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.
After reading Hulme's "Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?" he invites us to read: "‘We Always Get the Weather We Deserve’: The Tenacious Grip of Moral Accountability." So I did. It was an even deeper exploration into his Mindscape rather than climate science. Needless to say, this essay also deserves a serious examination.
I'm looking for a job, researcher and writer, dedicated to confronting the deliberate calculated lies of the climate science contrarian community! PO Box 56 Durango, Colorado 81326 citizenschallenge - at - gmail com
Different cosmologies, religious thought, political ideologies, social practices and scientific paradigms of knowledge all contribute to the rich cultural matrix in which theories of climatic change and causation have emerged, flourished and declined.
____________
Sure, but lets be clear, this is about our inner perceptions and not about understanding our climate system.
No one is coming to save us.Only rebellion will prevent an environmental apocalypse
{ George Monbiot writes eloquently about the despair that comes with climate science awareness in the face of today’s political situation along with the need to resist succumbing to hopelessness and inaction. He suggests, IT AIN’T OVER TILL IT’S OVER! Although much destruction is already in the pipeline and heading our way so we’ll see few immediate benefits of our actions. Still, immediate action is required because every failure will only make the down stream destruction even more horrendous. I provide some quotes from his recent article and encourage you to link to the full version to read all of it, much is missing from this summary. }
published in the Guardian April 15th, 2019, posted online April 20th.
Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we’ve spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents.
CLAIM "The science is clear, climate change is making extreme weather events, including tornadoes, worse.”SOURCE:Bernie Sanders, Facebook, 4 March 2019
Overstates scientific confidence: Research clearly shows that certain types of weather extremes are increasing as a result of climate change, but it is not clear how tornadoes are responding to a warming climate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ClimateFeedback misses the point.
It’s not about tornadoes and score keeping, it’s about learning to appreciate how our climate engine operates.
Take back the narrative !
Research clearly shows us that our global heat and moisture distribution engine has accumulated a degree Centigrade worth of extra heat since the advent of the steam engine.
Weather's job is to circulate this heat (and moisture) from the broiling equator to the poles.
This warming also increases the moisture holding capacity of air.
Physics tells us this added energy gets circulated throughout the global weather system.
This extra heat is now available to be released through various destructive forms, not limited to tornadoes, consider destructive macrobursts, microbursts, downbursts, derechos, bomb cyclones, hurricanes and others.
It doesn’t much matter which particular meteorological conditions come together, the point is when they do, they now have increasingly more energy, heat and moisture available, meaning more intense events must to be expected.
It’s elementary. It's physics. It's certain as people can be about anything.
It’s about establishing an appreciation for what’s happening within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Well that and learning to appreciate the fragility of the biosphere upon who's health we all depend on for everything.
Apparently, Jim Steele's What's Natural? column is a weekly affair. This week he cancelled his promised Changing Sea Levels #2 and instead shares pointers from Carl Sagan in his What's Natural? "The Scientific Baloney Detection Kit" Feb. 20th, Pacific Tribune. It promises to offers an interesting journey into the mindscape of double standards and blindspots. I'm limiting this post to his introduction which offered it's own share of talking points. Then I'll be looking into Sagan's specific points in a later posting.
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)
Jim Steele writes: "Politicians from all sides manufacture "crises" and "demons" to promote their agendas superficially designed to fight those crises."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, no arguing that. So far so good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"In his book “The Demon Haunted World," Carl Sagan famously published his Scientific Baloney Detection Kit, a "do and don’t" list to guide honest scientific inquiry."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wait a minute. How did we get from “Politicians” to “Scientific Inquiry” via a book written for laypeople?
Serious scientific inquiry is something that only the learned can do. Of course, one can be self-taught. But expert status in any field demands, learning, acquiring real knowledge, skills and experience.
That is quite different from being a spectator trying to understand what the scientists and experts are talking about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sadly, climate science has been too politicized. But Sagan's advice can help separate the politics from honest science regards claims of a "climate crisis.”"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here again Steele strives to coalesce science with politics and public spin - that is deceptive nonsense.
Sagan’s advice is for us laypeople to develop some critical thinking skills in order to better recognize our thoughts and what to look for as we assess the various claims being tossed at us.
What drives scientists? - Richard Alley's Golden Nugget
"The very foundation of scientific inquiry demands a vigorous skeptical challenge to every hypothesis. Several different hypotheses can explain the same phenomena. Anyone, scientist or layperson, can make assertions and models."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No Jim. Not anyone can make assertions about climate models and other complex aspects of climate science. It may work in that Hollywood world so many seem to be inhabiting, but not in the real physical world that we depend on for our life support systems.
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.
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.
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 vsResponsibilities 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!
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 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.
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.
I've finally found a label I can wholeheartedly embrace and explain and defend. I am an Earth Centrist !
The reason I'm posting this is because it's some thoughts I've been working on for decades and I'm finally getting close and I want to share even if it's far from finished. Curious to see if anyone wants to bounce it around.
I am a fiercely independent guy and feeling more like H. Haller all the time so I don't make great internet intros, but feedback and networking is a requirement of life. It's fine and poetic to be the sound of one hand clapping, but I'm concerned with finding out if any of this resonates with any one of the few who'll read it. Some of you folks know many people within the climate science communication and politics interface, one of them is looking for me. Please help us connect.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated in comments or email.
Thank you. citizenschallenge at gmail com
_______________________________________________________ ( revisited and revised 7/31/2018, 12/30/2020 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've finally found a label I can wholeheartedly embrace and explain and defend.
I am an Earth Centrist !
Meaning that Earth and her physical processes and the pageant of her Evolution are my touchstones. Understanding Evolution, and the biosphere I'm part of, and how we got here, is the foundation of all I know.
Religions, political beliefs, science, art, god they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.
Something real and to be reckoned with, yet in the end, it's only our mindscapes at work. While the real creation, physical reality, keeps on unfolding outside of our minds regardless and we are left to hang on for dear life as time speeds us through our day to days.
In a way that mindscape is a product of Earth's evolution, yet it's certainly distinct and slightly separate from Earth's physical biological processes, something unique, ineffable, yet with the power to manifest personal gods and Earth shattering physical events.
I suggest most people are unaware of the Map v Territory Problem, thus society commits the same ME FIRST self-destructive errors that it has repeated for thousands of years, never learning a god-damned thing.
Just as mega-corporations that have grown big enough to destroy governments, so too our mega-species has become big enough to destroy our life sustaining biosphere.
That evolving creation that has existed since Earth bounced back from the last big comet strike about 65 million years ago.
The one that had achieved a splendid plateau 8-10 thousand years ago, but that now humanity has reset to something the likes of which Earth has not experienced in hundreds of millions of years. It’ll take a few decades and centuries to fully blossom, but it is as down to Earth physically certain as tomorrow's sunrise. Such a tragedy, yet that is where we find ourselves in 2018.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there's the God v Science question.
Knowledge of God is the ultimate in personal intimate relationship, your experience cannot be transferred to, or replicated for, others.
Religions are human constructs for enabling people to reconcile themselves with the seasons and hardships of their lives and to enable human societies to function in a civil organized manner.
A God if there be one is All Things to All People, well beyond all human* understanding as the Holy Books warn us (* read petty, fearful, greedy, self-serving humans) individuals.
If you are fortunate enough to be touched by God, that is your gift alone, something for you in your unique life. It is not a recipe for your neighbors or the world.
Science on the other hand is humanity’s recipe for learning about the physical world and its processes as honestly as possible.
Science is:
Learning is the goal.
Fidelity to physical facts is the gold standard.
Free Speech doesn’t mean it’s okay to lie and slander with malicious intent.
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.
I came across this today and thought it was quite good and that it belongs in this collection. I have added a few thoughts worth considering at the end of this article. I thank SkepticalScience for their CC license and permission to repost this valuable lesson over here.
_________________________________________________________________
Climate myths are often contradictory – it’s not warming, though it’s warming because of the sun, and really it’s all just an ocean cycle – but they all seem to share one thing in common: logical fallacies and reasoning errors.
John Cook, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkead have just published a paper in Environmental Research Letters in which they examined 42 common climate myths and found that every single one demonstrates fallacious reasoning. For example, the authors made a video breaking down the logical flaws in the myth ‘climate changed naturally in the past so current climate change is natural.’
Video abstract for paper “Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors” published in Environmental Research Letters by John Cook, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkead.
