Another Intertel "Genius" Exposed As A Global Warming Denier Fool

Global warmin' just a ploy for socialists to take over!

In a recent essay appearing in 'Port of Call' (Intertel Region VII's NL) Jeffry R. Fisher  devoted considerable space to ideas for enhancing our nation's economic growth and efficiency.   For example, in one segment he proposed moving the current capital (in Washington, D.C.)  to "a more central location" - say "on the border between Nebraska and Colorado." This is his alternative "better solution", instead of giving the citizens of the District of Columbia two Senators and a House rep.  Besides, the new central location would then have:  "adequate highways, more interstate access, airport, commuter and distant rail locations".

Yeah, right,  Fisher's going to go for a more central geography at the expense of the very identity of the nation's capital.  Or....maybe down the line he will also propose moving the capital's historic landmarks, including Capitol Bldg., Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial etc. to the Nebraska - Colorado border?  Methinks just giving D.C. representation would be a far easier - and much more practical - solution!

Having read this nonsense one can imagine what his solution for better policy on global warming would be.  According to Fisher:  "We need to rethink the way we research 'Global Warming' (climate change)".   WHY?  The way we research it currently (thousands of peer-reviewed papers in professional journals)  is just fine and has brought us to a much better grasp of how the climate is changing. This is from Prof. Gunter Weller's work on the rapidly thawing Arctic, to the enhanced role of methane as the permafrost melts, to the acidification of the oceans  - and the increasing moisture content of the atmosphere. (See my previous post).

But this isn't good enough for Fisher because well, "there are so many political axes to grind, there's no way a collegial system of peer review can function correctly."  

Says WHO?   In fact, the existing system of peer review functions just fine for  dozens of professional journals and thousands of climate scientists - real ones, not paid hacks or frauds.  These journals  still dictate the highest professional standards and adherence to empirical data and consistent models, as opposed to wishful thinking and pseudo-scientific, quasi-political bull crap.

To Fisher and his suspicious cohort in the "HI-Q" societies - who fancy themselves critical thinkers and debunkers - peer review is all about giving global warming proponents a leg up over their contrarian colleagues. Of course this is total rubbish, and in fact shows a serious lack of critical thinking. Scientists - from fields as diverse as anthropology to astronomy  - like professionals in other fields (e.g. finance, economics, history etc.), actually compete for scarce resources.  They are not about to help a competitor - say with a competing model or theory - be published merely because they propose global warming models.  Thus, if anything,  peer review is likely to be even more brutal than for deniers.

What Fisher is really saying here is:

"There are so many political and economical axes to grind by my skeptic side that we can't get our stuff published in the current system!"

I concede Fisher has good reason to think or believe this given virtually no denier  papers are published in peer-reviewed professional climate science journals. They are generally dismissed precisely because they lack the basics of scientific authority - including: proper data selection, bias-free  analysis, consistent interpretation of data, and appropriate mathematical techniques. Hence, their papers are tagged as the opposite of  authoritative science.

Fisher's objection is really that  the peer review process poses too formidable an impediment for denier ("skeptic")  codswallop.  He instead wants any old trash to see publication to further bamboozle the masses who may never have taken a thermal physics course. By contrast, those without any ulterior political or economic agenda are willing to subject their research to rigorous peer review. They  don't cry and whine about "bias" or "propaganda" when a paper is rejected. They act like adults are supposed to and carefully go through the referee's criticisms and seek to correct the errors.

So what does this genius want to do instead? Well, he wants to ditch the peer review process entirely.  What does he want to replace it with?  Well, he wants to have basically two  teams go at it in an "adversarial system" - say like two teams of lawyers would in court.

The dope doesn't even grasp that such a stupid system is not based on scientific data or its merits at all, but subjective arguments. Still he claims the opposite,  as when he writes:

"Each side has a no-pretense partisan advocate backed up by staff doing research.  All sides meet periodically in a battle royal - preceded by a discovery phase in which each side published its claims, its methods, its data, its methods, its models' source code etc.  All sides cross examine each other's witnesses."

Can others also see why this is fulsome twaddle, and science - properly done- cannot be carried out like in a court room?    Why not? Well, because we base physical science (of which climate science is a sub-discipline) on existing well- accepted principles that best describe the objective phenomena under investigation,  as well as models that comport with those phenomena.  We also adopt the models and analytical methods that best reflect the principles.  This is not a matter for courtroom grandstanding, debate - even in "a battle royal."  There can be no "battle royal" if all parties agree on what the objective phenomena are and how they are measured from the outset. The problem is that the denier brigade doesn't agree because they know that to do so undermines their true premise: that it is the capitalist economy which trumps all.

What Fisher is really proposing is a kind of academic cage match as when he writes:

"At the end the battered sides retreat to their respective labs to lick their wounds, improve their models and methods and prep for the next meeting."

To what end? Just to go round and round with deniers and real scientists (weighted the same by Fisher's false equivalence)  going back and forth with no ultimate resolution?   Fisher likely can't even see this is the very essence of the agnotology that the denier side has been invoking since day one.  To refresh people's memories -  agnotology,- derived from the Greek 'agnosis', is a PR category to promote culturally constructed ignorance. It is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made.

It shouldn't take a near genius I.Q. to see the ideal way to achieve this is to set up a fictitious, straw man ("skeptic") side to oppose the genuinely scientific side - and have them go head to head in endless debates.   After all, there's just so much "uncertainty"!  How can you not go to the fabled adversarial model?  Let each side try the other's case and the one that does the best prosecution wins. (Interestingly there is no 'judge' to adjudicate the "battle royal".)  What could be wrong?  

Well, everything, because that's not how science works! Science progresses by incremental steps, which we call successive approximations. Basically then, each new datum is integrated into the existing model(s)  to enhance them in order to predict new data - which are then compared to what we actually observe. This has led us to the present understanding of our warming planet and that includes insights such as:  the current CO2 concentration is 403 ppm, every increase in CO2 concentration by 2 ppm increases the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m^2, and, the planet's heat balance currently being out of kilter by  0.6 W/ m².

Opposed to this is Fisher's prescription for  adversarial agnosis but now in the guise of court room proceedings with each side engaged with the other in a series of "battle royals".  No, you can't make this stuff up.  (But neither could one make up the notion of moving the nation's capital to the Nebraska-Colorado border!)

Fisher's arguments in defense of this "adversarial"  system are even loopier, e.g.

"If my strategy is sound then each cycle of research and confrontation will force the sides to converge on something approaching "truth". In addition, all of us on the sidelines can gain confidence that what we eventually get is in fact the truth and not somebody's dogmatic propaganda."

But clearly the two sides can never ever "converge in something approaching truth" because genuine science can make no compromises with pseudo-science. We don't see Darwinian biologists allowing for theologic creation in certain species, any more than astronomers allow some planets - like Earth - to be flat and others spherical. It is total bollocks, so Fisher is wallowing in self-delusion.

 He then claims it's important we (e.g. in the US of A) do this because "the rest of the world is committed to climate alarm propaganda".  In other words they embrace at least some lowering of carbon emissions, as prescribed by the Paris Climate Treaty.

Which is total nonsense.

Of course, Fisher's adversarial strategy has already been shown not to work given his skeptic, actually pseudo -skeptic side- have been consistent losers. It is, after all, HIS side that has failed to get their papers published in respected journals because they have not met even minimal standards as I have described earlier.  For example, Willie Soon's bunkum, e.g.

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

Ignoring clowns like Willie Soon, there are few others with whom Fisher can stack his pseudo-skeptic side, so why even waste the time? The matter for all intents has been settled whether Fisher and his clique of HI Q deniers like it or not  As noted by P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman(Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, ,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.”

The problem, as we know, is that those like Fisher have no clue concerning the underlying physical principles - even basic thermal physics.  Hell, I defy Fisher or any one of his "climate alarm" conspiracy compadres to get even 50 % in this basic thermal physics test:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

To be sure, this denier lot hurl up science smokescreens because they are averse to embracing real climate science. This is because they are all about ideology!   We now know, thanks to the research of Yale prof Dan Kahan,  that "strategies" like the one espoused by Fisher are determined by deep-seated political values and cultural identities. Thus, a white libertarian member of  Intertel, for example, will see REAL global warming science  (as validated by peer review) as a dire threat against his precious conservative economic values and capitalist system.

This threat is then attributed to "global warming alarmism" which is tied to "dogmatic propaganda". Fisher proves my point that he'd never accept the real climate side anyway when he babbles at the end:

"So eliminate all funding for any and all orthodox view climate scare mongering and give all that money to iconoclasts and skeptics"

In other words, give it to the fraud side. Note before this he even acknowledges the need to stack his mock climate court, i.e. "even if the truth is close to the orthodox view" etc.  Yeah, even if the truth is close we will "eliminate any funding for the orthodox view".  (By which he really means the consensus view - since these climate change dolts....errrr....deniers,  are unable to accept there can be such agreement on real climate science and real climate change. Why not? Because they don't know anything!)

 In fact, according to Dan Kahan's theory, these high IQ skeptics don't really have the time (or inclination) to evaluate the global warming evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so they basically punt.  Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the existing evidence they imbibe specious and spurious refuse  -generated by fakes like Willie Soon. They use their arguments to try to trash the climate science consensus - which they mislabel the "orthodox view" - that human induced warming is real, e.g.

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

At a deeper level, the pseudo skeptics like Fisher understand that stopping actual climate science is the highest priority for their warped economic system to prevail. Otherwise, it must be discarded for a system with emphasis on collective action and welfare. Nowhere has this been better articulated than by Naomi Klein in her recent book, 'NO Is Not Enough - Resisting Trump's Shock Politics'.   She writes (p. 81):

"Climate change, especially at this late date, can only be dealt with by collective action that sharply curtails the behavior of corporations such as ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs. It demands investments in the public sphere - in new energy grids, public transit, light rail, and more energy efficiency....and that can only happen by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

In short, climate change detonates the ideological scaffolding on which contemporary conservatism rests."

I believe Fisher and his misguided ilk are smart enough to grasp that Naomi Klein has distilled their position to a tee. It is not about science so all this balderdash about pairing adversaries against each other - with opposing "data, methods, models, code"  etc. - is total bullshit.  It's bullshit because there is only ONE set of data, of models, etc. that matters.  The other side's is as phony as a 3 dollar bill, and I suspect Fisher already knows that.

In effect, Fisher's lot grasps that the issue really is about "detonating the ideological scaffolding" of modern day economic conservatism to which they are committed and they can't have it. They can't tolerate it.  Fair enough, then at least be honest!  Drop the pseudo-scientific baloney and admit once and for all that this is about protecting the capitalist economic system. Then, instead of wasting their time and ours by creating fabulist versions of climate science,  talk straight about the real concerns, and how we might work together to ameliorate them. 

But don't hold your breath.

Skewering The Myth Of "Absolute Individual Sovereignty"

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee  - John Donne


In the fantasies of the Libertarian segment of humanity,  each human is an autonomous "island" unto himself and in an absolute sense. He or she requires no government "nannyism" or oversight (in governance)  since any degree of such limits and impedes the Libbie's imagined absolute "inalienable" right to total individual sovereignty and liberty.  The grandest exposition of these memes probably was compliments of Ayn Rand, in her "bible" : The Virtue of Selfishness. 

For example, on the issue of government financing in a free society, Rand writes (p. 116):

"Since the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force...in a fully free society, taxation, or payment for government services, would be voluntary. Since the proper services of government - the police, the army, the law courts - are demonstrably needed by individual citizens, and affect the individual's interests directly, they should be willing to pay for such services as they pay for insurance.....Men would voluntarily pay for insurance protecting their contracts."

One method of such voluntary government financing would be a government lottery"

and (ibid.):

"A fully free society is one that has been constitutionally reduced to only its most proper, basic functions"

In other words, Steven Bannon's destruction of the administrative state come to fruition. No oversight or regulations regarding food quality control, so you can get botulism, E coli or salmonella infections at any time, no CDC funding so if the Bird flu strikes you're on your own, and no regulation of worker safety so you can be killed on the job any time and no one will care - at least in the company that developed the meat cutter or other machine that did you in.

All of these memes have been regurgitated again in an essay, 'A Controlling Concept', by Iloilo Margaret Jones, appearing in the April issue of Intertel's Integra.   In her opening paragraphs Ms. Jones professes that each day she begins her commitment to one overarching concept: the "absolute sovereignty and inviolate nature of each human being on Earth."

She never elaborates on what she means by "inviolate nature" of each human, but in the context of her essay as a whole it likely means no human can be "violated" by any external entity, especially a government.  This assumption is supported when she writes:

"Government, as we all know, is for maiming and hamstringing productive people very, very slowly and keeping us alive and functioning just enough to continue to produce a bit of 'marginal utility' for the state'. Then we wonder why so many people need Prozac and other opiates!"

Actually, "so many people need Prozac" because of the widening gulf of inequality spurred on by: 1) wage stagnation since 1973; 2) job losses driven by automation and globalization, as well as  (3) a perverse capitalist imperative (exhibited in corporations) known as Pareto utility. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/modern-economics-its-evil-basis-pareto.html

And if one is lucky enough to have a job it is more often than not in a proto-fascist corporation. These can dictate how underlings wear and style their hair, when they can eat, how long they may use the rest room (and how many times an 8-hour day), how often drug tests are imposed, as well as invoking the right to rifle through belongings in your desk any time they want. They can also monitor you through the day using hidden cameras, and freely inquire concerning off-hours alcohol consumption, exercise habits as well as childbearing intentions. Why doesn't Iloilo Jones bitch about these corporate infringements on her precious "individual sovereignty and liberty"?  Well, because "government" is the standard go-to 'tackling dummy' for all dedicated libbies. Like the 'great Satan" is to the Iranian mullahs.

Jones even goes so far as to try to recruit the Declaration of Independence to her cause, writing:

"The Declaration of Independence was written to free humans from oppressive government . Unfortunately, it took only a few years for many of those same authors to decide to put into place a replacement government, organized and created with enough flaws to allow the present conditions to prevail. What happened to the inalienable rights elucidated in the Declaration?"

Here, she mistakenly invokes the Declaration as the cornerstone of individual rights and governance when it is in fact the Constitution - written later- that articulates these in the Bill of Rights.  The "replacement government" she slams is none other than the one that is constitutionally -based. The Declaration was not written to "free humans from oppressive government" but to posit a basis for Americans to revolt against British rule. As summarized  in Wikipedia:

"The Declaration of Independence is the statement adopted by the Second Continental Congress meeting at the Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with the Kingdom of Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign states, and no longer under British rule. Instead they formed a new nation—the United States of America."

The Declaration also laid the basis to remove a government if it fails to adhere to the Constitution and principles of liberty enshrined therein, e.g.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

But again, this is taken to be in the context of a working Constitution, not in some libertarian "individual liberty" vacuum. "Consent of the governed" is then manifest through the representatives of the people who form the government and they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. It is not, as Iloilo imagines, a prescription for individual anarchy devoid of any constitutional contexts and by extension governance, say in the federal system established under the Constitution.

Governance, further,  presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means the projection of force for enforcement of laws  - arising from the Constitution, or federal, state and local statutes.  Someone is invariably and actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold the standards. In other words, force inevitably backs up governance. Why do you think cities maintain police forces, and the nation a large volunteer standing army - along with assorted weapons to control crowds?  It is to sustain coherent and FORCE-ful governance.

The libertarians, then, espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force. I defy you to name one.

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever they want: set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible. Maybe there IS a docile libertarian principle of “governing suggestion”- but this in no way is the same as “governance”. I also warrant such "suggestion" will always remain that and never be adopted.

One of the examples assorted libertarians invoke is that public tradespeople or entrepreneurs ought to be free  to decide with whom they trade. Thus, the druggist, the restaurateur, the hobby store, the home renovation store owner - whoever- ought to be free to decide with whom they trade. Of course, this is a prescription for absolute chaos. If every person, corporation, etc. could decide with whom they trade we'd have market bedlam. Economics would be in an even worse predictive position than it is presently.

In the preceding context it was inevitable Iloilo Jones would take on taxes, the favorite target of Libertarians since the year dot. According to her:

"I am against any tax.  In my eyes there is no acceptable level of taxation, being as it is the use of force to steal production."

Yes, this lady really wrote that and is a member of Intertel, an organization made of the top 1 percent of I.Q.  She literally, despite that qualification, believes she shouldn't pay a red cent for any tax, never mind that taxes cover such civil necessities as roads and highways, military defense, and protection of the population - e.g. by the research of NIH, CDC and other agencies- from pandemics or other health threats.  So she'd rather risk worms in her brain from eating unregulated pork than pay a buck in tax. Oh, her solution for military defense, you have to read this to believe it:

"I would support and join a volunteer militia too!"

Really, Iloilo? I am sure the one million man North Korean army will be elated to hear that as well as the three million man Chinese army - especially if both decide to invade the US of A if enough of you libbies get into power!  Seriously, Iloilo appears to be caught up in the 1770s when "volunteer militias" were the main national defense. She needs to bring herself up to date on modern warfare, maybe starting with World War I?

Her polemic against taxation echoes Rand's from her 'Virtue of Selfishness'.  Recall Rand's statement again (p. 116):

"Since the imposition of taxes does represent an initiation of force...in a fully free society, taxation, or payment for government services, would be voluntary"

Hence, her appeal to a "lottery" to pay for military needs. Well, that would have to be a hell of a lottery to cover everything from F-35s to manning over 600 bases around the world!

One of Jones' most nonsensical statements I've saved for the last, where she writes:

"If a conflict arises between individual and public good, then public good, existing as it does as a only a fictional collection of the good of separate individuals, must be abandoned for the good of the individual."

Let's pierce this codswallop in one fell swoop. Consider the "anti-vaxxers" adamantly gaining support that their stance - to refuse any and all vaccinations - is part of their "personal liberty" and an  "individual good".  Hence, any demand - say from CDC or other gov't agency  - they get vaccinated, against measles, whooping cough, mumps, diphtheria etc. is unwarranted because the anti-vaxxers are really just a "fictional collection" of separate individuals.  All vaccinations must be "abandoned for the good of the individual", i.e. the anti-vaxxers.

But we know the public collective of a vulnerable society is real  and hence its "good" (not getting sick from an unvaccinated idiot) is as well. Recent evidence shows this with assorted measles outbreaks, as well as whooping cough in various places. Hence, these "fictional collectives" of anti --vaxxer individualists pose actual health threats to the rest of us. As any specialist from the CDC can tell you, it is precisely "herd immunity" which protects the aggregate, say from a future smallpox pandemic. This is assuming that horrific virus ever emerged again (even from a biological attack or release, since both the U.S. and Russia retain samples).

What this example also shows is there can exist no "individual good" apart from the societal or aggregate good. If healthcare is a universal, collective good - as it is - then it follows there can be no "individual good" that foregoes it.   If Ms. Jones somehow contracts Avian flu or an E. Coli infection - it behooves the larger society to learn how she was infected. The reason is that these infections can impinge on the overall public good, i.e. the health of the larger society. If the larger public good didn't really exist - as she claims - there'd be no worries about possible epidemics or pandemics, such as occurred with the Spanish flu in 1918. (Up to 100 million estimated killed by that virus).

Thus, if no investigation of her condition was enabled or allowed, and a pandemic or widespread infection occurred, it conceivably could affect the entire national productivity. (Indeed, some gaming of future infections, say from a Bird flu pandemic, contemplates up to 50 percent of the working U..S. population being disabled.)

Prof. Ernest Partridge highlighted Jones' mode of erratic thought in his 2012 article, ‘Liberals and Libertarians’:

“Now consider the implications of this denial of the "independent existence" of "the public" and "society." If there is no "public," then there are no "public goods" and there is no "public interest." If there is no "society," then there is no "social harm," or "social injustice" or "social (and public) responsibility." It then follows that government has no role in mitigating "social injustice" or promoting "the public interest," since these terms are fundamentally meaningless."

Hence, if Jones' postulate of government having no role in establishing a "public good" were true, then it follows logically it should have no role in halting a Bird flu, smallpox, or diphtheria epidemic. Nor should it have any role in investigating a massive salmonella or E. coil outbreak, never mind how many people suffer loss of kidney function from the latter and need dialysis.  Why do so if no public good, i.e. that affects the larger society, exists?

A few things for Iloilo Jones and her Libertarian friends to ponder.

Of Dangerous Ideas - And 'Dumb And Dangerous Ideas' From Dr. Steve Mason

Dr. Steven Mason  (left)- unable to distinguish a dangerous idea from a dumb and dangerous idea. Right- Joseph Schmitz, holocaust denier appointed as Trump foreign policy advisor.

In his latest Integra essay 'Dangerous Ideas', (Nov.-Dec, .p. 18) , Dr. Steve Mason outdoes himself with pseudo intellectual nonsense with his endorsement of "dangerous ideas". This would be a terrific essay if only Dr. Steve had managed to discriminate between the truly dangerous, for example - natural selection - which is true, and the merely dumb and dangerous, e.g. holocaust denial.  But alas, he doesn't, instead almost frolicking in the sheer contrarian shock value of the latter.

Why is this important? Well, because too many of our fellow citizens know too little about the holocaust and WW II in general. This knowledge gap enables hucksters and propagandists to harvest their brains. One of whom is Joseph Schmitz, a recent foreign advisor named by Trump to his administration. Schmitz acquired infamy by proclaiming, in dismissing the holocaust, that:

“the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews.”

Leaving out that the Jews were not killed in ovens, but in large gas chambers, as at Auschwitz.  The ovens were used to incinerate the bodies afterwards but because of the mass of victims, the Nazis later went to mass graves. It became too difficult to cremate thousands of gassed bodies at one time. This is why Dr. Steve's remarks bear scrutiny in the context of  his "Dangerous Ideas" theme. Let's return to natural selection as a dangerous idea before going to Steve Mason's example of holocaust denial.

In the case of natural selection which Tufts professor Daniel Dennett covered in his book, 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea', we have a truly dangerous idea, the moreso because it is true. We learn of a 4 -step loop process that amounts to "a mindless algorithm that displays no intent, no design, no purpose, no goal, no deeper meaning. This simple algorithm has been running on Earth for four billion years to produce every living thing, and everything made by every living thing" . A purposeless, algorithmic process - the horror!

It is "dangerous" precisely because it undermines orthodoxy (in this case religious) but also because it has the benefit of being true in the scientific sense - meaning  has been validated a gazillion times.  Then Mason breaks down and blows it with this.  (Even wifey, when I showed her his reference, exclaimed: "What an idiot!"): Mason actually wrote:

"Here's a really Dangerous Idea: The Holocaust is a hoax. It must be a Dangerous Idea because simply repeating those five words will get you jailed in  more than a dozen countries, including: Belgium, France, Germany, Romania and Poland."

Mason then draws an absurd parallel putting the "holocaust hoax" on the same "dangerous idea" level as the Apollo Moon landings hoax. In the latter case,  citing all kinds of nonsense "evidence", e.g. American flag "rippling" on an airless world, from idiot lunar landing hoax websites.

This again shows Mason lacks any balanced rational insight to compare these two. In effect, comparing the claim of hoax for an actually recorded historical genocide to a nonsense claim which is easily refuted by reference to lunar laser ranging experiments - only made possible by the fact laser reflectors were left on the lunar surface....by humans.

Incomprehensibly, Mason appears to regard both ideas as equally "goofy". He scribbles, in regard the lunar landing deniers (p. 21):

"The last I heard no one was locking them up.  Being goofy isn't against the law, so what is it about questioning the death camps that creates such a stir?"

He then speculates it might be because "support for Israel will diminish"

But he's off base in his reasoning. As I showed before, Mason often makes erroneous conclusions in his assorted essays predicated on a solipsistic viewpoint. For example, in his June Port of Call effort he actually questioned whether global warming is real based on: "Clearly I don't know but then who does?" To which I pointed out that Mason is not a climate scientist - like Prof. Gunter Weller- so no surprise he wouldn't know, his specialist training is in psychology not climate science.

The same sort of skewed reasoning leads him to question death camp denial based on something like offending Israel. In fact, it is a dangerous idea because extreme right, pro -fascist parties (like Marine Le Pen's National Front) in France, actually exist in the here and now. Further, they are eager to invoke holocaust denial as an auxiliary means to advance their own justifications for existence and agendas. The upshot of actual German history, as my German sister-in-law Krimhilde put it, is that even frivolous dismissal of the holocaust plays directly into the neo-fascist platforms, as we beheld in Munich back in 2013, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html

Those "dozen nations" Mason cites, therefore,  do not want a repeat of history, in line with George Santayana's famous words "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." They would rather err on the side of legal heavy handedness than regret it later when a future Fuhrer tries to duplicate the inhuman acts of the earlier one.  Impossible? Then read the Financial Times article below ('Ideas That Fed The Beast of Fascism Flourish Today') on how the same forces active in Europe in the 1930s are also present today:

https://www.ft.com/content/599fbbfc-a412-11e6-8898-79a99e2a4de6


The nations that prosecute it, for Steve's information, do so in order to impose a painful reminder that one cannot just lie about the past as a cynical way to sweep it under the rug to thereby better enable similar horrors in the future.  To put it another way: They already experienced the horrors once,  they have no intention to do so again! Thereby harsh laws punishing the denialists (who effectively diminish the holocaust)  are intended to send an uncompromising message: "You spread this crap - undermining the historical truth- at your own peril. We will not tolerate your lies here!"

So Mason has his head and emphasis in the wrong place. Apart from those countries bearing far right parties eager to exploit holocaust denial they were also places whose citizens were packed  into box cars for transport to death camps (Treblinka,  Auschwitz,  Mauthausen etc.)  to be gassed and for which we possess actual visual and other recorded evidence that it happened, e.g. the scene below photographed outside of Mauthausen by Russian soldiers who liberated that camp in 1945:


This is emphatically not the stuff of droll essays in a high IQ journal, or invoking facetious word games.

Poland was among the worst affected nations, featuring the death camp Auschwitz, where over 1.6 million were slaughtered and Dr. Josef Mengele performed hideous experiments on children, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/01/auschwitz-commemoration-why-wasnt.html


Mason, by using a specious basis to compare dangerous ideas  (conflating goofy, stupid ones with serious ones) actually demeans and diminishes the import of the real ones, e.g.  the denial of the factual genocide of 6 million Jews.   Let us also  reference how he earlier chirps: "I should come clean and admit I like dangerous ideas!"  Evidently, both the dumbass and the serious dangerous, like holocaust denial.

Now, to be fair, Mason is not a stupid guy by any means. He can't be to have become a doctor in psychology or a member of Intertel. However, he does have a habit of becoming overly enchanted with his own peculiar, idiosyncratic ruminations. This solipsistic fascination leads him to wander off the rational reservation at times,  writing idiotic essays in Intertel's media.

Recall Mason is the same character who wrote several months ago (in the June Port of Call NL):

 "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"   This is actually a misrepresentation of his stance when what he really meant was "How can I believe anything when the science behind it changes?" And seen in this light, one wonders if Mason was ever a genuine scientist at all, because the very nature of the scientific enterprise is to mount new discoveries, via new findings obtained from ever more refined instruments and techniques. Hence the change from the old epicycles-based Ptolemaic solar system to the heliocentric one. Or, the change from Bohr's simple 'planetary' model atom to the wave model of Schrodinger, Born et al. Or the change from Newtonian gravitation to general relativity (though the former is still used for space trajectories, missions).

In the current essay, after ruminating on Darwin's dangerous idea,  he recycles  similar nonsense to that  he opined in the June PoC, writing (p. 19).:

"The world of science - if you wait long enough - is always wrong anyway!"

If he really, truly believes this codswallop I'd like him to explain to me how it is we can reliably use celestial mechanics to send space craft (like Curiosity Rover) to Mars, and the Horizons probe to Pluto.  If science is "always wrong" how can that be? Well, ok, maybe he's thinking 5 billion years in advance when orbits likely shift for a variety of reasons. But, in that case it isn't the (current) science that's wrong, it's the fact orbital elements would have changed.

Same thing with quantum theory, one of the most complete we have, which enables us to correctly predict the spectral line emissions of atoms as well as the working of solid state devices.

It seems clear based on these examples that Mason's glib takes on physical science disclose he really doesn't know much about it. I would bet he actually thinks that because Einstein's theory of gravity is used, Newtonian gravitation is wrong or passe.  If so, he'd  probably be amazed to learn that Newtonian gravitational theory is what enables our celestial mechanics to get space craft to Mars, the Moon, or Jupiter.

The point is that a real scientist - even a psychiatrist or psychologist- would know and understand science HAS to change for our understanding of the cosmos, nature to evolve. It is unscientific and naive to expect findings to remain static. At the same time, the true expert in science has to know that changes in a scientific discipline - like physics - don't necessarily mean the former theory is chucked. Again, look at Newtonian gravitational theory and Newton's laws of motion.  These still have applicability at macro-scale levels, and at speed much less than the velocity of light, c.

Other Mason examples in his essay are more clearly and rationally chosen, and articulated. For example, the dangerous idea that "religion is a WMD". (Though I would have phrased it as a "mind virus of mass destruction")  Another plausible choice is that "our system of government causes us to elect the worst candidates".  (Say like Donald Trump) To support that dangerous idea he cites evidence from evolutionary psychology, to wit, "groups work best only when they get behind a leader, to put him in that position".  This contrast with our money-graft  system where candidates aspiring to be leaders must incessantly beg for money and votes, so "are probably the least well qualified for command" - again from an evolutionary psychology standpoint.

These are "dangerous ideas" to be sure, like Darwin's natural selection, but based on a record of data, investigations and historical experience. They are worthy of consideration in an essay aimed at  people in the upper 1 percent of IQs, in other words. But holocaust denial and fake lunar landings are not in that same category. The first is indeed dangerous, and not merely as an idea.  The second is too stupid and easily disproven to be considered truly dangerous.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/69871/the-big-trump-media-story-bannon-and-a-crew-of-dangerous-propagandists-are-in-the-cockpit-of-national

We Shouldn't Dismiss People Who Deny Facts? Why The Hell NOT?

                                                         "I duz  not like facks! DOH!"

A recent irritating, short essay in TIME (Sept. 12-19, p. 26) insisted rational and fact-based people need to give all the zombies,  knuckle draggers, and ignorant buffoons among us a 'break' and not dismiss them.  So, for example, we must give a pass to those who "believe things that are factually incorrect". Say like those who believe that vaccines cause autism, or to one innominate,  self-proclaimed genius of Intertel who is 100 percent convinced that "scientific conspirators falsified their data on which they based their alarming findings."  Or -from the same genius: "these scientists manipulated the peer review process to keep valid research against global warming from being published."

But anyone who's  been involved in serious climate science research would know the latter two beliefs are pure balderdash and definitely merit no respect. Especially if they issue from people who are members of a high IQ group.  They ought to have known or found out that denier papers are rejected because they don't meet minimum publication standards, including: use of proper mathematical or statistical techniques to assess data, use of coherent and testable physical models and/or simulations and assessment of errors in each of the preceding. But it's easier for deniers simply to believe denier research papers are left out because the review process is "manipulated."

While ordinary people may be partly excused for their beliefs, a high IQ person cannot be similarly excused, and he or she merits the full hammer of criticism and opprobrium. He has effectively misused his high intelligence to 'go off the rails'  and not conducted sufficient self-checks on his claims. Nor used his intelligence - with sufficient energy - to do his own research to first seek to disprove his many superficially -based beliefs.

Why? Because by virtue of their very intelligence they ought to fucking know better!  They actually possess the necessary intellect to ferret out the truth and DO the research but are too god damned lazy to do it. They don't want to read 15 or 20 papers that thoroughly debunk their idiotic beliefs, they'd rather just go to climate denier websites, imbibe the misinformation and repeat it. Especially with the conspiracy aspect.

The authors of the TIME essay ('We Shouldn't Dismiss People Who Deny Facts') claim:

"If we really want to change how they think, we need to take an honest look at what's driving those beliefs. Because it's not ignorance, it's psychology."

Actually, in the case of the genius climate deniers (or their  soft soaping allies who aren't as denial -based but still think "the jury is out")  it's politics that's to blame. Specifically Libertarianism,  which most of them espouse, whether in Mensa or Intertel.  This leads them to collect — even invent — bad information to flesh out what they already believe to justify their economics theories.  Their aim isn't scientific pursuit but rather defending an economic system they believe will unravel if practical solutions to global warming became law.

My point? Their  interjection and invocation of politics means they can no longer be afforded special consideration, and this distinguishes them from say, the vaccine skeptics. The TIME authors, Sara and Jack Gorman, claim we are all subject to the same principles that "cause scientific denial".  They add:

"Research has shown that humans are distinctly uncomfortable with events or phenomena without clear causes - and when we don't  know something we tend to fill in the gaps ourselves. Take autism. Since we don't know why it occurs it becomes easy to misplace blame."

Fair enough, but autism is not global warming, for which we KNOW the cause is ever increasing CO2 concentrations that cause the atmosphere to retain more moisture and heat creating a thermal blanket that heats the Earth like a mammoth greenhouse. Indeed, the source of the greenhouse effect has been known for nearly 120 years, from the time of chemist Svante Arrhenius, e.g.

http://warming.sdsu.edu/

This issue also transpired in the debate Monday night when Trump tried to deny he had earlier called global warming a "hoax".  This, despite the fact an old tweet of his was dug up where in he babbled:
"the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese."

Why recite such crap? Because it served a political advantage. But sorry, you don't get any breaks nor are you spared criticism when you go that route. The same applies to Libertarians in Mensa and Intertel who have banged the denier drum until they're blue in the face. They do it precisely because they don't wish to acknowledge that - if true (which it is) - economic sacrifices will have to be made in the short and long term interest of future generations.  The upshot of their unquestioning belief in market economics leads them to craft a pseudo-scientific narrative ( in the guise of real science) to attack genuine climate science. To accomplish this trick they make use of  the data, papers of proven scientific whores and hacks, willing to sell their dubious skills for a few shekels to the highest capitalist bidders or think tanks e.g.

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

One of the best exposes of their methods and dynamics has come from Yale Law school prof and science communication researcher Dan Kahan.  He has concluded that their information processing is almost entirely determined by their deep-seated political values and cultural identities. Thus, a white libertarian member of  Intertel, for example, will see global warming science as just one more vehicle of  subversive force backed  by the "untermenschen"  to be used against his precious economic values and Eurocentric ideals. All of this is then attributed to "global warming alarmism", as an expeditious cover for his own abysmal laziness, ignorance and cynicism. At this point, his thinking is already so corrupted and contaminated it's almost impossible to break through on any rational or critical thinking level.

From Kahan's theory, these pseudo skeptics don't really have the time to evaluate every piece of evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group  - in this case folks like Charles Murray- and use their generic  economic arguments (i.e. against taxes as "theft" and "force")  to attack climate science or more precisely the climate science consensus that human induced warming is real, e.g.

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

One of their most used shticks is to clump all federal science agencies (like NOAA, NASA, EPA  etc.) together and "in on the scam". This makes it easy so they don't have to use their brains or  time plowing through separate specialist climate papers. Why do that when you can kill five birds with one stone?

Driven by this short cut mental modality, they then seek out those oddball contrarians (like Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Richard Lindzen) who do sound off against the climate consensus, even though they are dead wrong and have been proven so.  The stage then emerges for the next phase: cherry picking only the data which conforms to their economic or political values. By now we have  a self-reinforcing mechanism: the more the Libbie genius gets exposed to the faux science that  supports his economic and political stance the more he continues to adopt that position and related ones further out. These include such far out, paranoid ideations that one's opponents "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."  in the words of Kort Patterson.

Meanwhile, by extension, misinformation in public life isn’t the exception, it’s the rule, according to a study published in Social Science Quarterly  which employed a “knowledge distortion index” and looked at two competing explanations for why this is so — one top-down, the other bottom-up.  The researchers used three Washington state initiatives from the 2006 general election cycle to examine the dynamics of what is going on in this particular sort of political environment.  The study, “How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs,” found that “voters’ values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self-reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages "played a surprisingly limited role,” despite the presence of significantly mistaken “facts,” which were used to help construct the knowledge distortion index.
 

Lead author, Justin Reedy in one interview stated “Both of these theories recognize that citizens can develop distorted factual beliefs because of their political views, but they disagree about how those distortions might happen. Heuristics researchers generally think that citizens have limited attention for politics and try to process information quickly and efficiently.”

Again, this reverts to Kahan's theory of why intelligent climate deniers give short shrift to deep research that might change their minds - if they only got off their butts and put their high IQs to use for an activity other than denial. But because simple denial consumes less time (one can get denier "misinformation" quickly and efficiently from numerous websites) then their denier behavior is more likely to be reinforced. That means they will be less likely to expend time or effort on difficult independent  research that might change their mind.
 
The Gormans assert Iibid.):

"Rather than chastising people for focusing so heavily on stories, we should figure out why we are all so drawn to stories in the first place. Changing minds requires compassion and understanding, not disdain."

A sentiment with which I wholeheartedly concur. And that's why I often make allowances for those like the anti-vaxxers because they aren't privy to detailed biological science nor are they likely to understand autism if they did access research. So they must confabulate "stories" and these often support their false beliefs. However, I am not about to extend the same generosity to a Mensan or Ilian - especially one who cynically uses his intelligence to spread misinformation and misbegotten conspiracy theories about "global warming alarmists".

The Intelligent Irrationalists: Why So Many High IQ Folks Deny Sound Science

A recurring problem for discussion in many professional scientific organizations is how to get out ahead of pseudo-science and in particular denial science: the denial of scientific legitimacy (or mocking it with facetious putdowns). The classic example is for human-induced global warming and what most concerns many climate scientists is a specific subset of intellectual critic referred to as "intelligent irrationalists".

These people, often in high IQ societies like Mensa and Intertel,,  fancy themselves "debunkers" but fail to perceive they are, in fact, sophisticated "bunkers" : the disseminators of bunkum and rubbish thanks to their own intellectual blind spots (especially in the critical thinking capacity) and also their irrationality.

What has often irritated and puzzled me - not necessarily in that order- is how so many of these denizens feel so confident to spout off at length about topics like global warming - despite the fact they've likely had the most passing acquaintance with thermal physics. The thread I have seen through all their assorted critiques - say like Intertel's Kort Patterson - is they lean almost entirely to Libertarianism or some entrenched and unquestioning belief in market economics. The upshot is that their adulation of the latter leads them to craft a counter narrative in the guise of real science (but more analogous to creationist "science") to attack genuine climate science.

There may be some psychological and sociological ballast to this. We've already seen, for example, the thesis of Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor who correctly ties global warming denial to the trend of pseudo-skepticism sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the agents of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: extolling economic profit over human habitability of planet Earth.  Some disgusted climate scientists have even referred to this breed of economically dominated denizens as "Homo Economicus" to distinguish it from Homo Sapiens.

But a another side to this has been articulated by Yale Law school prof and science communication researcher Dan Kahan.  He has concluded that most information processing - especially by the intelligent irrationalists -is determined by their own deep-seated political values and cultural identities. Thus, a white libertarian member of  Intertel, for example, will see global warming science as just one more vehicle of  subversive force backed  by the "untermenschen"  to be used against his precious economic values and Eurocentric ideals. All of this then attributed to "global warming alarmism". At this point, his thinking is already so corrupted and contaminated it's almost impossible to break through on any rational or critical thinking level.

In general, according to Kahan's theory, these high IQ skeptics - or who fancy themselves such, don't really have the time to evaluate every piece of evidence that comes before them (say ice cores containing CO2) so basically punt. Instead of rationally and objectively evaluating the evidence they side with the top bananas in their political group  - in this case folks like Charles Murray- and use their generic  economic arguments (i.e. against taxes as "theft" and "force")  to attack climate science or more precisely the climate science consensus that human induced warming is real, e.g.

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

Driven by this short cut mental modality, they then seek out those oddball contrarians (like Willie Soon) who do sound off against the climate consensus, even though they are dead wrong, see e.g.

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

Thus, the stage emerges for the next phase: cherry picking only the data which conforms to the economic or political values of one's identity group, in this case, libertarianism. It is also by now become a self-reinforcing mechanism: the more one gets exposed to the faux science that  supports one's economic and political stance the more one continues to adopt that position and related ones further out. These include far out, paranoid ideations that one's opponents "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide by adopting the crippling constraints sought by the global warming conspirators."  in the words of Kort Patterson.

In other words it's not that much of a jump from the irrational rationalizations underpinning one's position based on a group identity, to conjuring conspiracy theories targeting the out groups (real scientists and citizens - government officials who support them)

Related to the cherry picking of data, there is also the noisome tactic of mischaracterizing research methods and results, for example mocking the 'hockey stick" ansatz of Michael Mann.  In the words of one Intertel AGW denier Carol Dane:

"One hundred and twenty eminent scientists here, some Nobel laureates with impressive credentials, denounce Michael Mann and his hockey stick chart on which so much fraudulent global warming argument is based."

No mention that the bulk of those "eminent scientists" were economists, former NASA engineers, chemists, geologists, biologists and psychologists. Also that a number of climatologists  subsequently published their own reconstructions of global temperatures from independent lines of research that vindicated Mann's research by showing similar if not identical trends in temperature..

But again, this is the nature of the criticism from the intelligent irrationalists, who also comfort themselves (as members of Intertel, say) that few mortals will be able to take them on and dismantle their nonsense.

Another key attribute of their irrationality which especially stands out in Kort Patterson's tirades against AGW is focusing on perceived implications rather than examining the evidence itself. Thus Patterson leaps to the hysterical implication that climate scientists who've published in support of anthropogenic warming "demand that Western Industrial Civilization commit cultural suicide ".

In its irrational extremism it is really not much different from an anti-evolutionist who might assert: "well, if evolution is true and we all descended from a common primate ancestor we could as well kill ourselves because we don't have souls and life has no purpose".

Again, an unhinged,  hysterical implication. (Though I am sure Kort would disagree with the comparison)

Another  recurring irrational tactic of the economic obsessives in the high IQ societies is to make personal attacks on the scientists themselves, or their methods - say like Michael Mann and his hockey stick.  Thus, instead of focusing on the science (which admittedly most of these people are weak in) they claim the scientists have "rigged'" or "fudged" their research or data to support a scientific consensus. All it takes by this time is the slightest news or hint of subterfuge (say like the overblown climate gate brouhaha) to establish a specious confirmation bias and make them believe it's true and there really is a global conspiracy.

The most depressing aspect, as Kahan observes, is there may be little that can be done by the genuine rationalist or scientist to convince these intelligent irrationalists of their folly. That may have to await the extreme unfolding of multifold climatic disasters in real time, in whatever form - e.g.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899


to finally turn this lot into believers or at least accepting the plausibility of the premise.. Even then they are just as likely to write off the effects, i.e. "That  51-day  heat wave leading to monster fires was just a meteorological disturbance".

As Kahan and others observe, all this discloses humans are hard-wired for irrational thinking. Science in its legitimate practice can certainly help to abate such tendencies but if the afflicted persons distrust even science (as "rigged") , there is little that can be done. That critique also applies to the superficial, frivolous lot of 'so what?' skeptics such as Intertel's Steve Mason - unprepared to invest mental capital in anything.. Hence, willing to believe anything even codswallop from the likes of Kort Patterson.

In the end the lack of any discrimination in the latter may pave the way for even more expressions of irrationality, based on "why accept anything when science is always changing" or to use Mason's words: "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"  

Those like Mason  are probably convinced they are the ultimate "rational"  AGW critics  using a meta-template to ascribe any risks of  climate change  as "inflated". But in the end they are just as irrational as the outright irrationalists - only adopting a less discernible cover to the superficial observer. But for those of us who've been fighting this lot for over 40 years in different forums, they aren't fooling anyone - at least not us!

New Research Shows High CO2 Concentrations Will Now Be Permanent

New research published in the June 13 issue of  Nature Climate Change, http://go.nature.com/296UOpy

shows that this year  atmospheric carbon concentrations will,  for the first time,  exceed 400 parts per million and be permanent.  For comparison, last year the 400 ppm level was attained but monthly concentrations fell back to 397.5 ppm during the summer and fall.  Now, however, based on these new findings there is no going back to pre-400 ppm levels as explained by lead author Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Center for Climate Sciences.

In fact, Betts has pointed out the role of El Nino in incepting this latest climate threshold crossed. According to him, quoted in EOS: Earth & Space Science News (Vol. 93, No. 15, p. 5):

"While the 400 ppm mark would have been exceeded this year or next anyway, El Nino has caused the CO2 to rise extra fast this year. We hit the mark earlier than expected."

Worth pointing out also is that in a normal year the water of the eastern Pacific would be about 8 C (14.4 F) cooler than in the western Pacific on account of wind patterns pushing water to the west while bringing cooler, deeper water to the east. But El Nino dramatically altered this  hydrologic cycle, weakening the winds and resulting in warmer water in the eastern Pacific. This  effectively resulted in cascading weather patterns including the increased incidence of drought and fires in the tropical western Pacific.

The Betts et al study is important because while earlier models have simulated El Nino effects on sea surface temperatures none of them predicted the total contributions of the effects to atmospheric CO2 levels.  This was possible because Betts et al used data collected at the historic Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii where rising atmospheric CO was first recorded in 1958. The Betts team built a statistical model using multiple regression analysis to relate sea surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

As I observed in the previous blog post (in response to Intertel's resident global warming deniers) this sort of approach is reasonable when one is dealing with stochastic processes. In many ways it bears analogy to my own research using multiple regression to relate the frequency of geo-effective solar flares to sunspot magnetic morphology and area, e.g.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983JRASC..77..203S

In the case of the Betts et al MR analysis CO2 levels will break historic records this year  and the El Nino effect is predicted to add 0.5 - 1.5 ppm to the existing increment of 2.0 ppm/ year.(This added difference only expected to last as long as El Nino itself)

It is instructive here to reference the European  ENSEMBLES project, which has been primarily concerned with quantifying the (politically relevant) aggressive carbon mitigation scenario. Their fundamental working question: What happens by what time, if we cut CO2 emissions by so much?

Their working scenario thus far (given existing assumptions and variables) leads to a peak in the CO2 equivalent concentration in the atmosphere of nearly 535 parts per million in 2045, before eventually stabilizing at 450 ppm. Even so, the concentration peak is precariously close to what many (e.g. the late Carl Sagan in his essay 'Ambush - The Warming of the World') have claimed is at the cusp of the runaway greenhouse effect. 

In terms of he current work by Betts et al it's been found that CO2 concentrations around the globe will exceed 400 ppm for hundreds of years. Worse, if the threshold for the runaway greenhouse is passed, it is doubtful concentrations will ever fall below - meaning essentially the planet will be on its way to becoming another Venus.  One of the paper's co-authors, Ralph Keeling, of the Scripps Institution of  Oceanography  has pointedly noted (EOS Earth & Space Science News, ibid.): 

"Carbon dioxide levels will increase unless we dramatically reduce emissions. We can cut the growth rate in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations but total levels will increase unless emissions ae cut by about 50 percent".

This is sobering news for the "Economics Uber Alles" denizens  of  Intertel who find it so easy to castigate genuine science and real climate scientists because the latter's research adversely affects the Libertarian notion of ever increasing GDP.  But they had best pull their heads out of their asses and sign on to reality instead of denying it. They could help themselves immensely by consulting the   "State of the Climate Report" put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (Of course, they doubtless are convinced the government science agencies are in the global "alarmist" conspiracy.

But last I checked Earth is their planet too, and only a fool - or a moron to be precise - would risk his habitable abode for the bet that climate change isn't real or is being made up by reputable scientists.

But alas, the world appears to be over weighted to the presence of fools, poltroons and morons, even in high IQ societies - where they use the dubious cover of their IQ test scores to babble any codswallop to justify living in their Libertarian bubbles. Ordinarily we could leave them to intellectually suffocate in those bubbles, but their lying and conspiracy mongering puts everyone else at risk subject to the extent  their BS infection spreads..

Footnote:

Perhaps no one has better explained the connection of global warming to capitalism, than Naomi Klein. Thus her book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. Climate Change, provides perhaps the best antidote to the disinformation and propaganda spouted by the Libertarian element in the high IQ societies.  Basically, as Klein argues, capitalism is unable to affect or alter  the course of climate change due to its dependence on fossil fuels and need for continuous growth. Also,  the time for marginal fixes has expired, thus forcing us to now make radical changes in how we live.  This the Libbies do not want (or they soft soap like Steve Mason does) hence the basis for their hysterical lies and conspiracy theories re: "global warming alarmists".

 Ms. Klein shows we simply don't have the luxury of using all the carbon that lies in the Earth. Yet capitalism's never ending growth engine would demand we do so to support the expansion of new markets for exploitation and wanton consumption. Strange that a subset of high IQ people are unable to get that into their heads. But the power of emotionally invested belief can be stronger than intelligent insight.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/04/last_year_was_bad_for_global_warming_2015_set_frenzy_of_climate_records_partner/

INTERTEL'S Resident Libertarian Deniers Again Ignorantly Spout Off On Climate Change

It was coincidental yesterday that not long after a lunch conversation with our friend Nan, the monthly 'Port of Call' (Intertel's Region 7 NL) arrived in the mail.   Why coincidental?

At lunch, Nan bemoaned her fundamentalist sister who accused her of being "anti-Christian" because she accepted Darwinian Evolution as a fact. Nan was asked : "Do you really understand evolution?" Nan simply replied "No'"  Whereupon her sis "Rita" challenged her good sense: "Then why do you believe it?" Nan simply replied: "Because actual scientists have unearthed the evidence for it, including for natural selection, mutation."

But at the end the two remained at contretemps. Such is also the case with climate change deniers, or what I call pseudo-sophisticated climate change denier enablers. These people often have attained high education credentials - say in psychology or economics. However,  they are convinced they can opine on issues outside their specialty fields like global warming - or the alleged absence for it- without doing any hard work or proper research. . They believe they can simply bloviate from their armchairs or keyboards. They also invoke the comeback that "well, because the proponents -scientists can't put it into simple words" then it must be wrong or at least not compelling.

Such is the case with  Dr. Steven B. Mason:

in one of the two Port of Call 'letters to the editor" taking me to task for my original take on Carol Dane's infantile book review that appeared in PoC some months ago, e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-high-iq-book-reviewer-shows-she-can.html

Mason begins his missive by quaintly asking: "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"   This is actually a misrepresentation of his stance when what he really means is "How can I believe anything when the science behind it changes?" And seen in this light, one wonders if Mason was ever a genuine scientist at all, because the very nature of the scientific enterprise is to mount new discoveries, via new findings obtained from ever more refined instruments and techniques. Hence the change from the old epicycles-based Ptolemaic solar system to the heliocentric one. Or, the change from Bohr's simple 'planetary' model atom to the wave model of Schrodinger, Born et al. Or the change from Newtonian gravitation to general relativity (though the former is still used for space trajectories, missions).

The point is that a real scientist - even a psychiatrist or psychologist- would know and understand science HAS to change for our understanding of the cosmos, nature to evolve. It is unscientific and naive to expect findings to remain static.

He then compares the Moon landings ("99 % sure") to extraterrestrial visitors ("1% sure") though interestingly he cites no "changes" in scientific evidence pertaining to either.  He claims from this he "prefers to hover around 50%" in  terms of his belief, but seems to forget or doesn't care that actual scientific acceptance of a hypothesis comes from testable evidence or confirmed data from a prior experiment (e.g. the LIGO finding for gravitational waves)  not "belief".  This is astonishing given Mason has not only been a  scientist - well, at least a psychologist, but also a college prof.

Then he drags climate science into his muddled mix along with Moon landings, "angels and devils" and "extraterrestrials".   He writes:

"I remember when experts were predicting another Ice Age and I figured why not? The ice was once a mile thick over Central Park....But now the experts are predicting it will get hot and I figure why not? Is global warming a fact? If so is it man-made, ...can it be reversed? Clearly I don't know but then who does?"

Actually,  a lot of hard working actual climate scientists  trained in a field a hell of a lot more complex than psychology or modern psychiatry.. A field (atmospheric science) wherein they have to actually produce testable data, such as from analysis of ice cores, changing cloud albedo etc. and  can't beg off on the basis of there being no confirmations or "ambiguity".  One such professional climate scientist,   Gunter Weller -  I met while at the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, AK in 1985-86.

By late 1986  Prof. Weller had shown the abnormal heating of the Arctic - some 5 - 7F greater than the continental U.S.

The ice cores available at Dr. Weller's  Atmospheric Physics lab (part of the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks) were extracted from Arctic ice at depths corresponding with geological time frames dating back over 80,000 years. His results showed that the greatest ambient temperatures corresponded to the highest CO2 concentrations recorded in the ice cores. Also the largest increases in ambient temperatures have occurred over the past 50-60 years, during which the CO2 increases have been largest (now approaching 400 ppm). Since then this relationship has only been further corroborated. Does Steve Mason know this, or has he made any  effort to learn about it? Obviously not. It's easier to make glib comments to be on the "50 percent" line regarding global warming than extend one's mind outside an academic comfort zone.

Regarding Mason's dilemma on once being told about "global cooling" and Ice ages, this is a common misstep of those semi-educated on climate change or the trajectory of research which has now unimpeachably led to accepting anthropogenic global warming. It reminds me of the appearance of the  WSJ's resident denier Brett Stephens on the Real Time show a year and a half ago.

WSJ denier Brett Stephens much likc Steve Mason "once read about global cooling"

Stephens spouted out to host Bill Maher: "What I'm saying is if you look at a Newsweek from 1975 you will see it"  Whereupon  Maher moaned, 'Oh no, not the cooling thing!'

To which Stephens responded: "Yes, the cooling thing!"

For those who may not know, including Mason, global cooling was once all the rage--  briefly! Some popular  'zines picked it up in the mid to late 70s but it was soon left in the scientific dustbin. (Much like the Ptolemaic solar system based  on "epicycles") This was after it was discovered a decade or so later, that it had been incepted by particulates and aerosols in the atmosphere.  After the Clean Air Act and similar bills were passed overseas (e.g. in the UK), those particulates largely disappeared and the cooling was no longer evident. Aerosols remained and gave way to the global dimming phenomenon which also concealed the worst of global warming - but when aerosols were also controlled - after similar legislation, global dimming receded and warming assumed dominance. Rising temperatures ever since have confirmed the effects.

Mason then reveals his almost complete failure to grasp the nature of physical science with this idiotic remark (p. 4):

"If you look up Herd Animal you might as well find a guy in a lab coat and a bow tie...The reason is simple...scientists are even more protective of their reputations than teen girls of a generation ago. And they have to be. Make one false step and no one will get on an elevator with you at conferences".

Seriously?   The utter arrogance here of a prime member of a herd discipline (psychology) to write off physical scientists this way is beyond belief.   It also shows me  that he has about as much comprehension of the actual scientific process as a kindergartner has of quantum measurements and the role of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  The second line is also choice and makes me wonder if Dr. Steve has even attended any conferences other than parent-teacher for his kids.

Having attended many conferences (solar physics, astrometry, celestial mechanics, space physics)  I have seen colleagues make the occasional "false step" (as in a paper presentation)  but no one held it against them because each realized it's entirely possible  to be wrong on occasion. Who wants to make a snark critique in the question period when his turn might be next? Only in religious realms, or maybe in Mason's psychology, do we have something approaching a "priest hood" with its dogmas and "beliefs" - as embedded in psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. (For an excellent expose all the psychobabble within it, check out 'The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry'.)

Like many before him, Mason is stuck in neutral believing that all or most of modern climate science is based on "appeal to authority".  Thus "many scientists agreeing as though it were proof of a concept".  Errr no, Dr. Steve. They don't agree "because others agree."  They do so because actual analyses - like of Gunter Weller's ice cores- point to actual changes of CO2 concentrations in  different layers of ice extending back thousands of years.  This connection was most powerfully explicated by Gale Christianson in his book, 'Greenhouse' noting that there has never ever (from the ice core data) been an ice age when the CO2 concentration was over 200 ppm.

Observing increasing concentrations of CO2 with a warming climate, it is then possible to craft the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels and a warming climate are inextricably linked. And since the most  profound rise has been from the Industrial Revolution there is a direct connection to human activity in generating CO2 from burning fossil fuels  This stuff isn't "rocket science" but appears to be for Mason who also referenced asking a physical scientist friend if he could explain a complex theory in simple words and his pal answered 'no'. But then this is the same Mason who in one Integra article admitted he understood nothing of quantum mechanics either, such as the wave-particle duality. He then extrapolated from that to assert that he "didn't think others understood it either"- using his own limited grasp of a subject as a standard for all.

Mason's take here seems to be that if it can't be  reduced to simple language then there's not much reason to accept it. But if that is so there is a hell of a lot of modern science most people would not accept, i.e.  general relativity, quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, gene splicing...to name a few.. But are the objectors truly in a position to express skepticism? I doubt it! To do so one needs to  at least possess the relative backgrounds and/or some  exposure to the material approximating that of those who've done the work!

Incredibly, in his last paragraphs Mason then jumps to the Chicxulub (asteroid impact) event that eliminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, based on the work of Luis Alvarez. He claims he "asked the younger Alvarez" about a "smoking gun" and was informed "not to worry there is an embarrassment of riches". Translation: there is so much disparate data to choose from that anyone - even his dad- could find just about any explanation desired. Which is total asinine nonsense.   The point missed by Mason is that the isotope Iridium 192 is used as a key marker for whether an asteroid (or meteoroid) is of extraterrestrial origin. This is because it occurs with much higher abundance than in Earth's crust. It was this discovery (for Ir 192 in specific layers near Chicxulub)  that provided the basis for Luis Alvarez' theory.

Mason goes on to babble::

"I find it hard to disagree with the majority (on climate science). However, I also find it hard to disagree with those like Kort Patterson whose opinion I value"

Really? Then you are allowing your subjective emotions (friendship?) to cloud your objective judgment.  It also shows me that you truly do not agree with the majority (the vast climate science research community) if you can also accept Patterson's climate codswallop including his belief in a global conspiracy to promote alarm.  One cannot on the one hand accept the bona fide science, and on the other the inflated and erroneous opinions of a climate know nothing who by virtue of his IQ thinks he's entitled to spout off on anything. (Does Mason also accept evolution at the same time as another friend's creationism? No, didn't think so, anymore than he believes one can square the circle!)

The last statement by Mason is truly pathetic and shows he cares not a whit for the welfare of future generations who are likely to experience heat waves and floods that make the current events seem like minor inconveniences

"The only thing about which I'm confident is that the Global Warming issue needn't generate anywhere near the heat it does".

However, as with his tenuous grasp of basic thermal science, Mason fails to appreciate that most of that 'heat' is a result of the obdurate deniers who calumniate and disparage  the actual climate scientists while they fancy themselves the exponents of real science and its traditions.

The case in point here is one Brewster Gillett, who is supposedly the "proof reader" for PoC  and scribbled the second letter taking me to task, writing that I (along with another writer, Karl Schlotterbeck) evidenced "reduced capacity for appreciation of subtlety in writing". No, I have the appreciation for sure. But NOT when dealing with lame deniers like Kort Patterson whose pseudoscientific claptrap needs to be bluntly exposed, not subtly, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/06/intertels-kort-patterson-conjures-wacko.html

"Subtle" then doesn't cut it if a guy really believes (and bloviates)  that "celestial mechanics" (Milankovitch effect) and solar changes are fully responsible for climate change and that global warming is taking place on Mars. Such a bozo needs to be hit with the metaphorical equivalent of a 2 by 4.

Gillett then bloviates like Patterson before him of the "massive amounts of deception" complaining  we (AGW proponents) somehow embrace "global economic justice" as our real reason to educate fellow citizens' on global warming. Thereby employing the common Libbie trope that global warming science is a "Trojan Horse" for overturning market economics and interjecting socialism or some such B.S.  This sort of tripe isn't even worth dignifying with a full response - only to say it shows the complainant has his head up his ass. (Apart from which no serious scientist would ever be published in a peer reviewed journal if he submitted a paper conflating economic justice with climate change).

Gillett then claims to "have followed the controversy from the very beginning" but one is left to wonder how much he really grasps (if indeed he has grasped any), given he then writes:

"Not one of the alarmists has yet shown any concrete proof that the Industrial Revolution has been responsible for whatever amount of warming the globe is currently experiencing"

But I have on a number of occasions, and not merely in blog posts but also in Port of Call articles and letter. In particular I cited and discussed at length solar physicist's John Eddy's contributions pertaining to the ratios of C14 to C12 over time.














As Eddy observed concerning this output ('The New Solar Physics'. p. 17):

“The gradual fall from left to right (increasing C14/C12 ratio) is…probably not a solar effect but the result of the known, slow decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic moment.[1] exposing the Earth to ever-increased cosmic ray fluxes and increased radiocarbon production.

The sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve, representing a marked drop in relative radiocarbon, is generally attributed to anthropogenic causes—the mark of increased population and the Industrial Age. The burning of low radiocarbon fossil fuels- coal and oil- and the systematic burning off of the world’s forests for agriculture can be expected to dilute the natural C14/C12 ratio in the troposphere to produce an effect like the one sho wn,"

In other words, we have the "smoking gun" that the onset of accelerated global warming actually commenced in the Industrial Revolution. Add in the fact that the CO2 molecule has an atmospheric lifetime of up to 100 years, and it is essentially 'case closed' for this hypothesis   Indeed, even more information can be extracted from the graph which was originally put forward by P.E. Damon ('The Solar Output and Its Variation', The University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 1977)

Assuming the validity of the arbitrary norm (zero line or abscissa) for 1890, then it is clear that the magnitude of the Middle Ages warming period (relative C14 strength of -18), for example, is less than about ½ the relative effect attributed mainly to anthropogenic sources in the modern era (-40). Even if one fourth the latter magnitude is assigned to solar activity (based on solar variability component detected over 1861-1990 amounting to 0.1- 0.5 W/m^2 vs. 2.0 to 2.8 W/m^2 for heating component arising from greenhouse gas emissions, cf. Martin I. Hoffert et al, in Nature, Vol. 401, p. 764) the anthropogenic effect is at least 3/2 that for the last (exclusively solar) warming period.

These examples disclose a major misunderstanding on the part of these Libertarian climate change deniers: naively expecting deterministic outcomes from disciplines based on stochastic processes. .Thus, a reasonable skeptic must allow for a higher threshold of fuzziness than allowed in celestial mechanics where I can very exactly predict Jupiter's position in 50 years. Further, complaints like Mason's and Gillett's betray an ignorance of the distinction between the predictive standards of different scientific disciplines. A layman with no physics background can be forgiven for overstepping but not  members of a high IQ society which ought to be dedicated to objective inquiry as opposed to hiding behind a political ideology (In this case blatant Libertarianism)

Another ignorant remark by Gillett is:

"the loudest proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) have been deliberately lying and destroying data"

This, again, harks back to the email hack of a few global warming scientists back in 2011. The belief expressed by those like Gillett and his buddy Patterson, doubtless originated from a WSJ article from Nov. 28, 2011 by James Delingspole ('Climategate 2.0", p. A13) . Delingspole wrote at the time that a new release of mails showed that top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully, and silence opponents and displaying far less certainty about the reliabiity of anthropogenic global warming theory than they ever admit in public"

Delingspole, who is as bad at propaganda as the WC  hacks trying to pass Lee Harvey Oswald off as JFK's assassin, then names the "usual suspects": Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann of Penn State University. This, despite the fact that three separate independent investigations found the researchers at East Anglia to be guilty of nothing more aberrant than academic hubris, some mild snark and poor decision making. Certainly nothing to merit expulsion from any professional organizations or dismissal from their university positions as some hysterical deniers demanded.

Another news item missed by this braying  ilk? How a once  prominent climate change skeptic – Richard Muller- decided to use the emails kerfuffle to investigate matters for himself . (The Denver Post, 'Skeptic No Longer Cool to Warming', 11/28/11,  p. 9A). Muller, an atmospheric physicist who was based at the University of California-Berkeley and the Lawrence Livermore National Lab,  completed an extensive study - partly funded by the global warming denier Koch Brothers - which showed land temperatures crept to 1.6 F degrees warmer than in the 1950s, even taking into account the "heat island" effects near cities .

Muller in his research proceeded to plumb a range of data, and went all the way back to the era of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for readings in the 18th century. The accumulated evidence from all his data showed agreement with the mainstream global warming research community, that Earth's land temperatures are increasing and more rapidly than ever. Muller presented his results at a subsequent climate conference  asserting (ibid.):

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world"

That a front and center climate skeptic could utter these words discloses that the claim of "fudging data" is total horse shit. Hence Gillett, and by extension Kort Patterson, are full of total horse shit.

That the likes of this clown Gillett then has the absolute chutzpah to rail about the "abuse of scientific traditions" is the epitome of irony. Because it is HE and his lot of brainwashed minions who are manifestly debasing scientific traditions in the interest of a market economics which ignores real world physics. But we've seen this before and it is the basis of agnotology. This is the term used by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends.

Sadly, it is a sordid technique employed by the libertarian  intelligentsia of the high IQ societies to try to undermine actual science.  Those interested can read more details here:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/as-i-noted-in-earlier-blog-httpbrane.html

Gillett again:

"So the lies go forward and even putatively intelligent people like Stahl and Schlotterbeck apparently accept those lies uncritically as do the masses."

An astounding remark emanating from the keyboard of a person I'd not even regard as "putatively intelligent" given that absurd statement which turns the meaning of actual science on its head. In fact, I do hope that his future proofreading exploits avoid any further genuine scientific contributions.

But maybe he can handle a few from Dr. Steve Mason!

The most amusing sentence in Gillett's wasted space? His final assertion:

"And no, Stahl and Schlotterbeck, I have not now or ever have been in the employ of the petroleum industry."

Missing the point that one doesn't have to be "in the employ" of the fossil fuelers in order to be brainwashed by their propaganda. As Gillett manifestly is, at least to the same extent as his buddy Patterson.

Look, one more thing: I've no objection to those like Gillett, Patterson, Mason or any others arguing from strict economics that they dislike climate research pointing to advancing warming - a result of human activity.  Thereby making the case that economic pain will be a result of accepting the data. But do not dare invoke a specious science of your own ignorant fabrication to try to make an opposite case, and especially to besmirch actual climate scientists like Prof. Gunther Weller who've spend decades accumulating their ice cores' data.

The view reinforced in these latest diatribes is that AGW critics from high IQ societies are basically lazy and aren't prepared to exert their brains by doing actual research and plowing through formal climate science papers. They are also myopic in failing to see beyond their own subjective commitment to economic aspects of their Libertarian ideology.  These aspects obviously would be adversely affected if climate change is real - which it is.

Suffice it to say I don't plan to  submit a response to Patterson's PoC which more and more has become a sounding board for his silly libbie POVs on everything, not just climate change.  First, because it  would be  a waste of time, and Patterson would either cut it short or insert another of his daft "editor's responses", and second, because it would merely elicit more nonsense from the Intertel libbie peanut gallery. It's clear as I said before, that these folks represent perfect examples of what one gets when intelligence runs amuck without guidelines or specialty disciplinary critical thinking to ground it.

Sad, but it discloses that - as my wife Janice put it this morning. -  a high IQ isn't any guarantee of having common sense or even a basic operative intelligence for accurately  perceiving reality. (I.e. the ability to do genuine critical thinking to filter out propaganda and PR). If any of these Intertel climate change critics were serious they'd spend less time in their Libertarian echo chamber of denial and more perusing the site for actual climate science:

www.realclimate.org

These inveterate climate change naysayers could also do themselves a favor by consulting the  "State of the Climate Report" put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


Note (8/3): The day before our friend Nan arrived we endured a hail storm almost right out of the hail scene in 'Day After Tomorrow' e.g.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpIeyg8Axs


The insurance assessor came today and inspected our roof then took photos showing it essentially destroyed by impacts estimated to be from hail between tennis and softball size. The inspector acknowledged the massive damage throughout our area including windows blown out, roofs shattered from impacts and decks, fences destroyed. Related to climate change? Of course!
-------

To see the actual policy statement of the American Geophysical Union, the broad organization for most climate research, go to:

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

"These are the people who think that intelligent design is real and that climate change is not. They do not want to know better. They do not want to be disputed with “facts” and “statistics” .... Bless their paranoid, passive-aggressive, willfully ignorant hearts"-
Mary Elizabeth Williams, on salon.com