dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/2012%20Climate%20Strategy.pdf Nice to get this out in the open air...... For those old enough to remember, this is why us Cold Warriors had no respect for Pravda, Izvestia and the TASS news agency................. Anti-communism had really very little to do with it. Call me a new Cold Warrior aka Warmist..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 I see that Vergent posted another link on funding for this, from Columbia Journalism Review, no less, that got buried. Here it is again, since it deserves our consideration http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/what_drives_public_opinion_abo.php Funny how the "Climategate" idiocy - an obvious attempt at obfuscating reality by smearing scientists - got so much attention here, while this subject is hard to air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://www.desmogblo...%20Strategy.pdf Nice to get this out in the open air...... For those old enough to remember, this is why us Cold Warriors had no respect for Pravda, Izvestia and the TASS news agency................. Anti-communism had really very little to do with it. Call me a new Cold Warrior aka Warmist..... Oh, the games people play......leaked e-mails.....leaked think tank memos. All manipulative politicking. All having nothing to do with science. All to do with getting a message out. The people get the message, not necessarily the science. This 'revelation' will now be countered with the argument that the climate scientists are also funded by a biased viewpoint. The difference is one is funded by ideology, while the other is funded by those concerned with understanding our world and our place in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I see that Vergent posted another link on funding for this, from Columbia Journalism Review, no less, that got buried. Here it is again, since it deserves our consideration http://www.cjr.org/t...opinion_abo.php Funny how the "Climategate" idiocy - an obvious attempt at obfuscating reality by smearing scientists - got so much attention here, while this subject is hard to air. We suck at spreading dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 We suck at spreading dirt. That, and nobody pays us to do it all the time! Damn - where ARE all those billions from George Soros and Warren Buffett anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Sadly, in the contest to convince the rational mind versus the irrational, the irrational wins most of the time. Propagandists can play mind games (psychological warfare) whereas science relies on reason and logic to make a case. Not a fair contest at all. Irrationality (intuition) is an innate attribute. Reason and logic must be learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Sadly, in the contest to convince the rational mind versus the irrational, the irrational wins most of the time. Propagandists can play mind games (psychological warfare) whereas science relies on reason and logic to make a case. Not a fair contest at all. Irrationality (intuition) is an innate attribute. Reason and logic must be learned. Not only that, the parts of the brain that generate emotion (collectively the limbic system) are far more strongly connected to the levers of power (largely prefrontal cortex) than are the fruits of rational argument (which are pathetically dispersed throughout the neocortex). Evolution long ago imprinted on our brains the old lesson that instinctive self preservation/gratification keeps us alive better than a good cosmic POV. Too bad that this time the lesson doesn't apply............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Sadly, in the contest to convince the rational mind versus the irrational, the irrational wins most of the time. Propagandists can play mind games (psychological warfare) whereas science relies on reason and logic to make a case. Not a fair contest at all. Irrationality (intuition) is an innate attribute. Reason and logic must be learned. No Rusty, the sad part is that your litmus test of rationality boils down to someone either agreeing with you or not on one untested hypothesis. Try finding common ground with those that you have disagreements with....it'll open your eyes to a happier, more optimistic life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Not only that, the parts of the brain that generate emotion (collectively the limbic system) are far more strongly connected to the levers of power (largely prefrontal cortex) than are the fruits of rational argument (which are pathetically dispersed throughout the neocortex). Evolution long ago imprinted on our brains the old lesson that instinctive self preservation/gratification keeps us alive better than a good cosmic POV. Too bad that this time the lesson doesn't apply............. So, out on the Serengeti it is far more conducive to survival if one just instinctively "runs for the hills" at first sight of the lion rather than sitting there calculating the best escape route. Maybe the best strategy is recognition and forethought. Recognize a problem and prepare for it, or better yet, stay far from the lion's den if possible. You can make the analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Not only that, the parts of the brain that generate emotion (collectively the limbic system) are far more strongly connected to the levers of power (largely prefrontal cortex) than are the fruits of rational argument (which are pathetically dispersed throughout the neocortex). Evolution long ago imprinted on our brains the old lesson that instinctive self preservation/gratification keeps us alive better than a good cosmic POV. Too bad that this time the lesson doesn't apply............. Actually, self preservation is indeed, still very much at play here, right?? I mean haven't the skeptics/deniers all been characterized as "selfish" or "greedy" or "uncaring" of the 600 million on the coast, or the polar bears?? We only care about ourselves and "preserving" our well being and lifestyle. So maybe it is that instinctive "lesson" that you and your ilk are up against when attempting to convey the significance of potential consequences of AGW, in it's worst case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 So, out on the Serengeti it is far more conducive to survival if one just instinctively "runs for the hills" at first sight of the lion rather than sitting there calculating the best escape route. Maybe the best strategy is recognition and forethought. Recognize a problem and prepare for it, or better yet, stay far from the lion's den if possible. You can make the analogy. My idea was that our hardwiring for emergencies used to work better (in emergencies) back then relative to what our reasoning capacity and education could provide. Pausing to think about plans for neighborhood lion extermination was not associated with survival...... Now, with respect to emergencies such as AGW (or even Osama bin Laden), this is less true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 So, out on the Serengeti it is far more conducive to survival if one just instinctively "runs for the hills" at first sight of the lion rather than sitting there calculating the best escape route. Maybe the best strategy is recognition and forethought. Recognize a problem and prepare for it, or better yet, stay far from the lion's den if possible. You can make the analogy. So are you building a space ship to put your grandchildren on?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUmetstud Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Actually, self preservation is indeed, still very much at play here, right?? I mean haven't the skeptics/deniers all been characterized as "selfish" or "greedy" or "uncaring" of the 600 million on the coast, or the polar bears?? We only care about ourselves and "preserving" our well being and lifestyle. So maybe it is that instinctive "lesson" that you and your ilk are up against when attempting to convey the significance of potential consequences of AGW, in it's worst case scenario. ugh...I seriously hope you're not batting for Turtlehurricane here...the guy who said the Indians knew we shouldn't build on the coast? lol I didn't even argue that we would have to move 600 million..only that if we did..the economic cost would be absolutely enormous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 No Rusty, the sad part is that your litmus test of rationality boils down to someone either agreeing with you or not on one untested hypothesis. Try finding common ground with those that you have disagreements with....it'll open your eyes to a happier, more optimistic life. The science is not open to compromise like a solution to a political issue. I can't meet you half way on the value of climate sensitivity. The evidence for climate sensitivity places it within certain bounds. You can't rationally and arbitrarily move outside those bounds just to satisfy the need for compromise. You don't have a disagreement with me, you have it with the science. If the science changes, then I will change with it. While I care about my personal happiness, (I am ok with myself -- thank you), my appraisal of things scientific depends little on my need to feel good. There are many more ways for things to go wrong in this world than there are ways for things to go right. That's just the way our thermodynamic universe operates. Look up entropy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 ugh...I seriously hope you're not batting for Turtlehurricane here...the guy who said the Indians knew we shouldn't build on the coast? lol I didn't even argue that we would have to move 600 million..only that if we did..the economic cost would be absolutely enormous. He's batting for Exxon and the Koch Brothers - either knowingly or not. The answer to his argument (if it can be characterized as such) is of course that the hardwiring was always useful only in an immediate emergency. Back on the Serengeti (to use Rusty's metaphor), our long term planning (i.e. rational) skills yielded indirect benefits only (language, increased food gathering efficiency, posting guys with good aim and big muscles on Lion Alert, etc). Even our social organization was largely limbic (following a leader or following God was, and is, hardwired territory). Minions of the anti-AGW brigade being funded by oil interests are still following the Big Man, because it makes them feel safer. My point is that when this desire (aided by short term self interest = greed) meets rational thought, there is no contest. There can only be one outcome, even in the brain of someone with a Met tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 ugh...I seriously hope you're not batting for Turtlehurricane here...the guy who said the Indians knew we shouldn't build on the coast? lol I didn't even argue that we would have to move 600 million..only that if we did..the economic cost would be absolutely enormous. The cost would be huge Nick, obviously. BUT, depending upon the timeframe required, the economic condition at the time, and the overall state the global political scene at the time as well as other factors, the impact such a cost would be on any one individual would vary greatly....from insignificant to very significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The science is not open to compromise like a solution to a political issue. I can't meet you half way on the value of climate sensitivity. The evidence for climate sensitivity places it within certain bounds. You can't rationally and arbitrarily move outside those bounds just to satisfy the need for compromise. You don't have a disagreement with me, you have it with the science. If the science changes, then I will change with it. While I care about my personal happiness, (I am ok with myself -- thank you), my appraisal of things scientific depends little on my need to feel good. There are many more ways for things to go wrong in this world than there are ways for things to go right. That's just the way our thermodynamic universe operates. Look up entropy. This is NOT where the compromise is required... it is and has always been about the feedbacks. The sensitivity is not in question as a FORCING....the ultimate manifestation of such a forcing and it's impacts on a system CONSTANTLY in flux, is where the uncertainty is greatest. From the standpoint of determining rationality, that's where compromise might come into play, if you were so inclined. Your second (bolded) point is highly arbitrary and (without reference) is quite a broad statement with little meaning....>> Right for who or what?? Humanity? Individuals? Polar bears? Arctic seals? The personified "planet"? Look up natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 So are you building a space ship to put your grandchildren on?? What is one to make from a post like this? If the future is so terrifying that you think the only way to escape is on a spaceship, I don't know what to advise, except to shut up and get out of the way of others that are trying to work to lessen the impact for everyone. Our side is limited to presenting facts. Do some of these facts change over time? Of course, the I's are getting dotted and the T's are being crossed. Their side is paid to make things up and distribute them in such a way that the average schmo is confused, and gives up trying to make sense of it. Chasing the money trail and outing those on the payroll isn't a bad place to start. Perhaps at some time they'll be looked at with the same respect now reserved for former SS officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 The science is not open to compromise like a solution to a political issue. I can't meet you half way on the value of climate sensitivity. The evidence for climate sensitivity places it within certain bounds. You can't rationally and arbitrarily move outside those bounds just to satisfy the need for compromise. You don't have a disagreement with me, you have it with the science. If the science changes, then I will change with it. While I care about my personal happiness, (I am ok with myself -- thank you), my appraisal of things scientific depends little on my need to feel good. There are many more ways for things to go wrong in this world than there are ways for things to go right. That's just the way our thermodynamic universe operates. Look up entropy. Exactly - if only our fearless leaders could learn this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 What is one to make from a post like this? If the future is so terrifying that you think the only way to escape is on a spaceship, I don't know what to advise, except to shut up and get out of the way of others that are trying to work to lessen the impact for everyone. Our side is limited to presenting facts. Do some of these facts change over time? Of course, the I's are getting dotted and the T's are being crossed. Their side is paid to make things up and distribute them in such a way that the average schmo is confused, and gives up trying to make sense of it. Chasing the money trail and outing those on the payroll isn't a bad place to start. Perhaps at some time they'll be looked at with the same respect now reserved for former SS officers. Ah - I've finally tagged the guy - he's a Newt supporter. We have something in common ......I want Newt as the nominee too! Back to your regularly scheduled programming........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 He's batting for Exxon and the Koch Brothers - either knowingly or not. The answer to his argument (if it can be characterized as such) is of course that the hardwiring was always useful only in an immediate emergency. Back on the Serengeti (to use Rusty's metaphor), our long term planning (i.e. rational) skills yielded indirect benefits only (language, increased food gathering efficiency, posting guys with good aim and big muscles on Lion Alert, etc). Even our social organization was largely limbic (following a leader or following God was, and is, hardwired territory). Minions of the anti-AGW brigade being funded by oil interests are still following the Big Man, because it makes them feel safer. My point is that when this desire (aided by short term self interest = greed) meets rational thought, there is no contest. There can only be one outcome, even in the brain of someone with a Met tag. And if you use petroleum products....so too are you, my friend... I think it drives some of you nuts that educated people can come to different conclusions that oppose your own, thus the constant attempt to tie all of us contrarians to some fabricated evil entity....quite predictable, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 He's batting for Exxon and the Koch Brothers - either knowingly or not. The answer to his argument (if it can be characterized as such) is of course that the hardwiring was always useful only in an immediate emergency. Back on the Serengeti (to use Rusty's metaphor), our long term planning (i.e. rational) skills yielded indirect benefits only (language, increased food gathering efficiency, posting guys with good aim and big muscles on Lion Alert, etc). Even our social organization was largely limbic (following a leader or following God was, and is, hardwired territory). Minions of the anti-AGW brigade being funded by oil interests are still following the Big Man, because it makes them feel safer. My point is that when this desire (aided by short term self interest = greed) meets rational thought, there is no contest. There can only be one outcome, even in the brain of someone with a Met tag. The 'Big Man' represents different entities for different folks. Thus we have consistent polling indicating ~ 75% of political liberals in general agreement with AGW science, while about 40% of those considering themselves conservative do so. Surely, relatively few of them make their determination based on the science. What ever the Big Man says goes because it resonates with something in you gut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 The 'Big Man' represents different entities for different folks. Thus we have consistent polling indicating ~ 75% of political liberals in general agreement with AGW science, while about 40% of those considering themselves conservative do so. Surely, relatively few of them make their determination based on the science. What ever the Big Man says goes because it resonates with something in you gut. Exactly. I am a scientist and happy infidel, who actually uses the scientific edifice to construct my view of the Universe (or Multiverse - I don't know which). I must admit that this makes it much easier for me to see reality here, because as you say, I feel it in my gut.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Just re-read that original link and was struck by the specificity of it all. It looks like the denialist version of miking the mens rooms in the Kremlin. I wonder whether the direct fingering of well known "skeptics" such as Watts, Curry and the suggested recruitment of Revkin will generate incoming flak at legit discussion places like RealClimate, Skeptical Science etc. Should be fun........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/14/heartland-insider-releases-budget-and-strategy-documents/ Turns out that both RC and DeepClimate have this - the above link is to the DeepClimate thread, which has lots of further links. Looks like some subduction-induced magma displacements are in the cards........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate?CMP=twt_gu And the Guardian. Can there be such a thing as an "Anticlimategate"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Appears they've got Watts agreeing that he took at least $90k - which helps validate the rest of the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=87&&n=1294 Skeptical Science has now come out with a summary thread with links to all of the documents as a public service. Looks like this is quite a trove - this is a MAJOR leak. The guys there have already dubbed this incident "Denialgate" Blahhh....they can do better than that. This isn't denial, its effing EVIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Appears they've got Watts agreeing that he took at least $90k - which helps validate the rest of the data. He's probably proud of it......... One thing about people who lack personal integrity: not only do they have no respect for the truth, but they can't recognize real integrity when they see it. This is actually a political weakness when combined with extreme arrogance...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 This is NOT where the compromise is required... it is and has always been about the feedbacks. The sensitivity is not in question as a FORCING....the ultimate manifestation of such a forcing and it's impacts on a system CONSTANTLY in flux, is where the uncertainty is greatest. From the standpoint of determining rationality, that's where compromise might come into play, if you were so inclined. Your second (bolded) point is highly arbitrary and (without reference) is quite a broad statement with little meaning....>> Right for who or what?? Humanity? Individuals? Polar bears? Arctic seals? The personified "planet"? Look up natural selection. WeatherRusty, on 15 February 2012 - 10:46 AM, said: The science is not open to compromise like a solution to a political issue. I can't meet you half way on the value of climate sensitivity. The evidence for climate sensitivity places it within certain bounds. You can't rationally and arbitrarily move outside those bounds just to satisfy the need for compromise. You don't have a disagreement with me, you have it with the science. If the science changes, then I will change with it. While I care about my personal happiness, (I am ok with myself -- thank you), my appraisal of things scientific depends little on my need to feel good. There are many more ways for things to go wrong in this world than there are ways for things to go right. That's just the way our thermodynamic universe operates. Look up entropy. LEK, Climate sensitivity is all about the feedbacks. I can't believe that after all we've been through together you don't understand that much. Climate sensitivity is a measure of how the total system will respond to a given forcing, usually stated as that produced by a doubling of CO2. Climate sensitivity is best estimated to reside within 2C and 4.5C. This includes the Planck temperature response (black body) (1.2C) due to the radiative forcing (3.7W/m^2) of CO2 X 2. That's the equivalent of increasing solar output by 1%. Equilibrium Climate sensitivity to the WARMING thus induced is a measure of the total feedback process including the Planck response. So lets say climate sensitivity is 3C or about 0.75C/watt. In that case of the 3C, 1.2C is directly a consequence of 3.7W/m^2 of additional energy retained by the system. 1.8C would be the net feedback given in response to the initial 1.2C warming. EDIT: And yes the second point about entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics is broadly stated, as it should be. It's one of the fundamental laws of the Universe which applies everywhere and at all times given an open system. Overcoming it is temporary and implies that nothing can grow indefinitely. Growth is always at the expense of something else. There are many more ways for things to break than to come together in an orderly fashion, and that includes human civilization. END EDIT Sorry for derailing the thread but this is critical to proper understanding of the fundamental science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.