william.scherk

22,646 views

[Edited January 2 2019 -- to remove or replace dead visual-links]

Long ago Jonathan and I got some good traction out of a tangle of issues related to Global Warming slash Climate Change.  I think we are slated to renew or refresh our earlier exchanges.  I am going to poke in links to some he-said/he-saids from a few different threads at different times. One feature of the updated software is an automated 'sampling' of a link posted raw.  See below. 

So this blog entry will be kind of administrative-technical while being built and edited. I haven't figured out if Jonathan and I should impose some 'rules' going in, so your comment may be subject to arbitrary deletion before the field is ready for play. Fan notes included.

Study-links-Greenland-melting-with-Arctic-amplification.jpg

globalWarmingPEWpolarization.png

Adam, see what you think of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, especially the revealing map-based representations of opinion. You can drill and zoom down to state, county, district level to track data across a number of survey questions, where some of the answers are surprising. On some measures at least, the thing it is not found only in the UK, Quebec, Canada: Here's a snapshot of several maps which do not always show an expected Red State/Blue State pattern;

[images updated January 2 2019; click and go images]

2018YaleClimateOpinionMaps.png

personalHarmYaleCC.png

[Deleted image-link]

Edited 4 May 2015 by william.scherk

 

Plug my How To Get Where I Got book of books, Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. Insert link to Amazon, Library link, and to the intro chapter of Weart's companion website to the book. Make sure you include a link to Ellen's mention of a book review. 

Bob Kolker's June 3 comment is a good hinge. What do we (J and I) think we know about the mechanism Bob sketches? What can we 'stipulate' or what can we agree on, for the sake of argument?

On 6/3/2016 at 9:31 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

CO2 does  slow down the radiation of energy in the infra-red bandwith.  The question is to what degree  given that there are other systems that tend to diffuse and disperse heat (such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino, along with convection and the Coriolis Effect that moves warm are to the polar regions).  The scientific fact is that CO2 tends to absorb radiated energy in the infra red range.  That is NOT fabricated.  That is a matter of experimental fact. 

Please see http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

The issue is to what extent is the CO2 load of the atmosphere is slowing down heat radiation into space, when such absorbing or radiation occurs along with other heat dispersing processes.   

No denies that putting a blanket on, when it is cold slows down the rate at which one's body radiates heat.  Air is a poor heat conductor and the blanket traps air.  Also the blanket is warmed and radiates half its heat back to the source.  This produces a net slowing down of heat loss.  Heat loss still occurs (Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation)  but the rate of loss is affected. 

Tyndol and Arhenius  established the heat absorbing properties of CO2  in the late 19 th and early 20 th century.  Subsequent work has show the absorbtion to be the case and has measured it even more accurately than Tyndol and Arhenius. 

 

 

arctic1.jpg

1,169 Comments


Recommended Comments



43 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

 

First, you indulged in the lame attempt at insult by claiming that I was living in 1995 simply by identifying the reality that there had been a "hiatus." Is that not adhominem?

 

No, that isn't ad hom. It's pointing out that while surface temperatures slowed for a period in the mid 90's to early 2000's (only one 1 data set mind you), other metrics, OHC continued without hesitation. It's not attacking your character to point out that the evidence doesn't illustrate a pause that you insist on.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Do you possess the capacity to recognize that you've failed to answer the questions?!

Jonathan,

I keep going back and forth on this myself.

Part of him has to know. That's an assumption I make based on my evaluation that he is a reasonably intelligent person, probably a good person, and has a functioning brain.

But the other part reminds me of the way the Democrats keep morphing in their campaigns to take down Trump. When one thing doesn't work, rather than say to themselves that their reasoning was wrong, they were promoting a lie, etc., they simply move on to a different thing and pretend they are the ones who are rational. (Muh Russians, Kavanaugh hearings, Muh Ukraine, impeachment, etc. And they will come up with new ones as they go along.) Not all, but many of those idiots believe their own bullshit.

From what I have seen so far, I believe this guy will always land beside the point in relation to your questions and constantly present a new set of half-baked issues that he will instruct you in and demand you analyze instead of answering your questions.

And the reason is:

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Is there nothing about your failing to answer the questions that piques your curiosity? Has your failure to answer had no effect on you? Has it stimulated no thoughts?

I hope there is in that same part of him that I suspect has a glimmer of self-awareness. (That part is so very precious and I get really pissed that modern education has been killing it in the young.)

But in that other part, the kind of curiosity you mention is not on the table. He gets strong neurochemical payoffs from his tribe to never pursue that kind of curiosity. (Group approval triggers the neurochemicals. He's scientific, after all. His group tells him so. It's Plato's cave all the way back to the last wall. Your questions fuck with that so no buzz over here. And that's disorienting. :) )

From reading him over time, I'm confident that he came here in an attitude to instruct what Rubes were salvageable and slay the others with dismissal and so on.

He did not come here in curiosity. He did not come to use the principle of charity in his discussion demeanor and rhetoric (like you have done with him until your bullshit level went into the red and you finally blew. :) )

He came here as a missionary.

I'm not talking about him like this to disparage him. He showed up and caught my attention as an interesting case study in corrupted epistemology. The really interesting part to me is that his state is not his fault. He has been indoctrinated by school and culture to the point where he cannot answer a simple question when it cuts too deep into his self-image (like yours does), but still thinks he is using the rational part of his mind in avoiding questions.

I wonder if he can break free of that shackle. It will be interesting to see what happens no matter what happens.

Michael

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

No, that isn't ad hom. It's pointing out that while surface temperatures slowed for a period in the mid 90's to early 2000's (only one 1 data set mind you), other metrics, OHC continued without hesitation. It's not attacking your character to point out that the evidence doesn't illustrate a pause that you insist on.

You are a such a fuckhead.

Link to comment

From 'Big Think':

707px-Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement

Quote

Dubbed “the hacker philosopher” by the tech journalist Steven Levy, Graham has written on a number of subjects on his popular blog at paulgraham.com, which got 34 million pages views in 2015. One of his most lasting contributions has been the now-classic essay 'How to disagree' where he proposed the hierarchy of disagreement which is as relevant today as it was in 2008 when it was first published. 

Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment

Good Billy.

And your best try at answering the legitimate questions on the table ...

No?

Just Superior Being dances like usual? You’re boring.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

From 'Big Think':

707px-Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement

Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.

Yeah, thanks, Billy.

Do you have any top-of-the-pyramid responses to my questions?

Heh. Just kidding. I know that you don't. You have nothing but just more of the yellow section, complaining about how the icky Others™ aren't using the proper tone, and are derailing fruitful discussion by being so gauche as to ask relevant and substantive questions that you and your idiot meat puppets can't answer. The yellow or green sections are as high as you are capable of going.

J

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From reading him over time, I'm confident that he came here in an attitude to instruct what Rubes were salvageable and slay the others with dismissal and so on.

Yeah, to me, that's one of the more amusing aspects of his behavior. He's been challenged to defend a position and answer questions. He doesn't have the answers. So his ploy is to pretend that he is being asked the questions not because his position is stupid and unsupported, but because we adore his brilliance and wish to absorb his wisdom.

I don't think that he's succeeding in fooling himself.

J

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Good Billy.

And your best try at answering the legitimate questions on the table ...

No?

Just Superior Being dances like usual? You’re boring.

What is one legitimate question on the table?

Link to comment

 

8 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

What is one legitimate question on the table?

Here are several, douchebag:

Quote

 

In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer:

How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?

 

But, let me guess: It has just occurred to you to use the tactic that any question that you can't answer is now illegitimate?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

 

Here are several, douchebag:

But, let me guess: It has just occurred to you to use the tactic that any question that you can't answer is now illegitimate?

I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer.

 

So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

What is one legitimate question on the table?

I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. 

I think sometimes that 'What Could Persuade You to Change Your Mind?" is the right way to go, but that question doesn't reveal what a particular person believes. I don't -- after all this time -- know which beliefs are held by who, not in detail (except for Bob/Ba'al).

It might be best answered by the Yale Climate Communications survey questions as revised. (or by a simple set of questions which answers reflect relative adhesion to so-called 'Consensus Statements**). The results of answering the Yale 'SASSY' survey questions assign a person's position among the "Six Americas" ...

Quote

Global Warming's Six Americas is an audience segmentation tool designed to help people better understand their own climate views as well as others. The original questionnaire was based on 36 items, but has now been reduced to just four questions in the Six Americas Super Short SurveY (SASSY).

My assignment:

concernedYale.png

Brief video that outlines the distinctions between the six 'buckets' ...

_____________________

** Eg, Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming from NASA

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer.

Did you not read and comprehend my questions? In the very first sentence I knew that you would pull the moronic tactic of trying to disconnect the questions from their context of referring to the same hypothesis and its resulting predictions and testing, which is why I parenthetically included the comment "and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture." And here you are being moronic enough to do exactly what I predicted you would, and asked you not to.

 

Quote

So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?

I didn't ask you to tell me anything that you felt like saying in regard to falsifiability.

I asked specific questions. Read them again.

The questions all go together, and apply to the exact same hypothesis, predictions and testing. They do not apply whatever random phenomena you wish to substitute.

In regard to the issue of falsifiability, my question is what are the specific conditions of falsifiability in relation to the single hypothesis and its climate model which settled the science once and for all.

Honestly, you are working way too hard to try to not understand questions which are so very easy to grasp. 

J

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. 

Oh, no!

If you can't pay attention, little buddy, no worries! Here's the essential questions once again:

Quote

 

In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer:

How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?

 

 

Link to comment

But Jonathan, your always calling them on their games like you do is making him lose sight of what this is all about in the first place. You’ve derailed it again. It’s all in a shambles now. 😪

Link to comment

A bit more information about the basis for the Six Americas ... from the gang at Yale Climate Communications.

Quote

[...]

The six audiences were first identified using a large nationally representative survey of American adults conducted in the fall of 2008. The survey questionnaire included extensive, in-depth measures of the public’s climate change beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, motivations, values, policy preferences, behaviors, and underlying barriers to action. The Six Americas are distinguishable on all these dimensions, and display very different levels of engagement with the issue.

Since 2008, we have conducted many additional studies on these six audiences, including:

The Six Americas framework is being used by climate educators and communicators throughout the United States, including local, state, and national governments, academic institutions, environmental organizations, businesses, faith groups, doctors and scientists, and the media.

For a quick introduction, please see our short video.

 

 

Link to comment

Yeah, Jonathan, where do you lie in the six America’s? Tell us how you got there. Spin a narrative, chat about polls, forget your questions.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

From 'Big Think':

707px-Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement

Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.

William,

I'll take a swing at this.

As a rule of thumb for people dealing with each others like, say, in a PTA meeting or a local community function, this kinda works. But as a view of dealing with important issues that change hearts and minds, or in sharing knowledge, or advancing technology, or changing the world for that matter, this linear system of categories to make kindergarten rules from shows an abysmal view of human nature.

Man the automaton. The puppet. The programmable blank slate.

This is a control freak's dream. But it certainly doesn't work on the Internet where control freaks proliferate and are powerless among other humans with different ideas. I suppose that pyramid is good to point at when things are not going well in a discussion to make one feel superior to others, but even control freaks have a level of bullshit they can't swallow. They know it underneath, too--that thing is worthless in practice.

The underlying premise of this diagram is that people are either name-calling, or they are only using ad-hominem, or they are merely responding to tone, or blah blah blah. All the way up to refuting and winning the game.

And did you notice that this is a negative graph? That it's for refuting points, not for promoting them?

Why would someone devise it that way, I wonder, I wonder?

Ghost of Popper? That's at best and even then, it's stretching the principle of charity to distortion. The real reason is that it is a weapon, not a system of discussing things. It is made to destroy, not to share or build.

But setting that aside, so much is left out of this pyramid in real discourse that it's not even funny. Here are a few examples, and note, all of them come from the cognitive bias realm or persuasion (where those pyramid thingies also came from): gaslighting, outright denying that one said something, ganging up on someone with peer pressure, lying on purpose, doing "yes" chains on someone, arguing from authority and not fact, daring someone to say something (threatening and intimidating them), public shaming, covert trolling by constantly repeating small barbs and insinuations, presenting compiled lists as arguments instead of using them for evidence or illustration, flattering someone, using cliffhangers and cognitive gaps, goading someone to provoke outrage, throwing verbal rocks at (presumed) common enemies, making or insinuating false presuppositions galore, using confusing insider jargon, trying to win at all costs as a constant subtext, using pattern interrupts, and so on.

I pulled that off the top of my head. Imagine if I were to dig into the literature and come up with a real list. (A good place to start would be Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman.)

Not one of these things, nor the things in that pretty little pyramid straightjacket thingie, happen in isolation. Human beings are far more complex than that and they pile these things on each other at the same time when they carry on discussions.

Duh.

Then there is this. Going by the pretty little pyramid straightjacket thingie, the ultimate coronation on it, the top of the pyramid, is when you refute a central point. Rand provided an interesting question that topples that pyramid in many, many instances. She asks: By what standard?

And that's a great question. Refute by what standard?

Observation? Falsifiability? Word games? Vote?

Take a look at that pyramid once again and see if you can see what is really there. Do you see it? There's no system for stimulating the mind there--for how to peg abstractions to reality-based referents. But there is a system of kindergarten-level rules to control others using a gamified quality increase as you go up the pyramid. 

It may be good for playing some game or other, but it is not a system for promoting good will or logic in discussions. The principle of charity goes much, much, much further at arriving at civil discourse than anything on that stupid graph.

Promoting good will, logic and civil discourse requires encouraging openness to suggestions, ways to learn, curiosity and things like that. Good will, logic and civil discourse are actually killed when you provide namby-pamby labels that imply namby-pamby rules that are set it stone so they can be gamed.

Besides, these rules are to be enforced by whom? Didja think about that?

What happens when a shallow hypocrite like, say, me (to paraphrase the guy you brought here)?... when I am the one enforcing your silly little pyramid rules?

Think about it.

How relevant are your rules then?

That pyramid is made of sand on a beach and, in practice, gets carried off by the arrival of a few waves. Not even the promoters of that pyramid can adhere to it in the way they use it on others.

Good will, logic and civil discourse do not happen by beating it into people with labels. Not even gamified labels. They happen by encouraging the joy of using one's mind to figure things out and share them, instead of using the mind just to manipulate and rule over others to get a neurochemical hit from feeling superior.

Others may get value out of that pyramid. To me, it's a form of mental masturbation to justify feeling useless and impotent when laying big fat worthless eggs in front of everyone. 

Try real human nature, not some hairbrained construct, and treat others according to that standard--human nature. Then you'll do far better at peacefully and civilly disagreeing with other humans. That is, if learning how to do that is what you are seeking. But if you are merely seeking how to control other humans (while magnanimously allowing them to disagree with you without hurting your feelings), start with a baseball bat. I think you will be able understand that a lot easier than you currently understand human nature. At least a baseball bat works to control some people.

Michael

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis

These are your words.

I have you a list of hypothesis.

They have the years the predictions were made.

The would be falsified had they not come true.

What else is there to answer in regards to your question?

Link to comment

Billy, you are a total prick in a million ways not mentioned on your pyramid thingje, so be a big boy, stop embarrassing yourself with the douchebag pyramid for kindergarteners and re-enter the discussion. Jonathan has legitimate questions, try to answer them.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

A bit more information about the basis for the Six Americas

Shall I do this one, too, from a human nature lens?

It's highly doable...

:)

Here's just a hint. This taxonomy only has value to the converted as a potential missionary tool. To the rest it's a big yawner.

Most people will feel like I do: time to change the channel and put on something more interesting, Keeping Up with the Kardashians or whatever. (And I really dislike fried voices, in fact, I dislike that show. :) )

Michael

Link to comment

Nature.com

🤣

It is becoming evident that Brad is no more capable of speaking about science than Billy is.

Billy, why did you think this meathead, who can only hunt down links like you, is knowledgeable or able to speak about any science at all? It is evident all he knows is climate propaganda and nothing about any science.

Link to comment

Brad wrote: 14 of 17 climate models published between 1970 and 2001 accurately projected future warming.

I seem to remember that around 1969 or 1970 in California, global cooling was the big worry. I will take a look at those studies when I have time. At the Junior College I was attending then, the science prof's, (some sort of geology, Political geology?) predicted global cooling. I have also mentioned many times how some friends of the family have a beach house in Fenwick, Delaware next to the water and it looks the same now as it did back in around 1966. Same distance from the ocean. Same need to occasionally replenish the dunes. House not flooded. My in-laws have a home in West Ocean City on the water and I do see that some marsh has turned into just water, but on the other side of the road away from the water there is a marsh that has now filled in to a great degree. My point is let your own eyes be the tools of detection.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Billy, why did you think [Brad] is knowledgeable or able to speak about any science at all?

As I've said before somewhere, William's bringing Brad aboard, apparently thinking that Brad could handle Jonathan's questions, is itself an example of William's incompetence.  Short form:  Willism didn't know better.

Ellen

  • Like 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now