On 11/29/09, Edward Cherlin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 19:06, Wayne Mackintosh > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Steve, >> >> Well said and excellent post! > > Wayne, I fear that you don't know what you are talking about.
Hi Edward I don't think you can develop a good dialogue with others in your communication in that your language comes across as very arrogant and aggressive bordering on bullying (I'm not convinced on your credentials either). Are you > also a global warming denier/"skeptic"? Or just grotesquely > politically correct, treating all points of view as equally to be > respected? If it's something else, please tell us what. Before we get into that lets revisist the point from Phil's rant I was commenting on, "Should controverisal viewpoints have a platform in educator. I used the example of the very real and current Climategate event as an example of how controversy must be accomodated otherwise the wiki becomes a place of unquestioning indoctrination. From what I read into your email there is no room for questioning the global warming science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen I've recently been listening Richard_Lindzen and his infrared iris hypothesis work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis. "Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.[1] He was the lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has been a critic of some global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists." Does this guy know what he's talking about? He also recently took place in a debate "Global Warming is not a crisis" "To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological. To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views." - Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY He also recently did an interview on 2GB with Alan Jones on the politicisation and economic interests in the climate science - Check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AavOwZzxTgA So when Climategate happened my mind was open I was losing the good faith as a layman in the climate science which has come from the IPCC (I.e Hockey stick fiasco, Lindzen's work). The IPCC has been questioned based on revelations from the climategate emails. Have you read them? I haven't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident I've been following the wikpedia page on the incident learning heaps from people who have. A friend put me onto this discussion on the leaked data based on comments on manipulating the Fortran source code some of the most revealing material may be the programmer comments embedded in the climate models' source code. (The kind of code used to pump out those lovely graphs you link to from wikipedia). Climate Model Source Code Comments printf,1,’IMPORTANT NOTE:’ printf,1,’The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’ printf,1,’records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer’ printf,1,’temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set’ printf,1,’this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and’ printf,1,’this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring printf,1,’density variations, but have been modified to look more like the printf,1,’observed temperatures.’ It's kind of hard to spin that isn't it? FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro from the released docs is the original source. The source code itself was created and maintained using public funding and can thus be presumed to be in the Public Domain. Is it acceptable to add sections quoting source code from the original ClimateGate docs and if so, would anyone be willing to assist a newbie in doing it properly? GrouchyOldMan (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)" Apparently the hacked data also contains emails on hijacking the peer review process, descrediting scientists and deleting inconvienet data. There are lots of choice quotes this is my favorite: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't" I hope this conversation progresses in the spirit of an inclusive manner, download the climategate data (Suggest you do the same) and have a look, maybe it's a storm in a teacup and there really is something postive to be said for the IPCC's work. Lets wait and see how this 'Climategate' pans out over the coming months AND TALK ABOUT IT WITH STUDENTS. > > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 18:36, Steve Foerster <[email protected]> wrote: >> The use of the word "denialism" to describe climate change skeptics is >> the most obnoxious tactic in political discourse today, > > Nowhere near it. > > Calling yourself a skeptic when you accuse the entire scientific > community of fraud and conspiracy is one of the more obnoxious tactics > in political discourse today, but it does not compare in nastiness > with Dog Whistle race politics and some other practices. See my page > http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Code_words for a large and extremely > snarky set of translations of the widespread but unacknowledged greed, > racism, and intolerance. Countering lies and intentional ignorance > with facts, using clearly defined terms supported by evidence, is not > a tactic. It is a central part of the Scientific Method. > > We cannot settle the issues between us by arguing about language. Let > us begin with facts. I need to know which scientific data, theory, and > conclusions you accept, and which you reject. > > 1) CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. Here is the chart of CO2 in the > atmosphere for the last 50 years. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg > Do you believe that this dataset has been faked? If so, how? > > 2) Do you accept the data on the burning of carbon? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere > "Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 > times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to > about 27 billion tonnes per year." > "The oceans have absorbed about 50% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) > released from the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in chemical > reactions that lower ocean pH. This has caused an increase in hydrogen > ion (acidity) of about 30% since the start of the industrial age > through a process known as “ocean acidification.” > > Do you believe that these measurements have been faked? > > 3) If both of those are true, and also the established fact that CO2 > is a greenhouse gas, does it follow that global warming is man-made? > If not, what would count as sufficient evidence? > > 4) If global warming were real and man-made, do you accept that we > would have to do something about it? > > 5) Who are the reliable sources among the Global Warming > Deniers/"Climate Change Skeptics", many of whom have obvious conflicts > of interest in working for the carbon fuel industry? > > After you answer those, I will give you links to CO2 in the oceans; to > air, water, and land temperatures; to the melting of ice and > permafrost; to tree-ring and other archaeological data on CO2 and > warming; and a good deal more. > >> and I would >> like to think that in a community like ours it would be entirely >> unwelcome. > > Denialism is a widespread and well-documented phenomenon, whether or > not you accept that you suffer from it. See, for example Mistakes Were > Made (but not by me). > > We have had in recent times AIDS denial, Holocaust denial, Global > Warming denial, evolution denial/Creationism/Creation > Science/"Intelligent Design; economics denial (Voodoo Economics), > Apollo moon mission denial, 9/11 denial, vaccine denial, and a number > of other such movements. Each has the same characteristics, as did > fluoridation denial, Communist conspiracy theories, the Protocols of > the Elders of Zion, and much more. > >> In the highly charged environment we have when it comes to >> this issue, where there is so much noise and the truth is so often >> hidden by melodramatic rhetoric on both sides, > > The noise is entirely on the shrieking deniers' side. Scientists speak > calmly about data, conjectures, evidence, theories, peer review, > experiments, confirmation, refutation, and the like. I will cite > examples sometime, and you can do the same. I will then refute your > examples. Actually, let us begin with Senators James Inhofe, R-OK, and > Al Gore, formerly D-TN, and look at their rhetorical styles. Start > here. > > http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055 > When Democratic Sen. Harry Reid announced last week that any vote on > the climate change bill was being postponed until 2010, Republican > Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma, the leading climate change skeptic in > the Senate, said to Barbara Boxer in a Senate speech: “It's over. Get > a life. You lost. I won.” > >> it is not only fools >> and liars who are skeptical of global warming, it is entirely possible >> to hold that position in good faith. > > Only if you are willfully ignorant, as I propose to demonstrate to you > that you are. > >> Edward, if you want to point out how the science behind this works, >> and explain why those who are skeptical (1) that climate change is >> occurring, and (2) that it's human caused, and (3) that it will be a >> very bad thing for humanity, then that's great -- I for one admit that >> I could use a better understanding of it. > > OK. I have started above. If you give me a list of points that trouble > you, I can tailor my presentation to your difficulties. Here is a good > summary: > > http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055 > Politics aside, what is the evidence that humans are largely > responsible for global warming? The argument is very simple actually. > Since 1750, CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere have risen from 280 > ppm to 394 ppm, methane levels have risen from 715 ppb to 1775 ppb, > and nitrous oxide levels have risen from 270 ppb to 319 ppb. CO2 > measurements since 1955 have come from atmospheric monitoring stations > around the world, while measurements before 1955 come from ice cores > in Antarctica and deep sea cores around the world. According to Woods > Hole Oceanographic Institute, there has been a direct correlation > between CO2 concentration and global temperatures. (Global > temperatures are partially inferred by examining the percentage > changes in tropical, subtropical, and cold water species of plankton > in deep sea cores). At 394 ppm, CO2 concentration is the highest it > has been in the last 400,000 years. Measurements of human-caused > (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases show even greater increases than the > atmospheric increases. Excess CO2 is absorbed by plants during > photosynthesis, but with deforestation, the plants cannot remove all > the anthropogenic CO2. According to the National Oceanic and > Atmospheric Administration, 13 of the warmest 14 years since 1880 > occurred in the 14 years between 1994 and 2009. > > But there is much, much more. > >> But to repeatedly use such >> a term in a transparent attempt to morally equate climate change >> skeptics with holocaust deniers is hateful and divisive. Please stop >> it. > > No. It is equivalent, and could lead to even more deaths of people > whom most Americans consider not to matter much until they are > actually dying. You stop it. > > Let me give you a historical example. Henry Ford was taken in by the > Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an obvious forgery. But as one of my > math professors used to say, it may well be that something is obvious, > but it is not obvious that it is obvious. Henry Ford was anti-Semitic > in what you call good faith, until he had the forgery process and > motives explained to him. How would he know? you might ask. Well, he > could have asked. Lots of people would have told him. It was no > secret. And neither is this. So thanks for asking. > > Normally, I would not want to carry on a conversation so seemingly > irrelevant to this list's purpose. But I maintain that epistemology is > fundamental to everything we do, and this is an excellent test case. > Every child growing up has to decide what to believe because others > say so, and what to check up on. Also, how to check. Who is reliable > on a particular subject? Should I check even on those people? > >> Sincerely, >> >> -=Steve=- >> >> -- >> Stephen H. Foerster >> http://wikieducator.org/steve >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "WikiEducator" group. >> To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org >> To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] > > > > -- > Edward Mokurai (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) Cherlin > Silent Thunder is my name, and Children are my nation. > The Cosmos is my dwelling place, the Truth my destination. > http://www.earthtreasury.org/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "WikiEducator" group. > To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org > To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
