Sunday, January 21, 2018

"12) Faith-based Thinking: God or EGO?" - GOP's hate-on for Pluralism

I've reached out to some internet acquaintances, some scientists and communicators, telling them about my new blogging effort ConfrontingScienceContrarians, trying to get a little feedback.  Nothing much by way of response, these are busy people with bigger concerns filling their days, plus they come from a more establishment background.  And me, what am I, a terrified spectator, low on anyone's priority list.  Plus most simply don't understand what I'm trying do, which I shouldn't be surprised at.  In many ways they can't understand me any better than I can understand them.  Still, I try, so along with a couple other posts, I shared my list of 14 Observations regarding communication failures

One response I did receive:
"Your section 12 Faith-Based Thinking makes absolutely no sense to me."
On reread the text it seemed straightforward enough, so I figured the main problem was with my convoluted title and I made it more concise; 

12)  Faith-based Thinking - God or EGO?

Possessing the hubris to fancy that we petty, jealous, fearful, prideful humans can access and understand the real God of Light and Time, Life and Love, leads to a profound disconnect from our planet’s physical reality, and an immoral absolutism.  

It's one thing to believe in an unknowable god, quite another to mistake one’s own hyper-inflated EGO for God. 

Unhinged from reality is not too harsh a descriptive.

I shared my change and added some explanation.

The right-wing and evangelical faithful tell us to our faces that they are in direct communication with God Almighty of Time and Light, Creation and Life.  They tell us they are doing God's duty.  For instance, it's God demanding that Government interfer with a woman's right to self-determination and to self-defense when it comes to having a child, or not - though it matters not one bit to the State what any woman does with herself.  

It's God telling people that Evolution is Satan's plan and that liberals are enemies who are going to hell.  They really and truly believe and broadcast it.  It's God telling them scientists are liars.

That is something Children of the Intellectual Enlightenment really ought to start facing up front - it demands a new sort of language and questions and open rejection of such nonsense.  

Monday, January 15, 2018

"Blue team v Pruitt" update

Here's an update on my Blue Team teaches Pruitt project.

A reminder, this is 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.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Schooling Pruitt's Red Team about our planet and its climate


I wrote the following column mid December for the Four Corners Free Press out of Cortez, Colorado.  Since then it seems that the GOP doesn’t think much of Pruitt’s Red team Blue team idea and his challenge appears dead.  Still as I explained at Confronting Science Contrarians I believe Pruitt’s challenge is worth exploring, if only in outline.  Beginning with an observation and a pointed question:
Pruitt, questioning the unquestionable is fine. 
Now, will you, can you, pay attention to the answers you receive? 

Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s GOP Red team

A rough outline for exploring the learning opportunities Pruitt's Red Team Blue Team challenge offers for exposing GOP's intellectual dishonesty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following column was inspired by a lecture that Kevin Trenberth  gave at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado on November 9th, 2017.  Pruitt's "challenge" happened to jump into the headlines giving this story the hook that had been alluding me for weeks.  Worth noting is that most of what I write here at WUWT and at CSC is intended for readers up to speed on the science and the public dialogue - these columns for the FCFP force me to write for an audience preoccupied with other concerns, which produces a different sort of piece.
==========================

January 2018 - Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado


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 science.

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, November 9th Dr. Kevin Trenberth (the distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a lead author for IPCC’s Scientific Assessment in 1995, 2001, and 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.

Since, today climate scientists and the science itself is under attack like never before it’s critical for more citizens to become aware and engaged. That’s why I want to share what Trenberth explained to us, along with some additional science. Information that makes clear what an internally consistent understanding scientists have achieved.

Trenberth underscored that pretty much all scientists agree. As for the few outliers, they are driven by other causes, such as religious and political inclinations. He explained that: “… as a whole the data are of mixed quality and length. If you were to look at one little piece of it you might be able to be skeptical that climate change is happening, but when you put it all together there's no doubt whatsoever that this is happening.”

Friday, December 29, 2017

CO2 Science (2)-Proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels

Exhibit two for Pruitt's 'Red team Blue team Challenge' is a followup to United States Air Forces intensive atmospheric studies during the 1950s to 1970s, namely a list of many of the subsequent modern marvels that would have been impossible without scientists having achieved an exquisitely accurate understanding of greenhouse gas behaviour throughout our atmospheric column.

This was written to supplement the previous review of USA' atmospheric research and to explain why a layperson should feel very comfortable trusting, heck believing, scientists and their atmospheric studies.  

I must add that this post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort.  You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and grads.  Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy professionals with more important things to do. Still, for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their contributions. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "  CO2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I send a big Thank You! out to my informed anonymous heroes!  

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

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Appreciate that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases throughout the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.  
Don't believe me, look at this outline for yourself: 

Thursday, December 28, 2017

CO2 Science. Pruitt, it's certain as certain gets! It's the physics.


In Pruitt's Red team Blue team confrontation, seems to me, after a review of climate science history, this would be a good direction to take the science presentation.

Considering ridicule is a mainstay of the Republican approach to denying climate science and since CO2 understanding has come under the most unhinged attacks totally based on misrepresenting all that scientists have learned along with paranoia laced arguments from incredulity.  

I believe among the first points the Blue Team should make is that "Atmospheric CO2 Science" is as certain as certain gets !

To accomplish that, explain where our greenhouse gas understanding comes from.  Namely intensive atmospheric studies made by no nonsense Air Force atmospheric scientists.  


Nature doesn't play tricks like people do, through careful study scientists have revealed one natural secret after another.  Why in the world would atmospheric radiative transfer physics be any different?  On top of all that, many nations studied greenhouse gases independently (we are talking about military secrets back then!) and all those experts came up with the same answers.

=======================================
(previously published February 21, 2016 at WUWTW)



In this exercise I've combed through the Air Force Cambridge Research Lab's official history, and pulled out what seem to me highlights of their atmospheric research.  It's all frustratingly vague, no hyperlinks here, still it is the official USAF record and offers some tantalizing hints to early Air Force Atmospheric Studies.  

Keep in mind this research took a century's worth of increasing fundamental understanding and evolved it into a thorough understanding of our atmosphere, its components and their physical properties and behavior within our atmosphere's real environment.  

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Pruitt's Red Team Challenge, bunch of Hot Air

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.  {Brought over from my new Confronting Science Contrarians.blogspot}

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 

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Exploring the Map vs Territory Problem - via the Brown Ocean Effect and Dr. Trenberth

I'm sharing this from the other blog I've started ConfrontingScienceContrarians.blogspot.com, it's part of my continuing struggle to understand the roots of the past decades worth of climate science communicators failure to sway public understanding, along with their failures in confronting alt-right juvenile liars and their childish distractions. 

On November 9th Dr. Trenberth visited our local Fort Lewis College and was the featured speaker at an afternoon climate change symposium.  
A Distinguished Senior Scientist (in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research), he is a cartographer if you will.  His entire being is about getting the science, the models, the map, as close to representing reality as resources and ability allow.  This dedication has made him among the best in his field of climate studies.  

As a self-taught Earth and climate science enthusiast I’ve been familiar with his work for decades and have learned a great deal from his articles and in past years talks on YouTube and I was glad to finally have the chance to see and hear him in person.
Although he gave an interesting talk reviewing many aspects of our warming climate system including hurricanes,