"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[Surendra Darathy]

So, you don't really need me, as long as you don't also need a context.

Context is overrated really... who needs it anyway?

Relativism is self-refuting. At least it is, all by itself.

[Fact-Man]

The problem for the lay observer is that all parties in the debate use techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise which the lay observer cannot understand or check directly...

Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread, it's somewhat tricky to decide whetrher you're being serious here or just joining in the kidding, or whatever it is.

I rather doubt that all parties to the debate use "techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise." While It's true that some climate scientists do this they're not typically part of the debate in any direct sense and certainly it'd be doubtful that any leading denier/hard-core skeptic would be using such techniques, all they do is blather on and moan about "hiding data," which was never hidden in the fitst place.

Lay persons can conveniently download AR4 and UNEP's 2009 Compendium (which updates AR4) from the web and read the summaries of the science for themselves, which are written so that any reasonably well educated lay person can apprehend where things stand and where they're likely to go in future.

I know High School kids who have and are doing this ... after realizing that the media cannot be relied upon to report the science in any cogent or even accurate manner.

Try it, you might like it!

[JimC]

The problem for the lay observer is that all parties in the debate use techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise which the lay observer cannot understand or check directly...

Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread, it's somewhat tricky to decide whetrher you're being serious here or just joining in the kidding, or whatever it is.

I rather doubt that all parties to the debate use "techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise." While It's true that some climate scientists do this they're not typically part of the debate in any direct sense and certainly it'd be doubtful that any leading denier/hard-core skeptic would be using such techniques, all they do is blather on and moan about "hiding data," which was never hidden in the fitst place.

Lay persons can conveniently download AR4 and UNEP's 2009 Compendium (which updates AR4) from the web and read the summaries of the science for themselves, which are written so that any reasonably well educated lay person can apprehend where things stand and where they're likely to go in future.

I know High School kids who have and are doing this ... after realizing that the media cannot be relied upon to report the science in any cogent or even accurate manner.

Try it, you might like it!

I was being serious in this case... As I have already stated, I think that the current concensus that human-induced climate change is occurring is highly likely to be correct, although I sometimes have issues with people's views on the extent of the consequences, and what action we should take...

My point isn't really confined to mathematical modelling, it is simply that the general public may find it difficult to assess the trustworthiness of the conclusions, given that extracting the signal from the noise is a non-trivial statistical exercise...

[piscator]

Ah, but this thread is entitled "Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics." The conflation is a very real part of the doubt, denial and politics of the issue. This is something that always seems counter-intuitive to me. Anybody who has been following the weather for the last few decades surely realizes that something is going on. We've seen pretty large changes in the thirty years or so that I've really been paying attention, especially to the weather during spring and fall. It matches the changes predicted by scientists who started predicting warming in the 1980s and earlier to a large extent. In other words, an examination of the weather show global warming predictions made in the past to be accurate.

So why do the denialists point to the weather and say that it's not warming? I don't get it. I also don't understand why the media doesn't go back into their own archives and dig out the predictions that are now proving true. That would be journalism.

that would entail honest labor, and besides, there's papers and magazines and controversy to sell to a public that is happy to settle for whatever excuse doesn't require them to alter their business models in light of new information
game theory's rational agents work strictly in their own percieved best interests, and perceptions are weighted inversely proportional to the square of time
the only way to change that is, to rapaciously buttfuck the language of metaphysics, change their perceptions of their own best interests in their frame of meaningfulness

the GP isn't usually the biggest investor in 30 year bonds or tree planting; the institutional investors guided by systems analysts are
capital is money spent to make money down the road, and unlesss the capitalists are enlightened, there's not much chance that their minions will do much more about it than buy newspapers telling them what they want to hear

the root of denialism is economic, duh

Gordon Gecko can't be expected to give a fuck about anything but his personal event horizon, and something has to give him the capacity to think beyond it

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, I spent today engaging in horse-play. The only thing more fun than heavy draft horses is heavy draft horses in the mud. I swear I saw a Clydesdale smiling. Also, horses like beer, but they like apples better. There is something dark and twisted in the soul of a horse.

that would entail honest labor,

Nah, as a writer I can pretty much guarantee that Googling past reports isn't really labour, honest or not. It would, in fact, be easier than coming up with the denialist crap they do come up with.

there's papers and magazines and controversy to sell to a public that is happy to settle for whatever excuse doesn't require them to alter their business models in light of new information

Yeah. I think you nailed that. As a non-fiction writer with a bad habit of telling the truth I can tell you that no editor wants to risk pissing off his publisher with the truth. Even a how-to about installing a toilet can get controversial if you include something that pisses off an advertiser. Oh yeah, one little sentence about wax rings and suddenly you're doing re-writes and having your expense claims scrutinized.

Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread

Music and falderol are important though. So are champagne and reefer.

Music and falderol create an overall context for the discussion. Consider the difference between sitting in redneck roadhouse somewhere and sitting at a folk festival. Or compare and contrast Woodstock with Altamont. You can be right and all frowny and serious, or you can pay for the round. The smart money, if you gamble on politics, is always on the guy who pays for the round.

I rather doubt that all parties to the debate use "techniques of mathematical modelling to obtain the signal from the noise." While It's true that some climate scientists do this they're not typically part of the debate in any direct sense and certainly it'd be doubtful that any leading denier/hard-core skeptic would be using such techniques, all they do is blather on and moan about "hiding data," which was never hidden in the fitst place.

The modeling is actually pretty accurate. Where it errs, it errs by being too conservative. That's an artifact of good, careful science.

Lay persons can conveniently download AR4 and UNEP's 2009 Compendium (which updates AR4) from the web and read the summaries of the science for themselves, which are written so that any reasonably well educated lay person can apprehend where things stand and where they're likely to go in future.

Yes they can, and yes they should. I've read both though, and they are pretty damned dull. Christ, they make Bored of the Rings look like an action-packed thriller.

The radical right denialists understand this and they've been successful at countering it. Effective communicators of the reality of climate change are attacked (look at Al Gore and David Suzuki and the bizarre shit they've had to suffer through) and celebrities who stand up and try to communicate the reality are trashed ("ooo Cheryl Crow uses a coal-powered vibrator and that guy from Genesis has an electric guitar!")

The point was merely to comment over this small quote:

No, your point, as always, is that you like your sheep on the edge of a cliff so they push back.

[Fact-Man]

Given all the music and falderol that's going on in the thread

Music and falderol are important though. So are champagne and reefer.

That's a given, dude.

But there's something about a time and a place, too.

For example, I have music playing throughout any web session I may endure, my kinda music, which soothes me and keeps me awake and feeling good while boosting my various equations. So I'm not going to be playing any of your kind of music, even tho some of it is my kinda music.

I got my own stream of music happening. I like it. I'm always addin' to it and taking from it.

More to the point perhaps, the subject and tenor here is at least generally scientific, not cultural. Broken Banjo does not perform at IPCC meetings, let alone the Garibaldi String Quartet. If they occur at all, those things occur after hours or on long sodden weekends of R&R from the trenches.

Time and place translate to decorum, I remember when I was soldiering, not many guys stopped to play the jukebox when engaged in an op, albeit guitars, harmonicas, banjos, and spoons often came out when on R&R several clicks back of the line. But to suggest a musical interlude when on or near the firing line ... is just not a real good idea. Your colleagues will assume the obvious bet, you've gone off the cliff, and they'd probably be right.

A time and place. Decorum, the way of civilized life. We are on the firing line here. If you don't believe that just check out the way Luis is taking pot shots at yourself, sort of smugly suggesting he caught you impersonating Benjamin Franklin with your weather riff. Live fire, dude. You better take cover.

But no mind, you post all the music up here your little heart desires, my quick little Mustang cutting horse will do the juke and slide and we'll go right on past it without so much as a fare thee well, a-whoopin' and a-hollerin'.

Music and falderol create an overall context for the discussion. Consider the difference between sitting in redneck roadhouse somewhere and sitting at a folk festival. Or compare and contrast Woodstock with Altamont. You can be right and all frowny and serious, or you can pay for the round.

I've seen lots of "frowny and serious" guys pay for the round, it's real common among Bikers, Gangstas too.

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

As with many of us I've attended my share of music festivals, often involving their own musical genre or idiom or musical vein, from Jimi Hendrix to Don Williams or Bobby Bare or Frank Zappa or Paul McCartny or [flip a coin and choose: Dixieland, Swing, Jazz, Blues, Zideco, Country, TexMex, Western, Bluegrass, band music, Alberta Country) or the LA Phil, and the truth is I enjoyed them all with a big fat smile on my brightly shining face, happy as a clam.

"Frowny and serious" are so cliche and so hackneyed I am disappointed, I have to say. This isn't 1954. Hunter S. Thompson is dead, so is his gruffer but more deeply brilliant partner in the caper, Charles Bukowski, who preceded Hunter's own demise. It happens to the best of us. Leonard Cohen is probably among the last of this dying breed.

New issues and social conditions give rise to new styles and languages, descendant tongues and chord progressions and melodies and harmonies and rhythms, they carry the banner forward, the cutting edge of the evolution of pop music, prose, and poetry.

I met a girl in this Hostel I put up in one night in Silverton, Colorado, left the Goldwing parked at the curb out front. She was a beauty, a tough mountain lady who had hiked inta town from her wildrness camp where she had a dozen juvenile delinquents from Illinois she was giving a litle mountain boot camp. She was on a supply run.

After dinner as we strolled, she asked, "You wanna check out the concert?"

At the end of the block there was a park and in the park was a big gleaming white circus tent, under which the National Association of American Bands would soon offer a concert of their kinda music, marching band music, John Philip Sousa sorta music.

It was so crowded we had to sit on the lawn outside for the first show, which turned out great 'cause relaxing next to me and mountain girl on the lawn I discovered a woman who had been a teacher of mine in High School, 40 years earlier and a thousand miles distant. She helped me out greatly in convincing little miss mountain honeydew that I was a cool guy, which quite amazed me and pleased me no end. She got me through the door! Mrs. Richardson, the staid English teacher, helping me with my date! "Sean was a real football star in High School, dear," and a fine young man. Go to the bar with him.

Go to the bar with him you say? You mean fuck his brains out? Oh I think you do!

Unfuckingbeliveable!

Then we went in and took a seat. And enjoyed the hell out of 45 minutes of the best band music this side of anywhere. Then, smokin' a J, we ambled to the saloon and had a Courvoisier, after which to the hostel, where we fucked like minks, with great shrieks and howls and head butting ... until we passed out, only to wake at four AM and do it again.

One of the better concerts I've ever had the pleaure of attending.

Short of perhaps the odd one-liner or throwaway. I am serious when in the thread. I consider it to be a serious subject, worthy of my considered attention. I never liked commercial breaks on television, either.

Onward!

[piscator]

"I need a rising sound"

[Luis Dias]

The point was merely to comment over this small quote:

No, your point, as always, is that you like your sheep on the edge of a cliff so they push back.

Ahhh, and appreciate your pushing back. Ohhhhh ahhhhh... push back some more!

[Reverend Blair]

I ain't no sheep, Luis.

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

[Fact-Man]

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.

Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.

My advice is ... hang onto your hat!

[JimC]

One aspect of this whole thing concerns education. I teach an advanced science course for our Year 10 lads (secondary school ends at Year 12 here...). In the second half of the year, I teach a big unit on energy, first covering the basic physics, then moving onto human use of energy and its consequences. They will certainly be doing some project work, and I will be able to provide some good sites for them to visit thanks to macdoc and Fact Man...

Hopefully, teaching the science right will be a good start. I think it is very important to be positive about the practical things we can actually do - I want my lads to be future voters who will have a background in the science.

[piscator]

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.

Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.

My advice is ... hang onto your hat!

heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriate
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?

[Fact-Man]

But why imagine "frowny and serious" in the first place? Despite the fact that it's wrong there's no need of it anyway.

Because the facts and science don't win the argument. The denialists distort them, often with a few quick and easy sound-bites.

It isn't me imagining frowny and serious either. I've been in this thing for a while now, and most of those concerned about the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun. One of the results of that is the general public failing to become truly engaged.

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

But, whatever, it's not up to me to decide the character of the exchanges that go on here and as I noted your music is easily passed over, albeit in your new context of "most of those concerned the subject seem to lack a propensity for fun" I fail to see the relevance because "most of those" won't ever appear on this board or peruse this thread. Besides, I do think that many or most of the scientists who are engaged in this issue probably do enjoy their fun times. The cranks, well, they're too cranky for any of that I expect, so at least you're half right.

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

I don't think we've seen anything yet on this front. It's always hard to quell an attack machine that's driven by $trillions and the fear of its loss or decline. Eventually, they will go down, but it won't be without a fight and probably a very big one at that. They've stepped over the criminal line with their attack on CRU's e:mail servers, which could prove to be just a beginning of criminal conduct, because once the criminal line has been breached, there's usually no going back.

Hence, I think we can expect even more blood to be spilled before this thing ever settles into a more positive vein in which we're actually doing something about curbing emissions and going after the very heart of the problem in constructive ways.

My advice is ... hang onto your hat!

heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriate
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?

Nothing's not to like and in fact my comment included the thought that some of Reverand Blair's kinda music happened to be my kinda of music too. Whatta ya know!

Nevertheless, artistic expression is one thing, linguistic commo quite another. Both can easily be appreciated, but each has its place in the panthenon. Should I post up my global warming screenplay because its fun and funny in the great tradition of show businesses sense of satirical entertainment? I don't think so. It wouldn't be strictly OT, but it would be OT. It would be distracting, despite how funny it is.

But as has already been noted, anyone can post any damn thing they please here, anything they can get past the Mod at any rate, so it isn't worth a sweat either way, assuming we stay on topic.

[Reverend Blair]

It struck me that you were accusing me of being all "frowny and serious" because I don't take too hot to your now incessant posting of music, which is tantamount to interrupting a good television show with commercial breaks.

Nah, I was talking about the environmental/global warming crowd in general, from the top scientists and politicians all the way down to the kid down the road from me. You have been pretty grumpy lately though. Here, try some music.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V46aa5CR ... re=related[/youtube]

However, I'm not sure we can distract them from their crankiness ... because it is mission oriented and they are dead serious about killing the science, with literally $trillions at stake. Frivolity will quite naturally not have much of a place in their war. I mean, look at Inhof, investigating 17 of our leading climatologists with the idea in mind of charging them with crimes, convicting them, and sending them to prison for long durations, That's no laughing matter, especially if you happen to be one of the seventeen he has in his sights, who now have to lawyer up and be prepared to fight a strong defensive battle over what will likely prove to be an extended period.

Well, I'm not too worried about Inhofe actually winning anything in court, although I suspect he'll cost a lot of people a lot of money. I know from long experience that the easiest way to undermine the assholity of Inhofe and his ilk is to point out how ridiculous they are. You don't do that by being as serious as they are, you don't do it by reciting facts, and you don't do it in court. You do it by using the lighter side of culture...you know, music, literature, humour, things like that...to set a tone that they can't match with their attack-dog tactics. And yes, that does include putting up songs in threads about politics and global warming and no, it doesn't mean that every song has to be directly related to the subject. Part of what makes music so effective is that the context it is heard in can influence perceptions about the subject that creates that context.

Put another way, the denialists are scared shitless of the arts. Why do you think they have so vehemently attacked any musician who speaks out publicly about global warming? Why do you think Harper wouldn't let that government scientist go to launch of his own novel? Why do you think they attack fictional films with such vigor? Because they know they can't successfully counter it. You may be fighting a battle of facts, but they are fighting a battle for public opinion. In case you haven't noticed, they've been successful.

heck, that's why i thought the Wagner piece was so metaphorically appropriate
its got it all - Bukowski's rising sound, Wagner's racism, horses, a nice warm mountaintop, a heroic mortal combat with the fate of the world at stake overseen by Masters Of The Universe who occasionally plot on each other for supremacy, and a big horn section - what's not to like?

Well, it lacks death banjo, but I thought it was pretty cool anyway.

One aspect of this whole thing concerns education. I teach an advanced science course for our Year 10 lads (secondary school ends at Year 12 here...). In the second half of the year, I teach a big unit on energy, first covering the basic physics, then moving onto human use of energy and its consequences. They will certainly be doing some project work, and I will be able to provide some good sites for them to visit thanks to macdoc and Fact Man...

Hopefully, teaching the science right will be a good start. I think it is very important to be positive about the practical things we can actually do - I want my lads to be future voters who will have a background in the science.

Well, two things Jim:

1. Please tell me that high school science is more interesting now than when I took it. If it wasn't for beer and marijuana, I would have had to give up altogether...and I liked science.
2. If you want them to be future voters who take science into the voting booth with them, try getting somebody from the social studies (do they still call it that?) side of things in to kind of back up the link between science and what your students (at least some of them) consider real life. I have no doubt that you can make the link, but they expect you to because you're a science teacher. Having somebody from the non-science side of things do it will likely make more of an impression.

Oh, and make it fun. Maybe play some music.

[macdoc]