Dr Paul Bain sent me his second reply to my second letter late on Friday, which I am grateful for. I’ll post it in a few hours (scheduled 9am Monday morning Eastern States time, which is 7pm NY Time). It seemed fairer to let the conversation unfold in business hours, rather than releasing it over the weekend or at midnight.
It’s your chance to help researchers studying skeptics learn more about what we think. — Jo
Thanks, JoNova, for your efforts to resolve this long-standing dispute openly and honorably for the sake of our troubled society!
Here’s my analysis of the problem:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/
00
Sorry this is off topic:
If you want this question to be answered by the PM please vote here.
“By how much, measured in thousandths of degrees Celsius, will the Earth’s temperature be reduced through the carbon tax?”
00
I think he is trying to figure out why the efforts to brain wash people into adopting the official position have failed.
00
That is exactly what they are trying to do.
The only problem is that their science is so terrible that it cannot be fixed.
So trying to use psychology and other forms of mind manipulation is their ONLY recourse that is left…very much like the politicians use.
00
I liked that Joe, well put.
00
They simply haven’t got the right technique.
What they have to do is to grap the subjects left trapezius muscle with their right hand and squeeze slightly on the pressure point in the middle of the muscle, then close their eyes, focus their minds, and whisper quietly, “Now this Mind Meld will allow us to share our thoughts…”
The historical literature of the Starship Enterprise attests to this efficacy of this method…
00
How fair of you Jo.
I bet you will also use words in their common, widely understood, meanings.
Not words like “higher order thinking skills” or “quality education” or “rigor” or “relevant” or “pedagogy” or a few others in my Glossary of misleading statist terms.
When you control language, you control how anyone can relate to their own experiences.
And the bureaucrat says: “These are the concepts I want future voters to be aware of. To relate to emotionally. Driven by instinct and feelings. And we will be familiar with those concepts and they will be standing by as unconscious pressure points to create manipulated responses when needed.”
Education really does make such an effective weapon.
How many of the current generation of students would be capable of the substantive written analysis and recognition of duplicitous language that Jo employed with Bain.
Are the statists just biding their time as those skills became ever rarer among voters?
00
Yep, you are right.. Climate science has always been about writing, words.. NEVER about real science.
And now we have scientifically illterate pychologists thinking they can overcome the lack of real science behind the AGW agenda… they want to make a sociology issue, based on NO SCIENCE AT ALL.
DOH !!!
00
I think people are misreading Robin’s comment. Robin has posted quite a few comments on the site and is skeptical…
00
I agree, I think the use of the word “duplicitous” carries emotive connotations he/she did not intend. I think “facetious” was the word that better conveyed what he/she was trying to suggest.
00
Thanks Jo for the heads up on Robin’s comment.
It can be read differently but it takes some effort and now if I re read it there is a different meaning.
Words.
🙂
00
Hi Robin,
You state the issue but, once again, fail to turn the spotlight on the real problem: Yourself or other Warmer Advocats promoting Fraudulent Climate Science by breaking all the basic tenets of that science.
Scientists observe and measure, change something and re-measure, ask someone else to duplicate your analysis by repeating the experiment.
Climate Science is an engineering problem not a laboratory problem or a failure to have a big enough computer and it has hidden behind the skirts of the type of denigrating comment you so skilfully apply for too long.
The climate change argument is a Thermodynamic Problem so lets go there for a minute.
Here is a simple thermo concept to explore.
Compared to The World’s Atmospheric Thermodynamic Balance this one is simple, so here we go.
The human body at rest, we must qualify things, gives off about 25 Watts of energy.
A 25 Watt light globe, good old incandescent type, also by chance has the same energy out put.
Why is it that you can’t touch the globe without being burnt?
Show us that you can at least solve this very basic problem before we move on to the bigger picture of the Earth and its Heat sources and Sinks.
7:16 am Mon
🙂
00
25 Watts
I’m not sure whether this challenge was so obvious that nobody bothered but since Jo has pointed out that the original comment that I took exception to may need to be re interpreted here goes.
Sorry Robin ; your comment was very subtle but have read it again with the new perspective given by Jo’s comment.
Just in case anybody is interested.
The 25 watt thing: when you have the same amount of heat escaping from two bodies of different size something happens. The rate of heat transfer per unit of surface area is different.
The “smaller” body, having less surface area, the globe, has to get rid of more heat per square cm. This is why it is hotter than our skin.
In human beings the evolutionary effects of this sort of analysis are seen in opposing climates.
In polar regions Eskimo’s have adapted to “lose” less heat and so are shorter and broader.
African conditions demand a body shape that is great for getting rid of heat and so adaptation produces tall , thin body.
00
KinkyKeith, I would have thought that the globe burns when touched because the 25 watts is concentrated in a much smaller area than the human body, therefore its watts/cm2 is greater.
00
Totally agree Paul
Maybe I put too much extra stuff in my comment above.
🙂
00
Hi Robin
You question us about the capacity of current students to “get past” the lies and disinformation being peddled by Jo
and the rest of us “Climate Explorers” and fail to realise that we are concerned about the capacity of almost the
whole voting population to “get past” the climate lies and disinformation of those pushing the warmer barrow.
We too are altruistic.
One of the things you are saying is that m Australian students are not too cluey about science, and in that I must agree.
Many years ago politicians found that indiscipline began to get worse in Australian schools which made teaching
core material like science and mathematics too hard.
The political answer was to invent new science and maths courses called Science lite and Maths lite or sometime maths in Space.
The result of this back-pedaling is now that our nations students are literally , on average , way behind even
countries like West Kazakhstan so it is little wonder that after 40 years of this we have a gullible voting
population and a Scientific Community which is controlled by Psychologists (or was that Sociologists).
🙂
00
Hey KK, you have to realise that these sociologists and psychologists are most probably a product of that same down-graded education system.. and it shows.
00
heh I was typing exactly that … see Andy for the short version LOL
00
Yep
🙂
00
Hi KK … what I generally find in warmist blogs is that they are remarkably adept at “projection.” That is to say, projecting their own faults onto others. The classic example is the continued use of the word “deniers” when it is quite clear that one side of the debate wants objective skeptical science to prevail and the other side wants to close down all argument. Who is really in denial? Science is never settled… ironically I heard another scientist saying exactly that on TV the other day. He was discussing the possible boson discovery at the LHC. This is how real scientists talk.
Robin brings up the subject of education and once again fails to recognise that education is, in fact, the root cause of current students’ inability to reason and argue clearly and logically. We see all kinds of emotive arguments made as to why we should “save the planet from ourselves” which is a result of the educational pap spoonfed to primary and secondary students by teachers who do not even understand the basic principles of climate science.
As a former lecturer I find it abhorrent that education is failing our children so. I saw the same in the USA … schools were gung ho to teach children about such “key debates” as gays in the military and other social issues, but they were churning out graduates who were barely literate. What happened to the three R’s?
It’s little wonder that the younger generation has such clouded thinking, and pays so much attention to the pseudoscientific and even downright loony arguments of types like Lewandowsky. No such issues in countries in Asia where they recognise the value of hard science and engineering subjects. These subject areas become export industries for the western world as our kids study fields like pschology, sociology, gender studies, political science and media studies…
Odd to think that I am ultimately an optimist … somehow the truth and logic eventually prevail. You can see that in the polls rejecting the world’s highest CO2 tax in Australia. People are sick to the back teeth of the garbage being spewed by both sides of politics.
00
🙂
00
Jo, since you wish us to be polite, I would ask Dr Bains several questions:
1. What are the necessary qualifications for being a climate scientists?
2. What are the names of current climate scientists or at least ten examples whom you think are especially worthy of the title?
3. Why is specifically this class of individuals to be the exclusive holders of the power to discuss the “technical” issues.
4. Why is it not the responsibility of the climate scientists to communicate the technical issues clearly enough so they will not be misconstrued by non-experts?
00
Further to that Lionel,
Why should not Climate Scientists defer to the authority of expert Physicists on questions of Physics within their discipline, to Statisticians on questions of statistics , Astrophysicists on questions of solar and galactic influences, etc, etc? Just exactly who is not deferring to expert opinion? Climatologists are jacks of all trades and masters of none, IMO, and are seemingly unwilling to seek external advice outside their own exclusive clique of fellow advocates in order to verify the assumptions they hold close to their hearts. Objectivity is very difficult when you are married to the cause. A psychologist should be the first to realise that salient point, you would think, presuming they too had their eyes open.
00
I said some time ago on this blog that if, as a purported expert in a field, one is not able to communicate the salient principles and arguments in layman’s terms, one probably doesn’t know what one is talking about.
00
One of the more interesting traits in the warmist psyche is the ability to seriously juxtapose Nature and Mankind as if they were two opposing forces on a battlefield, doing battle to the death.
By definition in such a worldview, mankind cannot be part of nature, mankind cannot have sprung from nature. Perhaps we are all aliens, from some distant galaxy, and no higher being is around to tell us?
00
Dr Bain suggests that the unqualified may not hold an opinion on the science? Well perhaps Dr Bain has an opinion on Astrology, perhaps the technical aspects of Astrology should be discussed only between qualified Astrologers.
Especially given that Astrology is Pseudoscience as much as is Climate Science…
00
Quoting Essex & McKitrick 2002:
Someone else (link lost) suggested that over 100 scientific and technical disciplines are relevant to an understanding of “climate”, and no one human being can be an “expert” in more than 3 or 4 of these. My list grew to more than 30 before I gave up …
00
That’s the core of it Martin
Great comment!
00
Strange that someone who appears to be trying to defuse the outcry over his use of the term deniers should then resort to the use of the term ‘fellow travellers’ in referring to sceptics.
00
OT, A paper by Senator Chris Back,
Wind Turbines: the untold story. Also on Senator Back’s web site here.
00
Jo,
Perhaps correct that to
Holding a belief avoids thinking.
00
As to how much AGW contributes,
Dr. Michael Oppenheimer: I honestly don’t think you can really put a number right on it. what I honestly think is global warming has in general made this part – that part of the world – warmer and drier than it otherwise would be, and that makes it fertile ground for fire events like the one we’re seeing. So did global warming contribute? Yes. Can I really make any sort of estimate – numerical estimate- about how much? Not really sitting here on a telephone at my desk, and maybe not even if I had six months.
Source: Press Conference & Report on Heat Waves and Climate Change June 28, 2012, Climate Communication
00