A Frustrated Bystander’s Observations, on Five Decades of Climate Science Communication - From an Earth-centrist perspective.

Science and Technology
1

k¶
Earth-centrist is one who’s focus revolves around the realities of our physical Earth, rather than man’s many fanciful machinations.
A somewhat random review

Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties Is it a service or disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion? In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again. I’m not saying ignore uncertainties! I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties! Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Map vs. Territory Problem Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will. They do the best they can with the data they have available. Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it doesn’t exist. Getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory. Not wise. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability" Every component and aspect of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine is warming and energizing. All of Earth’s historic Natural Variabilities are embedded within this warming matrix. Yet too often ‘natural variability’ gets used as a sort of defense against acknowledging the obvious. Weather systems are not caused by manmade global warming, but every last one of them is certainly impacted by it. We have left our historic climate regime. Comparisons to yesteryears offer little guidance for understanding this brave new 400 PPM + + world we have created for ourselves and children. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Seepage" Allowing dishonest shrill voices to force scientists into following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying our physical reality to the public.Lewandowsky As Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky put it: “...even when scientists are rebutting contrarian talking points, they often do so within a framing and within a linguistic landscape created by denial, and often in a manner that reinforces the contrarian claim. This ‘‘seepage’’ has arguably contributed to a widespread tendency to understate the severity of the climate problem." Check out his paper:
“Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community" - 1 the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices. 2 those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community. Also see: GregLaden. com - May 14, 2015 HotWhopper. com - May 14, 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Global Warming" vs “Climate Change" Climate change is a result, not a cause! Give credit where credit is due. It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes! Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
2
Responsibilities of Scientists vs Responsibilities of Citizens and Students Scientists are dedicated to their work, given their education and accumulated knowledge, their time is very precious and we need them focusing on their respective tasks. They are not the ones to fight for the recognition that their work is rational, objective, factually, and morally authoritative. They’ve done the difficult task of accumulating, digesting, reporting, and filing the substantive evidence. Who’s to defend them? A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY DEMANDS AN INFORMED AND ENGAGED CITIZENRY. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Define the Debate, A to Z A Constructive Argument based on real facts, with the ultimate goal being a collective better understanding of the issue at hand. Such as a Scientific Debate where honestly representing your opponent’s position is required. Striving to understand your opponent’s position well enough to reject or modify it on the merits of your own facts. If we fail, it means something. It may hurt, but it’s a learning experience for the intellectually honest. Mistakes have always been necessary learning opportunities for the stout. Z Lawyerly Debate, winning is all that matters, facts are irrelevant obstacles to hurdle. Being skilled in rhetorical trickery is a prerequisite. Objective learning is not the object. Amorality, misdirection and theatre are its hallmarks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Intellectual Confrontation The fact is, climate science awareness is being actively stifled by ruthless individuals with bottomless bank accounts and octopus news outlets to do their bidding. They have sold a lazy public a pack of lies that have become the comfort zone of all too many today. How can the misinformation this juggernaut force feeds the public be neutralized without direct intellectual confrontation by masses of informed, concerned, engaged students, and citizens, everywhere it pops up? It’s not about attacking people, it’s about attacking the maliciously deceptive words, the lies and stupidity they spew. It’s about teaching them how our physical planet operates! A good resource for factual jump starts: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy Focus. Expose the dishonesty in their words and educate them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Call out False Claims & Lies When someone makes a malicious false claim, relentlessly demand evidence for said attacks - shame and expose those who refuse to produce evidence for their malicious claims. Examine and expose the props substituted for substance. Focus. Expose the dishonesty in their words and educate them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Confront Trash Talk with Rhetorical Jujutsu Contrarians depend on personal attacks to distract the discussion from their bankrupt “science". Learn to recognize the game, turn it to your favor, be prepared to point out the juvenility of the tactic, while forcing the discussion back to the real world facts your contrarian opponent won’t have. fyi, studies in the contrarian mindscape: LandscapesAndCycles, Jim Steele’s malicious deception. http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/p/landscapesandcycles.html ~ A contrarian shouts: “Science, science, science." http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19555/#235817 ~ google “Jujutsu]" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Faith-based Thinking - consider the source Possessing the hubris to fancy that we petty, jealous, fearful, prideful humans can access and understand the real God of Light and Time, Life and Love, leads to a profound disconnect from our planet’s physical reality, and an immoral absolutism. Mistaking one’s own hyper-inflated EGO for God. Unhinged from reality is not too harsh a descriptive. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The pain of our brave new world Face it, or not, we are like children being inextricably torn from our mother for all time. Our brave new world is arriving, it will be traumatic, and we can’t wish it away. Delusional thinking and disregard for scientific understanding and rational constructive dialogue will only make the coming decades that much worse. Why are you all still allowing it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WE THE PEOPLE, have the right to demand honesty when hearing what real experts are trying to convey, without being flooded with the constant deceptive and fraudulent cross-screaming of the propaganda machine of unhinged self-obsessed oligarchs and their astro-turfing thugs. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ About me and why this flier By nature, I’ve always been fascinated by, and actively learning, about our Earth in all her marvelous aspects - along with the humans she created and the evolving society Earth enabled and nurtured. Shared science has enriched me and made me feel a member of this world and this moment in the time that I find myself experiencing. It’s this feeling of connectedness that drives me to share these thoughts in return. Best wishes http://WhatsUpWithThatWatts.blogspot.com
3

Food for thought, I hope.

4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Global Warming" vs “Climate Change" Climate change is a result, not a cause! Give credit where credit is due. It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes! Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
Ten-year-old statement. Climate Change has always been a result. Climate Change was created to put a label on the amount of the results. Why is the amount is always left out? It is agreed that atmospheric insulation does keep the earth warmer and does create a little heat. How people perceive and understand this statement is very questionable. People confuse Climate Change with Global Warming. That’s why you should be very clear on the subject and use numbers whenever possible. It would be better I think to make the statement in this form. “Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is 100% the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing by adding almost one percent to the effects of Global Warming and the weather we are experiencing." Of course, you understand that Climate Change means anthropogenic effects on weather. So how else could it not be the main cause. Second item is the title. “Global Warming" vs “Climate Change" Really bad title. Global Warming is nothing more that the cycle Mother Nature is in at the time. The correct title would be “Global Warming Lag" because that is where the earth is today. We are in Global Cooling right now. But a Lag always follows by up to several hundred years. Climate Change is a sub-category of Global Warming/Cooling. Just like solar flares are a sub-category.
5
Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
Ten-year-old statement. Climate Change has always been a result. Climate Change was created to put a label on the amount of the results. Why is the amount is always left out? It is agreed that atmospheric insulation does keep the earth warmer and does create a little heat. How people perceive and understand this statement is very questionable. People confuse Climate Change with Global Warming. That’s why you should be very clear on the subject and use numbers whenever possible. It would be better I think to make the statement in this form. “Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is 100% the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing by adding almost one percent to the effects of Global Warming and the weather we are experiencing."
In normal research paper structure, it's common to preface everything with a generalized statement, with details in the bulk of a paper. That preface doesn't have to be precise - it's just to give the reader a idea of the paper's contents.
6
In normal research paper structure, it's common to preface everything with a generalized statement, with details in the bulk of a paper. That preface doesn't have to be precise - it's just to give the reader a idea of the paper's contents.
Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe. Still, funny thing is, I had a chance to buttonhole Dr. Trenberth during the ending social hour at the FLC Symposium yesterday he told me roughly the same thing when I directly asked him about the above, which was in a two column two sided flier for the occasion. (Another issue of my occasional Memes Courier rides again) which I'd emailed to him that morning (we've corresponded occasionally) and now he was holding it in front of him. He caught me off guard, I did my best to explain that I wasn't presenting this as a thesis paper or research paper. It was me trying my best to boil down my observations in concise talking points, that in all honesty I hope resonates with some and gets incorporated into their thinking . . . (I don't call it the Memes Courier for nothing.) A collect of my observations on a list of topics central to the past half century of my personal experience thinking, hell struggling, with America's failure to get real about Earth physical realities. :-) Then there's Mike. I'm still astounded and perplexed by the extraordinary fantasies people manage to cling to in the face of all that real world contra evidence. As a handyman man, some may look down at me, but I know I must adhere to the pragmatic reality in front of me. That plumbing is tight, or it's not. I've never had a job with the luxury of bullshitting the situation into my fantasy. Either I accommodated it or I lost. It's not call the SCHOOL OF HARD KNOCKS for nothing. Whereas Mike thinks he can twist around words, misrepresent others, lie about others and it's real. Crazy man. It still bugs me how that thinking works, so I'll be back for the rest, later.
7

Mike no time tonight,
besides you have unfinished business :smirk:

I ask you MikeYohe, if you are more than actor, if you are a living person who possesses a sense of personal ethics and honest intellectual curiosity, if I produce clear responses to every one of those points, including references back to scientifically authoritative sources for further learning, would you be willing to modify any of the following?
Let me know. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/19555/P465/#237543
8
Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe.
Yeah. It just struck me as silly to criticize a statement for not being clear enough when that clarity was immediately available.
9
Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe.
Yeah. It just struck me as silly to criticize a statement for not being clear enough when that clarity was immediately available. Thanks, nothing like starting the day with a big grin. :cheese:
10
Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
Ten-year-old statement. Climate Change has always been a result. Climate Change was created to put a label on the amount of the results. Why is the amount is always left out? It is agreed that atmospheric insulation does keep the earth warmer and does create a little heat. How people perceive and understand this statement is very questionable. People confuse Climate Change with Global Warming. That’s why you should be very clear on the subject and use numbers whenever possible. It would be better I think to make the statement in this form. “Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is 100% the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing by adding almost one percent to the effects of Global Warming and the weather we are experiencing."
In normal research paper structure, it's common to preface everything with a generalized statement, with details in the bulk of a paper. That preface doesn't have to be precise - it's just to give the reader a idea of the paper's contents. Let’s break this down to its simpler terms and the meanings of the words. Fact, man-made Mother Nature is the cause and driver of increasingly intense cascading man-made weather we are witnessing. Are you sure that is the correct idea that one wants to try and get across to people? I really don’t think there is such a thing as man-made Mother Nature.
11
Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
Ten-year-old statement. Climate Change has always been a result. Climate Change was created to put a label on the amount of the results. Why is the amount is always left out? It is agreed that atmospheric insulation does keep the earth warmer and does create a little heat. How people perceive and understand this statement is very questionable. People confuse Climate Change with Global Warming. That’s why you should be very clear on the subject and use numbers whenever possible. It would be better I think to make the statement in this form. “Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is 100% the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing by adding almost one percent to the effects of Global Warming and the weather we are experiencing."
In normal research paper structure, it's common to preface everything with a generalized statement, with details in the bulk of a paper. That preface doesn't have to be precise - it's just to give the reader a idea of the paper's contents. Let’s break this down to its simpler terms and the meanings of the words.
Earth-centrist is one who's focus revolves around the realities of our physical Earth, rather than man's many fanciful machinations.
MikeYohe, you are the lawyer who believes you can construct reality out of words - citizenschallenge is the dude who believes the physical reality of our evolving planet is god, or at least its what matters. Your words are meaningless gibberish because you keep turning a blind eye to simple physics, ... geophysical facts, and you believe your political battles are all that reality is about. So foolish. and me I'm so out of time, wish I had more. later You give me much food for thought and I appreciate your dialogue, helps get the little gray cells focused.
12
Let’s break this down to its simpler terms and the meanings of the words. Fact, man-made Mother Nature is the cause and driver of increasingly intense cascading man-made weather we are witnessing. Are you sure that is the correct idea that one wants to try and get across to people? I really don’t think there is such a thing as man-made Mother Nature.
I'm not criticizing the meaning of words here; I'm just saying what's the point of nit-picking a statement for its lack of detail when the statement is not meant to be detailed. Or, did I misread your original statement? Honestly, I don't really care that much. Debates about climate change go nowhere on this site, in terms of changing peoples' minds. A good question to ask ourselves is "what is the burden of proof where I will be convinced?" If the answer is "none", there is no point to discussion.
13
Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe.
Yeah. It just struck me as silly to criticize a statement for not being clear enough when that clarity was immediately available. Not trying to drag this out. But where is the “clarity"? Please explain what the intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing means and show me how it is not a miss-leading statement.
14
Let’s break this down to its simpler terms and the meanings of the words. Fact, man-made Mother Nature is the cause and driver of increasingly intense cascading man-made weather we are witnessing. Are you sure that is the correct idea that one wants to try and get across to people? I really don’t think there is such a thing as man-made Mother Nature.
I'm not criticizing the meaning of words here; I'm just saying what's the point of nit-picking a statement for its lack of detail when the statement is not meant to be detailed. Or, did I misread your original statement? Honestly, I don't really care that much. Debates about climate change go nowhere on this site, in terms of changing peoples' minds. A good question to ask ourselves is "what is the burden of proof where I will be convinced?" If the answer is "none", there is no point to discussion. I can only be clear if you understand the subject. The “key" word in the statement is “driver". Why is that a key word? Because, that is one of the major questions trying to be answered today by the scientists. What are the drivers or forcing of the weather. Once the drivers are understood then the scientists will work on how the earth’s thermostat works. Driver. CC and DougC claim that the driver is anthropogenic. As the statement we are discussing also suggests. DougC brings up how this driver works. The CO2 in the air causes this Anthropogenic Global Warming as in the statement. And DougC puts numbers from the scientists on this anthropogenic driver heat today at 4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat to be added to the earth every second. The thinking is that the CO2 remains in the earth atmosphere for hundreds of years and some say into the thousands of years so that it will just keep accumulate more heat all the time. Therefore, the earth is now over 2.5 billion Hiroshima bombs that have been added to the heating of earth. The CO2 as the driver has major problems. Now we know that on the flip side of the science, the scientists are saying that the sun, depending on where the earth is in our cycle around the sun, is providing the heat of 1900 Hiroshima bombs per second on average. And the sun is the driver and not the anthropogenic gases. Where is all this heat? It has been claimed that all this anthropogenic heat has been going into the oceans. Now it is said that this anthropogenic heat is being released into space. So, we have sent satellites into space to measure the heat being released by earth. This is why, it is important to put numbers when available on and not generalize the statements about anthropogenic and global warming. Past statements like, cows farting is a cause of global warming. It may be true. But if numbers are shown, then it becomes obvious, just how silly that statement can be.
15
Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe.
Yeah. It just struck me as silly to criticize a statement for not being clear enough when that clarity was immediately available. Not trying to drag this out. But where is the “clarity"? Please explain what the intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing means and show me how it is not a miss-leading statement. There is a difference between criticizing the contents of a claim and just reading it and understanding what the claim is, well, claiming. I'm not even trying to justify it at this point; I'm just saying that first we need to read a claim (or statement, yada yada) for what it is before criticizing it. I know I'm not going to change your mind on the facts of global warming, so I'm not going to even try. But I think it is worth it to agree on what a statement says in the first place, regardless of what we otherwise think about its merits.
16
Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe.
Yeah. It just struck me as silly to criticize a statement for not being clear enough when that clarity was immediately available. Not trying to drag this out. But where is the “clarity"? Please explain what the intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing means and show me how it is not a miss-leading statement.Cascading Consequences = one thing leads to another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Global Warming" vs “Climate Change" Climate change is a result, not a cause! Give credit where credit is due. It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes! Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
It's a challenging thing to explain to someone who's dedicated his mental processes to obstinately NOT understand anything about the natural world, one who seeks confusion and inaction by twisting everything into a slit perspective human narrative. For starters you try to make some grand distinction that climate change = human, and global warming = natural or whatever. You'd have to explain your gibberish on that a bit better. The point is, from a geophysical perspective there is absolutely nothing unnatural about what's happening today. CarbonDioxide has always been a key element, a regulator of our atmosphere's insulation ability. What is happening to our physical planet these days are very natural processes with only one key difference from the historic norm - it is humans and not some exceptional natural process such as massive vulcanism phase, driving the atmosphere's increasing greenhouse gas concentration. This in turn does not "heat" the Earth - it slows down the escape of infrared radiation - it's the increasing infrared radiation bouncing around within the biosphere that is in fact the cause of heating. Subtle but essential distinction to appreciate if you want to understand AGW. (CO2 does not do any actual heating the way Mike keeps trying to imply - it's dozens of small details like that that he don't seem to care a rat's ass about.) Cascading Consequences of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.
ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; more infrared radiation bouncing around within the atmosphere; more heat and energy accumulating within the atmosphere; more moisture the atmosphere holds. More heat, moisture and energy being moved around by weather systems; more destructive weather events. One thing leads to another.
Most of the past half billion years of complex evolving life on Earth, Earth hums along within periods of surprisingly steady climate regimes, which in turn dictates the type of biosphere that existed on Earth during that period. Climate and the state of the Biosphere are intimately connected - or do you dispute that? Radically alter one and it will radically impact the other. One thing leads to another. Mike, do you appreciate that it required four billion years to set the stage for complex life to exist within. That means something big, but it's a big that can't be taught to a hostile entity by pointing to some science papers. The understanding / appreciation of this "big" requires countless focused hours and weeks and years and decades of dedicated engaged learning and intellectually digesting a myriad of Earth's stories and secrets. One of the results of Earth being built from the ground up, so to speak, along with a few celestial blessings and guardians (more cascading consequences, where would we be without Jupitor, or the moon, or our nice moderate easy going sun,. etc. But the MikeYohes of the world ridicule "cascading consequences" - one thing leads to another don't cha knoo.) Being so steady and constant complex life was able to evolve and turn into global communities (even if early animals didn't communicate with each other, they certainly traveled and became global entities.) It was only the nice steady weather systems that made this possible. There are good reasons for that. It's amazing the critters that have inhabited this Earth - Folds within folds of harmonic accumulating complexity flowing down the stream of time. :cheese: https://www.popscicoll.org/evolution-timeline/index.html The life of Earth has always thrived and loved homeostasis]. {Okay, that's not exactly correct, since much change and adaptation is driven by stress and changes (more cascading consequences.) It's a balance between the two - Punctuated Equilibrium is a better claim.} Why you ask? Because, every time the prevailing climate regime that enabled said communities to thrive, radically changed it removed the conditions those communities were dependent on. {Pretty straightforward and logical, how the hell do people like Mike not get that?} When tectonic plates collide and continents erupt with volcanism which fills the air with GHGs, among other goodies, it always has radically decimated, sometimes annihilated impacts of the populations and species that inhabited the Earth at that moment because much couldn't cope with the new conditions. When humans come along and do what continent wide volcanism has done, perhaps much clearer and more processed than those sloppy volcanoes, but also much much faster. The incipient damaging disruptions are everywhere to be seen, and each impacts other situations, one thing lead to another. People who can only imagine the next financial statement or election cycle don't have the prerequisites to understand this stuff and that has made all this so tragic and pointless as many like to point out.
17
k¶ Earth-centrist is one who's focus revolves around the realities of our physical Earth, rather than man's many fanciful machinations. A somewhat random review
Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties Is it a service or disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion? In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again. I’m not saying ignore uncertainties! I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties! Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Map vs. Territory Problem Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will. They do the best they can with the data they have available. Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it doesn’t exist. Getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory. Not wise. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability" Every component and aspect of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine is warming and energizing. All of Earth’s historic Natural Variabilities are embedded within this warming matrix. Yet too often ‘natural variability’ gets used as a sort of defense against acknowledging the obvious. Weather systems are not caused by manmade global warming, but every last one of them is certainly impacted by it. We have left our historic climate regime. Comparisons to yesteryears offer little guidance for understanding this brave new 400 PPM + + world we have created for ourselves and children. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Seepage" Allowing dishonest shrill voices to force scientists into following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying our physical reality to the public.Lewandowsky As Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky put it: “...even when scientists are rebutting contrarian talking points, they often do so within a framing and within a linguistic landscape created by denial, and often in a manner that reinforces the contrarian claim. This ‘‘seepage’’ has arguably contributed to a widespread tendency to understate the severity of the climate problem." Check out his paper:
“Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community" - 1 the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices. 2 those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community. Also see: GregLaden. com - May 14, 2015 HotWhopper. com - May 14, 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Global Warming" vs “Climate Change" Climate change is a result, not a cause! Give credit where credit is due. It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes! Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else.
18
Andrew, I imagine you directed that at MikeYohe.
Yeah. It just struck me as silly to criticize a statement for not being clear enough when that clarity was immediately available. Not trying to drag this out. But where is the “clarity"? Please explain what the intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing means and show me how it is not a miss-leading statement. There is a difference between criticizing the contents of a claim and just reading it and understanding what the claim is, well, claiming. I'm not even trying to justify it at this point; I'm just saying that first we need to read a claim (or statement, yada yada) for what it is before criticizing it. I know I'm not going to change your mind on the facts of global warming, so I'm not going to even try. But I think it is worth it to agree on what a statement says in the first place, regardless of what we otherwise think about its merits. Totally agree. I remember a few years back when the term Climate Change started replacing much of the use of term Global Warming. I read a White House report that only used Climate Change and not Global Warming. Very confusing until I understood what they were trying to do. Myself, I feel Global Warming is what it is. And we now have it down to two pathways. It is man-kinds job and responsibility to take care of the earth. And whatever pathway turns out to be correct, I will support it with no problem.
19
k¶ Earth-centrist is one who's focus revolves around the realities of our physical Earth, rather than man's many fanciful machinations. A somewhat random review
Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties Is it a service or disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion? In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again. I’m not saying ignore uncertainties! I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties! Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Map vs. Territory Problem Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will. They do the best they can with the data they have available. Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it doesn’t exist. Getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory. Not wise. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability" Every component and aspect of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine is warming and energizing. All of Earth’s historic Natural Variabilities are embedded within this warming matrix. Yet too often ‘natural variability’ gets used as a sort of defense against acknowledging the obvious. Weather systems are not caused by manmade global warming, but every last one of them is certainly impacted by it. We have left our historic climate regime. Comparisons to yesteryears offer little guidance for understanding this brave new 400 PPM + + world we have created for ourselves and children. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Seepage" Allowing dishonest shrill voices to force scientists into following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying our physical reality to the public.Lewandowsky As Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky put it: “...even when scientists are rebutting contrarian talking points, they often do so within a framing and within a linguistic landscape created by denial, and often in a manner that reinforces the contrarian claim. This ‘‘seepage’’ has arguably contributed to a widespread tendency to understate the severity of the climate problem." Check out his paper:
“Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community" - 1 the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices. 2 those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community. Also see: GregLaden. com - May 14, 2015 HotWhopper. com - May 14, 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “Global Warming" vs “Climate Change" Climate change is a result, not a cause! Give credit where credit is due. It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes! Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
Climate change is a cause—of volatile weather patterns. Everything causes or at least affects something else. To understand your thinking. If it was possible for mankind not to contribute to the weather. Then you are saying that the earth would have better and more stable weather? Therefore, history should show that the earth was always stable with better weather before the Industrial Age. History does not show that. And some scientists are claiming that we will most likely have better weather for the next three-hundred and possibly a thousand years because of the actions of mankind’s climate change. And better food production. The thinking is, that mankind has always done better in warmer weather. Lived longer and healthier. Hope they are correct! :-)
20

a clarification

ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; more infrared radiation bouncing around within the atmosphere; more heat and energy accumulating within the atmosphere; more moisture the atmosphere holds. More heat, moisture and energy being moved around by weather systems; more destructive weather events. Cascading Consequences.