2011-01-13 03:56:23the AGW dialogue. . . please
Peter Miesler

I’ve had to deal with a fellow who really gets mad, the kind of guy that takes everything super personal even when nothing was directed at him personally.  Its gotten me thinking about the dialogue, and I came up with this new thread that I've posted at Skeptic forum.  

But, beyond that it’s something I want to weave into a genuine essay.  Being a non scientist I have certain liberties closed to folks within the establishment, which is why I want to tackle the following questions and write something of value about it, of course the following is only a brainstorming draft on the way to something better... it could use some help  ;-)

If anyone has any thoughts, critiques to share please do.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted at Skeptics Society forum

The following thoughts are inspired by what I find throughout the blogosphere when examining AGW sceptical arguments, sources and websites.

Meditating on the roots of my irritation that occasionally poke through my posts (my apologies). I’ve come to focus on the disrespect and shallowness I perceive throughout sceptical points of denial, supporting arguments, and its avoidance of legitimate climate science findings. Beyond their handling of science, their handling of the critically important political question of how humanity will deal with our future is self centered and short sighted.

All this is best exemplified by Republican’s inherent disregard for trying, even for a moment, to listen or directly acknowledge what the science is revealing. As though Republicans think this is a high school debate where it’s all about winning so that deflection of the scientist's message is all that matters.

It’s a despicable tactic, developed by right wing think-tanks and then trickled down to the faithful - many who are religiously incapable of fathoming our Earth as a billions year old entity, so nothing about climate makes sense to them anyways.

The problem is not science becoming religion.
The problem is religion becoming business, and then anti-science, because the science is telling us we need to slow down. Which is the last thing Republicans are willing to face.

Quite frankly that’s the dishonesty I speak of. Especially considering the magnitude for what we are knowingly doing to the very foundation of the nature we depend on. “Sceptics” hold such notions in hubris blinded contempt because their here and now addiction to consumption remains sacrosanct. The dialogue has snagged on that crucial point.

The real problem is the lack of Good Faith offered from the “sceptical” quarter. For them it’s all about war and victory. Given political and media realities looks like those folks will win the war, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

2011-01-13 15:12:46"The game is rigged"
Peter Miesler

I hope you don't mind me adding the following exchange, it's actually from a different thread but it is wrestling with the same critter.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

citizenschallenge wrote:The thing is, it is absolutely not true that the work of Christy, Lindzen, M&M, Soon, Baliunas, etc. have been "ignored" - quite the contrary they have received more than their share of attention... as a serious review of available literature and discussion will attest to.
But, remember,
examining, debunking and dismissing with cause is quite different from "censured or locked out of the process" (and that would be a more accurate description of what has happen.)

reply post:    

The problem with that idea is that one side gets to make and enforce the rules for the other side.  The benchmarks are all designed with a given outcome in mind.
It's the same situation with almost any studies that are outside the mainstream; the burden on proof is stacked enormously against the outsiders.  It's a shroud that almost nothing can penetrate.  The game is rigged; the umpire is a member of the winning team.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

my reply:

Now you're sounding paranoid.  As though nothing that doesn't come out of your particular ideological group can be trusted.  Where that falls apart in this particular situation is that, the reasons for rejecting the various findings of the above crowd have been aired and clearly explained.  Furthermore, just listening to the lectures and public statements of Lindzen and Christy etc. there are many logical and factual errors plus out-of-bounds claims that it does predispose me to trusting the establishment climate scientists over this politically motivated clique.

Especially since the Earth Observation data fully supports mainstream climate science findings.  For instance it is fine and dandy to say, oh no particular storm can be attributed to global warming, yet the unmistakable up tick in major 100, 500, even 1000 years weather events really should act as a wake up call that something very major is underway and that its trajectory is heading in a bad direction for us ~ considering how totally dependent humanity is upon a hospitable climate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I believe my opening statement accurately reflects the situation.  Does anyone disagree?

So how to deal with the built in paranoia, or war footing?

I'm after hardball comments, even if you think I'm up a tree, I'd be interested in knowing that.

ps. after writing this post, I added another comment to the above Skepticforum thread

"Have you considered that the "benchmarks" are equal for both 'sides' ~ however that the contrarian 'side' really and truly has failed to achieve those benchmarks of scientific voracity?
And have failed specifically because they do not accurately explain what is doing on within our biosphere. "

2011-01-14 13:16:47please
Peter Miesler

 excuse a bit more bio here

I imagine most of you folks are around universities or other dynamic venues ~ where there’s a good deal of intellectual interaction with other people.  Interesting thought provoking conversations and challenges.  I have a different situation here in my beautiful corner of Colorado, though I have a community of family and friends, I’m intellectually isolated.  My break for an intellectual conversation is listening in on Terry Gross at WHYY’s Fresh Air.  It’s books and this computer.  But it is impossible to create anything of any value in a vacuum.  And I am trying to write stuff of value.  So any thoughts any of you could share would be appreciated.  Even if just to tell me to pack it up.

sincerely, peterm