Index for Confronting Science Contrarians, citizenschallenge

Lets close out 2019 with an index of previous posts.  

Happy New Year (what a shame it rings more hollow than in times past.)  

A healthy democracy requires and informed and engaged citizenry.

My Mission Statement:

We The People have a moral ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet's biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire.     

We should not tolerate serious scientists always being drown out by amoral, dishonest and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us.       ( email @ citizenschallenge gmail com )

Confronting Science Contrarians BLOG ARCHIVE:

Pageant of Earth's Evolution (in 24hr) part one

Pageant of Earth's Evolution (in 24hr) part two

• ▼  2019 (83)
• ▼  December (7)
• Diary, 12/25/2019 - Rhetorical Jujutsu, case in point
• Questioning the Geologic Column. Mind over Matter.
• Examining an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent, "Anonymous", Dec 12, 2019
• Bringing it back to Earth Centrism
• Pageant of Earth's Evolution (in 24hr) part two
• Introduction to Cc's Pageant of Evolution project.
• Pageant of Earth's Evolution (in 24hr) part one

d) Considering our dysfunctional public dialogue in 14 verses.

2018 was the climax of a decade long crescendo in my decades long effort to network with rationalists, scientists and science communicators, in what I fancied was our communal struggle to confront the nonsense that corporate funded science contrarians and select politicians were so successfully peddling to an under-informed and mostly disinterested public - and since New Year's Eve is upon us, I feel like collecting some of my favorite posts in another effort to summarize my perspective.  

This is the flip-side of my flier for the Democratic State Convention, it's a list of various important aspects of climate science communication along with key pit-falls and observations, in 14 verses.

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

1)  Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

It is a disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion.

In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again.  

I’m not saying ignore uncertainties!  I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties!  Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.

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

2)  Map vs. Territory Problem

Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will.  They do the best they can with the data they have available.

Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it's okay to ignore.  

That's getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory.  

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

3)  Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

2/7 Neglected aspects of public science debates, in 14 verses.

Quick review of the background of this exercise.

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, they are teaching moments.  Air the false claim, explain why its wrong.  Dissect deceptions, expose them, how else can we break the power these childishly contrived memes continuing holding over political action?

Always remember the onlookers, and appreciate by making the effort to explain some of the science, you’re doing homework that invigorates your own understanding.  

When you’re challenged with things you haven’t learned about, making the effort to do the research, enriches you with a better understanding.  Seems to me it’s a win win.

Talking past each other offers no chance for recognition, growth, change.  

I always imagined the intellectual enlightenment was all about engaging in constructive arguments and reasoning with each other, we seem to have lost that spirit and it has stifled our society miserably.

Debating and defending scientific work to the public is not a scientist’s job.  Scientists have already defended their work to a learned skeptical audience and the record is openly available for continued public debate and education - scientists have more serious research to get back to.  

Where are the informed citizens with a willingness to debate?  Who will help us network?  

The public arena requires people outside of the scientific community.  Informed students, acquaintances, journalists, concerned citizens, to stand up to the tactical and malicious lies of corporate shackled politically motivated contrarians.  Any feedback, encouragement, networking, or support would be much appreciated.   

Thank you.

          1)  Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

          2)  Map vs. Territory Problem

          3)  Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

          4)  “Seepage”

          5) “Global Warming” vs “Climate Change”

          6)  Responsibilities of Scientists vs Responsibilities of Citizens and Students

          7)  Define the Debate, A to Z

          8)  Intellectual Confrontation

          9)  Call out False Claims & Lies

        10)  Better than Skepticism ===> Critical Thinking Skills

        11)  Confront Trash Talk with Rhetorical Jujutsu

        12)  Faith-based Thinking - God or EGO?

        13)  The pain of our brave new world

        14)  WE THE PEOPLE,

have the right to demand honesty when hearing what real experts are trying to convey, 

without constantly being out screamed by contrived, and maliciously deceptive GOP cross-fire!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

(Sd1) Revisiting Jim Steele's LandscapesAndCycles Fraud - first an index of past research - Steele debate #1

This month my Four Corners Free Press submission considers a Letter to the Editor in March which accused me of presenting a one-sided opinion about our manmade global warming reality.  Worse, Jim Steele got held up as some authority who’s opinion must be considered on a par with serious scientists, which he certainly is not.

Ironically, I know all about Jim Steele’s LandscapesandCycles scam and welcome the challenge to resurrect this bit of unfinished business.  That’s why I’m posting this index of my extensive research into Jim Steele’s dubious thesis as supporting evidence for the couple of related posts that will follow in the next couple weeks.

You see, in a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere and humans profligate fossil fuels burning. 

His intellectual underpinning is a self-certain, but never explained, rejection of CO₂ science. He maintains it's a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican-libertarian audiences want to hear so he’s never asked to justify his super-natural assertion.

Steele has parlayed his general environmental studies background to travel around the world learning about various wildlife studies with an eye towards finding errors to exploit, that is, to use as "proof" that global warming is a hoax.  A most bizarre train of logic indeed.  

I've tried debating with him numerous times, but Jim isn't interested in a serious constructive debate where learning is the goal; where opponents' words / evidence are honestly represented; and where objective physical truth and facts carry the day.

_________________________________________

By way of setting the stage:

14 observations on our dysfunctional public dialogue.

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

1)  Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

It is a disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion.

In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again.  

I’m not saying ignore uncertainties!  I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties!  Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.

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

2)  Map vs. Territory Problem

Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will.  They do the best they can with the data they have available.

Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it's okay to ignore.  

That's getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory.  

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

3)  Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

2018, now what? Considering the Problem in 14 VERSES.

(first few paragraphs of introduction, moved to the end my list.)      I want to start the year with this summary of what I've learned from nearly fifty years of paying attention to the unfolding public climate science dialogue, in 14 verses.  I share this list because I believe it may help some sort out their own experiences and evolving understanding about what’s actually being argued by Republican climate science ‘skeptics’ such as Pruitt's supposed Red team.  Well okay, I’m also hoping to connect with a few like minded individuals, who could help improve it.

I reject and confront the GOP’s assumption that deliberate malicious lying is an appropriate political strategy when it comes to something as serious and consequential as understanding Anthropogenic Global Warming.

14 observations on our dysfunctional public dialogue.

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

1)  Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

It is a disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion.

In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again.  

I’m not saying ignore uncertainties!  I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties!  Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.

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

2)  Map vs. Territory Problem

Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will.  They do the best they can with the data they have available.

Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it's okay to ignore.  

That's getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory.  

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

3)  Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

Pruitt's Red Team Challenge goes into hiding.

Updating Pruitt's Red team Blue team challenge, December 15th, E and E News’ Robin Bravenender reported, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum attended a White House meeting with Trump energy aide Mike Catanzaro, deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn and others to discuss the future of the debate and it has been put on hold.

I’m not at all surprised, after all Republicans have way more to lose.  Republicans are the ones performing the flim flam.  I think it’s a wonderful idea, compose a Blue team of savvy, well spoken, sharp-witted science communicators who have a deep understanding of Republican's war on rational constructive science debate and learning, along with the ability to enunciate today’s climate science understanding under fire.

No, not real climate scientists!  Scientists have had their constructive debates (among competent experts who understand the details such as the math, science, unexpected complexities and such.).  Scientists have published their results.  Scientists' work is On The Record!  Scientists are busy using their talents to continue the research.  Leave the politics to the public arena.

Use the Red team Blue team confrontation to force Republicans to show their cards.  Seems to me a wonderful opportunity to publicly expose their fraud.  That's why I'm working on a few posts related to pursuing the challenge, even if only from a distance.

Trump team puts controversial ‘red team’ challenge to climate science ‘on hold’

By Robin Bravender, E&E News  |  Dec. 15, 2017 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/trump-team-puts-controversial-red-team-challenge-climate-science-hold

Rise to the Red Team-Blue Team Challenge, and fight to win.

“Scott Pruitt, the deeply mistrusted head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, confirmed ... his plans to launch a “red team-blue team” exercise on the subject on climate change could reach fruition as early as next month. …”

“Scott Pruitt’s call for a ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ debate on climate change is a farce and a distraction,” said Peter Frumhoff from the UCS after Pruitt’s hearing. “If he has questions about climate science, he should turn to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not hacks from the Heartland Institute. …”

Scott Pruitt Confirms “Red Team–Blue Team” Climate Exercise Could Launch As Early As January  |  December 11th, 2017 by Joshua S Hill  

______________________________________________________________

The internet is abuzz with handwringing over the prospect of Pruitt's "red team - blue team" competition to "establish" the validity of the scientific understanding of human caused global warming, (see the recent SkepticalScience.com article I’ve reposted below.)

Trump Administration is looking forward to making a theater out of climate science and scientists are rightfully upset.  

Yet, it seems to me this exercise provides a wonderful opportunity for some savvy science and history communicators with the right stuff  to stand up and turn the table on these fraudsters.  

Reject their script and use this opportunity to expose the contrarian mishmash of inconsistent nonsense, lies and slander.

Use the moment to expose their dishonest rotten underbelly!

Dysfunctional Climate Science Communication in 14 verses.

November 9th Dr. Trenberth visited our local Fort Lewis College for an afternoon Climate Change Symposium that included four other scientists and a talk on ‘Climate Communication and Engagement” by Heidi Steltzer, along with a panel discussion. 

The event spurred me into another exercise in trying to refine my observations on what’s closing in on a half century of active personal interest and engagement with learning about Earth Sciences and Climate Sciences along with the developing dysfunctional public conversation, in a concise manner.  I hope some of it resonates with some of you and that it's of some use.

Originally posted at my What'sUpWithThatWatts.blogspot

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

Introduction

I began high school in 1969 where I learned the fundamentals of climate science understanding.  It was straightforward, clear cut, internally consistent and very fascinating plus a bit scary.  Much was understood, even if many details were logical rational assumptions, if based on limited observations.  Those assumptions were rooted in an exquisite understanding of Earth’s fundamentals physics, which haven’t changed.

In the half century since, climate science has blossomed. The details have been filled in by an amazing global community of scientists, technicians, students and their array of instrumentation for Earth Observations along with super computers for processing the flood of data.  

These scientists have been reporting back to We The People and our leaders with overwhelming evidence of manmade warming of our biosphere, and our changing climate with its cascading consequences that are catching those experts by surprise with their speed.  Yet, …  

Over the decades much has been learned, countless refinements, a number of unexpected discoveries and surprises.  Through it all the fundamental story remains identical, only the details got slightly rearranged into better focus.

Then, why are we collectively, as a people, and even worse, our leaders, more deluded about climate science and its implications than back in the '70s?  

Some introductory thoughts

This blog will be a remaking of my What'sUpWithThatWatts Blogspot intended to reach a wider audience.  

I'll be first to admit that many climate science communicators I respect don’t think much of my WUWTW or my gritty button-holing style.  I’m not sure what to make of that except that we can see how disastrously their strategy of sidestepping fundamental issues, appeasement and intellectual seepage has worked (or not) for conveying simple physical reality to our fellow citizens and leaders these past decades.

My speciality has been confronting climate science “skeptics” with fact based constructive debates and it usually follows the same trajectory.  I call out false claims, statements and question their reasoning with explanations, arguments and an assortment of relevant links to further authoritative information so people can learn about these issues for themselves.

If they return it’s with a round of bluster and distractions that morph into ad hominem attacks on people, either me, reporters or scientists.  Never any indication that new information was read and assessed, let alone absorbed.  I respond with more facts and reasoned arguments, they respond with final insults and slammed doors not to be heard from again.  Leaving me with Virtual Debates where I strive to document the dishonesty that too many others seem to pardon.

These are the same talking heads who are astro-turfing media outlets demanding public debate, but who steadfastly run from our debates.