How The Mensa Bulletin Has Abdicated Its Responsiblities Re: Global Warming

                                                                              

It was understandably shocking to many of us some months ago on learning, from a note attached to a letter in the Mensa Bulletin by the editor, that global warming can no longer be a topic for discussion - either in the letters section or as an article.  (One single sentence mentioning global warming did sneak into the last (March)  issue, tied to the "cause of global warming" being the population tripling since 1900,  but this was in connection with an article entitled 'Medical Marvels and Moral Dilemmas' - not on global warming per se. The writer himself, a Mike Irrgang, made no reference at all to the connection of higher CO2 concentrations to more population.)

 This current Bulletin policy can probably be traced to frequently heated exchanges, mostly between those of us with a background in physics and even climate science, and a gaggle of noisy, irrepressible know nothings (who believed their Mensa level IQ alone justified their opinions). Much of this was covered in a blog post of mine from seven years ago ('How Can So Many Smart People Be So Dumb?')  e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-can-so-many-smart-people-be-so-dumb.html

As I noted in the post:

"Three months after The Mensa Bulletin published a letter of mine reinforcing the prevalent scientific view of global warming – that it was anthropogenic and continually exacerbated by increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, a whole swatch of attack letters were published in the recent (June) issue. Not one supported me, and this from a society that claims it represents the top 2% of IQs (e.g. > 130 on Stanford-Binet). One person even affirmed that my letter showed Mensa to be just a “propaganda front” for global warming purveyors and so he was quitting! Now, how smart is that?

The others went off on multiple tangents, though there were at least two letters that were somewhat sensible and made cogent points, though many of these points had so many holes it was like trying to parse a message scribbled on Swiss cheese."

I've also specifically rebutted nonsense from other Mensans, including educator Marty Nemko,, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2008/04/ten-answers-for-marty-femko.html

As well as a clown named Evan J. Wright who actually pooh-poohed the idea that the oceans could absorb C02 without "turning into soda pop", see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-global-warming-deniers-get-better.html

Most of the opposing blabber I traced to the writers being victims of  Agnotology, which  is derived from the Greek 'agnosis' and hence the study of culturally constructed ignorance. This was exposed in research by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor, who tagged it to the trend of skeptic science sown for political or economic ends - e.g. in imparting ignorance and faux skepticism. We now know almost all of this has been hatched in documents outed from the fossil fuel propaganda mills and exposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, e.g.

www.ucsusa.org/decadesofdeception

This was even referenced by me in a reply letter to the Bulletin, before the "shut down" but which was never published. In the letter I pointed out that if Mensa truly represents the upper 2 percent of intelligence then it is incumbent on the Bulletin to embrace genuine science and not the pseudo-science of the hacks and purveyors of disinformation.

But clearly the Editor, not seeking to stir up any more heat, took the position (false as I will show) that there existed "two sides to the arguments" and he wasn't about to filter out the warming naysayers, OR give the valid respondents (including scientists) space to make the case.  By refusing to publish any letters from the latter, and in effect totally closing down the information flow via any discussion, he essentially abdicated responsibility and "punked out" in the parlance of some.

The other  problem? A slack, PR-governed media has fallen down on its job and often portrayed global warming as having "two sides". It does not, no more than the existence of the Holocaust has two sides. But in an “argument”/ "Crossfire" culture where polarization and passion naturally dominates reason, most people assume there are inevitably “two-sided” issues. 

As a corollary to this, the general false assumption follows that both sides "deserve hearings" and a balanced presentation is preferred over a “one-sided” one. The latter is always termed “biased”. This leads to the egregious media conviction that presenting "two sides" implies "Objectivity" - which is an abuse of the term.   Denying that the Holocaust occurred could never be "objective" just as denying anthropogenic global warming with its massive scientific evidence compiled over thirty years.

 In effect, there’s a colossal advantage to creating the misperception that a two-sided issue exists. For one, it confers credibility on a specious position that ordinarily would be dismissed at the outset. Thus, human global warming deniers – like Holocaust deniers – earn a gravitas, forum and respect (often via the media) they otherwise wouldn’t have.   Having achieved an essentially unearned credibility, the global warming deniers are at liberty to basically eschew evidence they can’t refute, minimize or spin the projected dire consequences into some ambiguous benefit, or exaggerate the uncertainties implicit in climatic science.

 They need only sit back and nitpick, or criticize the hard won original research without doing an ounce of creative labor on their own. This factors into their plan because they’re not out to create a counter-theory so much as induce enough doubt – via PR – to destroy the existing theory. Hence, all they need do is sit back and cast aspersions and sow seeds of doubt – and let the other side play interminable defense.

But my point is that a forum for the more intelligent in the society ought to be able to rise above this noise level, and given at least many of its members are climate specialists or know a lot more than other members, they ought to have a preponderant voice.

The Bulletin's ostrich act is especially disturbing given that climate scientists have now described February variously as featuring temperatures that were  "astronomical", "staggering" and "strange" (Denver Post, p. 13 A, Mar. 18).  February was the most above-normal month since meteorologists began keeping track in 1880, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, the past three months have been the most above normal months on record  according to Jessica Blunden of the NOAA. Scientists from both NOAA and NASA have noted this departure from norms and warned the climate "may have moved into a new and hotter neighborhood".  This would likely be the cusp of the runaway Greenhouse effect.

For a so-called "high IQ society" to ignore this - as if it doesn't exist - is to act unconscionably, even if it invokes the usual excuse that "Mensa  supports no particular political or religious positions". Well, this is a scientific position, it isn't based on personal opinions. Now, with human life likely in the balance, how can a supposed society of high IQ people remain stone  silent on this critical issue? Only Mensa and its illustrious Bulletin editor, alas, will be able to answer this - but I doubt in any satisfactory way. Because IF you profess intelligence of any degree you ought to be able to recognize objective physical truth - especially when it's burning your ass off and drenching your cities with "thousand year events" from super-heated, moisture-laden atmosphere.

Hopefully, the Mensa Bulletin will rethink its position in the near future. At least Integra, the journal of Intertel, the top 1 percent IQ society, hasn't mutated into this "see no evil" nonsense.....yet.

Mensa: Is It Really Full of Vicious Boors?

A year ago I noted the horrific attacks on a fellow Mensan, Michelle, featured on the cover of a Mensa Bulletin Issue  (see graphic) with her tats in  full view. In the wake of the cover image, she was mercilessly pilloried- mainly by older Mensans and some of the remarks can be read here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/12/older-mensans-ought-to-be-smarter-than.html


This again elicited the question of whether Mensans are just plain vicious boors or it it was an age thing. Some further clarity arrived with the essay 'Let It Go', by Ellen Voie, appearing in the Nov/Dec issue of the Bulletin, p. 12. Interestingly, the sub-header was: 'Civilizing Blunt Communication Among Mensans'.  Voie, while noting the dangers of stereotyping "because Mensa members have so little in common",  also observed:

"However, there is one thing I have noticed from this highly intelligent group of individuals. They are very blunt. I thought about using the word 'candid' or even 'frank' but blunt works better."

She then delivered a few examples, including:

- When one member or other was trying to deliver a Power Point presentation at a Mensa event and people immediately began pointing out typos, shouting "You misspelled a word!"

 - In the Bulletin Letters section, instead of disagreeing with a concept or idea, it is suggested that other writers are idiots (or morons)

-At other events when a person expresses some further interest in a topic already covered, or asks what is construed as an unnecessary question,  detractors call for a Mensa "re-test." This is taken to be the ultimate insult one Mensan can hurl at another.

My own battles against fellow Mensans (Evan and Jon Wright) were well documented in the Bulletin and also in letters back and forth where I flatly called the pair "high grade morons" after Evan J. Wright asserted that I was "writing nonsense" because I noted the much higher absorption of CO2 in the oceans. According to Wright: "That's preposterous! If the oceans absorbed carbon dioxide they'd all turn into carbonated liquid, or soda pop! Does anyone see that? NOOO!"

Jon Wright - proving the apple never falls far from the tree- then defended his pop calling me the "moron" and belching I needed a "re-test". Meanwhile, his pop went off again, in the Jan. 3rd, 2012 Wall Street Journal letters (understandable given the WSJ is firmly anti-global warming) babbling:

"Having studied this subject for about 50 years from a research engineer's viewpoint and having read hundreds of articles and scientific reports during this time, I must say that sunspots are probably a factor, more so than Earth's elliptical orbit..."

It was hard not to roll on the floor laughing at this bollocks, all in an effort to escape anthropogenic global warming.

Strangely, neither Wright could explain the increasing acidity of the oceans when pressed, though any scientifically literate citizen would grasp that the world's oceans have about 30% higher acidity as a result of the chemical reaction: H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3, in other words, the production of carbonic acid. Which shows that merely because one belongs to Mensa doesn't mean he or she knows diddly or can argue coherently.

Back to Voies' plea, she wrote - invoking the song 'Let it go' from the flick Frozen:

"The next time you disagree with another Mensan's opinion, don't challenge his or her character, just question the facts. If you see a typo on a slide don't be in a race to point it out. We know it's there and are trying to ignore it for the presenter's sake.  The next time you find yourself questioning someone's intelligence when they ask a question, let it go."

Well, how about if they claim in a Bulletin letter the oceans would "turn to soda pop" if CO2 was absorbed? Can I call them morons then?

Anyway, while her advice is understandable it is doubtful Mensans will suddenly turn into polite members of the Socratic Debate Society anytime soon. And we aren't all 'goodie two shoes' good guys merely because we belong to Mensa either. As Thomas de Shazo writes in the most recent issue of Intertel's * Integra:

"One reason we are not dedicated to benevolence with our heady resources is that no moral compass attaches to high IQ. We have our full share of petty thieves, Wall Street class criminals as well as Ted Bundy types. 'Evil' is as randomly linked with genius as with dunce."

Indeed, and boorishness and nasty language too, can attach to those of us in high IQ societies as well as any other organizations. Which leads to another deShazo observation:

"There is not much correlation between high IQ and consistent good sense. Every one of us strays off the reservation with a really stupid act once in a while."

Having said all that, let's be clear not all Mensans are vicious boors, even a majority. One of the most delightful evenings wifey and I spent was ten days ago, attending the local Mensa Holiday Party which also featured a "White Elephant Gift Exchange".  In that fun event members each bring a gift they no longer want, valued between $15 and $25 and put it in a pile then each randomly draws a number from a bowl. Number 1 goes first and selects a wrapped gift from the pile and must open it before the group. Number 2 can either do the same or grab the gift (if they like it) from Number 1. This goes through all the numbers until the last person, who can either pick the last gift or grab someone else's. Wifey and I each brought a book we'd already read, and no longer wanted, and we ended up with a bottle of Cabernet wine from another couple. (Actually I grabbed it first, then the guy took it back 15 numbers down, then after wifey's Bailey's was snatched, she used her late ticket to snatch the wine back- by which time no further exchanges of the item were allowed - two max.)

None of the 44 odd people misbehaved, insulted another (say because a gift they prized was grabbed) or delivered obnoxious jokes. We all had a great time, but also perhaps because the subjects of politics, religion or phony science never reared their ugly heads.

-----
* Intertel is the next IQ society up from Mensa, for which one must place in the top 1 percent of IQ test scores, as opposed to the top 2 percent.

Evan J. Wright: A Study in Cluelessness

Some ten odd years ago, I waged a fierce battle in The Mensa Bulletin with one Evan Jon Wright, who denounced any remote possibility of there being any "global warming", essentially dismissing it as so much foolishness and "bad science". This from a character who actually believed ....I kid you not!.....that I was "writing nonsense" because I noted the much higher absorption of CO2 in the oceans. According to Wright: "That's preposterous! If the oceans absorbed carbon dioxide they'd all turn into carbonated liquid, or soda pop! Does anyone see that? NOOO!"

One wonders how some folks ever got into Mensa! One further wonders how Wright (and his equally know-nothing offspring, Jon Wright, who rushed to his dad's defense) now manage to account for the documented fact of higher acidity of the oceans, arising directly from....tada.....the absorption of enormous amount of CO2 since the onset of the Industrial Revolution. There is now about 30% higher acidity as a result of the chemical reaction: H2O + CO2 -> H2CO3, in other words, the production of carbonic acid.

Anyway, just when one thought Wright had retired from spieling about areas in which he knows nothing, he emerged again in yesterday's Wall Street Journal letters section. He wrote:

"Having studied this subject for about 50 years from a research engineer's viewpoint and having read hundreds of articles and scientific reports during this time, I must say that sunspots are probably a factor, more so than Earth's elliptical orbit..."

Wait! Hold strain one momento! "A research engineer's viewpoint"? What the hell is that? How the hell is the design or construction of bridges, or walkways, or whatever in any way relevant to the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere? Even in our earlier confrontation, Wright - who insists he reads ""hundreds of articles" - lacked even the most basic acquaintance with the sunspot cycle, and in particular how it arises and the difference between solar irradiance and radiance.

He wasn't aware for example, that from the standard (sunspot) theory of Eugene Parker, the basis for large susnpots is the "inverse ion hurricane" which enables the latent energy to translate into a convective collapse process so the luminosity can flow out and around the periphery of spots. This, according to the reaction:

H + (energy) -> H+ + e(-) [ionization of hydrogen]

supporting a a super-adiabatic temperature gradient being largest near the surface .

This is why the more spots there are in a cycle, the higher the solar irradiance, and the higher the mean global temperature of Earth. (One can get variations up to 0.21 K or more, according to a paper delivered at the 40th Solar Physics Division conference of the American Astronomical Society in June, 2009). This is often counter intuitive, since spots are actually cooler regions in relation to the Sun's surrounding photosphere, which is roughly 1500 K hotter.

So, one is left to ponder what "articles" Wright actually read, and whether they mainly issued from comic books. Well, we'll give him a break here, maybe they issue more from the hack papers (non-peer reviewed) generated by the Global warming denier pulp mills, and agnotology centers like "the Global warming coalition".

Anyway, it's evident that anything Wright is likely to write can be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt". He continues:

"but I am inclined to think that the wobble in Earth's tilt on its axis is a more important one.. The tilt causes the seasons, obviously, but it's the wobble in the degree of tilt that creates their inconsistency, i.e. global warming and cooling."

Of course this is total rubbish! In fact the degree of tilt has nada, nothing...to do with global warming and cooling. To reinforce this point, one need only reference the mangitude of the "wobble" we're actually talking about. Start with the datum referenced in Astronomy- Principles and Practice by A.E. Roy and D. Clarke, 1978, Adam Hilger Books, p. 118:

“Because of the nutational wobble in the Earth’s axis of rotation, the obliquity of the ecliptic (KP in Fig. 10.32) varies about its mean value. The magnitude on either side is about 9.”2.”

For the benefit of non-astronomers, the magnitude cited (9.”2) isn’t even one hundredth of a degree! Indeed it is nearly a factor 4 LESS than a hundredth of a degree! (which translates to 36”- there are 3600” = 1 degree). Going now to Eichhorn and Mueller’s standard text in astrometry and geodesy (Spherical and Practical Astronomy Applied to Geodesy) p. 69, “astronomic nutation’:

"The main term of astronomic nutation is produced by the non-coincidence of the Moons’ orbit with the ecliptic in conjunction with the retrograde motion of the lunar nodes. This results in a periodic change in the obliquity of the ecliptic termed nutation in obliquity, denoted by delta eta.

The astronomic nutation, from now on called simply ‘nutation’ is not to be confused with the true nutation appearing as a force-free precession (Eulerian motion) of the Earth’s rotation axis about its principal moment of inertia axis, which is part of the polar motion described in 4.13."

The first six terms of the expression for nutation in obliquity (which is the 'wobble' Wright is talking about) are:

delta eta =

(9.”2100 + 0.”00091t) cos Z - (0.”0904 - 0.”0004t) cos 2Z – (0.”0024 cos (2w_m + Z) + 0.”0002 cos (2w_s – Z) + 0.”0002cos ^2 ( w_ m + Z) + (0.”5522 – 0.”00029) cos 2L _s

where t denotes the time interval measured from 1900 January 0.5 d ET in Julian centuries (1 JC = 36525 mean solar days), Z is the longitude of the mean ascending node of the lunar orbit on the ecliptic measured from the mean equinox of date, w_m is the ‘argument’ of the point where the Moon is nearest the Earth (i.e. from the lunar perigee), w _s is the mean longitude of the solar perigee measured from the mean equinox of date, and L_s is the geometric mean longitude of the Sun measured from the mean equinox of date.

Most interesting in the above – which I merely give for the sake of completeness- is that even jacking up the value of t by 41,000 yrs. (e.g. 410 JC) doesn’t appreciably alter the magnitude from seconds of arc – very small seconds of arc (e.g. about 8.”85 with Z = 160 deg and counting only the first order term). And yet Wright claims (ibid.):

"It could be as late as 2350 A.D. (to make a guess) that the few degrees of global warming will end and the cooling begin, leading perhaps to another ice age".

Want to make a bet on that? Oh wait, we won't be around. Never mind, there will be no further ice ages. As has been noted in EOS Transactions papers appearing the past few years, it is doubtful any more ice ages will manifest once the CO2 concentration exceeds 500 ppm, and we are well on the way to that now, with adding 2 ppm per year, and nearly 2 watts/yr to the existing solar insolation. This means we will be approaching 440 ppm by 2050 and obviously exceeding 500 ppm (assuming the current rate of CO2 production - which actually shows no sign of abating), see:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/12/one-sure-prediction-even-more-climate.html

So how does Wright come up with "2350 A.D."? He doesn't because he's just pulling numbers- in the case years-dates, out of his butt. The fact is, as Prof. Gale Christianson has noted in his book ‘Greenhouse’ (Penguin, 1999, p. 203), we have deduced from ice core samples that there has never been an ice age when the CO2 concentration has been over 200 ppm. We are nearly double that now and will be 2 ½ times that by 2100.

What we see from this is that Wright doesn't even know what it is that makes a greenhouse gas function, in terms of its capacity to warm our atmosphere. That is, the ability to absorb heat in the form of solar infrared radiation. This is directly contingent on the molecular vibrations undergone by the molecule which allow it to absorb and re-emit incident radiation. It is this that determines the forcing factors for the assorted greenhouse gases, e.g.

Carbon Dioxide >100 years, 1.3 to 1.5 W/m^2

Methane 10 years, 0.5 to 0.7 W/m^2

Tropospheric Ozone 10-100 days, 0.25 to 0.75 W/m^2

Nitrous Oxide 100 years, 0.1 to 0.2 W/m^2

Perfluorocarbon Compounds >1000 years, 0.01 W/m^2 (Including SF6)

Fine Aerosols: Sulfate 10 days -0.3 to -1.0 W/m^2


Source: National Research Council Report (1999)


Maybe instead of looking at climate variations from the limited purview of a "research engineer", Wright needs to broaden his base of knowledge. It would also help if he read outside the limited orbit of those publications which merely reinforce his own flat Earther views!