can’t come up with anything serious, since in reality you are the politicized fraudster in this discussion!

Anyone who objectively looks through my posts, will find that a better understanding of our Earth, along with our place upon this planet, is central to my blogs.  

I may not have the proper manners polite society expects, and I’m certainly an imperfect self-taught science enthusiast and writer who errs, but those’s are very different questions.  Besides, I try to learn from my errors, something Republican seem to totally reject.

When it comes to my essence, what’s driven me, it’s always been about developing an ever deeper understanding our Earth, her story, humanity and my place in it.  

Furthermore, if you look at what I’ve written regarding climate science issues, it’s all about me listening to skeptical arguments and claims, taking them seriously enough to do my own homework and learn about the facts up close.  

Which never seems to turn out good for the “skeptical” arguments.  But, facts is facts!  

Time after time I’ve found I’ve been deliberately deceived by the Republican No Worries crowd.  This is what I write about, not just trying to explain the science in simple terms, but also in sharing copious links to original sources and encouraging folks to do their own good faith homework.  Trying to stress that it requires an informed and engage electorate to save our democracy.

But, you don’t care about who I really am.

You are a salesman and have your product to pitch. 


Then as if to underscore his own disingenuous nature, 

Another pointless -&-quot-;-shut-up-&-quot-;- blog. 

That’s a no no, if you can’t afford me the respect to spell out what you have to say in simple english, than you are the one who is pointless dear Mr. Anonymous12/12.  

Only serious dialogue, on a level playing field, need apply! 

Though that doesn’t mean I won’t be writing about your game.


No comments:

Post a Comment