In the
busy thread below, this extended comment appeared. It contains some thinking
which requires extended response, so I’ve done a lift and here it is up front.
The
context is that the correspondent is a regular presence on the internet,
commenting on climate change and global warming. His view and mine are
different.
In the
comment, he tries to explain why he thinks the way he does, to which I offer my
efforts to understand.
Please
note that his first language is not English, and make allowance that some of
the expressions, which might sound abrasive, may be a function of linguistic
difference, not necessarily aggression.
Here
we go:
Let me suggest something: Pull
back and consider that I am convinced you act in good faith and are honest, but
you have been brainwashed.
I too have been brainwashed.
The only difference is that I´m aware of the brainwashing and you seem to be
oblivious (like 99 % of the population).
This
is not a promising start. You set out by claiming your intellectual superiority
to me, in that you have a privileged (and superior) epistemic status, because I
am not aware that the world as I understand it is relative. I might be inclined
to disagree with this.
The brainwashing isn´t the
result of an overarching conspiracy. Some of it is genetic, some of it is
deeply ingrained culture, some is early education, and some of it is impressed
on you by the media, your friends, and your enemies.
Being brainwashed seems to be a
positive survival trait in homo sapiens. Although many brainwashed populations
were defeated and driven to extinction, others which practiced brainwashing as
a higher art form, or got a bit luckier seem to have survived more often thanks
to this brainwashing, which aligned most of society with the leadership, and
moved them to perform as requested.
This
is somewhat helpful. You are trying to describe your hypothesis, that our
perception of reality is conditioned. In particular, you emphasise the social
context of individual development (or call it the means by which I form my
Weltanschauung (‘World-view’).
Thus my position is that a lot
of what we believe is real isn´t really there. As my grandchildren would say,
it´s all bogus.
Though
your expression is a little clumsy, what is coming out seems to be a much
simplified version of the ideas of Paul Feyerabend, for example, in ‘Against
Method’. Feyerabend’s views are well summarised in Wkipedia (here).
So how does this impact the way
I absorb information about global warming? First, I know there are actors
trying to manipulate me to behave in a certain way. Why? Because whenever an
issue arises which involves government decisions, subsidies, taxes, putting a
drilling rig on the public library grounds, and moves like that I have to be
manipulated to accept such decisions.
The
position gets a bit more complicated here. This is because you introduce the
Political realm. What you seem to be saying is that the information which is
available about global warming has the same epistemological status as the
information which we get from politicians or their employees. I think some
people might object to this.
Do you see why you really can´t
change my mind? As far as you are concerned I´m a ghost. I live in a different
universe. You are trying to debate global warming, and I debate the way
"they" manipulate us.
A part
of the complexity is that you seem to have thoroughly mixed your resistance to
political manipulation and your view of the nature of scientific endeavour. To
you, these are manifestations of the same phenomenon – the untrustworthiness of
given knowledge – and therefore they are the same thing. You reject Science as
a whole, wholesale.
And why do you think you
avoided the subject when I tried to use Kosovo and Iraq as talkng points?
Because your comfort zone is in global warming and the associated science. You
want to feel comfortable surrounded by your friends, sitting in a tall stone
tower from which you can fling arrows and stones at the enemy trying to scale
your walls.
Here,
you are making presumptions about me which are not justified. I avoid
discussing Kosovo or Iraq because I do not believe I have sufficient knowledge
or understanding to comment on these subjects; I have no expertise or opinion
which I trust.
And
your characterisation of me in the second sentence is laughable. I have spent considerable
time addressing your point of view and defending your right to express
yourself, even when you have been illogical and inconsistent, yet you accuse me
of attacking you. If you still see me as your enemy I would suggest that the
problem lies not in my attitude but in yours. You have already decided that we
must be enemies, so I cannot have any understanding of you or any human
compassion. This means I cannot win. Your mind is closed to my humanity and
identity; to you, I am just ‘one of them’. So who is acting in bad faith, you,
or me?
On the other hand, I see this
behavior as normal, quite human, and also misguided.
How
very patronising and wise of you.
Almost everybody is the same.
And this is why in the 21st century we see children being slaughtered with
laser guided bombs in Palestine, and we look the other way. We have been
brainwashed to accept this, and we can´t even bring ourselves to discuss it.
And the odds are this post may even be censored, isn´t it?
Since
I have both permitted every statement you have made on this blog, and defended
your right of comment, even when it pushed libellous status, you have no
grounds whatsoever to imply I might censor you, so this is just a personal
insult.
To sum
things up as best I can. You claim to be my intellectual superior. You set out
a view of how the world (of understanding, or knowledge) is constructed. In
this, you explicitly reject Science wholesale; to you, it is just as much in
error as political propaganda. You frequently draw parallels between political
events and scientific knowledge. You then remind me of why I am ignorant and
accuse me first of being your enemy, then of repressing you, in spite of the visible
contradiction of these in this blog.
Where
does this leave me? If, as you say, all science is deception, then we cannot
talk about science – not at all – by your terms there is nothing meaningful to
say about it. But neither can we talk about anything which we might
think of as being a shared human experience. So we cannot have any dialogue.
Besides this, you have demonstrated that you do not respect me as an individual
or as a human being; in particular, to you I am an inferior being. So you deny
me any motivation to continue the effort to engage with you. Finally, you have
established that, whatever I say and however I say it, you have determined that
I am your enemy. I don’t need enemies, I want friends.
In
conclusion, by your terms and rules, since there is nothing ‘true’ to say about
science, every comment you make on science is a piece of hypocrisy.
Furthermore, on your terms, nobody understands how things really are better
than you, so you will never consider the possibility that you might be wrong,
or the possibility that anyone else might have anything valid to say. This,
too, given your views on propaganda, is hypocrisy. You deny the subject, the
means, and the motivation to engage in dialogue. You have determined that discourse
is impossible, so, unless you give me some reason to believe otherwise, I can
do nothing better than remain silent.
For
now, that is all I have to say on the subject.
Very thorough and accurate, but rather sad. It is hard for us all to see all that literacy go to waste, when we need to whole human race to pull together and help each other.
ReplyDeleteThis is only a part of what I could have written. As with so many others, the adopted position is so riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions that it's hard to get to a starting point, never mind an agreement. Which kind of begs the question, sorry...
DeleteInteresting, I wrote a response and it never appeared.
DeleteI changed the moderation settings. No cause for concern.
DeleteFergus, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteA part of the complexity is that you seem to have thoroughly mixed your resistance to political manipulation and your view of the nature of scientific endeavour. To you, these are manifestations of the same phenomenon – the untrustworthiness of given knowledge – and therefore they are the same thing. You reject Science as a whole, wholesale.
Nah. I reject the political use of science. You can't seem to understand that you live in a political environment, because you are conditioned. You live in a Matrix, and you cant perceive beyond the boundaries.
To protect your sanity you start believing I'm some sort of anti science caveman. On the other hand I see you as a victim. This is also the reason why I mention Iraq, Kosovo, religion, Palestine....and you turn your face away. It's better to eat white gruel and taste chicken.
If you limit your criticism to examples of the political use of science, I have no problem with this, in fact I support your argument that politicians abuse science. But you have not done this recently. Your criticism so far has also been very one-sided. I am looking forward to seeing your critique of denialism, or your criticism of Watts or Curry or Spencer's politicking.
DeleteOnce again, you are asserting your intellectual superiority over me by claiming you understand something which I do not. I have attended Westminster this year and Whitehall this month. In what sense am I unaware? I believe it may be that you are inclined to see Politics as the dominant mode of human activity, where others might see economics, or science, or communication as the baseline. This is a matter of difference of perspective. Your comments appear to dismiss the possibility that anyone else can have a different perspective to you, and such people are fools. This is simply another form of filtering.
I can only respond to the evidence presented to me in your comments here and elsewhere. You have overtly stated that science is not valid. I hardly need to point out the inherent contradiction of an engineer making such claims. It seems though, that only some science is not valid - the science which you decide is not.
I find it offensive when you infer that I am ignorant to the suffering and injustice in the world, offensive when you claim I am naive or deluded, offensive when you insist that you are smarter than me. I see no grounds to substantiate your claims nor to believe that any of these assertions are justified.
Perhaps the difference between us is that I make no pretence of understanding matters outside my knowledge or expertise. That I make a sustained argument which is not self-contradicting and illogical. I do not subscribe to your world-view that everything is politics, though I recognise it has its place, as do other world-views.
You can see me as a victim if you choose, but if you continue to patronise and insult me my responses are likely to become more terse and less understanding.
My last suggestion may be read as offensive but it is meant in the best spirit - I would ask that you first look at your own understanding and ask yourself if you are being honest and fair in the way you engage in dialogue.
Fernando
DeleteNah. I reject the political use of science. You can't seem to understand that you live in a political environment, because you are conditioned. You live in a Matrix, and you cant perceive beyond the boundaries.
If the science is robust, then the policy-forward advocates are justified.
Your concerns would only carry weight if the science was not robust. Is this what you argue? If not, then why do you argue?
Well, since I am apparently a naive, narrow-minded, irrational bigot, there wouldn't be much motivation for an omniscient, worldly-wise, superior being to waste time on me - I can hope.
DeleteOne effect of having the dialogue has been to attract some observers. These people may not make their presence felt, but they may have taken some of their own understanding from it.
I try to keep an open mind and assume that people can be rational, but you are right to remind me that leopards have spots.
BBD, if the science is robust the only thing which follows is much more work. This is a topic which seems to escape your community, possibly because of lack of exposure to how things work in real life.
DeleteAn an engineer I was trained to use science and engineering as ingredients which have to be mixed with other knowledge fields to reach an optimized set of options. This process seems to be located in another universal continuum to most people who advocate urgent action.
And the inability to grasp this weakness renders you very ineffective. Furthermore, politicians who have followed that urgent action pied piper are seeing terrible results because they didn't think things through (solar power in Spain is a great example). So as you blunder along following your incompetent leaders with half baked ideas who think all they need to do is induce more panic (a la False Hope article), then you head straight into a political swamp.
I also notice a rather funny insistence that Fergus can't possibly benefit from having a discussion with me.
What's the matter, you are afraid of challenges to established political dogma? The way you extract pledges of allegiance from Fergus in these discussions is quite revealing. You do like the copper tops in their place safely within the matrix.
Fergus, why should I criticize what you call denialism in this or Rabbet's blog? Your buddies use that insult on me, I asked them to stop because I don't like it and they keep at it.
DeleteI can't even find a way for you, as a collective group of friends, to define what the insult is intended to describe.
Regarding "making the pretense to understand areas outside my area of expertise"....I never pretend. I am clearly and unequivocally stating my right to claim to understand a subject sufficiently to judge whether to buy an idea or to discard it.
An example: I don't have to know how to build a car to judge that a 1991 Chevette with smoke coming out the tail pipe is a piece of junk.
You guys seem to have a bee in your collective bonnet when it comes to some subjects. Take the famous hockey stick issue. That sure riles people up.
On the other hand I mentioned issues I felt were interesting, such as whether if big oil really wants to devote recourses to the battle then they would just deliver support for a 1.2 degree TCR. And what did I get? "Fernando you don't know what TCR means, you can't possibly support a 1.2 deg C TCR....blah blah, and then more insulting and condescending behavior gets piled on top.
I'm ding this to do YOU a favor. You sound like decent people who don't seem to understand there's a world beyond the hockey stick controversy. And you keep circling the wagons around the wrong spot. The issue for me always goes back to the way information gets distorted to achieve political aims.
This is Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Palestine, cigarette adds, anti marihuana laws, anti evolution text books and Scientology. Just another method to get us to behave like sheep. And let's be straight, everybody does it.
Well, putting aside other points made here and elsewhere, so far you have denied anyone the right to use scientific evidence as a basis for countering your claims. Except for yourself. You have consistently repeated the same claim, that since everything in life is politicised, it is by default deceiving. You have consistently insisted I don't understand but have not actually listened to anything I have said. Your comments are an object-lesson in a lack of self-awareness and show no willingness to even consider that your views may be questioned.
DeleteIf you deny the arguments without addressing them, if you deny other people's voices without listening to them, if you deny the possibility of an open mind or an intelligence equal to yours, then what am I to name you?
You shout No! with your fingers in your ears. I have tried to look for a place where there is a chance for dialogue but every time I try, you deny me this, too.
A cynic? A pragmatist? You may think so. A child? A fool? others might say. But for me, a person who shouts No! with their fingers in their ears is engaging in denial, so I call that person a denialist. If this offends you, give me an alternative term which describes you properly in your opinion.
My oh my this is getting tedious. Fernando, what Fergus said. You display all the self-awareness of a bucket of sand.
DeleteFergus...lets return to square one. What kind of evidence can you show me to defend False Hope and the way it was written? Are we supposed to debate here whether a person gets confused by the text and the graphics? Hell, you yourself got confused!
DeleteWhat else did I write? That Mann self inflicted a pie in his face? So what scientific evidence can you show me when I'm criticizing his hysterical approach to the problem?
And why criticize me, insult me, and trash me when I bring up the possibility that big oil can easily prepare climate models with a 1.2 degree C TCR? What exactly are you guys? So dipped in your own brand of science that you can't accept 1.2 as a valid answer?
And what if I tell you I don't think energy uptake in the ocean is running at 1 watt per m2, that the value is half? Do I get tied to a stake? Do you want a science discussion? What for? You guys aren't interested in science. Yours is a political game.
why go back to square one? As soon as you describe something as hysterical it shows that your mind is made up. You keep expressing your opinion as if it says something other than your opinion, this is called grandstanding and it goes nowhere. You don't seem to have noticed the evidence that has been presented. Why?
DeleteWhat do you mean by 'prepare models with a 1.2C TCR'? Do you mean one which has this as an assumption, or one which has this as a result?
Back to the previous question; what reason should anyone, including you, have to assume this? The only place this is relevant is in climate science, but you are concerned with politics, not climate science.
Let me give you a hint. If you had said; 'in my opinion the piece 'false hope' overstates the scientific certainty and the risks', then there is something to discuss. But if you then choose to ignore anything which contradicts your existing opinion, and simply repeat it without providing a reason why it might be an overstatement, it is hard to get anywhere.
The problem is as much about the way you write in English as anything. You choose too see yourself as both a hero and a martyr, and insist that anything someone else says is proof of this.
In my opinion, to date, though I wished it might be otherwise, your posts and responses suggest you are of average intelligence, do not understand very much about climate science, and are writing on blogs to satisfy your own political agenda, which is to spread confusion and prevent meaningful action to save the planet, because you believe somehow that this is a threat to your liberty, or way of life, or something.
Most of us feel that the World is going to shit and we need to do something about it pretty fast. A very important part of this is sorting out the political and societal problems which lead to conflict, injustice and repression. The point is that a warming planet makes these problems worse. If you want to see better justice in the world, you should be on my side. Why you have decided to bat for the wing-nuts is beyond me - they are your political enemies, not your friends.
I didn't describe you as hysterical. I wrote Mann has a hysterical approach to solving political problems. By Golly, is this a personality worship issue? Or did I fall in a blog run by Mann graduate students?
DeleteYou know, I really don't pick on the guy, so far I limited myself to writing about False Hope in my blog. And lets face it, do any of you believe the claims in that article?
Let me ask you so we can get specific...what exactly do you guys mean when you say you want to move fast? Nuke China and India so they won't burn so much coal? Or are your actions supposed to be Obama's dopey "shaming nations" if they don't do what Obama says? Are you guys kidding me? What are you proposing?
Have you heard of the Law of non-contradiction? It's a principle of reasoning which is absolutely fundamental. Yet you breach it here and elsewhere with no apparent self-consciousness. If you are unable to say anything consistent or rational at such a basic level, how can anyone talk with you at all?
DeleteThis is why I don't feel able to exchange dialogue - In the absence of the possibility of reason, I really am as well off discussing these matters with a monkey, for all the sense I will hear.
Your final paragraph here is a case in point - it is gibberish. If you want to express you opinion or open a dialogue, you now have to convince me that you are able and willing to be at least basically rational and polite. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh, and I forgot...you asked
Delete"What do you mean by 'prepare models with a 1.2C TCR'? Do you mean one which has this as an assumption, or one which has this as a result?"
I mean a climate model with a 1.2 degrees C transient climate response. This is a result, it's a model output. Don't forget I have been running dynamic models (or supervised professionals who ran them) since 1982. Given the current uncertainty in the ocean energy uptake, the unknown factors about some feedbacks, and the near absence of surface warming in the 21st century, we can see a need to re calibrate those models and run them so they mimic El Niño and the Southern Oscillation. This in turn will yield a model suite with low TCR.
Which means a shop financed by big oil can easily finance a very coherent alternate version of the climate. It's not a version without global warming, but it leads to a much slower climb. I think they are waiting for more ocean temperature data and whether the current flat surface temperature curve holds steady, and then they can drop the hammer. Which tells me the conspiracy theories are mostly baloney. Right now the political opposition to Obama is mostly a knee jerk reaction. And this includes the climate issue.
This in turn will yield a model suite with low TCR.
DeleteTCR is formally defined as the temperature response (surface) to a doubling of CO2. The doubling relative to pre-industrial levels is expected to take place late this century. Estimates of TCR in the literature refer to the temperature response at this point.
The effects of a probably transient variability in OHU now driven by zonal windspeed in the equatorial Pacific may well have no effect at all on TCR/ 560ppm CO2.
Once again, you grossly overstate your case - some would say that you are simply wrong - yet you do so with absolute assurance.
My strong impression is that you are substantially less well-informed than you believe yourself to be. Perhaps more caveats and cautions would be advisable in future comments.
I suppose I should add that the SOI and ENSO are oscillations (the clue is in the names). Oscillations vary around the forced trend and cancel out over multi-decadal time-scales. So no net effect on TCR.
DeleteSomeone as omniscient as FL really ought to know the basics.
Oscillations aren´t necessarily cancelled during a model calibration process. If the oscillation in question isn´t identified, the calibration turns out wrong. I suspect the models are so large the calibration is fairly primitive (they lack the computer horsepower to calibrate as much as they would wish and have to get on with life).
DeleteAs you probably know these oscillations alter the energy flow into the ocean. They also alter the surface temperature, which in turn changes the greenhouse effect. But the model calibration step lacked the quality ocean temperature data to calibrate against (and I wonder if they even bothered to calibrate using the energy content below 700 meters?).
As you wrote: "Someone as omniscient as FL really ought to know the basics"
FL:
Delete"Oscillations aren´t necessarily cancelled during a model calibration process. If the oscillation in question isn´t identified, the calibration turns out wrong."
The oscillations are emergent properties of GCMs, not things that are pre-identified and calibrated against.
Once again, FL displays his total ignorance of that which he insists is wrong.
Fernando
DeleteAre you constitutionally incapable of admitting error?
Dhogaza, bull dinky. If a system I'm trying to simulate with a 3d dynamic model shows oscillations then it behooves me to identify the processes which cause such oscillations. If the model lacks the ability to model the oscillations I have to account for it during the calibration phase.
DeleteI believe the climatologists who build and tune the models realize they should strive for a match which accounts for the "syncopated" behavior. If they didn't focus on this issue (and from what I see they didn't) then they will have to do it. When they do it the resulting match will likely lead to a 1.2 to 1.6 TCR...
Let me ask you, what's the mental model you keep in your head for the energy imbalance at this point? Are you closer to 1 watt per m2? Or is it 0.5 watts per m2? Could it be 0.3 watts per m2 by next year?
Fernando
DeleteOscillations in the real world climate system average out over multi-decadal timescales.
But forced trends don't.
In other words, the longer the decadal time-scale referenced, the more oscillatory behaviour self-cancels. That's why it is unlikely to influence TCR at 560ppm CO2, which is what you are discussing.
Squirrels disguised as models aren't going to resolve this.
FL:
Delete"I believe the climatologists who build and tune the models realize they should strive for a match which accounts for the "syncopated" behavior. "
GCMs aren't "tuned" as you describe, not at all. You can bleat your misunderstanding to your heart's content, exposing all to your ignorance, but it's not going to cause the modeling software to change. It is what it is, not what you want to believe it is.
FL:
ReplyDelete" Take the famous hockey stick issue. That sure riles people up. "
No, it is your lies about the hockey stick issue and Michael Mann that riles people up.
Normal people are always riled up when lied to. The fact that you add a condescending tone of superiority when spewing nonsense doesn't help.
I'm sure that even growing up in Cuba you had access to a mirror. Too bad you never learned to look into it.
Which lies? I don't lie when I write about the way I see things. If I may....your writing would be more socially acceptable if you wrote: "no, it's your ignorant statements and the way you criticize Mann that riles people up". See how a subtle change makes you sound a bit better?
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think I want to sound better? I believe you are a thoroughly hypocritical and dishonest person, as evidenced by your posts here and elsewhere.
DeleteAnd who made you judge of what is socially acceptable, or not? My upbringing in an evangelical family taught me that dishonesty and lying are terrible sins.
Judged by those standards, your posts, in which you accuse a well-respected scientist of fraudulent misconduct (though without using those exact words) without providing evidence beyond your own personal belief that you've been annointed judge and jury, are more than socially unacceptable.
They are mortal sins.
OK, I actually grew up to be an atheist but I still hold to much of the value system I was raised with, including the bit about honesty …
Dhogaza, I wish you to sound better because it leads to a better discussion. I'm an atheist, but I did study the Bible (mostly to understand why Christians are always killing each other in spite of all the piety you like to display). This gives me the idea that you paint me as a liar because it helps to dehumanize me. This in turn makes it much easier to make me the bad guy.
ReplyDeleteThis is why you insist on writing I say the guy is a fraud. Nah, the guy, in his own words, wants to have political influence. As soon as he steps out of computer programs he's a political animal. And his politics are goofy, counterproductive, and won't get positive results.
Let me see.....if a scientist wants to advocate action on a particular problem he's feel to do so. But such political advocacy has a price. It means some of us will smirk and point out he slants his message to achieve political objectives. What is really surprising is to see the reaction you guys and gals have over this point.
So tell me, now that you are an atheist, do you think your ethics come from fear of hell, or because your parents taught you to behave? What sets the limits in your head?
"I wish you to sound better because it leads to a better discussion."
DeleteWhat would lead to a better discussion would be you discussing the science in an objective manner that demonstrates an understanding of that which you deny.
"It means some of us will smirk and point out he slants his message to achieve political objectives."
Since you clearly do not understand the science which you deny, you have no objective basis for smirking or making claims that he slants his message.
Which is why people react so negatively to you.
The basis of the personal values I hold are irrelevant to the issue of climate science. Once again, you're dodging into irrelevancy because you are unable to understand, much less discuss, the science.
Dude, the blog's URL says "who goes with the Fergus". The invitation I got at Rabbet's was quite polite and never mentioned anything about having you badgering the conversation to limit it about the science you prefer to discuss.
ReplyDeleteAs it turns out I'm more interested in the curious way you have evolved a dogmatic culture which includes personality worship, a rather crude communication style, a very intolerant attitude, and an absolute refusal to consider my interests.
And as I have mentioned quite often I'm more focused on seeing how people are manipulated and led to perform like copper tops in the Matrix. I mentioned I felt Mann was more interested in politics than science when he wrote "False Hope" and it was like sticking a ham in a pond full of piranhas.
What you think is the personal basis for your ethics was of interest to me because I get attacked by Christians who claim I must lack ethics since I don't fear burning in hell. See? I'm just curious what you thought. Unlike you I was never a Christian so I lack any leftover beliefs in ever lasting hell, or the scary ideas used to make Christians behave..
And as I have mentioned quite often I'm more focused on seeing how people are manipulated and led to perform like copper tops in the Matrix.
ReplyDeleteMe too.
The invitation was to engage in dialogue, Fernando. This requires certain basic things, such as reason. Perhaps you forget that you sent the science agenda when you chose your subjects- others have responded to these.
ReplyDeleteIf it is dogmatic to ask for reasoning rather than declamation, then yes, I am dogmatic. As for your next comments, I'll leave readers to judge the relative virtues of the contributors.
Your description of your dialogue on Mann seems to lack self awareness, something that has been mentioned several times. Nobody is going to argue about media and manipulation because it is known already, but telling people they are idiots is not a good way to seek understanding or agreement.
The basis of my personal ethics is mostly the writing of Emanuel Levinas, particularly in 'Totality and Infinity' and 'Otherwise than Being. To make it simple, it is more or less the opposite to the ideology of objectivism. Religion doesn't come into it.
Fergus, please find a statement of mine in which I called any of the participants an idiot. I have indicated some of them needed better social skills, but I don´t recall writing anything about them being an idiot.
DeleteWhen I criticized Mann I didn´t "set a science agenda" because my point is subtly different: I think he overstepped by mixing politics into the science by preparing material which could be attacked so easily.
Then I mentioned the confusing text and graph in "False Hope", which you yourself agreed was leading and did confuse you. You are neck deep in politics, buddy.
Now let´s go to an interesting science issue. Above you will see a discussion about the influence on Transient Climate Response by the change in slope of the surface temperature plot (what some prefer to call the absence of surface warming in the 21st century).
The point I made about model tuning was very simple. Models tuned without taking into account the climate oscillations will yield a higher TCR. However, I got a pretty strange set of responses. It is almost as if there was no way to discuss science unless one adheres firmly and dogmatically to what you want to see. And what I see are climate models which do need to be recalibrated. And my guess is that one the recalibration is done they will yield a 1.2 to 1.6 degrees C TCR. So there, you got some science.
"I think he overstepped by mixing politics into the science by preparing material which could be attacked so easily."
DeleteOh come off it, Fernando. The attacks dogs who lead the packs against climate science include K Street professionals. As Cardinal Richelieu is reputed to have said, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." It's feasible Marc Morano's got that quote on a brass plaque hanging on his wall.
The point I made about model tuning was very simple. Models tuned without taking into account the climate oscillations will yield a higher TCR.
DeleteThe reason why this claim is mistaken was explained above. Why are you now repeating it on a different sub-thread? That is classic trolling behaviour.
However, I got a pretty strange set of responses. It is almost as if there was no way to discuss science unless one adheres firmly and dogmatically to what you want to see. And what I see are climate models which do need to be recalibrated.
That may be what you wish to see and you are extremely dogmatic about it to the point that you refuse to acknowledge your errors. You didn't discuss this topic at all. You simply blanked out all correction.
So there, you got some science.
No. We just got some half-baked wrong stuff asserted by a confused contrarian.
If you think your commentary here has the remotest connection to science you are deranged, Fernando.
FL:
Delete"The point I made about model tuning was very simple. Models tuned without taking into account the climate oscillations will yield a higher TCR."
Once again demonstrating total ignorance of how GCMs work …
Repeating your ignorance isn't going to convince anyone of anything other than, well, your ignorance.
FL:
ReplyDelete" never mentioned anything about having you badgering the conversation to limit it about the science you prefer to discuss."
Being speechless, I won't respond.
Now you can breathe deeply and decide if you want to insist on a conversation limited to the topics you prefer, or if you risk discussing a mixture of topics. If I want to discuss 100 % science I would go to Isaac Held´s and have him teach me as he gives me a thumping. This is, as far as I can see, a much more relaxed environment.
DeleteTry my little puzzle. It is relevant to our discussion, I promise.
DeleteActually, a little research into the antecedents of Marc Morano might be informative to those convinced that WUWT, ClimateDepot, ClimateAudit (Steve McIntyre, see Wikipedia entry), et al. are such a large group somehow there must be something honest and/or expert in it.
ReplyDeleteHe started with Rush Limbaugh (and now there's a study), coordinated the Swift Boat campaign against candidate John Kerry, and managed Senator Inhofe's trashing of reality at the EPA website when the Republicans were the Senate majority. (Inhofe will also repay study.)
If you can come away feeling that these three characters, Morano, Limbaugh, and Inhofe, are moral and on the side of truth and our future, you are biased indeed. Otherwise, you might want to look at some of the people you are keeping blog company with, and consider whether they are legitimate.
Also, a little birdie provided this neat summation of the antecedents and behavior of Heartland's Joseph Bast, another advocate for political slant as "skepticism".
"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
http://tfninsider.org/2014/08/29/ouch-texas-judge-slams-right-winger-for-wasting-his-time/
On the other hand I can link you to items like this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/09/05/disruption-film-offers-grassroots-global-revolt-key-answer-climate-crisis
It seems both sides are chock full of extremists. On the other hand, as my mathematical analysis of Verheggen´s data has demonstrated, the best group is the one in the middle.
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/2014/08/cooking-warming-books.html
You persist in creating oppositions and contradictions. A common misunderstanding is that action on climate change requires a dramatic loss for ordinary people. This is nonsense. Another common misunderstanding is that anything which is 'green' must be unrealistic. Look up 'Circular Economy'.
DeleteIf you want to comment on the science of AGW that is your choice, but to be taken seriously you need to have credibility. The best way to get this is to publish something relevant, or maybe even blog something which adds to knowledge.
I understand why you might be cynical about life, the world, and people, but your persistent negativity is wearing and gets us nowhere. You are an engineer - why not do something good, like develop a storage solution for solar power?