Local Profs Right Not To Debate Climate Change With Students

In the latest kerfuffle over climate change - under the "Specious debate" banner,  The Colorado Springs Gazette reported on an email sent by University of Colorado at Colorado Springs science faculty. The relevant portion of a copy (sent to The College Fix by a student in the course). is shown below:

"The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,”

And continued:

“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,”

 The actual percentage was 96.2 percent  of climate specialists - as published  in a report in  Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 22, by P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman.

Thus, despite the hysteria of the collegians, the UCCS profs' take is fully consistent with the position statement of the American Geophysical Union - the top professional organization for actual climate scientists (as opposed to chemists, economists, engineers,  philosophers, etc.) see e.g.

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

The 'Fix's' luminaries also published other links showing other schools (e.g. Oregon) not willing to waste time with stupid and useless debates on whether AGW is real. Like typical college "reporters" they believed they were exposing some hitherto unknown nuggets when they were really retreading old ground. In most top schools the alleged "climate debates" were deep-sixed years ago when physics and other  profs realized how much valuable class time was wasted by allowing the inmates to "run the asylum" by specious appeal to climate denier codswallop.

This morning on a local (KOAA-TV) news report that was confirmed by one of the school's physics profs. As he observed, and I agree: "If they want to debate let them find another class to take, and refrain from taking any more science classes."

The Gazette, meanwhile, quoted UCCS spokesman Tom Hutton as saying:

“The faculty was very direct and straightforward in stating that the bulk of this course is going to be about human-induced climate change, and that’s going to be the primary subject of discussion. No differently than a math professor would say, ‘This class is about algebra; we’re not going to talk about geometry.’”

But in fact that's something of a false analogy, given BOTH algebra and geometry are totally legit math areas while any "science" that embraces  AGW debate or denial is NOT.  Thus, a more apt comparison would be a Numerical Analysis class in which students wish to debate Numerology. The first deals with the use of  numerical approximations (e.g. finite differences)  to obtain solutions to differential equations, for example. The last is specious and based totally on humbug whereby numbers are employed to parse occult meaning  and influences on human life.  It is similar to astrology, in other words, in being replete with codswallop masquerading as real science.

Thus, Hutton actually attempted to soft soap the profs' objection, by insinuating that in another science-related course it would be perfectly fine to debate AGW. NO it would not, since it is no more up for debate than the holocaust or the validity of Newton's Second law of motion.. If certain students wish to debate whether the holocaust actually occurred they need to have their butts kicked out of a World War II history class, and maybe go into pseudo-history or whatever. If they want to debate Newton's 2nd law then they have no place in a college physics class and need to instead enter a course like Derridian deconstruction.

If these UCCS students knew anything, or had managed to look beyond their Facebook pages, and twitter feeds, they'd have learned about Charles Keeling.  Keeling showed, from even his earliest measurements, that there is a continuous, unabated increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Right now the CO2 concentrations are approaching 420 ppm, but within a rather short time, maybe 40 years - they'll approach 580 ppm and the likely runaway greenhouse limit. From that point on there'll be no turning back, and Earth will be hurled pell-mell into becoming another Venus complete with eventual 450 C temperatures, or hot enough to melt lead.

As Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher from the Scripps Oceanographic Institute CO₂ Group, put it 3 years ago in an interview:

"The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone, and should serve as a wake-up call for all of us to support clean-energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it's too late for our children and grandchildren,"

With the plethora of actual research out there, one wonders why these students aren't able to think critically enough to get to the scientific facts. Well, of course, one symptom of  kool aid drinking and propaganda on the brain is the person DOES feel s/he has arrived at the truth. The problem is that it's in the form of personal beliefs, not actual data. As one female student opined on KOAA this morning,, "The professors can teach what they want, they will not change my beliefs!"

But science isn't  about beliefs, especially climate science. Sadly, the reams of propaganda spewed out by Exxon has turned many young minds into mush and now has them questioning the actual science. All this thanks to the disinformation cranked out  by Koch brothers-backed PR hacks and exposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Those who want to access all 340 pages of the 'Climate Deception Dossiers' can go here:

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

As usual, at the end of the Gazette's brief article, a comments section appeared with the voices of reason essentially drowned out by the know nothing peanut gallery. One of the latter actually insisted the UCCS students' "free speech" rights were being denied, if you can believe it.  But one sensible person who saw this claptrap for what it was delivered the only response possible - and most needed:

"This isn't about freedom of speech. It's about science. Ignoring/debating/ denying the scientific evidence tells me you've swallowed the kool aid served you by the likes of the Koch brothers and others in the oil industry who are trying to protect their interests at the expense of the world's survival. You've been brainwashed!"

Indeed he has been brainwashed.  The problem here is that a propagandized or "brainwashed"  brain is one that has been parasitized, as if hundreds of tapeworm cysts had spawned and displaced -destroyed neurons, e.g.

 Thus, the critical thinking centers of the frontal lobes have been ravaged and left as a waste space.  All this brain can do is to recite or parrot the assorted propaganda it has imbibed. As for nuanced thought, it is hopeless - an impossible task.

So no wonder all that it has to fall back on are its pet beliefs.  I am not saying here that the brains of these UCCS students (or Kort Patterson, for that matter) look like the brain shown. I am saying that their limited neural thresholds, diminished ability for nuanced and critical thought  would resemble the dynamics and function of a physically parasitized brain. I.e. one besieged by worm larvae and cysts.  Why then would any proper science prof want to debate such a zombie?

The students, for their part, were correct that the course catalog description was for an online elective humanities class, and that the topic varies by semester. However,  there was no reason to believe the science staff teaching it would tolerate "debates" on warming science, any more than Heinrich Eichhorn - when he taught an analogous humanities astronomy class at USF in the 70s  - would tolerate a debate on "astronomy vs. astrology". It is just plain obtuse to believe so.

The university for its part did confirm that professors teaching the course had sent an email that said some students were concerned about "the class only looking at one side", but failed to note it is an issue with only one side. Just as the holocaust is, and just as astronomy trumps astrology. It is only propaganda that deludes people into believing this issue has 'two sides'.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/our-students-at-risk-of-delusion-on.html

Intertel's Kort Patterson Conjures Wacko Conspiracy Theory On Global Warming 'Alarmists'

"Many people continue to believe the lies and demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."

- Kort Patterson, 'Editor's Reply', Port of Call, June/July 2016, p. 6


Okay, look, it's known that one of my pet peeves is entitled members of high IQ societies (e.g. Mensa, Intertel) who feel they can spout off about anything they want - whether on global warming, economic inequality, socialism or whatever ....merely because they are members. There is something about these upper-mid-level IQ societies (I never detect any of it from those in the Triple Nine Society) that brings this flawed trait out in the open.

As I wrote in my post on public misperceptions of Mensa:

"there is such a phenomenon as mistaken expertise or inflated expertise which is very typical of Mensa, as well as Intertel members. Thus, because a person merely belongs to Mensa or Intertel he or she may believe they are qualified to expound on any subject, whether global warming, the financial crash of 2008, or the JFK assassination - without doing the heavy lifting (in research) before opinionating."

The yap before you research syndrome certainly applied to  Kort Patterson - a computer techie and Editor of Intertel's Region 7 NL 'Port Of Call'  in his recent "Editor's Reply" lambasting the entire climate science (real) research community. One is forced to hypothesize that those like Patterson, when they opinionate on topics for which they're unqualified to render a burp,  are themselves failed astrophysicists or even failed climate scientists. Unable to make the cut in those disciplines they content themselves with shooting down the letters, replies, articles of expert members (who actually do have physics or climate science degrees) and act like tinhorn tyrants because they have control of the content of their media.

Such was the case recently after I corrected Kort on one of his ridiculous "Editor's notes"  (May, Port of Call)- but rather than allow its publication, he punked out. He allowed the first three paragraphs then abruptly terminated it and  wrote: "1800 more characters plus propaganda" - before unleashing his own two page "Editor's Reply". This was basically a long-winded, half baked conspiracy theory based on a farrago of already exposed  climate canards combined with his own woeful scientific ignorance. In his screed, which is really all it was, he conjectured that the IPCC along with "disreputable pseudo-scientists" ("the Alarmists") have sought to impede the work of the "real scientists' (mainly the deniers).

Some aspects of Kort's conspiracy theory hatched in his (June/July) Editor's Reply:

1- The Journal Nature "has degenerated into a corrupt promoter of alarmist propaganda".

Interesting, given it was exactly the Nature article by Noel Keenlyside et al that the deniers originally latched on to try to prove global warming had "paused" the past 16 (now 17) years!  For over 8 years they invoked it to attempt to prove global warming was a "hoax". It was only AFTER the deniers' misinterpretations were exposed, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/george-will-no-warming-for-last-16.html

that they began to castigate the same journal as an organ of "propaganda".


2- The head of IPCC (Richard Tol) "reluctantly admitted" there'd been no "significant warming" for ten years.

But Tol  (when he made that "admission") wasn't privy to the latest research that had found no pause in warming after all.  Tol's "reluctant admission" thus was based on an erroneous interpretation resulting from a disproportionate use of buoys the past several decades. As is now known, these buoys tend to give cooler readings than measurements taken from ships. This was noted by Thomas Karl, Director of the National Centers for Environmental Information of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (NOAA) and lead author of the groundbreaking paper which appeared in the journal Science back in August, 2015.

As Karl noted, quoted in Eos Transactions - Earth & Space Science (July 1, 2015):

"The biggest takeaway is there is no slowdown in global warming".

Indeed, he added that warming the past fifteen years is the "strongest it's been since the latter half of the 20th century". Putting an exclamation point on that, April this year has been the hottest since records were initiated.

A good summary of the paper may be accessed at:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

3- The Alarmists try to restrict participation to just those who can be trusted to parrot the officially approved story line

Seriously, if I hadn't seen this in an Intertel publication, I'd have been convinced it was written by a high grade moron.  Restrict participation? Uh yeah, Kort, to those who actually have specialized in climate science as opposed to computer techies like you, along with engineers, chemists and economists who fancy themselves climate experts. Jeezus Peace.

In many of my blog posts I've also repeatedly cited the actual results from REAL climate scientists, as opposed to the many pretenders! Specifically, I've referenced the scientific consensus on global warming reported in Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 22, by P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman which found that (p. 24) :

“the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

In their analytic survey for which 3146 climate and Earth scientists responded, a full 96.2% of specialists concurred temperatures have steadily risen and there is no evidence for cooling. Meanwhile, 97.4% concur there is a definite role of humans in global climate change.

The authors concluded (p. 24) :

“The challenge appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact (non-existent debate among real climate specialists) to policy makers and a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate exists among scientists”


4- Global warming advocates launched an aggressive preemptive campaign to suppress any questioning of their unfounded appeals to authority.

What "aggressive campaign"? Kort's perceptions appear here to be more amiss than my brother Jerry's, venturing from the implausible to the paranoid. In fact, it has been the fossil fuel corporations and allied think tanks (like The Heritage Foundation) that launched all the aggressive campaigns to undermine the genuine science - and brainwash those without much physics background - like Kort- into thinking there was some kind of nefarious plot.

I refer readers to the Union of Concerned Scientists which exposed the sundry propaganda ploys in their recent journals. Those who want to access all 340 pages of the 'Climate Deception Dossiers' can go here:

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

Over and over in his two thousand word global warming conspiracy tract, Kort asserts the "Alarmists"  are resorting to the fallacy of "appeal to authority". But I guess he might think that because virtually no denier  papers are published in peer-reviewed professional journals. They are generally dismissed precisely because they lack the basics of scientific authority - including: proper data selection,  analysis, consistent interpretation of data, and appropriate mathematical techniques. Hence, their papers are tagged as the opposite of  authoritative science which is in fact  pseudo-science, such as Kort Patterson is peddling.

Only a totally unscientific fool would write the following claptrap as Patterson does (p. 5):

"Changes in the Earth's celestial mechanics and variations in solar radiation are the primary sources of changes in the Earth's climate"

Which is an assertion I'd expect from a semi-knowledgeable first year computer science student, but not an astrophysicist or astronomer.

His reference to "celestial mechanics" is complete bollocks. It is in fact a reference to the Milankovitch hypothesis that has never found acceptance in standard celestial mechanics texts.

It was developed by a Serbian civil engineer (& later meteorologist) who acquired the avocation of astronomy – as a personal abiding interest. This is admirable, but puts him basically in the same class as Immanuel Velikovsky – who was a Russian psychologist – trying to do astronomy but arriving at bunkum like 'Worlds in Collision'. As I noted concerning that work in my July 20, 2011 post:

 " 'Worlds in Collision’ postulated the dynamical idiocy that Jupiter belched out a "comet" with the mass the size of Venus, which then blasted off toward the Sun, passing so near the Earth en route that it caused it’s rotation to halt (coinciding with Joshua’s famous trumpet blare) and in the process triggered the precipitation of carbohydrates (from hydrocarbons?!) – manifesting in the manna for the Israelites. "

Baloney like non-astronomer  Velikovsky's is also perhaps why Milankovitch's "cycles"  appear in no standard astrometric or celestial mechanics monographs. It is the bastard offspring of a non-astronomer and doesn’t follow at all from any standard celestial mechanics principles, equations or theories. (I explained this for Kort's benefit in my original PoC piece that he published, but it seemingly went over his head.)

This marginalization can also be rationally justified (within the astronomically- affected community) on the basis that the Milankovitch hypothesis hasn’t yet been adequately tested (e.g. beyond finding geological correlations - which of course is not causation) to prove itself worthy to compare to rigorous astronomical theories – say like the one for the lunar libration.

For example, when conditions are favorable for an ice age in the northern hemisphere, they’re not favorable for one in the southern hemisphere. How could the Milankovitch Cycles cause a global change in climate then? Also, Milankovitch cycles can only account for a temperature difference of 1° to 2°. How is it possible then that sediment records show temperature differences of 7° to 10°? The 100,000 yr. Milankovitch cycle is dominant in the record, yet it has the weakest astronomical effect  

Moreover, in the record, it doesn’t always occur at 100,000 years – rather it ranges from 80,000 to 125,000 yrs.. How can these variances be explained? Until they are – most astronomers won’t embrace the hypothesis, especially if is bound up with geological correlations as opposed to a consistent model for the changing orbital elements of the planet. .

But it's Kort's invocation of solar variations that truly exposes his profound ignorance. I went through all the reasons in a post from just over a year ago.  As I noted, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/06/new-evidence-sun-is-cooling-salvation.html

"On average, with violent inputs (from solar flares)  smoothed out, the Earth's temperature changes by about +0.07 K (kelvin) over a solar cycle. Compare this to the 1.6 K change (current est. increase) arising from global warming over the past 100 years mostly traced to human use of fossil fuels. Thus, the greenhouse component is nearly 23 times greater.

Even if the solar forcing on climate is enhanced by positive feedbacks the amplification is usually no more than a factor 2. So that 0.07 K increases become  0.14 K increases. The human component is still more important by a factor 11.4, a point made by T. Woods when he emphasized( in his paper 'Solar Irradiance: Recent Results and Future Research Plans')  that the recent results support the hypothesis that "anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the primary contributor to global warming."

Another ludicrous canard compliments of Kort:

"Water vapor is far more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2"

Actually, no. Kort is a bit behind the times in his physics research! We now know that water vapor is not a factor in the initial positive feedback phase and it certainly doesn’t trump CO2. This was pointed out by Spencer Weart in his excellent article: 'The Discovery of the Risk of Global Warming’, in Physics Today, Jan. 1997, p. 34). Weart pointed out that even a tiny, minuscule amount of CO2 is vastly more efficient at blocking the re-radiation of energy than any amount of water vapor- at those bands. Part of the misconception arose because early researchers, lacking the current technology of infrared spectroscopy, assumed that water vapor bands already blocked out most of what would (ordinarily) be taken by CO2.  They were wrong, as in WAAAAY wrong.

Another Kortian miscue:

"The global warming currently occurring on Mars casts serious doubts on the Alarmists' claim that global warming is caused by human activity."

No it does not.  But let's not tell Kort that, his mind is already made up and he's on the lookout for anything that reinforces his confirmation bias.

But Skeptic Science’s take is direct and to the point:

“It is hard to understand how anyone could claim global warming is happening on Mars when we can’t even agree what’s happening on the planet we live on. Yet they do, and the alleged reasoning is this; if other planets are warming up, then there is some solar system-wide phenomena at work – and therefore that it isn’t human activity causing climate change here on Earth.

The broadest counter argument depends on a simple premise: we know so little about Mars that it's impossible to say what trends in climate the planet is experiencing, or why changes occur.”

SO how was the conclusion arrived at? Skeptic Science again to the rescue:

“NASA scientist Lori Fenton, who observed that changes in albedo – the property of light surfaces to reflect sunlight e.g. ice and snow – were shown when comparing 1977pictures of the Martian surface taken by the Viking spacecraft, to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor. The pictures revealed that in 1977 the surface was brighter than in 1999, and from this Fenton used a general circulation model to suggest that between 1977 and 1999 the planet had experienced a warming trend of 0.65 degrees C. Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet's albedo.

Unfortunately, Fenton’s conclusions were undermined by the failure to distinguish between climate (trends) and weather (single events). Taking two end points – pictures from 1977 and 1999 – did not reveal any kind of trend, merely the weather on two specific Martian days. Without the intervening data – which was not available – it is impossible to say whether there was a trend in albedo reduction”

Reduction of albedo (surface reflectivity), of course, would have implied a basis for Martian global warming.  The ambiguous results here show Kort is jumping the gun on his Martian global warming claims. But truth be told a lot of Patterson's delusionary thinking may be on account of his own straw man fallacy that "global warming conspirators believe Earth must have some kind of 'normal' temperature". No, not true! Rather climate scientists point to only a narrow band of temperatures for which the biosphere is adaptable. Once a runaway greenhouse sets in and the oceans literally boil away, no life can adapt.  And only a moron would insist 212F is a "normal" temperature.

 In the end, Kort Patterson has revealed himself not only as a global warming conspiracy alarmist  (and irrational hysteric) but a committed agnotologist.  To refresh people's memories -  agnotology, derived from the Greek 'agnosis' i.e.  the study of culturally constructed ignorance- is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of uncertainty).

Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the supporters of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable economic profit and hence planetary biosphere ruin.  Of course, libertarian drama queen that he is,  Kort doesn't phrase it that way but as "Western Industrial civilization committing cultural suicide".

Kort then - as exemplified by his ridiculous quote (top), and paranoia about some giant scientific  "swindle" -   is a perfect example of what one gets when intelligence runs amuck without guidelines or specialty disciplinary critical thinking to ground it. In effect, his recent "reply" shows that high I.Q. , superior intellect, can't be a standard for dispensing objective scientific facts if left to its own impulses to criticize without also examining the scientific basis (and inherent biases)  of its critiques.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/67895/lying-about-science-for-politics-is-evil

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/newsmaxglobal-warming-is-22-billion.html

Union of Concerned Scientists Exposes The Fraudsters On Climate Change

Part of the document retrieved from the fossil fuel doubt merchants on when "victory will be achieved."


The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)  includes thousands of genuine research scientists devoted to educating the public on actual scientific findings and what they portend, and exposing the science charlatans who seek to cloud the public mind to unfolding realities. One of the latter is that the planet is indeed getting hotter with the month of July now in the record books as the hottest ever. This as yet more research (published in Science) shows the warming "pause" never happened and hundreds of fires scorch the West with over seven million acres burning - giving a horrific preview of the world to come in the era of the runaway greenhouse (except in that case the fires will ravage the whole country and last through the year)

Their other achievement has been accessing documents that prove the climate deniers (exposed in the Naomi Oreskes' book The Merchants of Doubt) have been determined to hoodwink the public on climate change - its validity and its peril.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/63515/the-latest-science-on-global-warming



Readers will recall how I've exposed Willie Soon as one of these merchants of doubt, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/another-climate-scientist-fake-exposed.html

But as the latest UCS Bulletin noted, Soon is only a small part of a much bigger story, as disclosed in the UCS Report, The Climate Deception Dossiers.  The latter is the product of a year's review and analysis of a wide range of internal corporate and trade group documents.

As with the case of fracking, the perpetrators will never own up to their slimy dishonest tactics themselves, or the damage they're doing. You have to expose them by exposing their actual documents that they themselves wrote and - in essence- wherein they've admitted the havoc they're wreaking.

Like the climate deniers, the frackers were exposed in Naomi Oreskes' book, particularly the PR Departments that serve the frackers and their political backers lot.    As for documents retrieved, in one, from Southwestern Energy, the diagram clearly shows that the gas well has a cement barrier with a casing that prevents gases from migrating upwards. But this isn't a Powerpoint about well casings but rather about how cement and casings fail and allow methane gas and other substances to migrate into aquifers.  Thus, we see from their own documents how cement fails.

In the case of the climate deceivers, the UCS team drew on evidence culled from 85 documents pried loose by leaks, lawsuits and FOIA requests. It almost reminds one of the extraordinary efforts that had to be invested to pry loose the JFK assassination documents (after the JFK Records Act) that showed the fell hand of the CIA and NSA in the assassination. 

What the UCS team unearthed is absolutely appalling. Spanning three decades, the documents reveal a mammoth cover up on a par with the cover up and disinformation in the Kennedy assassination. The UCS obtained documents expose that the world's largest fossil fuel companies: BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Shell  and Peabody Energy - were fully aware of the reality of climate change but continued to spend tens of millions of dollars to sow doubt and promote contrarian arguments they knew to be wrong.

Taken together, the documents show that the six companies, in conjunction with the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry's premier trade association - and a host of front groups - colluded to intentionally deceive the public.

One eye -opening formerly secret document revealed that scientific experts commissioned by the fraudulent "Global Climate Coalition" - had actually warned that heat-trapping gases were indeed causing global warming. But as the segment of attached document shows, these charlatans didn't want to hear it. It was more important to bamboozle the gullible public - who'd then be set against those of us with the scientific facts.

Thus, the GCC ignominiously ignored its own scientists and continued to conduct a public relations campaign to undermine national and international efforts to address global warming in a serious fashion. Among the chestnuts used by these fraudsters:

"the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood."

Another tactic was to attribute the main cause of global warming to "solar activity" - a canard that's long since been dismissed in the astrophysics, solar physics and climate science communities. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/06/new-evidence-sun-is-cooling-salvation.html

Those who want to access all 340 pages of the 'Climate Deception Dossiers' can go here:

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception