Democracy, knowledge and ignorance

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” Isaac Asimov

Do you think it is true?

How to correct that without infringing on the rights of people ?

The entire essay is here.

I disagree. Anti-intellectualism is basically the norm with humans. Most people don’t need to examine every thought under a microscope like Asimov in order to live a good life, so the whole argument is dead on arrival. As for distrust of elites, there is more than enough precedent in history to be distrustful of them. A society of all “eggheads” would be much worse than a society with none because they are socially inept.

That said, we cannot lay false information side by side with facts and claim that both are valid. For example, we know astrology is nonsense, so we can’t say it is just as accurate as astronomy. It’s not even close.

Ignorance is a blessing in many ways. If the people really had full government transparency, we would have a lot of angry and mad as hell people.

My experience. Years ago, I was setting up a program using share cropping payments. The government departments told me it was against the law, and I would get into trouble. I was following the laws and had paid for legal opinions that I was doing everything right. So, I contacted the professor who wrote the laws for congress and told him the trouble I was having. He told me to setup a meeting with the department I was having the most trouble with and show up with my legislator. I did and the legislator told the department to stop doing his job. His job was to write the laws and their job was to enforce the law. I am now living in CA and the departments control everything in the lives of people trying to live by the laws. But do very little to the underground business and black market.

Those are the worst kind of people. Angry and mad as hell.

Asimov’s closing salvo:

"… I contend that the slogan “America’s right to know” is a meaningless one when we have an ignorant population, and that the function of a free press is virtually zero when hardly anyone can read.

What shall we do about it?

We might begin by asking ourselves whether ignorance is so wonderful after all, and whether it makes sense to denounce “elitism.”

I believe that every human being with a physically normal brain can learn a great deal and an be surprisingly intellectual. I believe that what we badly need is social approval of learning and social rewards for learning.

We can all be members of the intellectual elite and then, and only then, will a phrase like “America’s right to know” and indeed, any true concept of democracy, have any meaning."

It is for folks like Mike Yohe who demonstrate zero scruples when it comes to his politics, which he seems to believe gives him the license to up to make it up as he goes along.

The evidence for this can be found throughout his comments here at CFI where he gleefully misrepresents climate science findings - along with maliciously, ruthlessly even, slandering decent respected scientists who’s work continues to stand up to honest good faith examination.

And you are saying this is a good thing?

The proper thing to do would be to challenge me to a debate. I am open to a debate anytime you think you are ready. So far every question I have brought up to you never gets answered. All I get is a dance and a data dump. Then you attack me personally, which shows you really do not care about Climate Change at all. This is more of a quest for social acceptance and thinking you are upper caste over us deplorables who question political and dollar driven science.

Can you give an example that you would like to work with?

You have had years to make your case. A debate requires a moderator. You don’t accept that. I’ve seen some blogs, where a guest comes on and they have 5 or 6 posts back and forth, but I don’t think you would accept any format, or anything said in opposition to you.

We’ve tried that.
You don’t do debate you do theater!
Even claiming that I never respond to your “answers” is phony, especially considering your habit of disappearing, that need to project your own worst habits onto others always rears its head.
(Well guess there are your rhetorical questions, the ones that ignore the evidence I’ve shared and don’t deserve answers, since they’re theater rather than substance.)

Serious debate demands good faith honesty from all participants.
Serious debate is about sharing evidence, considering that evidence, producing critique backed by honest facts. Learning is the goal.

Because serious debate is about learning based on the best information available, when one sides arguments are consistently frauds based on lies, it’s no longer a “debate” it’s theater for fun and profit.

Mike, you do the Lawyer’s Debate, stay on your point, disregard what’s been said/shared, lie at will. Learning is not the object, winning is.

If you wanted a serious debate
you would have to start with stating exactly what Dr. Michael Mann wrote in his 98 published study (or subsequent ones) that justifies him being labeled a scientific fraud and criminal, by the likes of you and millions of dollars worth of media megaphone.

Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
Michael E. Mann*, Raymond S. Bradley* & Malcolm K. Hughes

Mann et al 1998 Global Temperature Reconstructions

There are worst things. It’s probably not going to change, so we have to live with it.

I have. My very first question was ‘the ice-cores show that the earth’s heat rises, then two to four hundred years later the Co2 levels rise. How is the rise in Co2 levels causing the heat to rise if it is trailing the heat rise by hundreds of years?’

You have had years to answer my question. What is taking you so long. CC has at least tried to answer by the heat hides in the oceans, the land, and other places. Each time being debunked by science. The latest was that it was hiding in the upper atmosphere. Until we were able to measure the temperature in the upper atmosphere and found no heat hiding there.

Mankind had put more Co2 in the air and it does cause the earth to warm and hold heat today. But not enough that it can be measured because the more man heats the air. The more clouds are formed and cools the air.

I will admit that on Climate Change I did not take on debates years back. That was because I backed the IPCC 100%. Feeling that the scientists needed time to get the climate models up and running. As the years passed it became obvious that the IPCC was not serving all the climate scientists and was not reporting the true facts on how the computer programs were being used. They have now admitted that allowing certain scientists to control the requirements of what programs had to be used by climate models. That the models have been running hot all along.

I have had debates without a moderator. Most of the subjects I am interested in are not political driven and are on the cutting edge of the subject matter. As far as projects I am interested in, my personal feeling does not enter in my not accepting opposition to me as far as other pathways or ideas. What is personal is my findings on common factors, timelines, and logic. One of my biggest problems is that I may only be available for a couple of days. And sometimes a couple weeks. Then I have obligations that require my time, and I am not able to get back to this site for a week or so. Have a couple dozen project being research all the time. I have no control over which project I will be working on because as the data comes available like pieces of a puzzle some pieces are key and allows more work to be done on the puzzle.

Example. I remember a debate on this site about the Cradle of Civilization some years back. And the debate was that the Fertile Crescent was the Cradle of Civilization. Which I disagreed with because there were no seeds found showing that the domesticated crops had evolved from wild seeds in that area. At the time it was accepted science that mankind had only left Africa 40K years ago. Selective farming would have been the method for new crops. The scientists claimed that wheat would have taken 40K years of selective farming if everything went perfect, to reach the point it was at where it could not be matched by DNA to its original wild grass. Today science has changed, and the migration is accepted to be at least three migrations out of Africa going back 180K years and a maybe a fourth migration possible 300k ago. Science has pretty much stopped on finding the Cradle of Civilization. And has settled for the Cradle of Western Civilization which was formed after and on the domestication of the Cradle of Civilization.

Now I did not accept the out of Africa 40K years ago because it did not fit all my common factors. And the changes of the dates out of Africa did not happen until several years later after the debate. It was not my personal feeling that I did not agree with the Fertile Crescent as the Cradle of Civilization. It was no seeds found going back to the wild grasses or domesticated bones going back to the wild animals. Yet no one on this site saw what was so simply obvious to me on what was required for the solution. Scientists said 40K out of Africa and the Fertile Crescent was the place. And that was in stone as far the people on this site believed. In my life the Cradle of Civilization had moved from Egypt to Jericho, to Israel, to Jordan, to the Fertile Crescent. And now the Fertile Crescent keeps growing where it is now all the way from Bagdad to Egypt. And the data kids are getting is still not up to date. That can not be good.

Point being. I do not accept being wrong on a debate if you can not answer the common factors of my research. On the other hand, I could not accept the 40K timeline out of Africa because of missing domestication matter. And that religions in areas east of the Fertile Crescent have claims going beyond the 40K timeline that have some logic. So, you could be right. Debates may not be logical for me on this site. Now that we have people like writ4u with an open mind. I will do a discussion on Climate Change in a couple of days and let’s see how that goes.

This is the kind of thing that makes you NOT a debater. The science changed because that’s what science does, it’s supposed to keep asking questions and getting new answers. You happened to agree with one question. Everybody does that. It doesn’t make them special. People on this site don’t think things are set on stone because they know that’s not how science works.

They also don’t claim to have theories that debunk the experts, then, when new evidence is found, they don’t say, " see told you do". I don’t think you’ll ever understand this. You want to believe you are smarter and you will find ways to confirm that

Some example of Mike Yohe fibbing.

But how can you back the IPCC 100% and not even know that they don’t do research?!?

Pure slander - never any reference provided, so we’re simply supposed to trust Mike’s hollow words.

No details offered. No mention that climate models are fed ranges of data, and produce ranges of results. Or that Mike is cherry picking and willfully ignoring data.

But don’t take my word for it, do a little homework for yourself!

More scrambling of facts and deliberate misrepresentation.

Yes, CO2 is atmospheric insulation and it has to do with exquisitely understood physics.

Confronting Science Contrarians: CO2 Science - Blue team: "Pruitt, it's certain as certain gets! It's the physics! Don't you know???

Confronting Science Contrarians: CO2 Science - Pruitt, proof is in the pudding! Impossible Modern Marvels

Confronting Science Contrarians: Schooling Pruitt's Red Team about our planet and its climate engine

Below that atmospheric insulation is a global heat and moisture distribution engine that moves heat all over the place. Atmosphere is thin and doesn’t sequester much heat, most of the heat gets absorbed by the oceans.

increasing moisture holding ability of a warming planet is what causes more clouds, which are off setting

Increasing atmospheric temperatures increases the amount of moisture the atmosphere holds, considering that H2O is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 that is not a good thing.

Yes a warmer ocean and warmer atmosphere will cause increased clouds, but what Mike leaves out is that it’s not necessarily the type of clouds that cool. Plus I shared studies that showed that any averaged global cooling by increased clouds is chump change next to the increasing insulation at the top of the atmosphere - but, of course, Mike plays stupid and pretends he’s never seen them.
In fact, recent finding regarding certain types of cooling clouds are coming up with more frightful (alarming even) findings, rather than any any reassurances. But, for all of Mike’s soothing words, you’ll never hear about these straight facts.

Though scientists know that clouds are critical to the climate system, their exact role is still uncertain. New studies are starting to fill in the knowledge gap.
By Bob Berwyn
November 10, 2020

Fred Pearce
Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.

by Conrad Fox on 5 August 2021

  • Best estimates for global temperature increases due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial era are between +1.5C and +4.5C. A major reason for this huge range of uncertainty is how clouds will perform in a warmed world, with some modelers saying clouds will help cool the planet, while the majority say clouds will further warm it.

  • Clouds add immense uncertainty to climate models because they contain so many variables (including altitude, size, turbulence, amount of ice crystals, quantity and particle chemistry), and also because they don’t fit neatly inside the global grid cell system that modelers use to estimate warming.

  • A new study used a machine learning model to bypass previous cloud modeling problems. The researchers concluded that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will most likely lead to a 3.2C (5.76F) global temperature increase, almost exactly in the middle of the range estimated by the majority of current U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models.

  • Researchers within and outside the study agree more data and research is needed to confirm or alter these results.


Then there’s the CO2 Temperature lag time, which Mike Yohe deliberately confuses and misrepresents:

At the time, what time is that, the turn of the pervious century?

Scientific pronouncements are tied to the state of the evidence, as more evidence gets collected, our understanding of necessity improves and changes, this is a good thing, and learning is a marvelous adventure, but it does require fidelity to honesty.

By James McNish
First published 25 January 2018

An early-modern human fossil from a cave in Israel has been dated to around 180,000 years ago, showing that Homo sapiens left Africa more than 40,000 years earlier than previously believed.

Museum human origins expert Prof Chris Stringer says the findings add further evidence to the complex picture of when modern humans dispersed across the globe.

‘The find breaks the long-established 130,000-year-old limit on modern humans outside of Africa. I think the new dating hints that there could be even older Homo sapiens finds to come from the region of western Asia.’

By Jesse Hawley - Jan 21, 2021 1:20 PM
Whichever way you look at it, the story of our species’ birthplace in Africa and dispersal across the planet is incredibly complicated. The conventional out-of-Africa story that took root in the 1980s describes a group (or groups) of Homo sapiens, some 150 to 1,000 people, crossing through the Middle East from northeast Africa before spreading throughout Eurasia around 60,000 years ago. They were not the first to make the journey, but they appear to have become the forbearers that populated the rest of the world.

This story, or model, is built from robust evidence from DNA and fossil analyses. But there is a lingering question that hasn’t been answered: Why did they pick up and leave?

Before laying out a few of the major theories, we might add some cautionary notes and other considerations. Perhaps most importantly, H. sapiens didn’t just leave once; they were leaving all the time. An impermanent population made an excursion 180,000 years ago, as evidenced by fossil finds of a jawbone and teeth belonging to an anatomically modern human at a site in Israel. There’s even evidence of humans making it all the way to the Arabian interior 20,000 years before the eventual out-of-Africa event.

Yeah, but CC doesn’t “debate”, doesn’t respond, doesn’t answer. Right.

1 Like

Do you think that name calling is a good part of her response?

This was about the same time we first started with the Climate Change debates around 2006.

When I stated that clouds need to be in the computer models years back. You posted a bunch of data showing that clouds cause so little change that it was not necessary to include clouds in the models.

NASA Satellites See Upper Atmosphere Cooling and Contracting Due to Climate Change

That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere. There, molecules are few and far between. Since carbon dioxide also efficiently emits heat, any heat captured by carbon dioxide sooner escapes to space than it finds another molecule to absorb it. As a result, an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space — and the upper atmosphere cools. When air cools, it contracts, the same way a balloon shrinks if you put it in the freezer.

No that was not what I said, since clouds were never excluding from climate models and climate study to begin with!
I did say the uncertainty in our understanding of clouds added up to chump change compared to what CO2 was doing to the atmosphere’s overall heat capturing ability.

Can Mike produce something to show my summary to be false?

As for this article you share, what’s the point of it? Can you explain?

Incidentally, here are some key paragraphs from that article.

Combined data from three NASA satellites have produced a long-term record that reveals the mesosphere, the layer of the atmosphere 30 to 50 miles above the surface, is cooling and contracting. Scientists have long predicted this effect of human-driven climate change, but it has been difficult to observe the trends over time.

Since the mesosphere is much thinner than the part of the atmosphere we live in, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, differ from the warming we experience at the surface. One researcher compared where we live, the troposphere, to a thick quilt.

. . . In the lower atmosphere, there are plenty of molecules in close proximity, and they easily trap and transfer Earth’s heat between each other, maintaining that quilt-like warmth.

That means little of Earth’s heat makes it to the higher, thinner mesosphere. There, molecules are few and far between. Since carbon dioxide also efficiently emits heat, any heat captured by carbon dioxide sooner escapes to space than it finds another molecule to absorb it. As a result, an increase in greenhouses gases like carbon dioxide means more heat is lost to space — and the upper atmosphere cools. When air cools, it contracts, the same way a balloon shrinks if you put it in the freezer.

This cooling and contracting didn’t come as a surprise. For years, “models have been showing this effect,” said Brentha Thurairajah, a Virginia Tech atmospheric scientist who contributed to the study. “It would have been weirder if our analysis of the data didn’t show this.” . . .

Although the bit about increasing noctilucent clouds is interesting and seems that it might increase Earth albedo by a wee bit. I’m sure observations are determining exactly how much and that information will also be shared in due. That’s called science in action.