This is a learning (and sharing) project dedicated to dissecting, examining, and confronting the deception dependent Republican assault on climate science and rational constructive debate ~ I invite good-faith discussion.
A study guide to Jim Steele’s “What’s Natural?”, featured in the Pacifica Tribune.
What’s Natural? (#5) Jim Steele, Pacifica Tribune, February 20, 2019
The Scientific Baloney Detection Kit.
This is the second half of the previous post, please refer to it for an introduction.
Basically Jim Steele is lecturing us on how to interpret Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit. It promises to be an insightful journey into the workings of the libertarian deception.
REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.
My intention is a point by point review of libertarian deception in action.
(please click on image for sharp view)
Before we begin, let me share Sagan's (or was it Dr. Richard Feynman) sage advice for us science spectators: “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Steele writes: “To overcome our biases and strive for a greater scientific truth, our discussions will be well served if guided by Sagan's principles. Below I paraphrase the most pertinent points in Sagan's Scientific Baloney Detection Kit. (I add my comments in parentheses.)”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wait a minute. Check out what’s going on here, reread that first line.
“To overcome our biases” and “striving for a greater scientific truth.” Those are two very different things and must be recognized as such.
Carl Sagan’s book was written to and for us regular people, non-scientists, we who look at the scientific community and their studies from the outside.
Recognize that not everyone can be an Earth scientist. It takes a particular perspective on life and a burning curiosity to understand nature, along with a disciplined character that’s always striving for greater scientific truth.
The point I’m trying to get across is that before we can continue with this discussion - we must openly recognize who’s who.
From a scientist's perspective Dr. Rahmstorf is correct and I completely agree with him. What everyone seems to be overlooking is what a fantastic public education opportunity a Red Team Blue Team showdown could be.
Blue team, not of scientists, but a team of savvy climate science communicators with thorough understanding of GOP contrarian arguments and tactics along with their scientific understanding. Why not set it up to provide the public with a close-up examination of the evidence and arguments on both sides? My thoughts on the opportunity it would provide after Dr. Rahmstorf explains the scientist's perspective.
Demand evidence and facts - when they produce their tainted manipulated evidence and juvenile arguments - call them on it! Bring it back to the basics - "Just the facts Ma'am." Intellectual Confrontation, expose and describe the game they're playing as they play it. Of course, it would require very sharp, well spoken individuals with cojones to go with their smarts. Individuals ready and wanting to dissect and expose the details of how the contrarians' dishonesty and siren song unfolds.
Tear apart their juvenile arguments one after the other, it would be a golden opportunity, the smarter folks at the WH realize it better than we, so it's not happening. What a lost opportunity, I myself believe taking their bluff in this election season could be a shrewd move.
Why not put together our own R-B team - either with actual contrarians, or with videos of their words, since they never seem ready to debate on an even playing field. Put contrarian arguments, and their reason on trial.
It might also offer a great platform to proclaim that, a sane society requires that we honestly represent our opponents' positions - yes, also to listen to corrects - life is a learning process. Mistakes are learning opportunities and should not get frozen into bludgeons.
Repeatedly and willfully ignoring corrections (object facts and data) to one’s own mistakes is a whole other story that needs to be exposed when it happens.
We have a duty to honestly represent known physical facts and evidence.
Repeating factual lies, should be called out, and dogged, dogged, dogged until the errors get acknowledged. Not attacking people, attacking the idiotic lies! That would be so much better and more productive than the silent acquiesce that extends a free pass for malicious lies to flourish.
Seriously, think about what's happening in public media and the news, we've allowed the Alt-right to own and dominate the narrative so completely that in politics lying about the most important of facts and using malicious dirty tricks have become standard operating procedure, enjoyed with a ghoulish joy.
_____________________
Start with a simply factual review of our global heat and moisture distribution engine and the atmospheric insulation that makes our Earth habitable. A quick review of our complex biosphere (of a sense of its folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity) and how all within it is a product of the available energy and the resulting climatic regime.
How changing the mean temperature of the Earth impacts this biosphere and its inhabitants. It can be done in a fairly short period of time. Perhaps touch on uncertainty vs. certainty issues; map vs. territory problem; "How exact does our data need to be to know enough?"; and such.
Then turn the discussion over to the competing arguments, logic and evidence.
Turn the klieg lights on the GOP's dishonest maliciously fraudulent debate tactics.
WHY CONTINUE TO ALLOW the GOP AND the KOCH KLAN TO DICTATE THE NARRATIVE?
2018 is a frightening election season with more at stake than in any time in America's history (suggest a rival if you can) my nightmare is that too many people still don't appreciate what's at stake, or even the game being played - what we don't know, will hurt us.
Stanford | Published on Sep 15, 2008 | Stephen Schneider
July 24, 2008 presentation by Stephen Schneider for the Stanford University Office of Science Outreach's Summer Science Lecture Series.
Professor Schneider discusses the local, regional, and international actions that are already beginning to address global warming and describe other actions that could be taken, if there were political will to substantially reduce the magnitude of the risks.
The Stanford Summer Science Lecture Series is a set of informal lectures about cutting edge research from four of Stanford's most esteemed professors.
