Confronting GOP Deception - Science, Activism, Networking, Engaging in debate.

I've been trying to do that for a long time, hoping to find some compatriots along the way.  Here's another shot at it.  Starting with a review of key components of our dysfunctional public climate science dialogue, via a selection of past blog posts that serve as a good baseline to what I've learned to date.

After that I intend to continue working the problem and attempting to better express my position, as my circumstances allow.  Should some of this resonate with you, please do something with it.  You could start by leaving a comment.

________________________________________________________

The Situation :

    

The disconnected-from-physical-reality GOP attacks on climate science (a.i.) have reached horrifying levels with the Trump Administration.  Yet science loving rationalists, pluralists, progressives, liberals, Democrats still haven’t developed effective messaging for directly confronting the most childish of Republican arguments.  Why?  Seems to me, mainly because rationalists rather sidestep that Me First driven willful ignorance.  This acquiescence to nonsense has been a fatal error for the national dialogue.

Engaging and arguing with contrarians should not be seen as an exercise in futility, since those are teaching opportunity for explaining the simple logical geophysical reasons behind some of the disingenuous arguments to onlookers from our own side, who probably don’t understand the science very well themselves.  Making teaching opportunities out of false claims.

(Sd2) Need a Real Dialogue About Climate - FCFP, January 2018 - Steele debate #2

I've been finishing up my line by line dissection of Mr. GOP's March Letter to the Four Corners Free Press Editor.  Since he was complaining about how I presented climate science I figured I should include the column he was taking issue with.  It appeared in the January 2018 Four Corners Free Press.

We need a real dialogue about climate.  

by Peter Miesler, January 2018, Four Corners Free Press.

Early in December U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers he intended to organize a “Red team v Blue team” exercise to debate climate change.

Pruitt is being willfully blind to the fact that the scientific aspects of global warming have already been thoroughly debated by experts. It’s expected that Pruitt will orchestrate a lawyerly winner-take-all debate. One that’s based on rhetorical trickery and a ruthless disregard for facts.

It’s a shame, since we Americans needs a constructive educational dialogue. A debate where honestly representing your opponent’s arguments and data is as important as honestly representing your own data. One where objective learning is the goal, and where truth matters.

Speaking of honestly representing the science, on November 9th Dr. Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a lead author for IPCC’s Scientific Assessment in 1995, 2001, 2007, a giant in the field of climate assessment, gave a talk at the Fort Lewis College Climate Symposium explaining what scientists have learned about our planet. It sounded to me like a potential Blue team opening statement.

What is Deep Time? Why does it matter?

The universe is ancient - 50,000 times older than our species. On a cosmic time scale, human history is as brief as the blink of an eye.   www.melodysheep.com

In discussing my upcoming column in the FCFP with a few people, it seems that Deep Time is still a new and challenging concept for many.  

It's something I've been contemplating on for decades, and it seem to me if one wants to defend Reality Thinking, that is defend Earth's geophysical facts against the GOP's God of ME FIRST ad hoc PR reality, an appreciating Deep Time is an indispensable tool.  For one its key to making sense of Evolution, that is Earth's four and half thousand million years of Creation unfolding one day at a time.*  And evolution is the only way we can hope to put today's radical geophysical transitions into a realistic perspective. 

I'll share my most fun interaction, 

"Whoa, Peter! You’re blowing my mind!  

Are you a geologist?  

DEEP TIME!?!?!  

I haven’t read through or watched all the links, but I will definitely have to come back to the one about “Deep Time!”  

I don’t, not believe it, but it does frustrate me because I want to grasp the whole picture!  

How did it all come to be & why?   

Is there a reason & will I ever know it ?????          HA! 

After this, how could I not try a little harder to find worthy YouTube video.  One that better conveys our current understanding in as humanly accessible  a way as possible.  The folks at Melodysheep have taken it one leap beyond what's been produced up to now.  Watched more than once, it gets better.

Published by melodysheep, March 9, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBikbn5XJhg

Climate Models - Pruitt look at Red team deceptions

Republicans never acknowledge that climate models are among the most formidable and exacting challenges scientists undertake.  Then to make matters worse Republicans are consistently misrepresenting not only how climate models are used, but also doing their best to characterize them as failures, when they most certainly are not failures!

For the details on the General Circulation Model success story I’m going to hand it over to Coby Beck with the introduction to his November 20, 2006 Grist article.  After that I list significant models that have been correct.  Which is followed by links to and exerts from various informative articles.

Factcheck: Climate models have not ‘exaggerated’ global warming

Zeke Hausfather  September 21, 2017

Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming

John Abraham, July 27, 2016

Climate models are even more accurate than you thought

Dana Nuccitelli, July 31,2015

The model scientist who fixed the greenhouse effect

Andy Extance - November 23, 2013

Fighting for useful climate models

Andy Extance - November 30, 2013

Why trust climate models?   It’s a matter of simple science

Scott K. Johnson - Sept 5 2013

_____________________________________________________________________

‘Climate models are unproven’  –  Actually, GCM’s have many confirmed successes under their belts

By Coby Beck on Nov 20, 2006

http://grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/

… In 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official “coming out” to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. 

Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

OUTLINE - Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s Red team

An outline for exploring the learning opportunities Pruitt's Red Team Blue Team challenge offers for exposing GOP's intellectual dishonesty.  With time I hope to add posts and links to sources explaining all of the listed items.

"Blue team v Pruitt"

 Pruitt, questioning the unquestionable is fine. 

 Now, will you pay attention to the answers you receive? 

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

Science’s Blue team educates 

Pruitt’s GOP Red team  -  A Rough Outline.

I appreciate this is only an amateur’s exercise, I dare you to do better.  

Heck, I implore you to do better.  Please.

 https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/earths_atmosphere_and_the_setting_sun.jpg

It seems Pruitt’s grand dream of a Red Team Blue Team “Exercise” is little more than a fading memory, a dead horse even.  One that Republicans and Democrats alike just as soon forget about.

I, on the other hand, believe this is one dead horse that deserves some serious beating.  Because this beating promises to produce a few lessons about fairly and squarely confronting the climate science lies that Pruitt and his Republican Red Team fraudsters have bet our house, farm and futures on.

The following is a rough outline for a rational level playing field constructive debate where the Blue Team has a chance to describe the scientific fundamentals, before going on to examine the claims, tactics and reasoning behind the Republican Red team's dogmatic rejection of serious climate science.

I appreciate that my list can certainly be improved on and I’ll admit I’m not equipped to truly flesh it out, though I’ll give it a start as time permits.  Doing this project justice would require some savvy engaged climate science communicators with more time, discipline, depth of understanding, not to mention opportunities.  

I hope this makes sense to a few and that it might serve to inspire some dynamic minds with the ability to do more.  

__________________________________________________________

Fundamental Climate Science Understanding