Calling out the Koch Brothers

Just got this media release:

Washington, DC – Today, Monday, from 4:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m., tomorrow, Tuesday, from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., and throughout the week,* 19 Senators will take to the Senate floor to call out Koch brothers- and fossil fuel industry-funded groups that have fashioned a web of denial to block action on climate change.

Despite polling that shows over 80 percent of Americans favor action to reduce carbon pollution, Congress has failed to pass comprehensive climate legislation. The Senators will each deliver remarks detailing how interconnected groups – funded by the Koch brothers, major fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, identity-scrubbing groups like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, and their allies – developed and executed a massive campaign to deceive the public about climate change to halt climate action and protect their bottom lines.

As part of their effort to draw attention to the web of denial, Senators Whitehouse, Markey, Schatz, Boxer, Merkley, Warren, Sanders, and Franken are introducing a resolution describing and condemning the efforts of corporations and groups to mislead the public about the harmful effects of tobacco, lead, and climate. The resolution also urges fossil fuel corporations and their allies to cooperate with investigations into their climate-related activities. Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) is introducing the resolution in the House this week.

Use #WebOfDenial and #TimetoCallOut to follow the speeches on Twitter.

EVENT: Senators to call out Koch brothers- and fossil fuel-backed web of denial blocking climate action

WHO:

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)
Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Senator Al Franken (D-MN)
Senator Chris Coons (D-DE)
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Senator Edward Markey (D-MA)
Senator Gary Peters (D-MI)

WHEN:

Monday, from 4:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
Tuesday, from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

*Several Senators will also deliver their remarks during the day on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Follow #WebOfDenial and #TimetoCallOut for specific times.

More like this

Washington, DC - During a press conference today, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), announced the members of a newly formed Senate Climate Action Task Force and discussed their plans to take action on climate…
The Specter-Harkin Amendment passed the Senate, but this does not guarantee an increase to the NIH budged. The House must still vote on it and it must be reflected in House and Senate Appropriations Committees' allocation for the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations Committee. (Don't…
Media Matters has an amazing and rather depressing report out on the way broadcast media in the US covered climate change. I'm going to give you a handful of bullet points that reflect only some of the results of this detailed study, then you go read it. Bottom line: Coverage in 2016 was a…
This is an endorsement by Climate Hawks Vote, which I support. Climate Hawks Vote announces endorsements of two Michigan Democrats: Paul Clements for Congress in Michigan’s Sixth District, and Gary Peters for Senate, because the Koch brothers and Big Oil need to stop using Michigan’s shores as a…

Sounds like conspiracy ideation to me.

Maybe Stephen Lewandowsky will study this and write a paper about it.

In addition, I bet all 19 of these senators still purchase gasoline or use fossil fuel products. So even armed with the knowledge they claim is being denied the public, they still need and purchase fossil fuels.

That is because they are still necessary.

Why no Republican Party members?

By Desertphile (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

It is a sign on the wall that 19 senators have to fight so hard against the super rich of the world, who have been misleading the general public for such a long tike now about the desastrous accellerating forces their CO2 industries have on climate change, read earth change. The lobby of the pro CO2 lobbyists is responsible for the decennia long pursponement of due action against CO2 producing industry a.o.. Since the publication of the report of The Club of Rome in 1972, containing well motivated warnings of scientists against the production of CO2, the CO2 lobby has been succesful in the process of Grand Denial. Now we must establish that it is too late or nearly too late. We have a saying in Dutch: Als het kalf verdronken is dempt men de put. Meaning: When the calf has been drowned, one starts emptying the pit to save the calf. (:-) Anyway it is time now to try to rescue what still can be saved. Billions of human lives are at stake. The 19 Senators must succeed. There is no room for another choice. They deserve our complete endorsement. Laren NH, Monday 11 July 2016, Dutch Time 18:32.

By Gerrit Bogaers (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

"Sounds like conspiracy ideation to me."

That is because it IS a conspiracy. A textbook case, actually.

I suppose it is helpful for these Senators to go ahead with this, but what I would like to see them do is present this to the International Criminal Court in order to open a Crimes Against Humanity investigation.

By Gingerbaker (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

RickA

Sounds like conspiracy ideation to me.</blockquote.

Sounds like you are an apologist for organised denial to me.

The funding of organised denial by vested interest is so well documented as to be an absolutely established matter of fact. That you deny this (every time) serves to underline both your dishonesty (you have been corrected often) and the untenability of your position.

BBD #5:

You said "The funding of organised denial by vested interest is so well documented as to be an absolutely established matter of fact. "

Cite please.

::Epic Smackdown!!::

(My monitor is still smokin'...)

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

Thank you, Greg.

There's also Brulle (2013) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations.

Now, you can publicly withdraw the remark about conspiracist ideation and publicly acknowledge that yes, the funding of organised denial by vested interest is an established matter of fact. In an ideal world, you will conclude by undertaking never to deny this matter of fact again, here or elsewhere.

"Now, you [RickA] can publicly withdraw the remark about conspiracist ideation and publicly acknowledge that yes, the funding of organised denial by vested interest is an established matter of fact. In an ideal world, you will conclude by undertaking never to deny this matter of fact again, here or elsewhere."

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

EXXONMOBIL CLIMATE DENIAL FUNDING 1998-2014
TOTAL $30,925,235
LAUNCH OUR INTERACTIVE MAP TO EXPLORE THE CONNECTIONS.
Dozens of organizations are funded by ExxonMobil and its foundations that work to spread climate denial. Click the links for further details about each organization's funding and activities.
Search:
OrganizationExxonMobil Funding (1998-2014)
AEI American Enterprise Institute$3,770,000
CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute$2,005,000
ALEC American Legislative Exchange Council$1,730,200
American Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research$1,729,523
Frontiers of Freedom$1,272,000
Annapolis Center$1,153,500
Atlas Economic Research Foundation$1,082,500
National Black Chamber of Commerce$1,025,000
US Chamber of Commerce Foundation$1,000,000
George C. Marshall Institute$865,000
Heritage Foundation$830,000
Manhattan Institute$800,000
National Taxpayers Union Foundation$700,000
Heartland Institute$676,500
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy$665,000
National Center for Policy Analysis$645,900
CFACT Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow$582,000
Communications Institute$515,000
Washington Legal Foundation$455,000
Center for American and International Law (formerly Southwestern Legal Foundation)$452,150
FREE Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment$450,000
George Mason Univ. Law and Economics Center$445,000
National Center for Public Policy Research$445,000
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory$417,212
International Policy Network - North America$390,000
Citizens for a Sound Economy (FreedomWorks)$380,250
Mercatus Center, George Mason University$380,000
Acton Institute$365,000
Media Research Center (Cybercast News Service formerly Conservative News)$362,500
Institute for Energy Research$337,000
Congress of Racial Equality$325,000
Reason Foundation / Reason Public Policy Institute$321,000
Hoover Institution$295,000
Pacific Legal Foundation$275,000
Capital Research Center (Greenwatch)$265,000
Center for Defense of Free Enterprise$230,000
Federalist Society$225,000
National Association of Neighborhoods$225,000
National Legal Center for the Public Interest$216,500
Center for a New Europe-USA$170,000
American Council on Science and Health$165,000
Chemical Education Foundation$155,000
PERC Property and Environment Research Center (formerly Political Economy Research Center)$155,000
Cato Institute$125,000
Federal Focus$125,000
Fraser Institute, Canada$120,000
Media Institute$120,000
American Spectator Foundation$115,000
International Republican Institute$115,000
Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change$100,000
Environmental Literacy Council$100,000
Tech Central Science Foundation$95,000
American Conservative Union Foundation$90,000
Landmark Legal Foundation$90,000
Independent Institute$85,000
Free Enterprise Education Institute$80,000
Texas Public Policy Foundation$80,000
Institute for Study of Earth and Man$76,500
Independent Women's Forum$75,000
Consumer Alert$70,000
Mountain States Legal Foundation$60,000
Advancement of Sound Science Center$50,000
Free Enterprise Action Institute$50,000
Regulatory Checkbook$50,000
Lindenwood University, St. Charles, Missouri$40,000
Institute for Senior Studies$30,000
Science and Environmental Policy Project$20,000
Lexington Institute$10,000
Institute for Policy Innovaton$5,000
OrganizationExxonMobil Funding (1998-2014)

Any takers for.the bet that rickA's response will be along the lines that those monies were for legitimate research that the science community wouldn't have funded, or sone such bullshit?

If I were in RickA's boots I would be very careful about what I wrote in response to this exchange. I sense that Greg's patience may be wearing thin. Mine certainly is and I have had much less exposure to this bollocks than he has.

"In my opinion..."

"You haven't proven..."

"We'll just have to disagree..."

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

As I'm sure you all know, it's overly optimistic to expect RickA to recognize the reality of the AGW-denier disinformation campaign. He's here as a culture warrior. He's made it redundantly clear he regards AGW as a left-wing assault on his liberty, with science as a weapon. He'll never publicly accept either the scientific evidence for AGW or the irrefutable documentation of organized AGW-denial, because in his eyes that would mean giving ground to the Left. Ain't gonna happen, not on his watch!

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

Ain’t gonna happen, not on his watch!

He will, sadly, find out the hard way that he can't run his game with Mother Nature. His failure there will be absolute and unsympathetic. Orders of magnitude worse that the worst judge who ever put him in his place during his career. There won't be any bargaining in this case. No make-ups. No do-overs. Only regret.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

Desertphile @ # 2: Why no Republican Party members?

Why less than half of Democratic Party senators?

(Our different questions have the same an$wer...)

By Pierce R. Butler (not verified) on 11 Jul 2016 #permalink

Well I looked at all the linked material and I don't see evidence of money being paid for "organized denial".

In fact, one of the Exxonmobile scientific papers even said they thought that climate sensitivity was about 1.5C (but also looked at 2.5C and 4.5C).

Fast forward to today - and we are still fighting about ECS in a range from 1.5C to 4.5C with observationally constrained ECS estimates of 1.8C or so.

I am not sure publishing an AGW climate sensitivity number of 1.5C is "organized denial", or trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.

I will conceded that ExxonMobile has funded organizations. That is clearly established.

Beyond that it seems ExxonMobile did nothing more than run through the same debate we have had right up until the present.

How much have humans warmed the atmosphere?

How much of the warming of the atmosphere is caused by natural variability?

We are still trying to figure out the answer to those two questions today.

RickA: "Well I looked at all the linked material and I don’t see evidence of money being paid for “organized denial”."

RickA, for starters, I didn't need to show you any linked material. An honest person could have easily found the answer to the question you posed yourself. Second, you are a biased, cheating, liar who wants to ruin the planet and destroy humanity. So, obviously, you are not going to notice that the organizations funded by these organizations EXIST EXPLICITLY AND SOLEY TO PROTECT INDUSTRY AND SPREAD DENIAL.

Or may be I'm wrong about you. Maybe you are not as nefarious as you seem. Maybe you really are as stupid as you act.

Anybody know?

Ricka: Well I looked at all the linked material and I don’t see evidence of money being paid for “organized denial”.

I am often astonished at how many obvious and demonstrable things you do not see. If I were you, your behavior would worry me.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by RickA (not verified)

I think it's both. To be that way intentionally might bring short-term gain, but it will result in long-term loss. Big loss. So it's stupid.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 12 Jul 2016 #permalink

Greg #29 said "Second, you are a biased, cheating, liar who wants to ruin the planet and destroy humanity."

Really?

What is your basis for this opinion?

What do you think my motivation is for wanting to "ruin the planet and destroy humanity".

I admit to being biased - but who isn't.

The rest of that characterization is totally wrong.

Fast forward to today – and we are still fighting about ECS in a range from 1.5C to 4.5C with observationally constrained ECS estimates of 1.8C or so.

This misleading use of 'observationally constrained' has been corrected enough times now Rick. You have also had plenty of explanations as to why the low estimates of sensivity are very unlikely to be correct.

Stupid and dishonest in equal measure.

"Stupid and dishonest in equal measure."

Stubbornly dishonest would probably be the better description. He's smart enough to know he's lying but continues to do it.

"Stubbornly dishonest would probably be the better description. He’s smart enough to know he’s lying but continues to do it."

That's my take on RickA. I think he's not so much lying as bullshitting, however.

The truth of AGW doesn't matter to RickA, what's important is that he not give up any of his freedom to externalize the climate costs of economic prosperity. He regards Freedom as the transcendent Good, and equates it with the freedom to socialize as much of the cost of his material well-being as he can get away with. He'll defend Freedom against all perceived infringements, and will make no concessions to physical reality. Arguing the case for AGW with facts and logic is counterproductive, because to him, anyone who accepts the scientific consensus for AGW is a "leftist". He's identified leftists as enemies of Freedom, and he's determined not to let them win!

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

For newbies, his m.o. is to endlessly repeat variations and embellishments of stock talking points, and if he doesn't have one at hand, he will simply say he that doesn't know but that Curry must have one that fits the bill. He calls this making up his own mind-- "making up" being the key phrase here. He's a veritable fountain of specious artistry whose habits have been pretty well nailed on other threads.

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

Mal Adapted (good name!) says "He regards Freedom as the transcendent Good"

Please don't leave me out when you are gossiping about other people. I also consider freedom to be important, maybe even the most important of all goods. Without it we become mere animals, doing what instinct compels. Enough people do that anyway.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

How I wish you could cite something not part of the warmist conspiracy. I mean, really, Greenpeace, Desmogblog and the Guardian?

BBD -- yes, this is conspiracy ideation to believe there's a huge conspiracy by Big Oil.

There might really be a conspiracy, the phrase simply means you are conscious of it, think about it, maybe even obsess about it.

So I find it amusing to have Lewandowsky implying, or maybe even asserting, that only deniers engage in conspiracy ideation when it is abundantly evident that the Democrats are obsessed by conspiracy ideation.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

Freedom: With enough of it we become mere animals, doing what instinct compels. Enough people do that anyway.

Well put.

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

Michael 2 thinks Big Oil doesn't consciously pursue policies and actions that increase profits and financial rewards for themselves and their stockholders. Forgive me while I laugh...

Michael 2 thinks those of us who are negatively impacted by these actions shouldn't be aware of it or point it out. Excuse me while I laugh...

It is abundantly evident that Conservatives are obsessed by conspiracy ideation. (Hint: "warmist conspiracy". Hint: Stolen emails. The list goes on...)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

By Brainstorms (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

Greg Laden writes "Or may be I’m wrong about you. Maybe you are not as nefarious as you seem. Maybe you really are as stupid as you act."

I'm not sure why this qualifies as a science blog. It doesn't matter whether RickA is nefarious or stupid. What matters is whether he, you or anyone else is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; citing Greenpeace, Guardian and desmogblog isn't exactly inspiring of confidence. What is their funding and political inspiration? Would you like to reveal Tom Steyer's distributions? Probably not.

Here be words on the internet. Cheap at twice the price.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

M2

BBD — yes, this is conspiracy ideation to believe there’s a huge conspiracy by Big Oii

Don't forget big coal too.

We've been through this before and there are plentiful links upthread. You are a peristent apologist for the subversion of democracy by vested interest. Get a fucking grip on yourself man.

citing Greenpeace, Guardian and desmogblog isn’t exactly inspiring of confidence

You need to show that there are factual errors in these and any other sources you question before you can start trying to undermine them. So I await your detailed expose with great interest.

You should know that none of the organisations or individuals detailed in those (and other) reports has initiated legal action against the writers or their employers. This is more or less dispositive that no factual errors exist.

Brainstorms writes some things. His mind reading sucks but his writing is good and clever so I give credit where it's due.

"Michael 2 thinks Big Oil doesn’t consciously pursue policies and actions that increase profits and financial rewards for themselves and their stockholders."

All companies and organizations are subject to Darwinian principles.

A successful company or organization has revenue that exceeds costs. To get that revenue, a for-profit company must provide something -- a service or a product and it must do so at less cost than other companies in the same business. Non-profits generally produce nothing and their service is emotional. They too must provide more fear, and thus more security, than others in the same business.

My mother gave her entire inheritance to PETA because pig breeders confine pigs in little cages too small to permit the sow to roll over. Well, yes, that is so; it is so the mother pig doesn't smother her offspring by rolling over them. But PETA made it an emotional issue and as a result my mother rendered herself penniless. I see such organizations as being actually harmful whereas your side can only speculate on the future harm of carbon dioxide (while ignoring its benefits).

"Michael 2 thinks those of us who are negatively impacted by these actions shouldn’t be aware of it or point it out."

I would be delighted, and surprised, if YOU would reveal exactly how YOU have been negatively impacted by Big Oil.

Please remember this is a science blog so you must also reveal how you have benefited by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Computer, Big Automobile, Big Agriculture and so on.

Economists call this a cost/benefit ratio if I remember right. Nobody in business just looks at costs or benefits independent of the other.

With regard to "calling out" Big Oil, I hope y'all remember that it is nearly certain Big Oil is making it possible to have this discussion, and Little Oil gets you to your job on time.

"It is abundantly evident that Conservatives are obsessed by conspiracy ideation."

Got evidence? Of course not. Let's ask Google.

"Big Oil" About 452,000 results, a left-wing fear.

"koch brothers" conspiracy About 277,000 results, a left-wing fear.

exxonsecrets About 9,850 results

Looks like ExxonSecrets isn't very interesting.

Now looking the other way.

"global warming conspiracy" About 22,400 results

"conspiracy by warmists" 5 results. Interestingly, it seems that all 5 results are *by* warmists ridiculing the idea of a conspiracy by warmists.

"Agenda 21" About 6,170,000 results

Jackpot!. It seems that Agenda 21 gets a lot of attention.

But it isn't a conspiracy. It's published; not secret. But maybe some parts of it *are* secret.

Maurice Strong: "Secretary General of the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, best known as the Earth Summit, and held in Rio de Janeiro from June 3rd to June 14th, 1992" Led to UNFCC, created it I think, and from that the IPCC and the rest is known to everyone here (or nearly so).

So *if* there's an actual conspiracy that would be the poster child for it. The rest is just business strategies that take place in boardrooms everywhere on Earth.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

The rest is just business strategies that take place in boardrooms everywhere on Earth.

Really? Systematically misinforming the public about the science behind the most serious problem the species has faced since civilisation arose is business as usual?

You need to get a grip. Why are you exculpating these vermin?

BBD, thank you for your prompt response and pretty good questions/comments.

"You need to show that there are factual errors in these and any other sources you question before you can start trying to undermine them. So I await your detailed expose with great interest."

You have the burden of proof backwards. It is a fool's errand at any rate; straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

I have not said these numbers are wrong, merely that their advocates have a (probably hidden) purpose in revealing carefully selected numbers that don't tell the whole story, and the whole story isn't told until all sides have had a chance to tell their stories.

I don't expect the Guardian to do anything other than what it does, and what it does is advocacy. I am also aware that lying is an accepted strategy by the left; that nothing can be taken as true just because it appears in Guardian or any left wing blog. Those numbers could be in error, and maybe they would be sued over it, and maybe not, for in a lawsuit both sides get "discovery" and maybe neither side wants that over a piddling few hundred thousand dollars; legal fees would vastly exceed the size of the disputed donation!

"You should know that none of the organisations or individuals detailed in those (and other) reports has initiated legal action against the writers or their employers. This is more or less dispositive that no factual errors exist."

Not to me, for reasons I have stated above. Scientology made a huge tactical mistake suing someone; the result was "discovery" put some of their secrets on display.

But I'll stipulate that lacking other information, data provided is probably reasonably accurate. It's just not the whole story and it might not even be the most important part of the story; it could be a distracting squirrel. Look at those bad boys, the Koch brothers; don't look at the man behind the curtain, Tom Steyer!

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

You have the burden of proof backwards

No, I don't. You are the one insinuating that there are factual inaccuracies in these sources. Either demonstrate it or stop trying to undermine them.

it could be a distracting squirrel.

That is what you are doing, not what the sources did by exposing and detailing the fostering and funding of organised denial by vested interest.

Why are you defending these vermin?

BBD writes "Really? Systematically misinforming the public about the science behind the most serious problem the species has faced since civilisation arose is business as usual?"

I do not accept that your scenario exists or even any part of it. The most obvious serious problem was MAD, mutually assured destruction. An even more serious problem exists but isn't man-made; and that's asteroid collision. What you need, for reasons not exactly obvious to me, is a man-made disaster so that you have excuse to at least try to control 7 billion peoples' lives.

"You need to get a grip. Why are you exculpating these vermin?"

That vermin is what puts food on your table, a car for your transportation, the fuel to move it, and the electricity and computers for this conversation. I woild rather they do it honorably but regrettably that's not how big business is always done.

It is Darwinian. The correct approach to business can be inferred by inspection of surviving business.

I have not seen "misinformation". To be sure some people are wrong; it is not clear that their wrong statements are part of some vast conspiracy (geez people, get a grip indeed).

One such which I challenged at WUWT (and repeat occasionally) is the idea that carbon dioxide is "opaque" and adding more cannot make it more opaque. That's what started my interest in all this way back in 2009 or so. I had a doubt about opaque but if so, then it is a good argument. As it turns out, it isn't opaque even at 100 percent. In electronic theory it is a combination of resistors and capacitors, a time-delay mechanism that delays the heat leaving the surface of Earth. It still leaves, but by taking longer, allows some of that energy to pile up at the surface.

So please alert me to what you think is this "misinformation". Is it misinformation to say it is not certainly the most serious emergency ever to face Homo Sapiens? How can you be so sure when you cannot know such a thing? I say that the misinformation is coming from... well, I don't exactly know but it seems confined to England and Crown Colonies, this fear of the future and willingness to go (or compel others to go) without light, heat, food and transportation.

To be sure, oil is running out and that will be a very dark day. Too bad some idiots somewhere tied that carriage to a gimpy horse called Global Warming.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

I do not accept that your scenario exists or even any part of it.

Science denial.

What you need, for reasons not exactly obvious to me, is a man-made disaster so that you have excuse to at least try to control 7 billion peoples’ lives.

False claim.

willingness to go (or compel others to go) without light, heat, food and transportation.

False claim.

a gimpy horse called Global Warming.

Science denial. On a science blog, no less.

So please alert me to what you think is this “misinformation”.

Any and every 'sceptic' talking point, all of which have been endlessly debunked.

The most obvious serious problem was MAD, mutually assured destruction. An even more serious problem exists but isn’t man-made; and that’s asteroid collision.

False equivalence. The increase in the sizes of the US and Soviet nuclear arsenals *reduced* the likelihood of a nuclear exchange. The increase in CO2 emissions *increases* the likelihood of severe climate impacts.

Ditto for asteroid impacts: the high likelihood of severe climate impacts under BAU does not compare with the very low likelihood of a major bolide impact.

Michael 2: "Please don’t leave me out when you are gossiping about other people. "

Heh. I actually though about Michael 2 as I wrote my previous comment. He clearly recognized himself in my description of RickA.

I suspect both RickA and Michael 2 actually accept the scientific consensus for AGW, they simply reject mitigation measures that would require them to pay higher prices or change their behavior in any way. For both of them, Freedom entails the right to pursue happiness without regard for the costs to other people, and to let the future take care of itself. Perhaps the best label for them would be "crypto-lukewarmers".

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

The link below discusses the financial networks of both the left and the right, and finds that they're fundamentally incomparable.
THE KOCH EFFECT: The Impact of a Cadre-Led Network on American Politics
“...lots of big money flows into politics from both conservative and left-leaning mega donors – a finding that we confirm. But this research can also leave the mistaken impression that right and left fat cats merely mirror and cancel out one another. Our research suggests otherwise – because we go beyond looking at donations from individual fat cats to explore sustained organized efforts by “consortia,” well-organized sets of super-wealthy donors who work together over time to change U.S. politics.
https://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/sites/default/files/the_koch_ef…; pp. 6-7

By cosmicomics (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

#33,34, 53

According to research on cognitive dissonance, it's an untenable situation that gets resolved by eliminating the dissonance and restoring cognitive stability. Research on well-educated denialists confirms this. Confronted with valid scientific information that refutes their beliefs, they seek out sources that share their bias, and their beliefs become more firmly entrenched. Another important aspect of this is social identity. Denialists aren't merely individuals; they're part of a network of denialists, and their group identity is an important component of their personal identity. Persons like RickA and Michael 2 are not lukewarmers. Maintaining their cognitive stability and sense of identity depends on them believing what they're saying.

I can recall one situation when RickA seemed to accept a scientific position, but his retreat was rapid. Accepting that position would have risked creating cognitive dissonance and undermining his denialist identity. On another level, argumentation, he is pathologically dishonest. He cherry picks, ignores questions, ignores evidence, and refuses to acknowledge the difference between facts and opinions. He doesn't engage in a conversation. He displays an array of self-preserving defense mechanisms.

By cosmicomics (not verified) on 13 Jul 2016 #permalink

"I suspect both RickA and Michael 2 actually accept the scientific consensus for AGW,"

Not necessarily. They can, if cornered with facts they cannot refute, SAY they accept it, but they will "forget" that acceptance and the zombie will rise again, never "knowing" that it was killed before.

Desertphile says "If I were you, your behavior would worry me."

Unscientific response. If you were him, your responses would be identical. More correctly, his behavior worries you.

That reflects the left wing desire for all people to be the same (with you as the template).

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

Michael 2: "Desertphile says “If I were you, your behavior would worry me.” Unscientific response. If you were him, your responses would be identical. More correctly, his behavior worries you."

No. When I act irrationally, I know it; I have a history of mental illness and I know it when I see it, in myself and others. My observation is that many people who act irrationally know they are doing so.

That reflects the left wing desire for all people to be the same (with you as the template).

You have confused me with someone who is left-wing. I suspect you need to talk to a mental health care provider about something called "projection."

By Desertphile (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Michael 2 (not verified)

cosmicomics writes "...the financial networks of both the left and the right (are) fundamentally incomparable."

That would seem obvious but I am interested in this persons opinion of why it is so.

I have now reviewed the document and proclaim it more of the SOS (Same Old Sh..) often cited above. It is a nice and seemingly scholarly review of Koch industries and money ties. That's all well and good; but what does it mean particularly in the absence of doing the same for Tom Steyer, Greenpeace or George Soros?

When someone asks me, "How are you?" sometimes I will say "Five!"

Five out of five is great, five out of ten not so good, and five out of 100 is dismal.

So here you are offering a review of Koch economics and politics; is it good? bad? 5 out of 5? 5 out of 10? 5 out of 100? It cannot be discerned. Coming from Harvard and quoting from "OpenSecrets.org" certainly suggests a left tilt.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

Mal Adapted, the first to "get it", writes: "I suspect both RickA and Michael 2 actually accept the scientific consensus for AGW,"

More or less. When the arguments over transient climate response finally settle I will start to believe that the "science is settled". Until then clearly it is not.

"they simply reject mitigation measures that would require them to pay higher prices or change their behavior in any way."

Yes. I am often faced in religious discussions with a demand for proof commensurate with any accompanying behavioral or economic demands. If I assert the existence of God, but nothing is required from it, then you can easily "believe" because there is no sacrifice. But if I require you to give up your vices, and only I get to say what they are, and I require ten percent of your income, in return for which you get only a promise good in the next life, you would rightly demand more proof than I have to offer.

So it is with AGW mitigation. Africa wants 100 billion dollars a year. The United States is increasing its national debt by ten times that amount every year. This is insanity. But anyway, where's the proof commensurate with the demand?

If you want trillions of dollars in combined economic sacrifice and cash outlays and gifts of equipment and labor, you'd better have solid gold proof but you don't.

"Freedom entails the right to pursue happiness without regard for the costs to other people"

Almost. If you aren't a libertarian yourself you cannot "grok" the implications. The nuance you have missed, or chose not to include, or are aware of it but ran out of room, is that each person will decide for himself how much to regard his neighbor. My religion is close to 100 percent involved in persuading people to regard their neighbor, and teach how to actually do that, without compulsion to do that.

In socialism there is also no regard for neighbor because the government does all the regarding so that I don't need to. I consider the libertarian approach vastly more developmental of human character because each person must eventually develop his or her very own sense of regard for neighbors.

"and to let the future take care of itself."

That is inevitable. The United States was founded on good principles but nothing the founders can do guarantees that the United States will keep and honor those principles.

I believe only one path exists for continued existence of this nation as a land of freedom and opportunity; and that is for the majority of citizens to make free will choices to know and honor those principles that created this nation, unique of all nations on Earth in not having a sovereign, where all law emanates from "the people" and not from a sovereign. The impact of that one factor permeates almost everything in politics and economics.

But if we, as a nation, abrogate personal duty and citizenship, and hand over all decision making to bureaucrats, then we will be no better, and maybe quite a bit worse, than a nation headed by a sovereign.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

"So it is with AGW mitigation. Africa wants 100 billion dollars a year."

A meaningless statement, a factoid. Irrelevant. AGW mitigation isn't paying africa a 100 billion dollars, it's stopping AGW getting worse.

Which may require, for example, a rollout of high quality education throughout africa so that the better educated people don't procreate needlessly and keep the population from growing.

Or rolling out solar power rather than "organically" growing a fossil fuel energy industry.

The 100bn may just be to pay for what we've stolen.

That's the problem with meaningless factoids: they don't really mean anything so can mean anything you can dream up.

"If you want trillions of dollars in combined economic sacrifice and cash outlays and gifts of equipment and labor, you’d better have solid gold proof but you don’t. "

Well since you claimed:

"So it is with AGW mitigation. Africa wants 100 billion dollars a year."

Your breakpoint is far distant and doesn't arise, does it.

Mal Adapted; on re-reading my response I see that I am speaking personally which is exactly what to expect from a libertarian because he doesn't speak for others.

But I recognize that economically a company behaves differently than a person, and the "tragedy of the commons" pertains to corporate economic activity. In that instance I recognize the necessity of a "referee" (government) to ensure a level playing field so that companies, especially factories, do not have an incentive to cheat the commons.

It is unthinkable to have a sports competition without a referee to enforce certain rules that make the competition meaningful and also entertaining.

As all companies, and most people, are in competition it follows that referees are needed. Considerable animosity is aimed at referees but most people, I think, recognize the necessity.

It can hardly be doubted that the Clean (air, water) legislation of the 1960's and 1970's has had dramatic effects that today's "Millenials" cannot appreciate. Major cities in the 1960's were often heated by coal and the sulfur smell was horrible, acid rain was a major problem and ordinary visibility was sometimes measured in a few city blocks.

It is possible-to-likely that those sulfates contributed to global cooling of the 1960's and 1970's which in turn created a nice starting point to lay in a slope from 1970 to 1998 for a nice steep global warming.

My father was an environmental activist in southern Utah back in those days, he probably met Tony Heller back when "Steven Goddard" was himself an environmental activist in southern Utah.

I tagged along on some of these adventures and learned effective, and ineffective, approaches to farmers and ranchers. Effective was suggesting that their animals would benefit from clean water and air; what you are doing is arousing compassion for animals which pretty much everyone has even if your intention is to eat them someday. But if you go in there saying "You cannot do that" then you arouse their libertarian instincts which are very strong in the west; you have thrown down a gauntlet, issued a challenge that must be met.

By making this whole AGW thing a type of combat or competition, neither side can back down nor negotiate. That happened the moment the Democratic Party made AGW *their* party platform; thank you Al Gore. We see it right here right now on this blog page -- it's all Democrats! What does anyone expect will happen as a result? It's a futbol game; but Republicans are dominant in Congress right now. Suppose Democrats take Congress, which eventually they will. What then? Well it will be more "take away the car keys" and do expensive stupid things that the Democrats have always wanted to do and have nothing to do with climate, breed animosity, put Republicans back in Congress and undo everything!

Back and forth like a futbol game. One year I win, one year you win. But climate mitigation, if there's actually something to be said for it, must be consistently maintained for decades, maybe centuries. It must be removed from politics or politics removed from it. But that's not happening. So, it's a game, and I'd rather be the winner than the loser of this year's game.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

Wow writes "Your breakpoint is far distant and doesn’t arise, does it."

I have little interest in conversing with sock puppets and avatars. Sometimes for amusement I will engage with you on Bickmore's blog where you belong.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

"I have little interest in conversing with sock puppets"

Such pronouncement being ex nihilo pronouncements, solely produced because he doesn't want to admit he's doing a chicken little.

Aaaaw.

"By making this whole AGW thing a type of combat or competition, neither side can back down nor negotiate."

But that combat is created by the denial of reality. In your case, because you WILL NOT accept that government must give orders because you, and an unfortunately powerful and numerous group of misanthropes, will not govern yourselves without coercion.

"It must be removed from politics or politics removed from"

So we don't accept government, but we do what the scientists sy is necessary, right?

Oh, no, because any communal action would be politics, anyone disagreeing to do what's needed would need to be persuaded or coerced by a method that is politics, and you will sit there wringing your hands in mock anguish "Oh, if only the politics were removed from science, then we'd all be better off and there'd be something done!".

Self-healing denial wrapped up in a demand impossible by definition to achieve, so that you can PRETEND to be a reasonable human being.

Desertphile writes "I suspect you need to talk to a mental health care provider about something called projection.”

That's "old school". New school is Google!

It's not so much projection as it is matching paradigms. I can speak to things I understand, I cannot speak to things I do not understand. However I spend quite a lot of time trying to understand things I do not understand, the "great attractor" of which is whatever provokes socialism, but not in all persons.

The phrase "if I were you" is both a command and an insult; but I respond scientifically. If you were me, you would do what I do, think as I think, and so on. The epitome of projection is "if I were you..." where you project yourself, your sensibilities, your preferences, into another person -- or you would if you could.

Instead of "If I were you...", try "I prefer that you..." since that more accurately expresses your intention.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

Michael 2 has confirmed he's been bullshitting us, as discussed in a recent ATTP post which summarized philospher Harry Frankfurt's 1986 paper "On Bullsh*t" thus:

there is a difference between liars – who conceal the truth – and bullshitters – who have complete disregard for the truth. Bullsh*tters are simply trying to manipulate the listeners and don’t care if what is required to do so is true, or not.

He's confirmed his ideological motivation for bullshitting us: he professes Libertarianism, and regards the freedom to socialize his costs as a Good that transcends physical reality. He nevertheless affirms his loathing of "socialism", which Al Gore personifies for him; and he identifies calls for collective action to mitigate AGW with the Democratic party, the enemies of Freedom in his eyes. If Al Gore is for mandatory mitigation, Michael 2 is against it!

He's now officially a lukewarmer, though: he accepts the reality of AGW but doesn't want to be required to pay his share of its costs. When he draws on the full range of AGW-denier memes, he contradicts himself repeatedly; but he isn't embarrassed to be called out because he isn't concerned with appearing rational or reasonable, only with standing his ground.

I think we should thank Michael 2 for confirming our suspicions, and making it clear we need not respond to his reflexive provocations.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

Mal Adapted wrote some things which I will quote in italic with my commentary following each.

"he professes Libertarianism"

Not necessarily. I am a "small-L" libertarian, which I define simply as I choose for me and you choose for you.

Socialism is where I choose for me AND for you because I am smart and wise.

"He nevertheless affirms his loathing of socialism”

That follows quite naturally from my desire to choose for me rather than have you choose for me. But when I do the choosing (as was the case in the Navy) suddenly it is wonderful and great.

"which Al Gore personifies for him"

Al Gore is a capitalist.

"he identifies calls for collective action to mitigate AGW with the Democratic party"

That is the topic of this page. All of the caller-outers are Democrats in Congress. (or would that be callers-out?)

"he isn’t embarrassed to be called out because he isn’t concerned with appearing rational or reasonable"

That is correct. I am not here. My *ideas* are here. How you respond reveals your character and alignment.

"I think we should thank Michael 2 for confirming our suspicions, and making it clear we need not respond to his reflexive provocations."

There you have it; Mal Adapted has chosen for "us".

There is no "I choose for me" in socialism.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Mal Adapted (not verified)

Please feel free to mentally replace the asterisks in my last comment with 'i's 8^D! My first attempt to post it ran into a spam filter of some sort, which didn't object to spelling out "bullshit" on my second attempt.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

Desertphile, a small correction: The most accurate way to express that sentiment is:

"If I were in your situation, I would...."

And then explain what you believe is the optimum approach to the situation.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

M2

That’s all well and good; but what does it *mean* particularly in the absence of doing the same for Tom Steyer, Greenpeace or George Soros?

What it means is that vested interest is peddling misinformation about science whereas Steyer, GP and Soros simply support the mainstream scientific position.

It also means that you are *still* denying the wall of evidence that vested interest sponsors organised denial and so undermines democracy. It means that you endorse this behaviour even after it has been drawn to your attention.

BBD "What it means is that vested interest is peddling misinformation about science"

This is not one of your better moments; it is a non-sequitur. What we have is a list of donations by Exxon to some groups. By itself it means nothing at all; it is certainly neither evidence nor proof that Exxon is peddling misinformation. That evidence is not on display. What would help is the proportion of income for any particular organization was derived from Exxon and whether any strings are attached, implicit or explicit. If an organization obtains 1 percent of its income from Exxon, then it is not particularly beholding to Exxon. But if it receives 90 percent of its income from Exxon, then implicity it must be beholding to Exxon.

So it isn't the dollar amounts that matter; it is the relative influence actually wielded by those donations, and then the relative influence wielded by the organization. Actual correctness of claims is difficult to discern so I am not willing to climb on board any train asserting information or misinformation.

"whereas Steyer, GP and Soros simply support the mainstream scientific position."

I suspect it is the other way round. Mainstream scientific position rides on the financial largess of Steyer, GP and Soros.

Soros engages in arbitrage, he doesn't care who is right or wrong, rather he rides the winds of change. If there is no change, he will compel change.

As to Tom Steyer and Greenpeace, I find myself unable to grok that kind of thinking; that its okay to stomp on the Nazca Lines to make a point about not burning oil except they burnt a lot to get there.

"It also means that you are *still* denying the wall of evidence that vested interest sponsors organised denial and so undermines democracy."

Democracy requires opposition. Perhaps by "democracy" you mean something else where there's only one belief permitted.

"It means that you endorse this behaviour even after it has been drawn to your attention."

I suppose so. This is your strawman argument anyway. Each chooses for himself; that is what I endorse.

It is clear to me that GP and others have their own vested interests and their own advocacy. Why should I endorse that only one side of an argument is to be permitted?

The IPCC was created by the UNFCC which in turn was created by one of your cohorts, a Canadian oil man who with his buddy Al Gore created the Chicago Carbon Exchange and stood to receive billions of dollars in carbon credit trading fees.

While there is doubtless some truth in AGW, I have a doubt that all these men were in it out of compassion for the human race and future unborn children; particularly when their party isn't all that excited about protecting unborn children in the first place.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

M2

By making this whole AGW thing a type of combat or competition, neither side can back down nor negotiate. That happened the moment the Democratic Party made AGW *their* party platform; thank you Al Gore

No, it happened long before that. Vested interest and its political enablers on the right have been attacking environmental regulation since the 1960s.

You are over-prone to self-serving bullshit, M2.

BBD: You are over-prone to self-serving bullshit, M2.

Post Script: water is wet!

By Desertphile (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Michael 2 denigrates the argument that global warming is a serious problem by mocking discussion of it as just "words on the Internet" — and then goes on to cite the number of hits from Google searches as proof of something...

Brainstorms, I'm laughing too.

By Christopher Winter (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

There is no “I choose for me” in socialism.

But this is only about socialism in your mind M2. Nobody else here is constantly introducing the word 'socialism' into the discussion because it has almost nothing to do with pernicious misinformation of the electorate by vested interest. Only with the right wing politicisation of the policy debate such as the one you are constantly engaged in here.

BBD says "Nobody else here is constantly introducing the word ‘socialism’ into the discussion"

I suppose so. Most here are constantly introducing the word "Koch" ;-)

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

M2

This is not one of your better moments; it is a non-sequitur. What we have is a list of donations by Exxon to some groups.

No, what we have is evidence that vested interest sponsors misinformation about climate science.

I suspect it is the other way round. Mainstream scientific position rides on the financial largess of Steyer, GP and Soros.

No, the scientific postition is built on the scientific evidence. Again, you can pretend (and falsely claim) otherwise, but it makes no difference except to your credibility.

I suspect it is the other way round. Mainstream scientific position rides on the financial largess of Steyer, GP and Soros.

Yes, that is correct. The laws of physics obey the highest bidder.

BBD: "No, the scientific position is built on the scientific evidence. Again, you can pretend (and falsely claim) otherwise, but it makes no difference except to your credibility.

He has no credibility.

For over 180 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase. Among them, Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827; John Tyndall in 1859; Svante Arrhenius in 1896; C.J. Fox in 1909; A. Angstron in 1918; Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916; E.O. Hulburt in 1931; S.G. Callendar in 1937; Professor Gilbert Plass in 1956; Carl Sagan in 1972; Stephen Hawking in 1960; Isaac Asimov in 1968; Wally Broecker in 1975; Richard Feynman and "The Jasons" in 1980; and currently over 660 science organization in 35 countries without even one dissent. Science won; brainwashed "free market" cultists lost.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Desertphile "Science won; brainwashed free market cultists lost."

So what is the prize?

When my son was young he set up a bicycle race. Younger sister still had training wheels. So older brother easily won the race. When little sister finally crossed the finish line, she proclaimed, "I win!" which very much upset older brother. He insisted that he won the race, which by his rules, he did. But by her rules, she won.

So do tell; by whose rules did Science win? Science's own rules? Duh. How could it be otherwise.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Desertphile (not verified)

So what is the prize?

Increased quality of life; increased standards of living; less suffering. You and your cult want to end all that.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Michael 2 (not verified)

Desertphile wrote "Increased quality of life; increased standards of living; less suffering."

"You and your cult want to end all that."

I can tolerate many things but not liars. You are a liar. I shall cease corresponding with you (but not perhaps responding to worthy points you raise from time to time).

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Desertphile (not verified)

BBD writes "No, what we have is evidence that vested interest sponsors misinformation about climate science."

How I wish I could scream through the internet. There is no we. If this page were introduced in a court of law and I was on the jury, I would declare no evidence.

Let us (you and me) consider one factoid:

Atlas Economic Research Foundation $1,082,500

That's how much money is reported to have been given to Atlas by ExxonMobile from 1998 to 2016, 18 years, works out to $60,000 per year, one paid position.

What did that person DO is the relevant argument. Do you know? Probably not. Can it be found out? Maybe; but that's not my job. It's yours, or whoever is trying to make the argument that ExxonMobile is buying something for $60,000 per year, and that whatever it is, is "bad" where Greenpeace doing the same thing is "good". Why not just make it that simple and admit that Greenpeace is good and Exxon is bad and never mind WHY one is good and one is bad?

[https]://www.atlasnetwork.org/: "STRENGTHENING THE WORLDWIDE FREEDOM MOVEMENT"

Well I already know what you think about freedom, its bad, unless of course it is your freedom. I happen to like freedom for everyone so to me it is "good" and thus I approve of Exxon's donation to "freedom".

But the claim is "misinformation", not merely freedom. Freedom bashing I understand. Claims of misinformation I do not.

They issue grants. (So does Tom Steyer, Greenpeace, et al).
[https]://www.atlasnetwork.org/grants-awards/grants

So presumably Exxon's money gets mixed in with everyone else's and from that pot comes some grants, at least one of which you believe is lying.

Well I cannot find it. This is your dogfight, you find it; return and report. Thanking you in advance.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

BBD; an unexpectedly interesting choice. Out of all those examples I picked one I'd never heard of before just to see where the rabbit hole goes.

You are right about one thing; it is organized to shape public opinion (but so is SkS and nearly every other organization on Earth).

Atlas is probably a reference to Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand; a thing that struck me just a moment ago.

Completely unfettered industry makes me a little nervous so maybe I am a "luke-freedomist" as well, or luke-libertarian.

That was quite refreshing. I'd never heard of that organization. I ought to check on the others.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

And since matters of fact matter:

The IPCC was created by the UNFCC which in turn was created by one of your cohorts, a Canadian oil man

In response to a growing awareness of the scientific evidence:

IPCC set up in 1988. First report published in 1990.

UNFCCC set up in 1992, entered into force in 1994.

BBD writes: IPCC set up in 1988. First report published in 1990.
UNFCCC set up in 1992, entered into force in 1994.

I will review my information and see if I can update my memory. That's not an easy thing but I will try. Once an idea is planted it's pretty sticky.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Followup to BBD:

IPCC: "The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)"

UNEP: "It was founded by Maurice Strong, its first director, as a result of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Conference) in June 1972 and has its headquarters in the Gigiri neighborhood of Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP also has six regional offices and various country offices."

"Methodology Reports provide practical guidelines for the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories under the UNFCCC"

Both: [http]://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_what_ipcc.pdf

So you are correct that IPCC predates UNFCC, and yet IPCC appears in the hierarchy under UNFCC (currently).

So my understanding of the sequence was incorrect; Maurice Strong founded UNEP which in turn founded IPCC and created the framework called UNFCCC.

[http]://unfccc.int/timeline/

Just as you believe Koch to be "bad" and therefore anything he does tainted; I consider Maurice Strong "bad" because of his opposition to liberty and thus anything he touches is tainted.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

I suppose so. Most here are constantly introducing the word “Koch”

Concretely supported by matters of fact. Nothing to do with socialism.

BBD: "Concretely supported by matters of fact. Nothing to do with socialism."

Stating an observed demonstrable fact that is supported by a ponderous weight of evidence is considered "liberal behavior." I stated in this blog comment section the fact that scientists did not and do not think Texas will be covered with glaciers any time soon, and the person who made the claim otherwise replied by asserting I must be "left wing."

By Desertphile (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Desertphile writes "I stated in this blog comment section ... replied by asserting I must be left wing.”

So there's two libertarians and forty (*) left wingers here. What are the odds? ;-)

In your case I am not so quick to judge. Desert philes have other things going than just left/right. Where I was a small child I was taught respect for rattlesnakes and scorpions, the most common forms of animal life I encountered. The desert breeds a curious tension between necessity of group assistance against the impossibility of having very many people in one place because of lack of resource. So you have *small* groups tightly bonded tending to be rival with other small groups. It is Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin on magnets; simultaneously attracting and repelling.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Desertphile (not verified)

And yes, Al Gore is fat.

M2 says:

“I think we should thank Michael 2 for confirming our suspicions, and making it clear we need not respond to his reflexive provocations.”

There you have it; Mal Adapted has chosen for “us”.

There is no “I choose for me” in socialism.

Apparently some commenters rejected my choice: there you have it 0^0. As long as that's OK with our host, it's OK with me. I choose for me, though, and I'm done with Michael 2's bullshit.

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

How I wish I could scream through the internet. There is no we

No humanity.

Mal Adapted writes "I’m done with Michael 2’s bullshit."

Any moment now. Really.

Perhaps you could help BBD with finding just one instance of Exxon funded disinformation with a clear and unmistakable chain of causality.

Or you might waffle a bit and admit that some organizations have funded other organizations who among their products has been some misinformation and then try to assure me that your side hasn't had the same occasional misfortune.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

Well I cannot find it. This is your dogfight, you find it; return and report. Thanking you in advance.

The information linked on this thread *alone* shows that vested interest funds misinformation about climate change. Denying established matters of fact makes you look bad.

Mal Adapted writes "Apparently some commenters rejected my choice"

Yes, and it wasn't only me. Everyone likes freedom for himself and is less happy with freedom for others, including me. I just see a necessity that if I am to choose for me, I must allow you to choose for you.

"As long as that’s OK with our host, it’s OK with me."

Why do you link your choices to someone else? It need not be okay with you just because it is okay with someone else. I'm a bit surprised at the lack of censorship but I've pretty much said all there is to say on it anyway.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

You are right about one thing; it is organized to shape public opinion

And it peddles misinformation about climate science. QED.

BBD, I appreciate the links but in something of this much controversy I prefer to let each side speak for itself (not use Wikipedia in other words), even if it is wrong or exaggerated and let someone else do the challenging. If both sides agree on something it can be quickly stored in memory and go on to the next thing.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

BBD: I suppose I will admit that Maurice Strong was probably correct in a cosmic sense but his intentions of eliminating the UN Security Council and all forms of democracy in order to tell everyone on Earth what to do; well, that's what I've been discussing all day. Some people just don't want to be told what to do.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

PCC: “The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)”

UNEP: “It was founded by Maurice Strong, its first director

The WMO isn't Maurice Strong. UNEP isn't Maurice Strong "its first director". Maurice Strong did not set up UNFCCC or the IPCC. That's a bit of the misinformation that we were discussing earlier.

This is all about the scientific evidence, not MS or Fat Al or reds under the bed grabbing for your gun.

* * *

One problem with libertarianism is that not everyone can choose to be priest, Levite or Samaritan.

BBD: "One problem with libertarianism is that not everyone can choose to be priest, Levite or Samaritan."

The greatest problem with libertarianism is almost all libertarians have no idea what libertarianism is.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Desertphile writes "The greatest problem with libertarianism is almost all libertarians have no idea what libertarianism is."

What a remarkably libertarian comment! By Jove, I think you've got it. Liberty is reflexive; it includes itself. You can define it any way you want; you can assert that only you of 7 billion people know what it means, and you would be correct; for you alone are the possessor of your meanings.

Of course, it may well mean something else to me, in which case I alone of 7 billion people know what it means to me.

As to itself; well, no word has a meaning that wasn't given to it by a human person, and only that human person knows exactly what it meant the moment the word was created.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Desertphile (not verified)

"What a remarkably libertarian comment! By Jove, I think you’ve got it. "

See what I mean?

By Desertphile (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Michael 2 (not verified)

BBD writes "UNEP isn’t Maurice Strong its first director. Maurice Strong did not set up UNFCCC or the IPCC. That’s a bit of the misinformation that we were discussing earlier."

I'm not sure I claimed that although it is certainly the case I considered him more directly involved than seems to be the case. I hope all this hullaballoo isn't over that gnat and is something more substantial but who knows?

I will lay out a similar scenario. It seems that many groups use the name "Atlas" referring to Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged". While she did not create these groups, her ideas are clearly the foundational ideas for quite a few libertarian groups, and I think she may well have founded a group that continues her work. Is that to be in dispute?

So it is that Maurice Strong's ideas, in addition to his actual direction and founding of a group whose purposes were to implement those ideas.

"This is all about the scientific evidence, not MS or Fat Al or reds under the bed grabbing for your gun."

Indeed it is, and I appreciate your factual comments (I don't get "MS" but it probably doesn't matter to the point).

Perhaps you will note that most of your fears are in an uncertain future but you wish to err, if err it is, on the safe side. Shall I do anything differently with my fears? No. It is part of the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared. My preparations are personal and do not impose (or very little) on anyone else and my problems are not usually your problems. I have said little to nothing about "reds"; I have described with some detail the existence of immediate and real danger presented to me and my family, for which a weapon is a reasonable and probably optimum response. I don't need your approval in this matter and it would be extraordinary for you to agree with me on anything. That's okay too until you try to impose your ideas on me.

"One problem with libertarianism is that not everyone can choose to be priest, Levite or Samaritan."

Why not? Choose it, be it. Done! If you need a certificate there's doubtless places you can purchase a certificate or you can make your own. Nowadays you can even be a woman, or even an animal.

But I take your meaning to be that the realm of choices any person has is constrained by boundaries that may be, or seem to be, impenetrable. In those cases one simply re-defines the word. A woman no longer bears children and has XX chromosomes. What it takes to be a woman is a declaration. That's it. And it can change daily. The word has changed and since I'm pedantic I don't like it much. Words ought to have meaning and those meanings ought not to change and ought to be widely shared meanings. But, they don't, and that's modern life in the left lane.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

And because facts matter...

Maurice Strong was executive director of UNEP from 1972 - 1975.

"How I wish I could scream through the internet. There is no we. #86

Isn't it strange that someone who doesn't recognize the existence of we seeks to have a conversation with, and influence others?

Isn't it strange that someone who insists so strongly on his personal freedom isn't aware that freedom is based on laws and common standards, and without those standards and laws he would have no legal rights, not even property rights?

Wouldn't it be great to live in a world without recognized weights and measures!

Is Michael 2 so ideologically impaired that he doesn't understand that communication itself requires a common understanding of what words and symbols mean?

By cosmicomics (not verified) on 14 Jul 2016 #permalink

"Isn’t it strange that someone who doesn’t recognize the existence of we seeks to have a conversation with, and influence others?"

Note how he changed the subject from the sinister and corrupt Koch Kult to himself, "socialism," and libertarianism.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by cosmicomics (not verified)

cosmicomics, puzzled, asks:

"Isn’t it strange that someone who doesn’t recognize the existence of we seeks to have a conversation with, and influence others?"

Yes, it isn't. Right now there is you with your ideas and me with mine. Others are here, each with their own ideas, one of which is that everyone is the same (when only most are the same).

"Isn’t it strange that someone who insists so strongly on his personal freedom isn’t aware that freedom is based on laws and common standards, and without those standards and laws he would have no legal rights, not even property rights?"

Yes, it isn't strange. Freedom exists in many contexts. If I lived north of Yellowknife, I would have neither property nor property rights, neither would I lack them, for it would be irrelevant. It is the presence of other human beings that creates a negotiation with them about a great many things such as whether and when I can intrude on you or vice versa. Some cultures simply do not recognize "property" in the same sense as Americans; and yet seem to function adequately. They arrived at a different negotiated settlement, or in some cases where a sovereign exists, such things are decreed.

"Wouldn’t it be great to live in a world without recognized weights and measures!"

It might; for such a world would have arisen with no need for such things. Stretch your mind, read science fiction.

"Is Michael 2 so ideologically impaired that he doesn’t understand that communication itself requires a common understanding of what words and symbols mean?"

I am impaired with regard to what you think and why you think it. For that reason I am here to explore these differences.

You raise an interesting philosophical question: Who gets to decide such things; who is impaired? For me the answer is quite simple; I decide such things.

Still, if the whole world seems impaired perhaps I could clean my eyeglasses, figuratively speaking; or as the good book says, remove the beam from my own eyes so I can remove the mote from yours.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by cosmicomics (not verified)

M2

So it is that Maurice Strong’s ideas, in addition to his actual direction and founding of a group whose purposes were to implement those ideas.

I just showed you that Maurice Strong (MS) had *nothing* to do with founding the IPCC or UNFCCC. That's just contrarian misinformation. So please stop repeating it especially after correction.

Maurice Strong was executive director of UNEP from 1972 - 1975. IPCC in 1988. Etc. Remember the facts. They matter.

“One problem with libertarianism is that not everyone can choose to be priest, Levite or Samaritan.”

Why not? Choose it, be it. Done!

How a professing Christian can be so deaf to Christ's teaching is remarkable. Tell me how the man in the ditch gets to choose to be priest, Levite or Samaritan. You, who claim that there is no 'we' are going to have to reconcile your blinding selfishness with the core message of Christianity, which is that everybody is we.

Even I, a godless member of the Bolshevik rabble, know this.

BBD asks "Tell me how the man in the ditch gets to choose to be priest, Levite or Samaritan."

1. Think it.
2. Define it.
3. Do it.
4. Defend it.

As it happens the same list pertains to rights. They don't have existence outside of a human mind.

What is a Samaritan? The simple answer is, "A citizen of Samaria". Are you a citizen of Samaria? Declare it. Need proof? Produce your passport. Don't have one? Make one or demand your interrogator to show otherwise.

Maybe a Samaritan isn't currently a citizen of Samaria but his ancestors were Samaritan.

There was a time when these words had somewhat more objective meaning, when the Christian world assumed you meant a specific Samaritan, the good one, which implies many bad ones. When essentially every citizen of Brainerd, Minnesota is Lutheran you can say stuff like that and have a pretty good chance of being understood; use it as a proxy for a rather complicated and nuanced set of ethics.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Note how he changed the subject from the sinister and corrupt Koch Kult to himself, “socialism,” and libertarianism.

Oh yes.

And no admission that he is an apologist for those who subvert democracy for financial gain while consigning the rest of us to a bleak future.

But these things are duly noted by all present, I have no doubt.

M2

That’s okay too until you try to impose your ideas on me.

Your possession of a lethal weapon is an imposition of your ideas on me. As a libertarian I am surprised that you cannot see the obverse of this coin. Clearly it is an inconvenient truth.

As a Christian, you are bound by the commandment not to kill, so you should certainly not have a killing weapon in your possession.

BBD: "As a Christian, you are bound by the commandment not to kill, so you should certainly not have a killing weapon in your possession."

He will now reply with redefining what "kill" means.

There are very few Christians who follow Jesus.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

BBD "Your possession of a lethal weapon is an imposition of your ideas on me."

No. You do not know what, if anything, I actually have. It is my *words* that impose upon you and vex your tranquility.

"As a Christian, you are bound by the commandment not to kill"

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. Good try on #4, but no dice. Wrong book.

Saul Alinsky told you to stick to your expertise and not wander into mine. Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent.

"so you should certainly not have a killing weapon in your possession."

Incorrect. The author of Christianity commanded it, but it is a bit vague on individual vs group thing. Obviously even in a group assignment someone must be the bearer of it, someone with some training in the weapon.

"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.' " [http]://biblehub.com/luke/22-36.htm

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

“so you should certainly not have a killing weapon in your possession.”

Incorrect. The author of Christianity commanded it....

Saul of tarsus commanded no such thing. One of the creators of Jesus made Jesus say his followers should by swords, but that was over 300 years after the time they claimed Jesus lived. The creators of Jesus were often greatly at odds with the "author of Christianity" (Saul); shit--- the Creators of Jesus worshiped different gods than Saul did.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Michael 2 (not verified)

"Time for a quick reality check. Smoking [tobacco] doesn't kill." -- Mike Pence, countering the anti-tobacco hysteria of year 1988

By Desertphile (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

Followup to BBD

lo tirtsah

[http]://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm

New International Version: "You shall not murder."

New Living Translation: "You must not murder."

English Standard Version: “You shall not murder."

New American Standard Bible: "You shall not murder."

But I mentioned "wrong book" (Old Testament). The New Testament brings forward some Old Testament laws, but certainly not all of them. Thus it is restated:

New International Version: "Which ones?" he inquired. Jesus replied, "'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony,
[http]://biblehub.com/matthew/19-18.htm

However, I am bound by the New Testament only to the extent I believe any particular commandment is indeed from God and not inserted along the way by a committee.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

M2

What is a Samaritan?

Someone who believes that there is a 'we'. Which is, of course, the point of the parable.

Incorrect. The author of Christianity commanded it, but it is a bit vague on individual vs group thing.

Turn the other cheek, IIRC.

BBD "What is a Samaritan? Someone who believes that there is a ‘we’."

Well there's a definition I haven't encountered before.

So let's use your definition and revisit the man in the ditch. Is there any reason he cannot believe there is a "we" and thus become a Samaritan?

While I applaud your libertarian word definitions, they ought at least be consistent in your world view. If the man in the ditch cannot just decide to be Samaritan, then your offered definition does not conform you your earlier use of the word.

"Turn the other cheek, IIRC."

Indeed. Ignore or absorb minor offenses. But as you have only two cheeks, once you've turned them no further obligation exists to continue to be abused.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

However, I am bound by the New Testament only to the extent I believe any particular commandment is indeed from God and not inserted along the way by a committee.

So the Council of Nicea sort of suspect? Like the IPCC?

BBD writes "So the Council of Nicea sort of suspect? Like the IPCC?"

I don't understand your use of "suspect". The Nicean Creed is binding on its subscribers and not binding on anyone else. The IPCC declarations are binding on its subscribers and not binding on anyone else.

So yes, a similarity exists. Both seem to demand allegiance and belief; neither specify much in the way of policy and behavior but are used as the authority to invoke policy and behavioral requirements.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Matthew 5:21

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment

Not much wriggle room in that.

BBD "Not much wriggle room in that."

As Desertphile rightly observes, there's plenty of wiggle room; so much I didn't even have to take his bait. :-)

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

As Desertphile rightly observes, there’s plenty of wiggle room; so much I didn’t even have to take his bait. :-)

I observe that you changed the subject from the evil that the Koch Brothers and Koch Suckers such as yourself inflict upon the world, to completely different subjects.

Some creators of Jesus have him anti-violence; some creators of Jesus have him pro-violence. The reason is obvious: the anti-violence creators of Jesus were anti-Roman occupation (when it was dangerous to fight the enemy) and the pro-violence creators of Jesus were anti-Judaism (enemies were much easier to oppose with violence). This is why the Jesus mythologies have Jesus constantly contradicting himself, and being in several different places at the same time.

None of which has anything to do with your enslavement to your corporate masters.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Michael 2 (not verified)

BBD, speaking of lethal weapons: Seems we have discovered a new weapon that vastly exceeds AR-15's: Ice cream delivery trucks.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

#111
Note how he changed the subject from the sinister and corrupt Koch Kult to himself, “socialism,” and libertarianism.

This is why #55 wasn't about the specific arguments climate septics make, but about cognitive factors and how they argue. The he in the following refers to RickA, but it also applies to persons like Michael 2.

On another level, argumentation, he is pathologically dishonest. He cherry picks, ignores questions, ignores evidence, and refuses to acknowledge the difference between facts and opinions. He doesn’t engage in a conversation. He displays an array of self-preserving defense mechanisms.

Also, as you mentioned, the RickAs and Michael 2s change the subject. Also, as previously seen (burden of proof: #40, 42, 45, 47), they run away from accountability.

In the case of Michael 2 we're also seeing what happens when an idiotic ideology falls into the hands of, well, an idiot. One could say that Michael 2 represents the missing link between libertarianism and insanity.

Take a good look at #112. Note the cases of linguistic incoherence. Note not only the incoherence, but also the schizophrenic absurdity of his arguments. Think about the social (e.g. criminal justice) and mental health implications of this:

Who gets to decide such things; who is impaired? For me the answer is quite simple; I decide such things.*

*(This too is an example of changing the subject, which was communication as a social activity based on common norms.)

By cosmicomics (not verified) on 15 Jul 2016 #permalink

cosmiccomics, complaining that I changed the subject and forgetting (or not caring) that it was BBD that abruptly introduced Samaritans, has changed the subject to mental health:"Think about the social (e.g. criminal justice) and mental health implications of this"

So lets go with it. What are the implications of people deciding for themselves? Well, the United States of America came into existence because of just such a thing. Numerous other examples exist such as the computers on which we are having this conversation.

So it does not seem like a sinister dangerous thing to be deciding for myself unless of course I decide not to obey you; and that seems to be the real problem.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by cosmicomics (not verified)

Who gets to decide such things; who is impaired? For me the answer is quite simple; I decide such things.

"Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right —' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' "
Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass

By cosmicomics (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

Cosmicomics says " ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ "

Indeed. Sometimes I wonder if I am getting through to anyone and then suddenly a ray of sunshine.

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking Glass

Indeed. That is the driving force behind just about anything.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by cosmicomics (not verified)

M2

BBD “What is a Samaritan? Someone who believes that there is a ‘we’.”

Well there’s a definition I haven’t encountered before.

As already observed, you don't understand the basis of the religion you profess.

As for this absolute gem, I have bookmarked it for future reference:

However, I am bound by the New Testament only to the extent I believe any particular commandment is indeed from God and not inserted along the way by a committee.

Not only do you not grasp a fundamental tenet of Christianity as expounded in eg. the parable of the Samaritan, you freely admit that you cherry-pick the bible for only the bits that align with your political solipsism.

My only regret is that you clearly don't understand just how horribly you have come apart in the last few comments.

BBD wrote "you freely admit that you cherry-pick the bible for only the bits that align with your political solipsism."

In what way do you differ? You cherry picked your version of bible that says "kill" where I cherry picked a version that says "murder".

"My only regret is that you clearly don’t understand just how horribly you have come apart in the last few comments."

And yet, I have not come apart. I find these comments useful for a guide to study and thought. For instance, God told the Israelites not to {kill, murder} but whatever was meant by it, shortly thereafter that same God told those same Israelites to do that very thing to the inhabitants of Canaan.

It is arrogance for an American, or Canadian, to think that any part of the bible was meant for Americans or Canadians. To be sure, the gospel was eventually taken to the gentiles (that be me) but it is not clear which parts are binding on gentiles and until you get that sorted out you have no hope of binding me with any of it. The command parts seem simple enough: Love God and love your neighbor. If to love your neighbor means to protect your neighbor, even if to kill is required, well then it is honorable and justifies police and military.

As to the parable of the Good Samaritan, I have my understanding of it. Maybe there's a religion blog we can go and strain at some gnats.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

BBD writes "As already observed, you don’t understand the basis of the religion you profess."

Trivially true; no one understands it completely, never mind defining "it" in the first place.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

cosmiccomics, complaining that I changed the subject and forgetting (or not caring) that it was BBD that abruptly introduced Samaritans, has changed the subject to mental health

Not at all. The subject was already *you*, as it invariably is when you present for any length of time. I simply pointed out that your howled claim that 'there is no we' is a profoundly un-Christian view. So much so that it renders any concurrent profession of Christianity absolute hypocrisy.

The fact that you still claiming not to understand this is more or less hilarious. For us, that is, not for you.

BBD writes "I simply pointed out that your howled claim that ‘there is no we’ is a profoundly un-Christian view. "

The topic is global warming and mitigation (with specific reference to Koch obstructing mitigation). There is no universal "we"; rather, many little "we's".

That you identified this concept with Christianity is interesting since I have long observed parallels with religion.

Within Christianity exists different flavors of "we" (Jew, Gentile, sinners, wicked, righteous).

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

In what way do you differ? You cherry picked your version of bible that says “kill” where I cherry picked a version that says “murder”.

Desertphile said right at the outset that you'd try to redefine 'kill'.

But you can't. Miserable hypocrite that you are.

BBD "Desertphile said right at the outset that you’d try to redefine ‘kill’. But you can’t."

Sure I can. But since my words are for me, and your words are for you, it isn't necessary right now to explain what the word means to me, or in what contexts it might actually have many meanings, and whether any of those meanings are "good" or "bad".

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

As to the parable of the Good Samaritan, I have my understanding of it. Maybe there’s a religion blog we can go and strain at some gnats.

This isn't a gnat, hypocrite. This is a vast elephant.

You are in so much trouble here.

How do you square the libertarian solipsism of 'there is no we' with the Christian injunction to love thy neighbour?

BBD wrote "How do you square the libertarian solipsism of ‘there is no we’ with the Christian injunction to love thy neighbour?"

The word "we" implies a degree of equality and peerage. Christianity is concerned with inequality. The Good Samaritan was an "I" and the wounded man a "you"; they were neither group, herd nor equal.

Christianity imposes a personal duty on the "haves" to render some assistance to the "have nots". I cannot escape accountability by hiding in the herd expecting the herd to render charity. That is the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan: He chose to impose upon himself a duty; as a Samaritan he wasn't bound by Christianity! The Good Samaritan is undeniably libertarian (small-L). He saw, he chose, he acted. There is no "we" in that story.

"We" thinking evades personal responsibility. Thus in some contexts it is inappropriate to think "we will" when it would be better to think "I will".

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

There is no universal “we”; rather, many little “we’s”.

Evasive but otherwise meaningless bullshit.

Sure I can. But since my words are for me, and your words are for you

You just don't give a shit about the truth, do you?

Kill = take human life.

End of.

BBD offers: "Kill = take human life."

I have a somewhat broader definition that includes your definition as well as killing weeds, ants, sheep, deer, maybe even inanimate objects like engines ("kill the engine!").

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Ready.
Cue Nelson.
And go!
NELSON: HAW! HAW! You fed the troll!

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

The word “we” implies a degree of equality and peerage. Christianity is concerned with inequality. The Good Samaritan was an “I” and the wounded man a “you”; they were neither group, herd nor equal.

Gabble, gabble, gabble. You do bluster and bullshit when cornered. Silence would be better.

The word “we” implies a degree of equality and peerage.

'We' implies common humanity (and we are all equal before God, you will recall, even libertarians). You deny the common bond of humanity because it hampers your relentless selfishness. So, you aren't a Christian; you are a hypocrite.

* * *

I have a somewhat broader definition that includes your definition as well as killing weeds, ants, sheep, deer, maybe even inanimate objects like engines (“kill the engine!”).

Just. Stop.

It really cannot get any worse.

BBD "Silence would be better."

There have been several thousand minutes of silence overnight and hundreds of comments I did not post. But you do not respond to silence.

" ‘We’ implies common humanity (and we are all equal before God, you will recall, even libertarians)."

As usual, I appreciate your definition.

"You deny the common bond of humanity because it hampers your relentless selfishness."

I doubt I go so far as to deny it; rather, I don't see it. That distinction makes sense in a trinary universe but not in binary universe.

I don't see a lot of evidence for common bonds. Canada has two official languages; what kind of common bond is that? Ukraine is flying apart for lack of common bond. Nations so small you can drive across it in an hour nevertheless wish to fragment into even smaller pieces.

The internet, and this blog and all blogs, help create bonds that could never have previously existed. I am amazed by it having grown up at a time when direct dial long distance telephone was itself amazing and being able to do it without wires wasn't even imagined.

"So, you aren’t a Christian; you are a hypocrite."

To you it cannot be any other thing than what you see.

"Just. Stop."

My comments to you were invited by you.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

The Good Samaritan is undeniably libertarian (small-L). He saw, he chose, he acted. There is no “we” in that story.

Try that on your pastor and see how far you get.

You are doing that denier thing of ignoring what is said and ploughing on in circles. Please stop it. Here is what I wrote above:

How a professing Christian can be so deaf to Christ’s teaching is remarkable. Tell me how the man in the ditch gets to choose to be priest, Levite or Samaritan. You, who claim that there is no ‘we’ are going to have to reconcile your blinding selfishness with the core message of Christianity, which is that everybody is we.

Go and see a priest. You need spiritual guidance (and bible classes) very badly indeed.

BBD "Try that on your pastor and see how far you get."

Tempting!

"Go and see a priest."

You underestimate your knowledge and influence. Your argumentation has been the equal of many priests (IMO), focused on topics and themes rather than (for example) exactly when each of the gospels was written and by whom.

You really are pretty good at this stuff and it is not for me to say but you may well be more Christian than me.

"You need spiritual guidance (and bible classes)"

Yes. A problem is that the bible is insufficiently precise and can be interpreted several thousands of ways. What is needed therefore is additional revelations less than 2000 years old to discuss the morality of uniquely modern ethical and moral problems.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

What is needed therefore is additional revelations less than 2000 years old to discuss the morality of uniquely modern ethical and moral problems.

Nihil sub sole novum. A priest would argue that Christ's teachings are as relevant now as at the time of the Roman occupation of Judea.

@Greg Laden, I love it when you get wholly riled. And how right you are! But you missed one:
http://www.desmog.uk/2016/06/13/mapped-cosy-relationship-climate-euro-s…
"http://www.desmog.uk/2016/06/13/mapped-cosy-relationship-climate-euro-s…"

One of the advantages to Republicans of Mike Pence is his close ties to the Kochtopus. So, of course, he's been stealing pennies from the poor by taking money from the public school system and giving it to those who don't want to share. He embraces every kind of phony conservative cause. I have sympathy for my conservative friends, who can no longer rely on Republicans, but have to choose the lesser evil of Democrats. Jesus wept! (ref: gospels)

By Susan Anderson (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10

By Susan Anderson (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

"Gospel of St. Matthew 5:3-10"

Probably the only beautiful thing one can find in the Bible. Sounds a lot like Bernie Sanders.

By Desertphile (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Susan Anderson (not verified)

I'm an atheist. But you should check out Isaiah:

everyone that thirsts, come you to the waters, and he that has no money; come you, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.

Why do you spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfies not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat you that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in richness.

Incline your ear ... hear, and your soul shall live ....

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return ... for he will abundantly pardon.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways ...

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

... as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven, and returns not there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

So shall my word ... not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree ... for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

By Susan Anderson (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

And "love they neighbor as thyself" is repeated more than almost anything else in both old and new testament. It's a lousy idea to dismiss faith, as so many people need it. I agree, it's fallible, but people are good regardless ...

By Susan Anderson (not verified) on 16 Jul 2016 #permalink

Susan Anderson writes "And “love they neighbor as thyself” is repeated more than almost anything else in both old and new testament."

Advice exists where it is needed. I conclude that loving your neighbor is uncommon and weekly reminders of this are probably necessary.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 17 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Susan Anderson (not verified)

Compare and contrast:

The meek shall inherit the Earth, but not its mineral rights.

J. Paul Getty.

Susan Anderson:

And “love they neighbor as thyself” is repeated more than almost anything else in both old and new testament. It’s a lousy idea to dismiss faith, as so many people need it. I agree, it’s fallible, but people are good regardless …

I'm an atheist also, but I agree there's practical wisdom to be found in the worlds holy books. Intelligent adults might arrive at much of it by reason if given time to think, but time has been a luxury for most of history after all. And as a student of Evolution, I'm persuaded that moral injunctions from a putative deity can affect behavior in Homo sapiens more efficiently than theoretical arguments for the adaptive value of altruism can 8^).

Having been dragged to Sunday School weekly until I declared for atheism and dug my heels in at age 12, I'm acquainted with the Bible. Among the Books of the Old Testament, I find Ecclesiastes to be the most wisdom-packed. A key passage (KJV):

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Upon unpacking, that can be seen to have broad implications for our global predicament!

By Mal Adapted (not verified) on 17 Jul 2016 #permalink

Advice exists where it is needed.

To counter a belief system in which "there is no we".

BBD writes "To counter a belief system in which 'there is no we'."

Whereas I counter a belief system that assumes I am part of your "we", or that I wish it (or, conversely, might not wish it. One need only ask).

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 17 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Whereas I counter a belief system that assumes I am part of your “we”

But that is impossible to square with a Christian world-view. As I have been trying to draw to your attention for some time now.

BBD "But that is impossible to square with a Christian world-view."

I have made no attempt to square it with your idea of what is a Christian worldview. Instead, I have squared it with my idea of a Christian worldview.

When we die, maybe sooner, we will find out who was correct.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 18 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

"BBD “But that is impossible to square with a Christian world-view.”

I have made no attempt to square it with your idea of what is a Christian worldview"

It's most, if not every, christian's worldview.

Those who believe in the same version of christianity as you do, and those going straight to hell.

"We" always means the in-group.

"I’m persuaded that moral injunctions from a putative deity can affect behavior in Homo sapiens more efficiently than theoretical arguments for the adaptive value of altruism can 8^)."

Indeed, ISIS is much more efficiently inserted into the behaviour of "Homo Sapiens" than theoretical arguments for the adaptive value of altruism.

This is not a good thing.

"And “love they neighbor as thyself” is repeated more than almost anything else in both old and new testament."

Well wrong.

The punishment for unbelievers and the strait and narrow path for those who are to get to heaven is far far FAR more frequently repeated. Love thy neighbour as thyself occurs once.

" The Good Samaritan is undeniably libertarian (small-L). He saw, he chose, he acted. There is no “we” in that story."

The good samaritan is undeniably of the wrong religion. They're undeniably socialist. They're undeniably apocryphay and nonexistent. Even the story itself says it's a myth.

M2

I have made no attempt to square it with *your idea* of what is a Christian worldview. Instead, I have squared it with my idea of a Christian worldview.

It's not 'my idea'. It is the standard exegesis.

Yet again, you are appealing to your own exceptionalism, which is *not* an argument but an admission that you have lost the argument.

BBD wrote "It is the standard exegesis."

Universal standards do not exist in religion.

"you are appealing to your own exceptionalism"

I suppose so. I'm not sure what the word means.

"an admission that you have lost the argument."

That's unlikely.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 19 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

BBD, having now reviewed "exceptionalism" I see that you are correct, that I judge things according to my sense of being exceptional, for that is exactly so.

The things I know, I know for sure and for myself; I don't need anyone's "exegesis" but neither do I ignore them. I have a copy of Strong's Concordance for instance and sometimes I think he is right about some things and sometimes I think he is wrong about some things.

It's a bit like studying a drip mark on the floor wondering what caused it and if only you looked up you would see the leaky pipe. But if you saw the leaky pipe on entering the room, you hardly need study the drip marks; you already know what caused it.

People doing "exegesis" are confined to that activity for lack of more correct information which they would possess if God wished them to possess it. Those that have this certain knowledge don't need an "exegesis".

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 19 Jul 2016 #permalink

BBD, more commentary: When computer programmers create a function, it is considered better to start from scratch rather than have one's mind contaminated by having studied other people's approach to a problem.

On one hand, having not studied other people's work means re-inventing the wheel and can be unnecessarily time consuming.

But on the other hand, starting from scratch may well produce a new, efficient algorithm because it approaches the problem in a way nobody else thought to try; nor will they ever try because most things are done by successive approximations incrementally.

So it is with religious principles. You can poison your mind with thousands of years of arguing to no eventual consensus or you can read the words and make up your own mind. Or, rarely, God can put something there and you have now got "knowledge" and don't need anyone's exegesis; you will write your own book (or page or paragraph or sentence or word). But it will be yours and future writers will use your words as the basis of their exegesis.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 19 Jul 2016 #permalink

Universal standards do not exist in religion.

While that is trivially true it does not counter in any way what I said. There is a broad agreement about the basics and they are flatly incompatible with libertarian solipsism. You can deny this all you like, but it will always be true.

BBD writes "There is a broad agreement about the basics..."

If y'all approached the consensus of religion the way you approach the consensus of global warming there would be no atheists here.

"they are flatly incompatible with libertarian solipsism."

That is a feature of consensus and groupthink versus self-think.

"You can deny this all you like, but it will always be true."

I'm not sure what exactly you expect me to deny or that will always be true. I *think* you are asserting that for any particular topic a consensus will form and that libertarians will tend to find themselves excluded from the consensus, either by their own choice or by expulsion; probably both proceeding concurrently.

So long as we both understand that the existence of this consensus is not by itself proof of the correctness of the claims around which the consensus formed, then we are probably in agreement.

Consensus is a social phenomenon and for the most part so is religion. To the extent that a libertarian is immune to social phenomenon he will also be immune to the social aspects of religion.

This makes libertarians unpredictable as a class; because it isn't properly a class. It is just a word for people making their own choices; either to be religious or atheist, Democrat or Republican (or anything else).

What can be said with some accuracy is that *if* a libertarian chooses a religion, he will have analyzed it for himself by his own standards of proof or evidence, needs, costs and benefits. Almost by definition he won't have made his decision based on someone else's analysis although nothing prevents him from using any sources appropriate to his decisions.

It can also be reasonably stated that a well educated and experienced libertarian will tend to make good (effective) decisions and a poorly educated and/or inexperienced libertarian will tend to make bad (ineffective) decisions.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 20 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

People doing “exegesis” are confined to that activity for lack of more correct information which they would possess if God wished them to possess it. Those that have this certain knowledge don’t need an “exegesis”.

You are claiming that you have a privileged relationship with God which justifies your cherry-picking and bizarre reading of scripture on the grounds of divine inspiration.

There isn't much by way of rational response one can make to this sort of thing.

BBD wrote "There isn’t much by way of rational response one can make to this sort of thing."

An astute observation.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 20 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Michael 2@173

When computer programmers create a function, it is considered better to start from scratch rather than have one’s mind contaminated by having studied other people’s approach to a problem.

This is untrue. So untrue. Not having to reinvent the wheel is exactly why libraries and frameworks exist. Extensibility is a large part of why languages like Python are so popular.

Heck, starting from scratch you're more likely to not only waste time but end up with something inferior if not hopelessly broken. There's a saying that you don't roll your own crypto, for example.

Sure there's academics who do algorithm research but even they in large part build on the work of others. For example, since 1977 pretty much every compression algorithm has simply been an improvement on Lempel Ziv.

There are cases where starting from scratch is desirable. Edge and s2n come to mind but those are more about cutting away legacy junk and building something using the current best knowledge, not discovering new ways to do things.

Even something like that can go very wrong. In Vista, Microsoft rewrote the TCP stack from scratch and reintroduced a bunch of bugs that were not only well known but solved by everyone, including Microsoft in prior Windows versions (the ping of death for example).

You're blowing smoke guy.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 20 Jul 2016 #permalink

capnkrunch writes "This is untrue. So untrue. Not having to reinvent the wheel is exactly why libraries and frameworks exist."

It is also why SCO Group sued IBM for six billion dollars.

It related to IBM supposedly re-inventing SCO's wheel by having seen SCO's code. IBM asserts in defense that the programmers involved in that code were deliberately kept away from SCO's code to prevent leakage of SCO proprietary information into IBM's Linux modules.

Code sharing and code re-use is great when under the umbrella of a single corporation or other Intellectual Property arrangement AND if you can trust other people to write code good enough that you want to put your name on a product mostly written by other people.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 20 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by capnkrunch (not verified)

M2

It can also be reasonably stated that a well educated and experienced libertarian will tend to make good (effective) decisions and a poorly educated and/or inexperienced libertarian will tend to make bad (ineffective) decisions.

This illustrates the libertarian fallacy. As individuals, we are limited in our expertise and so in decision-making skill.

A rational approach to this hard limit is to defer to the expert consensus in a given field.

Expert consensus is whatever the experts cannot tear down. It is the last argument standing.

Unless you, as a non-expert, know better. Perhaps divinely inspired.

BBD reflects correctly (finally) a sense of my sense.

"This illustrates the libertarian fallacy. As individuals, we are limited in our expertise and so in decision-making skill."

The qualification is redundant. I am limited. You are limited. You seem to suggest that together we are not limited. Sometimes we are less limited; sometimes more limited depending on the social dynamics of "we". It frequently (IMO) happens that the alpha male sets the bar and nobody can be less limited than him. This was certainly the case in the military where nobody is smarter than the admiral or had an idea he hadn't voiced. It appears to be Donald Trump's weakness as well. Sycophants don't count.

"A rational approach to this hard limit is to defer to the expert consensus in a given field."

I wonder how the expert is unlimited but I am limited? What makes the expert so special? I will allow that a person claiming to be an expert, and who is esteemed by others as an expert, will get first dibs on any verification I attempt to see if it is so.

In previous years experts were sometimes wrong, as in believing the Earth is flat or that continental drift is ridiculous, but yet also aligned with the consensus. Non-experts are probably more frequently wrong, just to put things in perspective. Your expertise is in oil and I tend to accept mere claims of it for lack of any contrary indication.

Expert consensus is whatever the experts cannot tear down. It is the last argument standing.

True but not exactly helpful. Reasons other than correctness can explain why an argument or belief cannot be torn down. It might even have a serious penalty for just making the attempt; in olden times it was the Spanish Inquisition and now it is the Virgin Islands Inquisition or the AGs United inquisition.

"Unless you, as a non-expert, know better. Perhaps divinely inspired."

Yes; unless I know better. If I do not then experts are the best source of information but should always be slightly fuzzy on two scores: 1. Their correctness and 2. My understanding.

They might be correct in their understanding but through the fallibility of language I don't end up with correct understanding. This is relevant in religion where people have to invent subtle meanings for ordinary words, which if taken at face value lose meaning, or worse, seem absurd.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 20 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

"This is untrue. So untrue. Not having to reinvent the wheel is exactly why libraries and frameworks exist. Extensibility is a large part of why languages like Python are so popular."

It's so untrue it can even be disproved with its own mantra.

Moreover, such a whine from a mob that complains they can't get "the raw data" (despite the fact the raw data IS available, they just refuse to look for it) is rather ironic.

""Expert consensus is whatever the experts cannot tear down. It is the last argument standing."

True but not exactly helpful."

How is it not helpful? If experts haven't manged to knock it down, then it's robust.

Engineers don't test a bridge is safe by loading it until it breaks then saying "Welp, it's not safe now!".

Wow wrote: "If experts haven’t manged to knock it down, then it’s robust."

Opposition to continental drift was robust but wrong. Still, you seem to understand the essential element of inductive logic. I look forward to AG's ceasing to intimidate and prevent such challenge.

"Engineers don’t test a bridge is safe by loading it until it breaks"

Please describe how bridges are tested rather than how they are not tested.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"There are cases where starting from scratch is desirable. Edge and s2n come to mind "

They don't redo the logic and engineering that underpins them, though.

For some reason, they took expert opinion and the consensus of the methods that work to build from, rather than going complete tabula rasa.

Wow@184

For some reason, they took expert opinion and the consensus of the methods that work to build from, rather than going complete tabula rasa.

Exactly. They're not rewriting the TLS protocol from scratch, merely reimplementing it. Michael 2's counterexample of the Intel engineers is completely different from how he first used the analogy. That was an intellectual property rather than innovation concern. I don't think Michael 2 came to his religious beliefs in that way so as to avoid stealing the church's intellectual property, inadvertently or otherwise.

But Michael 2 seems incapable of admitting he was wrong even on minor points. How fragile must one's ego be to be say to admit "that was a poor analogy" rather than doubling down?

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

capnkrunch asks "How fragile must one’s ego be to be say to admit that was a poor analogy"

3

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by capnkrunch (not verified)

M2

The qualification is redundant. I am limited. You are limited. You seem to suggest that together we are not limited.

Misrepresentation right from the off. I was talking explicitly of the value of the expert consensus to non-experts. In this case, it is self-evident that there is a definition of 'we' which will have higher decision-making skill than others.

I wonder how the expert is unlimited but I am limited? What makes the expert so special?

Expertise is what makes the expert special. Again, this is self-evident. Again, it capturse the stunning intellectual arrogance at the core of the libertarian fallacy.

True but not exactly helpful. Reasons other than correctness can explain why an argument or belief cannot be torn down.

Unable to prosecute your argument, you once again resort to a thinly-veiled insinuation of 'they don't know nuthin' or 'yesbutgroupthink'. In the case of climate science there is zero evidence to support either claim.

BBD responded, saying: "I was talking explicitly of the value of the expert consensus to non-experts."

Yes, that is my understanding. It is usually reliable.

"In this case, it is self-evident that there is a definition of ‘we’ which will have higher decision-making skill than others."

It is less self-evident that the definition of the superior "we" is made by those that consider themselves superior and thus simply define themselves.

"Expertise is what makes the expert special. Again, this is self-evident."

And circular :-)

"Again, it captures the stunning intellectual arrogance at the core of the libertarian fallacy."

Or self appointed experts.

"In the case of climate science there is zero evidence to support either claim."

I believe the burden is on the demanders of money to defend their claims. It ought not to be that difficult:

1. Establish that there is such a thing as expertise in the topic.

2. Establish that certain persons are experts in those topics.

3. Prove to non-experts that the experts are (a) on topic and (b) expert and (c) unmotivated by factors beyond that expertise.

4. Are not advocating for or against any policy of any kind; but merely offering expertise for policy makers.

I have little doubt that a great many experts exists, but because they are not advocating for policy tend to be invisible outside of the torrent of annually published papers and reports.

Advocates for policy *might* be expert but their advocacy poisons my acceptance of their expert credentials.

The difficult item for me is accepting the existence of expertise and who possesses it. I study claims in what little spare time I have (burning some right now) to see whether I agree you can measure the temperature 400,000 years ago by looking at antarctic ice. For now I am about 90 percent convinced that it is possible to do this, the technique seems plausible. That I have no idea who actually is drilling ice and measuring its oxygen isotope ratios is good because it means they are not political advocates.

You are an advocate but not positioning yourself as an expert in this topic, that is good and honorable. Advocates cannot be their own experts; such a thing would be laughed out of a courtroom and Wikipedia certainly doesn't allow it.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

“Again, it captures the stunning intellectual arrogance at the core of the libertarian fallacy.”

Or self appointed experts.

You have skewered the pretensions of 'climate sceptics' from arse to turnip.

Advocates for policy *might* be expert but their advocacy poisons my acceptance of their expert credentials.

Climate science informs us - including policy makers - that decarbonisation is necessary to avoid severe climate impacts. This is not advocacy. It is information.

The fact that what the experts say is unpalatable does not make it wrong.

BBD wrote: "Climate science informs us..."

It may seem excessively pedantic, but no. People inform. Science is a method of learning. Treating it as you treat it turns it into a religion, as if this "thing" called "climate science" exists and has the power to inform and it cannot be in error and it cannot be questioned because it isn't a person, it is some sort of magical faceless thing.

"...that decarbonisation is necessary to avoid severe climate impacts. This is not advocacy. It is information."

It is a claim. Information is the benthic oxygen isotope ratio at 300 meters depth of several samples of the Vostok ice cores. What you offer as information is more correctly labeled a conclusion by some persons who have or claim expertise in climate science

"The fact that what the experts say is unpalatable does not make it wrong."

Agreed. The purpose of my commentary is to suggest to your mind (and that of any advocate) that the task of advocacy is not much different than selling a used car; the buyer decides whether to buy. It isn't the sellers decision. All seller's products are wonderful; just ask the seller.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

It may seem excessively pedantic, but no. People inform. Science is a method of learning.

How does learning occur without people being informed?

Treating it as you treat it turns it into a religion, [no, it doesn't] as if this “thing” called “climate science” exists and has the power to inform [it does and it does] and it cannot be in error and it cannot be questioned [it can and it can, but you need a better bit of science to do this; still waiting] because it isn’t a person, it is some sort of magical faceless thing. [we call this 'information']

BBD asks "How does learning occur without people being informed?"

Through observation and study.

I used "inform" as an intransitive verb, an action word that people DO, the object (other people) is implied.

People inform people.

Learning is what happens in a human mind on accepting knowledge. Informing is conveying knowledge you possess to someone else; but does not imply they accepted the instruction.

If I learn something by my own observation then I have not been informed.

Etymology 1

From Middle English informen, enformen, from Old French enformer, informer (“to train, instruct, inform”), from Latin informare (“to shape, form, train, instruct, educate”), from in- (“into”) + forma (“form, shape”), equivalent to in- + form.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Climate science is a container word with no precise meaning, no works of its own, no authors, no authority, not even any information. It is the binding of a book, not the book itself.

I will allow that "inform" can be used when an action by something, usually a person but maybe an instrument that is acting and through that action a Person obtains knowledge.

An altimeter informs a pilot how high he is flying. The altimeter is the actor (subject), the pilot the object, and inform the verb.

An airplane informs no one of anything. It is a collection and does not act of its own accord for the purpose of providing information.

The flight controller in a tower informs the pilot where to land. The tower itself does not inform, it is a passive object, it is not acting.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

Trying to find the dividing line...

An encyclopedia does not inform. It can sit on a shelf for hundreds of years and do absolutely nothing. It is the action of a reader that completes a process started by a writer, it is the writer, the author of any particular article that "informs" the reader. The collection, in and of itself, does not inform. Each article informs once it has been written and then read.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

Climate science is a container word with no precise meaning, no works of its own, no authors, no authority, not even any information. It is the binding of a book, not the book itself.

Not even wrong.

By Julian Frost (not verified) on 21 Jul 2016 #permalink

Julian Frost wrote "Not even wrong."

Thank you. I get few endorsements here.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 22 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Julian Frost (not verified)

Julian, I appreciate your grasp of the concept since it is not easy when raised in an environment where the word is the thing and the thing is the word; when in truth words are just labels stuck to a jar and you might have stuck your label to a different jar.

Consider a similiar container word: "Religion". It is common to see people complaining that "religion does X" when on careful thought you realize that's absurd. People do X. People motivated by a particular religion might do X. But "religion" does nothing. Shall we assume that all religions are identical so there is only one, called "religion", and that is sufficient to describe any and all instance of it? That's absurd and yet rather common. It nearly always means a specific member of the set "religion" but not the set itself. Through conversation you realize that the person (BBD for instance) has a very specific instance of religion in mind and that his objections probably do not pertain to Buddhism or a great many other instances of a religion.

So it is with "climate science". You cannot point to it, eat it, take it home. It does nothing and you cannot influence it. It has no physical existence; it is an abstraction, a convenience phrase to encompass portions of a great many other sciences, and that encompassing is itself somewhat vague and determined for the personal convenience of whoever is using it.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 22 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Julian Frost (not verified)

So it is with “climate science”. You cannot point to it, eat it, take it home. It does nothing and you cannot influence it. It has no physical existence; it is an abstraction, a convenience phrase to encompass portions of a great many other sciences, and that encompassing is itself somewhat vague and determined for the personal convenience of whoever is using it.

Wow - what a line of shit saying nothing (except, of course, that you are an idiot).

Dean writes "Wow – what a line of shit saying nothing"

It will be intereswting to see if Wow responds ;-)

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 22 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by dean (not verified)

BBD asks “How does learning occur without people being informed?”

Through observation and study.

Which results in their being informed. Your inability to admit error is almost as funny as the crap you write sometimes.

BBD writes "Which results in their being informed."

Correct; they have informed themselves on various topics under the umbrella of "climate science". I do that too; but I don't say that climate science informs me (at least I hope I haven't said that). It's an umbrella, a container.

It would be more proper to say "principles of photon capture and quantum mechanics informs me of the plausibility of carbon dioxide to capture and delay heat energy leaving the surface of the Earth."

Implicit, but not explicit, is that these principles were recorded by a human person, I have learned those principles through my study, and then at a later time I encounter an application of those principles.

There's a Person behind any particular principle of physics, the one who documented the idea and proved or demonstrated the existence of that principle.

But there is no Person behind "climate science". It is a poorly defined aggregate borrowing bits and pieces from many other scientific disciplines. How many people here say "Its basic physics!" -- well, no. There's very little about Basic Physics that can "inform" a person about "climate science" or we would not be having this conversation.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 22 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Again:

Treating it [climate science] as you treat it turns it into a religion, [no, it doesn’t] as if this “thing” called “climate science” exists and has the power to inform [it does and it does] and it cannot be in error and it cannot be questioned [it can and it can, but you need a better bit of science to do this; still waiting] because it isn’t a person, it is some sort of magical faceless thing. [we call this ‘information’]

Tired of your nonsense now, M2.

He would agree - you're simply spouting worthless shit m2.

dean "He would agree – you’re simply spouting worthless shit m2."

Wow doesn't do agreeing. There is no peer-bonding with him that you can be his buddy if you agree with what he insults. He is an equal opportunity insulter.

At any rate I'll chalk this up as a "win" and find other things to do.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 22 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by dean (not verified)

"There’s very little about Basic Physics that can “inform” a person about “climate science” or we would not be having this conversation."

Your stupidity has no bounds.

If I learn something by my own observation then I have not been informed.

But if you learn by studying physical climatology, you *have* been informed.

But there is no Person behind “climate science”

There are many persons. Once again:

It is an epic story: the struggle of thousands of men and women over the course of a century for very high stakes. For some, the work required actual physical courage, a risk to life and limb in icy wastes or on the high seas. The rest needed more subtle forms of courage. They gambled decades of arduous effort on the chance of a useful discovery, and staked their reputations on what they claimed to have found. Even as they stretched their minds to the limit on intellectual problems that often proved insoluble, their attention was diverted into grueling administrative struggles to win minimal support for the great work. A few took the battle into the public arena, often getting more blame than praise; most labored to the end of their lives in obscurity. In the end they did win their goal, which was simply knowledge.

The scientists who labored to understand Earth's climate discovered that many factors influence it. Everything from volcanoes to factories shape our winds and rains. The scientific research itself was shaped by many influences, from popular misconceptions to government funding, all happening at once. A traditional history would try to squeeze the story into a linear text, one event following another like beads on a string. Inevitably some parts are left out. Yet for this sort of subject we need total history, including all the players — mathematicians and biologists, lab technicians and government bureaucrats, industrialists and politicians, newspaper reporters and the ordinary citizen. This Web site is an experiment in a new way to tell a historical story. Think of the site as an object like a sculpture or a building. You walk around, looking from this angle and that. In your head you are putting together a rounded representation, even if you don't take the time to inspect every cranny. That is the way we usually learn about anything complex.

Putting two pedants in a room means they will argue.

BBD writes: "But if you learn by studying physical climatology, you *have* been informed."

In such cases, as I have previously stated and will try not to repeat ad infinitum, I have informed myself. If I don't inform myself and no one else is informing me then I am not informed.

Suppose I observe ice melting. Have I informed myself? Not really; I have observed ice melting; it isn't information, it conveys nothing explanatory or predictive. If I think about it I will decide perhaps more energy is going into the ice than coming out; signifying that the ambient temperature is above the melting point of the ice. If I develop that conclusion then I have informed myself, I have "formed" a belief that explains the observation.

"There are many persons."

Indeed. As I have stated and will try to avoid repeating ad infinitum, "climate science" is a container or umbrella, rather poorly defined which your example illustrates quite well.

A lab technician *might* be doing "climate science" one day, not the next; maybe never -- perhaps her work will be cited and used by someone claiming to be a climate scientist, but the lab technician did not himself do "climate science", he did "spectral analysis" or some such thing and the "information" is whatever the analysis claims.

Your geologists aren't "doing oil", they are surveying strata. the goal is to find oil or gas, but that's not what they are doing; they are doing geology.

Does "geology" inform? No, it does not. It is a word that encompasses a variety of methods and results to describe the world in the realm of rocks (primarily). A person doing geology might subsequently inform another person, or himself, or not.

I suppose it could be argued that "geology" implicitly means all geologists, and if all geologists, or any geologist asserts that "geology informs us that X", what he means is "Published reports by geologists inform us that X" because "geology" isn't a person, or actor, cannot be argued with, does not speak and does not listen, hence cannot inform.

"The scientists who labored to understand Earth’s climate discovered that many factors influence it."

That's putting it mildly. So you put all these factors, and assumed but unknown factors, into a container labeled "climate science" as if that container, all by itself, had the power to "inform". Well, it doesn't. Specific claims (reports, papers, assertions) have the power to inform. "Climate science" is not a claim; it cannot be asserted, it cannot be denied, it cannot be debated or argued. It's a box, a jar, a bottle.

Can one deny climate science? No. One can deny specific allegations made regarding climate; allegations or conclusions made by a person. Only in the case a person means the entire container and its contents, every bit of it, then it can be used in that way: "I deny climate science" really has no meaning but the nearest meaning is "I deny the validity of any and all claims made regarding climate science, or labeled climate science." That would be a bit bold but at least a semantically accurate statement if quite impossible for any human to make. Yet nearly all atheists make that kind of claim asserting knowledge they cannot possess.

I think I have learned or at least obtained a very important key to understanding "the left". Words *are* the thing! A rose by any other name is NOT a rose, and the phrase exists because others have had this same dispute a very long time ago.

It even has a name; nominalism or realism. Not sure which. the articles seem a bit incomprehensible. My father was deep into this stuff and way out on the left wing.

For more on that topic (interesting but to me rather depressing)

[https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 22 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

“Climate science” is not a claim; it cannot be asserted, it cannot be denied, it cannot be debated or argued. It’s a box, a jar, a bottle.

Rather than indulge your endless passion for the utterly pointless, let's restate:

The science of physical climatology shows that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Continued human emissions of CO2 are very likely to result in significant climate change with potentially harmful impacts to humanity and the global ecosystem as a whole.

This is the *information* available from 'climate science' to the public and to policy-makers alike.

This is what you are trying to deny, all the time, in a myriad of increasingly unsubtle and tiresome ways.

I don't think there is a great deal more to be said at this point.

In light of our 14 months of heat record on the planet, and in light of feedback accelerated melting ice of Greenland, the Arctic and the Himalayas and all the 'little' data points worldwide I think it well past time for the deniers to simply state what evidence they would need to change their thinking. The rest of us are damn tired of linking and posting into your insatiable troll-maw...

curt asks "...deniers to simply state what evidence they would need to change their thinking."

I believe many deniers have done exactly that, but it is unlikely you'll find it here.

Getting the emotions and left-wing advocacy out of it, and creating a model that works reliably over 20 years, would be a good start.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by curt (not verified)

M2 writes: "There’s a Person behind any particular principle of physics, the one who documented the idea and proved or demonstrated the existence of that principle."

and then he writes: ""But there is no Person behind “climate science”"

Is he being pedantic (no person) or just dumb? There is no *one* person, they are legion.

Of course the clue is probably when he writes:"There’s very little about Basic Physics that can “inform” a person about “climate science”

Which means he simply doesn't understand basic physics or climate science. All of climate science is grounded in basic physics. That M2 doesn't understand or acknowledge this is rather telling. Can he perhaps point to an area of climate science that is *not* grounded in basic physics?

I think this is a 3fer: M2 doesn't understand physics, science in general, or climate science in particular.

Always interesting how the know-nothings pontificate. They're ignorant and assume as a general rule that their lack of knowledge is the boundary condition for others.

By Kevin O'Neill (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

Kevin O'Neill writes "There is no *one* person, they are legion."

Yes! Each one contributes to the aggregate called science. What "science" contained yesterday will not be the same as it contains tomorrow. Therefore it is improper to declare "science says..." because it isn't science saying something, it is a person saying something scientific, and it is called scientific because someone wishes to call it scientific. Here on this blog I see it as abrogating responsibility; instead of saying "I say X", or even ascribing a claim to its proper source, writers take the lazy road and ascribe knowledge to the container rather than the person that developed it and ought to get some credit.

"Which means he simply doesn’t understand basic physics or climate science."

I also do not understand the Athanasian Creed. I mean, I wonder why you don't capitalize Basic Physics; face the Dog Star and make the sign of the hypotenuse? Why is it never "advanced physics" that might justify someone having a PhD? No, it's always "basic physics" and a lot of people wasted precious tuition getting advanced degrees for absolutely no reason when they could have stopped at "Basic Physics" obtained from YouTube.

"All of climate science is grounded in basic physics."

So is my body and this computer and the water I drink. When y'all can predict the weather 3 days from now and the climate 20 years from now I'll start to believe that "Basic Physics" is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.

"Can he perhaps point to an area of climate science that is *not* grounded in basic physics?"

Probably not since you have defined basic physics as that which explains climate science, and climate science is that which is explained by basic physics.

Physics can probably explain everything, eventually, someday maybe, and it will most certainly not be "basic".

However it isn't necessary to invoke the god of "basic physics" for a great many things.

Example: Consider using machine language for every computer program. While it would work, it would be incredibly tedious and much too granular for ordinary practical work. I built an Altair 8800 kit, it was fun, tedious and required real machine language programming entered by switches. I learned a lot about computers, which is the point of the exercise, but now I use a "C" compiler which is still too granular for most modern applications but there isn't anything I cannot make with it given enough time. It is to computers what "basic physics" is to science, the underpinning of pretty much everything.

"Always interesting how the know-nothings pontificate."

Yes ;-)

"assume as a general rule that their lack of knowledge is the boundary condition for others."

An astute observation. I encounter this phenomenon somewhat frequently. IMO, it is more an ability to recognize in others what one possesses himself. Distance away from ones own knowledge may well be perceived as a decline in both directions (to lesser knowledge but also to greater knowledge) probably on a gaussian curve. I am frequently labeled stupid and idiot, but not by the person most adept at making that judgment.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Kevin O'Neill (not verified)

Kevin O'Neill "Is he being pedantic (no person) or just dumb? There is no *one* person, they are legion.

I am pedantic. Scientists and computer programmers ought to be precise. "Climate Science" is not a monolithic thing; it is not a single claim and has no single author. I suspect that many papers cited under the umbrella of "climate science" weren't actually engaged for that purpose but happen to be useful.

As typically used, it is also circular in explanation -- climate science is what anyone says it is; for there is no definition of it, or maybe many definitions exist, one by each person interested in making the attempt.

My interest stems from lazy arguing. "Climate science says X" is lazy. It doesn't do that. In this thread, "X" isn't even a scientific claim or discovery; it is a conclusion or prediction of a thing that has not happened. That's not science (but might be "climate science"!)

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Kevin O'Neill (not verified)

This experiment tends to play out in the same way every time. If you assist a narcissistic troll in it's public displays of verbal masturbation, you get reams and reams of useless drivel.

For newbies who didn't get any science growing up, the earth sciences (including climatology) are by and large chemistry and physics directed at the study of the earth. A core premise underlying these sciences is that cause and effect are actual things and that they can be demonstrated and built upon.

Further modern science, as it has grown increasingly complex, has become increasingly collaborative. The classic example is the understanding of the mechanism underlying plate tectonics which came about through convergence of evidence from a number of different fields.

So to reduce it to terms that won't tax the feeble too much, two smart, disciplined heads grounded in reality are better than one self-indulgent blowhard lost in space.

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

Obstreperous Applesauce says "If you assist a narcissistic troll in it’s public displays of verbal masturbation..."

It is hive behavior. I'm the intruder, y'all are the bees, but your stings are only words.

I offer myself as sacrifice so that you can see your own words and ponder how effective is your strategy at changing the behavior of 7 billion humans to include milking them for money.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Obstreperous A… (not verified)

Not hive behavior at all m2. You simply have no clue what you are talking about, apparently sense that, and so you ramble on about the "problem" of many scientists contributing to science.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Dean wrote "Your ignorance is astounding."

Good morning to you, too.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Dean (not verified)

M2 - *You* are the one that said, "There’s very little about Basic Physics that can “inform” a person about “climate science”

A.) The capitalization was yours - not mine - I was quoting you.
B.) All of climate science is grounded in physics
C.) When asked for an example of an area of climate science that is *not* grounded in physics you admit you can't provide one.
D.) Words have definitions. This is true of 'climate' & 'science'

I find it laughable that you suggest you're pedantic. Words have definitions. You might try looking them up sometime. From the IPCC's definition of 'climate':
" Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the ‘average weather’, or more rigorously, as the statistical description interms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. The classical period of time is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)."

Do you need one for 'science'? the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject

You realize you have taken the generic know-nothing position, don't you.? Substitute 'geology' or 'archaeology' for climate science and how would your argument be any different? It wouldn't.

I stand by my original assertion; you don't understand physics, science in general, or climate science in particular. Your tedious verbal regurgitations of sophomoric denier memes only reinforces my opinion.

By Kevin O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Kevin O'Neill largely repeating himself says:

"A.) The capitalization was yours – not mine – I was quoting you."

Of course. I capitalize it since it isn't basic physics, it is Basic Physics, the key to understanding Life, the Universe and Everything.

"B.) All of climate science is grounded in physics"

It's a tautology. Physics is physical science. Any and all physical science is physics; it may also be named something like geology which deals with a subset of physical science.

"C.) When asked for an example of an area of climate science that is *not* grounded in physics you admit you can’t provide one."

Rinse and repeat.

"D.) Words have definitions. This is true of ‘climate’ & ‘science’ "

Not in dispute.

"I find it laughable that you suggest you’re pedantic."

Strange: "Kevin O'Neill July 23, 2016 Is he being pedantic or just dumb?"

"From the IPCC’s definition of ‘climate’... "

That's nice and it serves their purpose. The word "climate" predates the IPCC and obviously therefore had a somewhat different definition.

"Do you need one for ‘science’?"

It would be nice to add to my collection.

"You realize you have taken the generic know-nothing position, don’t you.?"

I do not understand do-you-dont-you sentence structures.

Whether my "position" is that of any other person is of little interest or consequence.

"I stand by my original assertion"

I usually do likewise.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Kevin O'Neill (not verified)

I do wish there was a way to edit these comments. I did not mean for my response to be as wordy and snarky as it came out. I intended to summarize most of it thusly:

Physics == physical science.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Kevin O'Neill (not verified)

'Climate science' = physical climatology

M2 - I don't think you actually understand what a tautology is: the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.

This is distinct from a definition. Defining climate science as the study of climate is not a tautology, it's a definition. That this science is based on physics is due to the subject matter. Social sciences are not wholly based on physics. Math is not based on physics. A science like archaeology is partially based on physics. Climate science is wholly based on physics. Responses to changes in climate (mitigation and/or adaptation) are only partially based on physics.

P.S. "pedantic or dumb" was a rhetorical question -- and you're not pedantic.

By Kevin O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Kevin O'Neill wrote: "Defining climate science as the study of climate is not a tautology, it’s a definition."

So it is. Defining anything produces a definition. A tautology is a special class of definition.

You have suggested I am "dumb" but nothing I have written recently suggests I am incapable of auditory speech. Perhaps you have a different definition of "dumb".

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Kevin O'Neill (not verified)

M2 - if you were truly pedantic and understood logic, then your argument would be that the definitions of 'climate,' 'science,' and/or 'climate science' are chosen simply to advance a tautological argument; and that other completely reasonable definitions exist that would reveal this subterfuge.

This, of course, is not the case. 'Climate' and 'science' are words that are pretty well understood even to most laymen (though deniers seem to think weather = climate).

Hence your claim of a tautological argument is merely confusion on your part. Color me surprised.

By Kevin O'Neill (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Kevin O'Neill wrote "...are chosen simply to advance a tautological argument"

"Climate science is basic physics" can be taken, but not necessarily taken, as a type of tautology where the phrase "basic physics" isn't what I would consider basic physics but instead is whatever is Climate Science, thus looping back and defining itself.

It is an implied insult and I am glad that people are at least trying to find new ways to say "I don't like you".

It would be better to say "climate science is a branch of the physical sciences and requires fairly advanced physics to cope with its complexities. An example of the level of physics involved includes understanding the various mechanisms of energy transfer between molecules; some of which can intercept an infrared photon and the majority that cannot."

"‘Climate’ and ‘science’ are words that are pretty well understood even to most laymen"

"Trinity" is a word known to nearly all westerners but not in the same way.

So what about "science"? Is the definition settled? No. At least among scientists? Not even that.

Wiki:

There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism, which holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.

Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the finite number of observations humans can make and hence the finite amount of empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is necessary because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means that they cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of empiricism exist, with the predominant ones being bayesianism and the hypothetico-deductive method.

Empiricism has stood in contrast to rationalism, the position originally associated with Descartes, which holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.

Another approach, instrumentalism, colloquially termed "shut up and calculate", emphasizes the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Kevin O'Neill (not verified)

(though deniers seem to think weather = climate).

Indeed:

When y’all can predict the weather 3 days from now and the climate 20 years from now I’ll start to believe that “Basic Physics” is the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.

Sigh.

BBD sighs, in response to: though deniers seem to think weather = climate.

M2 writes: When y’all can predict the weather 3 days from now and the climate 20 years from now.

So what part of my reply confuses you that I consider weather to be climate? I gave weather a 3 day window; it would be an achievement to predict weather three days from now, and I allow that climate, being an averaging and measuring somewhat different things, ought to achieve a similar level of accuracy over 20 to 30 years.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

M2

Perhaps you have a different definition of “dumb”.

I'd prefer 'obtuse'. This as a consequence of being excessively politicised in your outlook and so blinded to the realities of the problem posed by climate change.

So what part of my reply confuses you that I consider weather to be climate? I gave weather a 3 day window; it would be an achievement to predict weather three days from now, and I allow that climate, being an averaging and measuring somewhat different things, ought to achieve a similar level of accuracy over 20 to 30 years.

Okay, yes, weather cannot be predicted except on very short timescales because it is inherently chaotic but long-term climate change *can* be predicted because you are looking at average behaviour over long periods in response to a change in the Earth's energy balance.

That pesky old basic physics requires that IR absorbent, non-condensing gasses such as CO2 will inhibit the efficiency at which energy is lost to space and so cause an energetic imbalance to build up within the climate system. Palaeoclimate behaviour provides some quite unmistakable examples of this and we are in the process of providing another.

Your repeated contention that we can't know this because it hasn't happened yet is, I'm afraid, denialism. We understand the atmospheric physics and we have the palaeoclimate record. We know enough.

BBD wrote "We understand the atmospheric physics and we have the palaeoclimate record. We know enough."

Your we is not my we. But we seem to have looped back to the top.

1. If we know enough then we need no more climate scientists, no more research grants. I'll vote for that.

2. If we understand atmospheric physics see #1.

Thank you for providing an example of what you mean by "basic physics": "requires that IR absorbent, non-condensing gasses such as CO2 will inhibit the efficiency at which energy is lost to space and so cause an energetic imbalance to build up within the climate system."

Except for "energetic imbalance" (*) I agree with your description, although I still think it is not as basic as all that.

* "Behavioral Signs of Energetic Imbalance. By Felice Dunas, PhD" [http]://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=31898

So the question seems to be whether your use of "basic physics" is the ordinary meaning of the words or encapsulates special meaning. The answer is special meaning since none of these basic physic curricula discuss carbon dioxide and its accompanying quantum energy levels and what it takes to capture a photon (or emit one) and whether and in what circumstances the carbon dioxide gives up its energy by collision rather than radiation.

[http]://ww2.odu.edu/~skuhn/PHYS101/Syllabus.pdf
Topics to be covered include:
- What is Physics? What is Science?
- What is the Universe made of?
- What interactions occur between the basic building blocks of the Universe?
- Describing motion (Kinematics)
- Forces – their properties and their effects (Dynamics)
- Momentum and its conservation
- Energy – its different forms (kinetic, potential,…) and its conservation
- Rotation (angular velocity, angular momentum, centripetal acceleration, torque)
- Gravity, Projectile motion and satellite orbits
- Electrostatics
- Electric current and circuits
- Magnetism and magnetic induction

Hmm, not much pertinent to climate and carbon dioxide. Let's try some other sources.

Heat transfer appears in this syllabus. It gets one day, followed by one day each for the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
[http]://public.wsu.edu/~thiessen/p101/p101syl.html

Here's an online course that seems fairly comprehensive for a Basic Physics curriculum:
[http]://study.com/academy/course/intro-to-physics-course.html

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Your we is not my we.

Then read a textbook on physical climatology. It is a science, not a socialist gambit for world government.

1. If we know enough then we need no more climate scientists, no more research grants. I’ll vote for that.

And be rendered blind to the implications of climate change as it unfolds? This would impair your ability to act in your own self-interest.

and whether and in what circumstances the carbon dioxide gives up its energy by collision rather than radiation.

The majority, IIRC. You are welcome to check and consider whether it would or would not cause a generalised warming of the atmosphere.

Hmm, not much pertinent to climate and carbon dioxide. Let’s try some other sources.

Might be worth reviewing this chapter:

– Energy – its different forms (kinetic, potential,…) and its conservation

And then this:

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Perhaps I should have said fundamental physics, not basic.

We understand the atmospheric physics and we have the palaeoclimate record. We know enough.

Michael 2@229

“Climate science is basic physics"

Funny how that phrase appears no where else in this thread despite being in quotes. This is a dishonest. Note what Kevin O'Neill actually said:

Climate science is wholly based on physics.

But then I don't think anyone expects integrity from Michael 2.

The answer is special meaning since none of these basic physic curricula discuss carbon dioxide and its accompanying quantum energy levels and what it takes to capture a photon (or emit one) and whether and in what circumstances the carbon dioxide gives up its energy by collision rather than radiation.

No, the given example was thermodynamics applied to a specific system. Specific applications of thermodynamic principles won't show up in the syllabus. Thermodynamics is very much basic physics (it shows up in the last link provided).

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

“Climate science is basic physics”

Funny how that phrase appears no where else in this thread despite being in quotes. This is a dishonest.

The first mention is at #205: by M2:

How many people here say “Its basic physics!” — well, no. There’s very little about Basic Physics that can “inform” a person about “climate science” or we would not be having this conversation.

And for some time since we have been having this conversation.

capnkrunch writes "Funny how that phrase appears no where else in this thread despite being in quotes."

Except for #212 Kevin O'Neill: "All of climate science is grounded in basic physics"

You can easily find "basic physics" on this blog via this command given to Google:

inurl:http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/ "basic physics"

It's on other blogs of course since the same talking points (and the same commenters!) are found in many places.

AnOilMan writes: "For the basic physics I recommend Dennis Hartmann's Global Physical Climatology; "

There's the answer. It means the basic physics of climatology, or the things you need to know to understand climatology. I understand "basic physics"; but climatology is complex and I make no claim to understand even the basics, except some of the basics, just not all of the basics in case anyone wanted to make a list.

By Michael 2 (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

In reply to by BBD (not verified)

Except for #212 Kevin O’Neill: “All of climate science is grounded in basic physics”

He was responding to you, quoting your own words. You inserted that phrase into the thread as I showed at #205 so cease the blatant dishonesty please.

OilMan's quote only serves to underline what I wrote earlier - for 'basic' read fundamental.

This squirrel is now dead.

I make no claim to understand even the basics, except some of the basics, just not all of the basics

Then shut up with the lazy, ignorant denialist blather and read a textbook. Inform yourself.

"Inform yourself."

You know the answer to that. M2 has already established on other threads that he believes his use of sophistry outweighs science (and everything else) any old day. It is abundantly clear that what ails him lies well outside the purview of climate science.

Seriously, DNFTT.

By Obstreperous A… (not verified) on 25 Jul 2016 #permalink

BBD@237

He was responding to you, quoting your own words. You inserted that phrase into the thread as I showed at #205 so cease the blatant dishonesty please.

Even more than that, it wasn't even a direct quote of his own words. Before my comment, the phrase “Climate science is basic physics” appears exactly once on this page. Yet for some reason it is in quotation marks... But honest has never a trademark characteristic of denialists.

By capnkrunch (not verified) on 25 Jul 2016 #permalink

Soros is a marist.
David Koch is a capitalist.
Let's see if we can use those facts to predict their position on global warming.
I feel a hypothesis coming on. Oh I have a raging hypothesis that explains and predicts everything.

By Clark Magnuson (not verified) on 26 Jul 2016 #permalink