By Far the Greatest Issue Facing Our Species

2015. A new year. A new start. A new chance for all the deniers to...

Accept.

Reality.

So, let's take it from the top, people. Let's start again right from the beginning of the evidence chain, and return to the basics to kick off 2015. This video explains plainly and simply why...

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND THE GREATEST THREAT WE FACE.

I dare you to watch this and STILL try to deny the existence and severity of the problem. G'head. I'll wait right here.

Peter Thiel and Glenn Beck Babbling Like Morons

This post is further proof that climate change deniers, especially of the libertarian variety, are seriously unhinged.

If you don't know, Peter "I no longer believe freedom and democracy are compatible" Thiel is a billionaire venture capitalist, PayPal co-founder, and co-author of Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future. Glenn Beck, if you're the one remaining unaware person, is a conservative, on-air personality and the Internet's favorite running joke. Both are living proof that you don't need to be very intelligent to be obscenely wealthy.

Apparently, they recently decided to sit down, have a thoroughly mindless and unnecessary tête-à-tête, and record it. Here are the partial transcript and the video of the insipid exchange. The fun in the form of blithering stupidity begins at about the 2:22 mark. Their shared favorite word seems to be "monolithic," in case you wanted to make a drinking game out of it.

Peter Thiel: "We have all these monolithic debates about science or pseudoscience, like there's the climate change debate, and we're—"

Glenn Beck: "Is that science or pseudoscience?" (My note: It figures he has to ask...a libertarian venture capitalist, the best source on any scientific topic, dontchyaknow.)

Peter Thiel: "I think...ummm...I think very often...I think it's more pseudoscience, but, uh, it's often, uh, it's, again, whenever...whenever you can't have a debate, I often think that's...that's evidence that there's a problem. You know, when people use the word 'science,' it's, uh, it's often a 'tell,' like in poker, that you're bluffing. And, so, it's like, uh, you know, it's like we have 'social science,' we have 'political science.' We don't call it 'physical science,' or 'chemical science,' we just call them 'physics' and 'chemistry,' because we just know they're...they're right. And you can debate the periodic table of elements. No one will be upset if you ask questions about that. Call it 'climate science,' it's a 'tell' like in poker. It's telling you that, uh, that people are, um, are exaggerating and that they're bluffing a little bit."

Glenn Beck: "So..."

Peter Thiel: "But, um, but, uh...but I think...I think that, uh...you know, I think this monolithic, uh, culture is breaking down. People are asking questions. You know, the weather has not been getting warmer for the last 15 years. The hockey stick that Al Gore predicted, uh, in the early 2000's, um, on the...on the climate has not happened for the last decade. I think as this monolithic culture breaks down, you can have more real debates, and, and I think that's, that's...that, that would be a good thing on that."

These two dipshits actually thought it would be a good idea to record and upload this travesty of a pointless and vapid conversation? Oh, brother.

Let's forget Thiel's abysmally embarrassing mistake of thinking the "pause" that wasn't had the same timeline and therefore could be used to refute Mann's hockey stick graph (which stops before, not starts at or after, the year 2000, mind), and wrapping it all up together with a "lemme really confuse matters and blame it on Al Gore" bow on top. Instead, let's address Thiel's poker analogy that attaching the word "science" onto something somehow magically indicates you're bluffing or trying to exaggerate what you know.

Did rocket science somehow bluff its way to reaching the Moon and the other planets in our solar system?

Is Harvard trying to fool us all and inflate what it knows about medicine and health by naming its medical school "The Division of Medical Sciences?"

Is the entire field of neuroscience bluffing about its knowledge of the nervous system and the brain?

And, for fuck's sake, did computer science exaggerate the information and communication technology running on a worldwide network of machines that made your lucrative Web site and personal fortune possible, Thiel?

Jaezuz Cheeeeeroist, what an abject moron.

Using poker analogies to express ignorant, personal opinions about climate change is a clear sign someone's a science-denier idiot, bluffing about his understanding of legitimate climate research, and solipsistic and narcissistic behavior that could only be surpassed by being a Stanford graduate and part-time professor who dangles money in front of people to tempt them away from getting a higher education. Figure that one the fuck out, people. In fact, once you begin researching Thiel, you quickly become aware of a pattern of wanting to benefit as much as he can from a country's educational, economic, and political systems, only to fund efforts to undermine its taxation and regulation (without which those aforementioned personal gains probably could not have happened, mind), and then completely unplug into some bizarre, libertarian, anti-statist, seaborne utopia.

Peter, if you ever actually manage to make those ridiculous platforms work, can you do us all a favor and take Patrick Moore and Stefan Molyneux with you, please? Thank you. Oh yeah, by the way, if we're smart, we'll levy a massive exodus tax before you can sail off into the libertarian blue yonder. Do try not to cry too much about it, mmmmmkay?

A Longwinded Nitpick for Dr. Steven Novella

I love, love, LOVE me some Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (SGU) podcast. Along with a regimen of other science/skeptic/atheist podcasts, it makes it onto my MP3 player every week, and I look forward to it reducing the mind-numbing monotony of errands/chores/shopping/walking to the gym/etc. Yup, you got it, I'm a dork, and, obviously, a big fan of SGU (maybe that's redundant).

So, while doing some yard work a few days ago with ye ole earphones stuck in my head, I cringed jeeeeyust a little bit while listening to this part of last week's show:



Now, I, like Novella, wish to tread very carefully here. He is clearly not a climate change denier, and I am not an anti-GMO crackpot. That being said, GMO food and the science behind its safety have only been around for a few decades. Science which establishes the inarguable role of human emissions in our changing climate, on the other hand, has been around for well over a century. I know Novella was only expressing his opinion, not some precise quantitative measurement that he made in the lab, or something, and I know he probably likes to research/read about GMOs more than global warming, unlike me, but the idea that 30 years or so of findings behind something that hit the grocery shelves only 20 years ago can compare, and even outshine, the veracity of the century-old physics and science underpinning man-made global warming does not sit well with me.

Again, this is not to say that GMOs are in fact dangerous to us; it is only to establish the equally-solid footing, in my opinion, that both areas of study share. And if one could be said to possess a stronger and sturdier set of scientific "legs" under it, it would have to be anthropogenic global warming, because it has stood the test of time for much longer. If I were forced to list the three scientific fields mentioned in the episode excerpt above from greatest to least reliability of evidence, it would be evolution first, man-made climate change second, and GMO safety last, though, once again, I wish to stress they are all pretty much inarguable at this point.

Here's where I extract some quotes from the excerpt and probably really come across as a nitpicking churl...

"I actually think our evidence for the safety of GMO is more robust than our, you know, models about climate change...There are degrees of robustness; I think, like, the notion that evolution happened is far and away the most robust scientific conclusion that's out there."

Honestly, I think Novella just misspoke in the first part of this quote here. I don't think, or at least I hope it's not the case, that he is falling for the classic denier false dichotomy which ignorantly compares the predictive capacity of climate models to the core findings in other fields. This is comparing apples to oranges. If you want to compare robustness between fields, you have to compare the science to the science, not the models to the science, so a fairer comparison would be the contrasting of research which has all but eliminated natural causes being behind the observed modern warming against the evidence for GMO safety. Would Dr. Novella find it fair if I compared the accuracy of models in his own field that attempt to simulate neural networks and the brain to the body of work in another research discipline, and then say the robustness of neuroscience is inferior to those other discoveries because the simulations are far from exact? Another way of stating this, while addressing the second part of the quote, would be to challenge someone to make computer models that predict what animals will look like hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of years from now. G'head. What? Your evolutionary biology is not strong enough to manufacture precise model outcomes? Frogs won't stand upright in 124,997 CE like your models indicate?

"Even the IPCC is saying 95%. Yeah, that's pretty good, but 95% is 95%, whereas evolution is like 99.9999... whatever percent that that's the explanation for the diversity of life."

This one's easy. Technically, the IPCC said 95% or greater. Leaving that last part out fails to accept that its conclusion allows for, but does not guarantee, "99.9999... whatever percent." Also, I think if he researches climate change science as fastidiously as he does GMOs, he will soon come to the realization that IPCC declarations of any kind regarding climate change are conservative to a fault.

From the Real Climate link (bold text to distinguish it from Novella's quotes):

"That the IPCC often needs to correct itself 'upward' is an illustration of the fact that it tends to produce very cautious and conservative statements, due to its consensus structure – the IPCC statements form a kind of lowest common denominator on which many researchers can agree."

When you get away from the IPCC and start looking around the climatology field itself, you find out quite quickly that it is more like a "99.9999... whatever percent" consensus anymore.

However, as Novella rightly points out by specifically referencing this GMO crop study and bringing up the larger body of scientific work which all but absolves them of causing any serious or significant side effects in humans and livestock, we need not fear their consumption. My main issue with GMOs is that their proponents are as determined to exaggerate their benefits for "saving humanity" and the potency of the "greenies-gone-wild" war against them, as opponents like Jeffrey Smith are to play up imaginary health impacts. Sure, that's not the fault of the GMO industry, but I think it provides some necessary perspective.

Reinforcing the idea that GMOs receive way too much credit, I would even go so far as to say that they owe the lion's share of their success to the impressive efficacy of the newest generation of neonicotinoid insecticides that are commonly used in conjunction with them. At the risk of getting my atheist membership card revoked, these newer insecticides were a, well, godsend. We desperately needed something effective at killing pests without poisoning vertebrates, which was one of the unfortunate side effects of organochlorides (DDT), organophosphates, and carbamates. Presto, right about the time GMOs were being perfected/patented, along came neonicotinoids which had little or no toxicity in higher vertebrates, but sure as heck did a number on pesky, parasitic invertebrates.

Oops. Turns out, maybe they do too good a job, and maybe it's fair to make GMO crops share some of the blame, because, again, they owe a great deal of thanks for their success to neonicotinoids, if you ask me, but that discussion, dear blog readers, does not change what was stated above (in a vacuum, and by themselves, it can rightfully be argued GMOs are safe...that is, if neonicotinoids and their dangers are ultimately eliminated, you can bet your booty GMOs will still remain in use), and is maybe for another time...

And thanks, SGU, for all the awesome podcasts! Continue to make like a buh-zillion more, please! I would like to remind all five of my readers that SGU is still being sued for no good reason. If you care at all about free speech and the ability to criticize charlatans without legal repercussions, you can help out here.

/nitpick

Way to Go, Canada

Image source.

Hopefully, you are aware that my post title is intended as sarcasm, and of the growing concern that the Canadian government is muzzling its researchers. Also, that it allegedly short-circuited a press conference two years ago by Canadian scientists who wanted to report the record 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum. Since then, there has been some absurd excuse-making and guesswork over whether or not this was intentional or just plain ole bureaucratic inertia.

If the Harper government did indeed squelch this press conference, it had plenty of political reason to do so, since it would inevitably have been spun into "Harper fiddles while Santa’s workshop sinks due to man-made climate change." This wouldn’t have been true. Nor would it have justified the kind of draconian policies that Mr. Harper has so far avoided.

Well, we now have some fairly damning evidence that the cancellation was purposeful.

Federal scientists who keep a close eye on the Arctic ice would like to routinely brief Canadians about extraordinary events unfolding in the North.

But newly released federal documents show the Harper government has been thwarting their efforts...

The briefing never happened. Nine levels of approval — from the director of the ice service up to the environment minister’s office — were needed for the "communication plan," according to the documents released to Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act.

"Ministerial services" — the sixth layer — cancelled the briefing, the documents say. And the ice service scientists ended up watching as the Canadian media and public got most of their information from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), where scientists were quick to give interviews, hold briefings and issue press releases as the ice shattered records as it melted from Baffin Island to the Beaufort Sea.

Observers say the case is further evidence of the way the Conservative government is silencing scientists.

"It’s suppression through bureaucracy," said Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy (E4D), an Ottawa-based non-profit pushing for open communication of government science.

"Why is it that we need nine levels of approval for this sort of thing, what’s the justification," said biologist Scott Findlay, a co-founder of E4D and member of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa.

He said the government’s "Byzantine message control" is not only wasting time, money and resources, but having a “corrosive” effect on the public service.

Do I even need to mention how unacceptable this is, my Canadian friends? Is it not bad enough that we have idiotic and/or devious deniers misrepresenting the climate science that does get out? Now we have to put up with the science being censored before it can even be disseminated and then willfully mangled by the pseudoscience-loving denier chuckle patch? What is this the geeeeeyawddamn 14th or 15th century all over again?

And let me just make a preemptive strike against complaints that I am unfairly linking all Canadians to the actions of a conservative government. Ummm, you did vote Harper into office, no? Also, it's not like shit like this hasn't happened before. Besides, I am no more lenient with my fellow Americans for electing anti-science/information Bush, and for being a bunch of ignorant fools. So, north and south of the border, if you don't like the criticism, you can all just get over it already, and start bringing your brain with you when you head for the voting booth, and when the pollsters come around as well. We can't put these clowns in office, then try to distance ourselves from their actions, act like we are all so perfectly innocent, and like we played no part. Doesn't work that way.

Scientists and Advocacy, a Sticky Situation?

"It's important for people who know things not to cede the public sphere to people who don't know things."

-Gavin Schmidt

This is a talk given last year by Gavin Schmidt at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting about how scientific expertise and values should inform public awareness. Schmidt, if you don't know, was recently hired to head NASA GISS, a position previously held by James Hansen. He is a climate modeler, and this previous post may be a good introduction to him and his research, if you've never heard of him before.

Schmidt, as the quote above implies, argues in this video that advocacy, which often has the same effect on scientists that a cross does on a vampire, is not only important, but unavoidable. He further claims that it would be foolish for researchers to not advocate for science itself at a minimum, and that even staunch advocacy opponents inevitably end up promoting their own field and/or their own findings, whether or not they are willing to admit what these actions amount to. If they want continued funding, they must advocate to some degree. We're all human; we all have to go to the mat for ourselves at some point. And scientists are no different.

Schmidt does, however, strongly warn against uninformed or dishonest advocacy, declaring that your results represent a consensus in your field, and assuming that people who disagree with your personal policy choices are uninformed idiots who ignore the science. It's a scientist attempting to educate and persuade other scientists. It's like getting a peek inside the lab, or at least the break room down the hall, and it's good, heady stuff. Have a watch.



I want to follow up on Schmidt's point that people can have very different values and reach very different policy conclusions while accepting the same scientific results with an opinion piece from his GISS predecessor. Hansen advocates very strongly for nuclear power in this video. Notice how he admits that his affinity for the power generation technology is not necessarily shared by post-Fukushima governments and environmentalists who believe, like him, that something must be done to curb our emissions. People who believe in the science of human-caused climate change can and will advocate for different solutions. It's all part of healthy public discourse, not something to be avoided like the plague.

Quick Fixes

An initial disclaimer is in order here, I think. Being that the "Discovery" account is most likely anything but an official, sanctioned, online representative of the National Geographic Channel, and I therefore have no idea how long it will be before a DMCA complaint removes this video or the YouTube channel itself, I will provide a more authorized link to the program here, which, with a registered account, may let you watch it in its entirety.

Disclaimer now fully disclaimed, onto my review of the video...

Quite honestly, I was prepared to cringe the whole time I watched it, but I should have known Nat Geo would do a better, less sensational job with the topic than, say, the Discovery or History Channel. The cameo by Ken Caldiera, someone who truly appreciates and understands the science of climate change, was a welcomed surprise, and the cons of each technological fix were at least mentioned in brief, in contrast to what I anticipated going in. Still, the cons needed more elaboration, because their costs and dangers are greater and more extensive than what was depicted, but in an hour-long show with ads how much detail can one expect? If you need an overview of the mad-scientist-style remedies for global warming being cooked up out there, it's worth a watch.

But Why Is There so Much Science Denial?

Climate change denial, though extremely dangerous, is but a symptom of a greater sickness that has long afflicted human civilization and still persists today. Our progress as a society is challenged every day by climate denialists and their close cousins...antivaxxers, creationists, homeopaths, tobacco risk deniers, ufologists, HIV/AIDS deniers, and on and on and on.

These people believe they have been granted the authority to question and defame experts who employ the best method we humans have developed for understanding the world around us (i.e.: science), because they have indeed succeeded in plying their despicable wares. Unfortunately, the sad fact of the matter is our own human failings have enabled this bravado. Unlike their snake oil remedies, scientific truths necessitate our patience because they come to us slowly, over decades or centuries, through a dogged, deliberate process of repeated verification. Individual instances of peer-reviewed research can be a long, difficult path, and scientific consensus, such as that behind climate change, can take even longer to establish. Anti-science, on the other hand, is the quick and easy path leading ultimately to failure and darkness. And people are often so desperate for answers they will risk this darkness, or so deluded they can't see the inevitability of their choice, or even go so far as to deny the outcome. It's really that simple. Science denial is nothing more than a dead-end shortcut offered by the devious that can and will fool people, because who wants to hear, "Well, the solutions are complicated, time-intensive, and laborious," rather than, "Sure, I got exactly what you need right here, so step right up?"

This is the deceitful bait anti-science screwballs set on their hooks to snag people with very little self-control, attention span, and education. They encourage and capitalize on ignorance. They promise immediate, unfailing results for dispelling the "frightening" unknown, whereas scientists, if they are honest, must give long, nuanced explanations, and complicated probabilities, and ask for more research dollars and time to solve the difficult problems we face.

This is the constant vigil those who seek provable, testable results must maintain on a daily basis, and throughout their careers; the constant temptation with which they are ever at odds. The fictional circumstances in the Garden of Eden pale in comparison. Science denial is the real fall from grace.

But is there more to it? Do denialists thrive and achieve influence simply because we are too impatient to wait for published agreement and well-researched answers? Because we are too lazy/busy to read, and too scientifically-illiterate to understand the journal findings on our own? There has to be more to it. Even when the plain, inarguable facts are delivered on a gleaming, silver platter, as with climate science, they are received with suspicion and distrust, and all too often the snake oil is preferred. Where does this lack of trust come from? Why do entire segments of society as well as, at times, all of human civilization backslide into such counterproductive behavior when it is so clearly wrong and self-destructive? It all boils down to the success of one historical example. One bit of persistent science denial (and it's a doozy, folks) has repeatedly proven since antiquity that it is a reliable means of seizing societal control. It is a potent tool that can be wielded by a determined, rapacious few to gain power over many. Unlike the hard slog of science, against which it is often pitted, it is the easy way out, and therefore incredibly seductive and menacing to our prosperity. But let's allow a much more gifted cultural expositor to explain the elephant in the room here...



Religion is the Godfather, if you will, of all pseudoscience. Long before we had logic, reason, and peer review to show us the way, religion attempted to answer the great questions. Who are we? How did we get here? What made all the animals, plants, terrain, and oceans we see? What made the stars? What are the stars? What exists above the clouds besides the Sun, Moon, and stars? And so on. In a way, religion can be forgiven for these early transgressions and displays of arrogance. After all, we had nothing else to guide us. But when philosophy and reason crept into our consciousness, thought processes, and public discourse, it should have bowed out. It did not. Instead, it raged. And it won. And these successes, these grand victories of the ultimate pseudoscience, which were meaningfully curtailed only during and after the Enlightenments, are what inform the charlatans we still deal with to this day. The modern-day diálymancers.

If you are looking for a reason why we have to deal with ignorant climate change deniers, you need search no further than religion. It is still everywhere. It is still influential to a troubling degree. And its sensational, historical triumphs still instruct the mentally and morally bankrupt.

Ridiculously Good

An excellent and informative series of videos from the NRC and the NAS.



And I just love, love, love that they disabled comments, so deniers can't pollute the videos with their idiocy. See, the NRC and the NAS are nice, polite people, so they don't wanna bother addressing and correcting your unscientific stupidity, deniers. They do you the favor right from the start of not giving you a chance to humiliate yourself. I, on the other hand, am not so nice. I welcome the opportunity to hang you from my castle walls as a lesson to other numbskulls. So g'head. Spew your toothless bromides below in my comment section, so I can turn you inside out. Thanks in advance, you idiots.

Shut up and Watch It

Have you seen any Origins Project videos? No?! What the hell have you been watching instead? Dancing with the Stars? The Voice? Fox News?!

Jaezuz Cheeeeeeeeroist, people, shut off the idiot box for a while, and start filling your head with something other than vapid trash. You pay for your Internet connection, so get something worthwhile out of it. YouTube is loaded with interesting, mind-expanding stuff. Far more interesting than what J Lo, or Gwen Stefani, or whoever, has to say about dancing or singing or whatever frivolous nonsense that should entertain you not completely consume your every waking moment, conversation, and last drop of mental energy. You can go back to flatlining in front of reality TV and after you've eaten your intellectual peas.

Really, you should watch all the Origins Project videos on YouTube. They're great, and Krauss is a science-promoting champ. If you haven't seen any yet, you might as well start with one that pertains to the greatest known threat we face as a species.

Part 1: Part 2:

Arctic Sea Ice Extent on Google Earth

Similar things have been done before, certainly, but I added some trend data/graphs at the end of the video for perspective. Oh, and Meniscus for ear candy. :)

Happy to Be at Your Aggravating Service, Deniers

Every second of the IPCC video below pisses you off, doesn't it, you science-challenged screwballs? The slick editing, the artful camera work, the sweeping pans, the epic scenery, the money that went into such an informative production, the classically-inspired electronic score—lilting and ethereal one moment, deep, jarring, and dramatic the next—the international accents, the eloquent narration, the well-researched facts, the academic settings, the scholarly language, and even the professorial attire...it all just irritates the living shit out of ignorant tosspots like you, I'm sure.

And, LOL, they disabled comments, so you can't spew your witless vitriol under such a well-made video. That's gotta hurt the most. Aaaaaaahhhh, poor wittle cwybabies got a big, fat cork stuck in their misinformed blowholes before they could start wailing, and moaning, and carrying on about how wet and icky their diapers are. G'head and let it all out below, you piddling infants. My comment section is here for ya. And so am I. Can't wait to escalate your frustration and blood pressure by humiliating you with peer-reviewed evidence you're too stupid to understand.

I'm like that, ya know?

Never Meta Cherry Pick They Didn't Like

Surely, you are familiar with the intellectually-dishonest practice of "cherry-picking." If you're not, Shirley, then take a moment to brush up here. With nearly equal certitude, I will assume you have seen deniers cherry-pick the bits of climate science they like, while sticking their fingers in their ears over the stuff they don't like. Of course, even the stuff that's cherry-picked often turns out to be flat-out wrong and/or incomplete research, because they're ignorant idiots who fall for just about any unscientific nonsense, but that's not important right now (you can find the appropriate, overused Airplane! clip on YouTube yourself this time, so there).

What I'm gonna bet you have not considered is that climate deniers' fascination with climate science alone is in fact a massive cherry pick. Let's call it a meta cherry pick, to coin a term which should indicate a level of abstraction above cherry-picking data from within one field of science.

Think about it. How many scientific fields have humans developed? Hundreds? Thousands? I honestly don't know the true number, but I know it's too many to become fixated on one. If you've become incurably entranced by and critical of one area of research, the problem most likely lies with you and your own childish preconceptions/misconceptions/biases/etc., not the science.

That brings us to modeling the climate using computers. If you pay attention to the idiots, which you shouldn't other than maybe for laughs, you'd think climate science was the only branch of study which uses computer models. Look at all the articles in that keyword/tag search I just linked for you. And that's only one screwball misinformation site out of many. Climate deniers' sheer fascination with climate modeling is matched only by their level of misunderstanding about how the process works. Oh, and maybe their undying love for Grandpa Al, but we've covered that already, haven't we?

How many other scientific fields use computer modeling? Again, I don't know the number, but by now it's probably the majority. Do you ever see these harebrained deniers going ballistic over computer models used to simulate and predict how galactic collisions work? Or screaming and bellyaching that biologists use them? Where are the cries of denier anguish that computer models used to simulate the brain ARE NOT COMPLETELY INERRANT AND EXACT SO THEREFORE THEY ARE USELESS?

Do you ever see climate deniers commenting about models at such a frenzied pace in online articles for astronomy, biology, medical research, etc.? Why is that, hmmmm? Why do they ignore these other fields? Does anyone have a quote for me from one of the idiotic denier Boss Trolls like Anthony Watts which assaults the use of computer models elsewhere in science?

...cricket...cricket...cricket...

Gosh, shucks, and gee willikers, I just can't figure out why dipshit deniers only despair senselessly over computer models used to predict the climate, while completely ignoring their usage in other fields. Oh so stumped here. How about you?

Notes from Underground

My anonymous sources at the Dept. of Interior have leaked some critical mining industry intelligence. :)

You can often catch the PowerPoint presentation creator contributing over at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog under the user name tokodave. He's a lifelong outdoorsman, backcountry skier and mountaineer, and one of many who try to stem the inexorable tide of ignorant climate denial in the comment section (NOT in Phil's articles), while the powers that be at Slate remain asleep at the switch, letting deniers infest the site and pollute the conversation for whatever silly reason.

Insight inside the Beltway

Kudos to those who voted for this guy. My only quibble is the predictable faith-pandering at about 5:55. The problem with relying on or courting faith-based thinking is it can backfire on you right quick. Faith is, after all, belief without evidence, so, by definition, it's a total roll of the dice on which side of this, or any issue really, religious people will land. If their beliefs were based on evidence, especially that of the scientific variety, it wouldn't be such a crapshoot trying to involve them. But I digress. Watch the video. He makes sense.

Gazing into the Past

Yup, there is over a century of science behind today's consensus among researchers that our emissions have warmed and will continue to warm the Earth to a level that threatens our civilization.

Listening to deniers moan and groan and carry on, you'd think it was a conspiracy the IPCC presto'd into existence a few decades ago.

As proof of the age of the knowledge that our fossil fuel habit endangers us, I present for your consideration Svante Arrhenius.

Now, if you're as strange as my high school chemistry teacher was, your response will be, "Svante Arrhenius? Gesundheit."

Arrhenius was, in arguably equal measure, both a physicist and a chemist, so it should come as no surprise that he was one of the founders of physical chemistry. It can also be argued that he was a mathematician, a geologist, an astronomer, an astrophysicist, a cosmologist, and a genuine ole jack-of-all-scientific-trades. Among his many notable qualifications and achievements, he became the first Swede to receive the Nobel Prize in chemistry, a vocal defender and legitimizer of the theory of panspermia, a likely atheist (a quality near and dear to my heart), and, most importantly (as far as this blog is concerned, anyway), a developer of a theory to explain ice ages, which ultimately led him to be the first scientist to conclude that the burning of fossil fuels and industrial production of CO2 were enough to cause the entire planet to warm. Arrhenius made his CO2/global surface temperature calculations way back in 1896.

It is essential to distinguish Arrhenius' work from the discovery of the greenhouse effect itself, which predated him by many years. It is also worth noting what he got right (water vapor feedbacks, and latitudinal effects), as well as what he got wrong (omission of cloud cover, rate of atmospheric build-up, overstating the beneficial effects, etc.).

Of course deniers, if they even know about Arrhenius and his scientific contributions, will desperately cling to that last part about the benefits, but the most critical takeaway message of his climate change research is that the temperature-increasing effects of pumping CO2 into the air have been known for far longer than the anti-science wingnuts would have you believe.

Denialarrhea of the Mouth

The overwhelming scientific consensus regarding man-made climate change

I'm sure you've seen something similar to this crap from deniers before...

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

G'head and read the blog post. See if even one of these supposedly bountiful examples is given. Woops. Looks like witless Watts "forgot" to provide them. Scare quotes, because it's not a mistake. Know why? There are few recent historical examples available to Watts from the last couple centuries, a time when science had matured enough to propel civilization into modernity. Most examples are very nearly prehistoric in a sense (at least as far as science is concerned, anyway), because they're all from way back when people still wrongfully believed the Earth was flat, or the center of the solar system and/or universe, and so on.

And frontier debate within an area of research does not count, because it rarely alters core findings (i.e.: the consensus opinion within the field). When Einstein established relativity, it did not change the fact that Newton's equations would still get us to other worlds, and, if you jump off a cliff, you go DOWN. Equally, when Wilson and Dawkins go at it, Darwin's basic principles are still right in every important way.

Why would anyone judge today's established scientific truths based on the fact that most Greeks were wrong about stellar parallax over two millenia ago, Watts? Or that countless people in medieval times believed disease was due to miasma, or some divine punishment? Why would anyone care, and how do errors of antiquity incriminate the very system that was designed to eliminate them? Seriously, what is your brainless problem here, Watts?

Take a moment, dear reader, to consider just how far your empty denier head has to be shoved up your impacted posterior to make the statement that consensus is irrelevant in science. It's so ignorant it boggles the mind, and it's truly indicative of how desperate deniers have become.

To believe it, we have to dismiss the scientific consensus behind gravity, evolution, the standard model of particle physics, HIV causing AIDS, and on and on and on.

And Anthony "Boss Troll" Watts is not the only one sharting this nonsense all over the Internet...

"IMO, the main point of all this is that [t]he concept of a ‘consensus’ surrounding climate change is becoming increasingly meaningless."

-Judith Curry

"There is no such thing as a “scientific consensus”, except in a very limited sense."

-Christopher Moncton (no, I'm not including his crappy, aristocratic title)

"The talk show hosts against these 97 to 98% of all these scientists, and the talk show host is winning."

-Rush Limbaugh (sentence-building difficulties all his)

"In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today's scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change."

-Richard McNider and John Christy

Hey, at least McNider and Christy fessed up to one of the only stupid, anachronistic examples available to them, unlike Watts.

The consensus has spread well beyond the one field of climate science. Let's all of us laugh at and make fun of these consensus-denying dinosaurs, while we draft up some meaningful GHG-reducing policies.

Cosmos, The World Set Free, Episode 12 Revisited

Deniers, this is all that is left for you to say on this subject.

GinaBones 184 points 5 days ago
Just finished the episode, and there are a few things I want to say. I am a conservative libertarian(not that it really matters what my political ideology is lol), and I have always kind of doubted that us humans are the cause of the warming. I've always thought that we have just been going through another cycle that the earth has always gone through. And I thought this issue was just so politicized(which to be fair, it is highly politicized) that I just didn't know how to even begin to get a straight answer on this issue.

This one episode has totally changed my mind on this issue. There was no political rhetoric to try to sift through. It was JUST the science, explained in a simple way so anyone can understand. Neal DeGrasse Tyson went through all of the reasons that earth could be heating up, and explained why they could or couldn't be a contributing cause. There was one graph that really shocked me. It was the one showing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it showed how insanely high it sky rocketed in the 20th century.

This is exactly what I needed to be able to see that yes, we are doing this, and we need to fix it. I love this show, and I learn something every time I watch it. I never thought my mind would be changed on such a polarized issue like this.

You may now capitulate totally and completely, or return to the previously scheduled, sad seclusion of your pathetic, poorly-lit, science-denying cave. That is all. Thank you.

Shut up and Watch It

Climate models aren't useful or accurate, my ass.



Perhaps the most important statement from the video:

"If we had observations of the future, we obviously would trust them more than models, but unfortunately observations of the future are not available at this time."

-Knutson and Tuleya

When you hear or read clueless denier trolls demanding smugly that climate models be exact or perfect, ask them one simple question, "What do you offer the world as an alternative for predicting climate, hmmmmmm?"

And sit back and watch the awkward, scrambling, question-dodging troll ballet. At best, they'll just respond with idiotic, unhelpful things like, "Duh, tea leaves are better than climate models," because they're ass-backward crackpots who lack the mental acuity to absorb lessons about modeling accuracy like Schmidt's video above.

Oh, and, deniers, if you're not too childish to understand this issue and have something worthwhile to add, then here's your chance. Do tell, what is the great, wonderful, unerring alternative to climate models you've been keeping secret all these years while senselessly bellyaching about them instead?

And make it good, because we've all had enough of the mindless, infantile tea leaves comments, mmmmkay?

WattsUpWithThat Drive By

Solar Roadways

From time to time, if bored, I will stop in over at wattsupwiththat for a good laugh at the expense of the ridiculous trolls who author and comment at the site. It's a haven for anti-science wingnuts (Anthony Watts being their High King), so when they make fun of stuff based on bad science I find it particularly rich, ironic, and amusing.

On this particular visit, we find the Watts chuckle patch stumbling and bumbling their way through a critique of solar roadways. Now, this is one of those very rare occasions where I happen to agree with Watts and Spencer to a degree, in as much as they are a terrible idea for our roadways. However, Thunderf00t over on YouTube has posted a much more skillful dismantling than Watts and Spencer are capable of whipping up:



Here's where I quickly part ways with the pseudoscience-loving circus over at wattsupwiththat...that a bad idea like solar roadways in any way, shape, or form calls into question the peer-reviewed research behind climate change. Does homeopathy or acupuncture tarnish modern medicine at all? Nope, and notice how Thunderf00t doesn't go there. He's smart enough to focus on the real problems with the idea, rather than make ones up.

Watts, Spencer, and their intellectually-challenged minions can't control their illogical selves, however...

Dr. Roy Spencer and I have been watching this project with amusement combined with incredulity...The best part? The impetus was for this idea was global warming.

Yup, Watts, only an idiot troll like you would find that to be the "best part." Is the best part of Kevin Trudeau's snake oil the fact that it's a fake remedy for real medical conditions? Did I mention you're an idiot troll, you idiot troll?

Dr. Roy Spencer felt the need to shoot off an ironic rocket of a comment...

Roy Spencer says:
June 4, 2014 at 6:18 am
this was one of the most controversial posts I ever had. The popular support for “solar roadways” is amazing, the shallowness of the supporters arguments for it equally amazing.

Hmmm, speaking of amazing shallowness, how about signing your name onto this bullshit?

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

Prominent Signers of An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming...scientists and medical doctors like Dr. Roy W. Spencer...

Oh, brother, the absurdity of moments like these really calls for at least two faces to palm. One just isn't enough.



And then the trolls that comment at this brainless black hole begin trying to outdo one another...

Myron Mesecke says:
June 4, 2014 at 6:34 am
The same lack of common sense, little education and no real interest in science is why both the solar roadway and the global warming scam are so popular.

Ric Werme says:
June 4, 2014 at 6:37 am
This is something I posted on a couple FaceBook groups, including “Scientific Mensa” that has a several member convinced that AGW is going to destroy us all but buy into this scheme without doing the most rudimentary calculations...

grayjohn says:
June 4, 2014 at 6:39 am
Bullshit derived from the fantasy of alternative energy. Awesome.

Do I really need to post more of these? You can go scroll through the comments, if you have an urge for self-torture, but, remember, if you don't laugh at this overflowing clown car turned Web forum, you'll probably end up despairing for your own species. If it turns out wattsupwiththat contributors actually belong to the same species as the rest of us, that is...

The Unending March of Denier Straw Men

(Image courtesy of AP Photo/dapd//Jean-Christophe Bott)

A straw man argument, if you don't know already, which you should, is a made-up opponent position. When your adversary's real point is too difficult to tackle, you simply transform what he or she said into something more easily refuted. For instance, when I say there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, many people twist my words into something like, "He said he can prove God doesn't exist," which I obviously can't conclusively (I also can't conclusively prove Bertrand Russell's teapot, Zeus, Odin, Ba'al, Cthulhu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, et al, don't exist either, but somehow magically my inadequacies here are never brought up so smugly...shocking, I know). That dishonest formulation of my actual statement can be countered much more handily, hence the reason why it's formulated that way. The idea behind the straw man metaphor is that real people are harder to push over than lightweight, straw effigies made of them. Get it?

Now that we've had our little review, we can move on to the point of this post...

The curious case of Hurricane Sandy.

It has been over a year and a half since Hurricane Sandy hit, and, like New Orleans after Katrina, many towns are still struggling to rebuild. Many will continue to do so for years to come, and some will never return to the same communities they once were before Sandy hit. Simply put, the storm was amazingly powerful, and it came at the end of the hurricane season when the northeastern US normally breathes a collective sigh of relief.

If you've read or taken part in online climate change debates, you've undoubtedly seen Sandy enter the discussion. And maybe, like me, you've seen this priceless straw man countless times...

Enamored twits at Fox invoke Al Gore for no reason other than their undying love for him, and then predictably set up the straw man. I mean, if you're in love with someone, the least you could do is try to understand what he or she is actually saying, even if you've been turned down repeatedly for a date.

Monckton couldn't help his confused self...

And, gee, wattsupwiththat gleefully promoted this straw man...imagine that...

Clearly, I could go on forever.

When I point out that not even the most dyed-in-the-wool climate hawks make the claim that climate change caused Sandy (like CO2 molecules intentionally started spinning over warmer Caribbean waters in an effort to whip up a cyclone, or something), and that what they do claim in reality is that climate change undeniably amplified Sandy's strength and damage, I either get the halfwit, idiotic "yes, they do" response (sorry, they don't, and repeating nonsense ain't a very convincing argument), or the standard subject change, "well, there was nothing special about Sandy."

Nothing special about Sandy? Is that so...?

The nation's largest mass transit service shut down all stops for only the 2nd time in the system's history. What was the 1st time? Irene, the year before.

Though Irene "fizzled" (as some put it), Sandy precautions were justified as the NYC subway flooded and pumps were overwhelmed in November.

Largest diameter of any Atlantic cyclone ever recorded.

Lowest barometric reading ever recorded for an Atlantic storm (940 millibars or 27.76 inches), a sign of its troubling strength.

Highest sea level ever recorded at Battery Park in New York (13.88 feet).

Anywhere from 186 to 285 total fatalities. Whatever the actual number, it's too many.

And so on.

So there ya go. "Nothing special about Sandy," according to deniers. Never mind the fact that none of these spineless gits have the guts to say that to the faces of people still rebuilding for a moment, because here is the challenge I've given them many times before without receiving one, single, solitary, satisfactory, sensible answer: if Sandy was such a ho-hum, run-of-the-mill, uninteresting storm, untouched by climate change, then name me one historical North Atlantic cyclone that did what it did when it did it, at the tail-end of hurricane season in November.

Just one. ONE. That's all you gotta give me, ya senseless screwballs.

G'head, lemme have it. I'll be waiting right here for your answer. But I won't be holding my breath.