It's not clear that the partial scrubbing of climate change from the website of the Department of Natural Resources in Wisconsin was at the directive of the Governor Scott Walker, or if there happens to be a stray science denier who got lodged in the Department itself. What is clear is that it's got climate conspiracy theorists at WUWT enthused and hopeful. They seem to think that if the words "climate" and "change" are scrubbed from government websites, then global warming will stop. It won't.(Scott Walker was a presidential hopeful at one stage, and reportedly dodged questions on climate change.)
Anthony Watts is so excited about this latest bit of climate censorship that he's posted two articles about it. One was written by Bob Tisdale (archived here) and the other by Kip Hansen (archived here).
Climate change in Wisconsin
For those like me who only had a vague idea of where Wisconsin is located, it borders on Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, and is a fairly cold place in winter time. It gets reasonably warm in summer. Here's a map from Google Maps:
It's only about 170,000 sq km in area. (Victoria in Australia is around 238,000 sq km, and is considered small, being the second smallest state in Australia after Tasmania.)
Climate change in Wisconsin is affected by changes it causes to the Great Lakes. That's the page that DNR changed (new vs old). The Department is now shielding the public from learning about how this will affect them.
The new website does say that "the earth is going through a change", but wrongly claims that it is "As it has done throughout the centuries". That's wrong, because this time it's different. Climate change is happening faster than any time in recorded history, and is on pace to be ten times faster than at any time in the past 65 million years. It's also being caused by human activity, which means we can do something about it.
Apparently, "The DNR staff stands ready to adapt our management strategies in an effort to protect our lakes, waterways, plants, wildlife and people who depend on them." It's just that going by the DNR website, the Department isn't keen to let the public in on what is the threat.
It wasn't always that way. Before 21 December, DNR was quite open about what is happening. According to the old web page, DNR was previously willing to inform the public and enlist their help, stating:
The good news is that we can all work to slow climate change and lessen its effects. To find out more about climate change and how we can all help, please visit the following links.DNR staff previously told the public what is happening, and what is likely to happen:
Earth´s climate is changing. Human activities that increase heat–trapping ("green house") gases are the main cause. Earth´s average temperature has increased 1.4 °F since 1850 and the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. Increasing temperatures have led to changes in rainfall patterns and snow and ice cover. These changes could have severe effects on the Great Lakes and the plants, wildlife and people who depend on them. While no one can predict exactly what climate change will mean for our Great Lakes, scientists agree that the following changes are likely if climate change patterns continue.
- Increased summer and winter temperatures will cause increased evaporation, lower lake water levels and warmer water, resulting in reduced habitat for cold water species and a loss of critical wetland areas.
- Decreased winter ice cover will also contribute to increased evaporation and lower lake water levels which could have severe economic consequences for our valuable shipping industry, lakeshore recreation, and coastal businesses.
- Changes in rain and snowfall patterns (including more frequent and severe storms) could change water flow in streams and rivers and increase stream bank erosion and runoff pollution.
Yes, the page was out of date. Now it's more like the average global temperature is 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in 1850, and 17 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 1998, sixteen of them this century.
Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts
Don't be fooled, however. DNR staff still have ways of letting people know about climate change. The Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) was set up back in 2007, and it's still going from the look of it. From the WICCI website:
WICCI was formed in the fall of 2007, by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the University of Wisconsin Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. The Nelson Institute had been approached by several state legislators, who wanted to understand the impact of climate change on their constituents. DNR staff wanted to understand impacts on the state's natural resources, so they could make better management decisions.
I would be very surprised if the DNR staff have suddenly stopped wanting to understand the impacts of climate change on the state's natural resources.
One indicator - temperature rise in Wisconsin
Here is what has been happening in Wisconsin, in regard to warming. First the decadal temperatures (December to November). The last three ten year periods have been the hottest in the record.
 |
| Figure 1 | Temperature change in Wisconsin in ten year intervals (December to November). Data source: NOAA |
Next, the annual (December to November), showing how it's been getting warmer over time:
 |
| Figure 2 | Temperature change in Wisconsin (December to November). Data source: NOAA |
It's not just changing temperature, the WICCI website also shows how the changing climate is affecting agriculture in Wisconsin, with potential positive and negative impacts.
WUWT wants governments to censor climate change from websites
Bob Tisdale wrote a short article about the censorship. It was mostly copy and paste, which is unusual for Bob. His own words were few, but he did say that he hoped more agency websites would hide the fact that humans are causing climate change, writing:
I’m looking forward to more changes like this in the not-so-distant future.Kip Hansen was the same. He calls proper mention of climate change the “AGW party line” and regards FUD as a "considered statement". Kip wrote about the dumbed down wrong text on the DNR web page:
This is a magnificently crafted statement – and a huge pull-back from heretofore obligatory echoing of the IPCC consensus talking points.Kip is also very hopeful that the New York Times is going to normalise science denial. He made much of his finding that:
...the last times both terms were used [denier and hoax, I think] in the New York Times, outside of the Opinion page, were in an article by Clifford Krauss and Maggiue Heberman on December 10th....I did a Google search. The word "denier" isn't used much by the New York Times, so Kip might be able to bask a little longer in his hope that "this represents a real change at the NY Times".
...It now has been two weeks and counting since such language appeared in any NY Times news article. One can only hope that this represents a change in editorial policy — a change to the style manual of the NY Times.
I admit that I find it perplexing that science deniers, who are predominately free speech advocates who dislike political correctness, prefer euphemisms like "dispute the science of climate change" to the more correct "deny the science of climate change".
From the WUWT comments
The "thoughts" come from both Bob Tisdale's article and Kip Hansen's article.
macawber makes a good point
December 29, 2016 at 5:53 am
Following Trump’s list of penetrating questions to be answered by State and Federal funded Environmental Organisations, this is just the start of evidence that the staff involved and consultants employed there value their pay cheques more than their principles!
Hans-Georg is a "climate hoax" conspiracy theorist, who can think of nothing but money:
December 29, 2016 at 9:13 am
Did these Schleimers ever have principles? In the context of the agenda of humanized climate change with the business interests behind it, via a gold mine for people who know how to use this with their capital, this was nothing but a huge money redistribution machine from the bottom up.
AndyE is delusional, like most at WUWT, and thinks that expunging climate change from websites will cause global warming to stop. If only it were that easy:
December 29, 2016 at 6:23 am
Come back in ten years – the whole issue of “climate-change” will have dropped from the mass media to the history books where it belongs.
Pop Piasa is an acid rain denier:
December 29, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Don’t forget the terrible acid rains in the 70’s that must have made the oceans acid now.
(/sarc, for new folks and simpletons)
george e. smith thinks that Milankovitch cycles are what's causing modern warming. He's clueless:
December 29, 2016 at 12:42 pmGeorge might be clueless, but not as clueless as Pegasus, who doesn't seem to realise that it's where the sun shines during shifts in the tilt and orbit that makes a difference. Nor that if a climate model left out the radiation coming in from the sun, then it would show the earth as a frozen wasteland:
I would suggest that the most obvious, and principal causes of climate change are (A) The eccentricity of earth’s orbit being greater than zero; and (B) The tilt of the earth’s polar axis being about 23.5 degrees off the plane of the ecliptic; or words to that effect.
For the life of me, I can’t think of anything else that changes climate much, besides long term variations of A and B.
If I come up with (C), I’ll let y’alls know.
G
December 29, 2016 at 1:12 pm
Your point makes sense, you just left out the glaringly obvious, that being the sun of course. Tilt, orbit etc are relative. Wasn’t that the primary factor all the models left out, the effect of the sun!!
joel demonstrates that the main reason many science deniers deny is because they are obsessed with money and want, if not anarchy, at least few regulations. (Though in my experience, such people call for more regulations when it suits them. Many Americans love locking people up in prison.):
December 29, 2016 at 3:59 am
My theory is that the D’s will simply stop talking about CO2 and latch onto another crisis which will need, surprisingly, a lot of money and regulation.
Greg is another one who thinks that hiding DNR staff are hiding facts to protect their jobs:
December 30, 2016 at 1:35 am
The DNR change the Tisdale brought to our attention looks a lot like “oh we’re not alarmsists, misinforming the public, we’re the good guys. Please don’t defund us”.
Expect a lot more of this as the alarmists climb over each others dead or dying bodies to grasp for last drops of gravy from the disappearing gravy train.
Gareth Phillips thinks that Trump might not be a denier after all. Or does he? His "thought" is a bit confusing:
December 30, 2016 at 1:51 am
There are a lot of posters on this site who have invested a lot of hope and energy in the assumption that Trump is a skeptic with regard to climate change. If the writer of this article is correct, they may be deeply disappointed. Admittedly Trump may climb down from that lofty and somewhat extreme position in the same way has he has done with other claims and commitments he has made during the election, but there is plenty of material out there that suggests he was pretty convinced that climate change and the science was a con when he made the statements.
ironicman is hopeful that Donald Trump will be able to stop global warming. (Did I get that right?):
December 30, 2016 at 2:24 am
Gareth the next president is a closet member of the Denialati and won’t be climbing down or kowtowing to established thinking. Trump is a revolutionary and intends to demolish the AGW facade.
I think joel must be too young to understand what war is like. If so, he might get the chance to learn, if Trump gets his way:
December 30, 2016 at 5:23 am
I think the use of the word “purge” makes their position clear.
Guys. We are in a war. Accept it.
Dodgy Geezer is another run-of-the-mill "climate hoax" conspiracy theorist, who writes at some length how he thinks it's time for deniers to keep quiet:
December 30, 2016 at 2:37 am
We all know how humans work.
If we all stay quiet, the press will slowly move over to the ‘New’ interpretation, which will be that Climate Change ‘certainly exists’, but that maybe it has been a bit ‘over-emphasised’, and no one is really to blame. Then, slowly, it will get forgotten (just like the Piltdown Man fiasco), and in two or three generations, when no one can lose face over it, some studies will be produced which say that the scientific authorities back in the 2000s were stupid, and aren’t we lucky that science corrected itself before any real harm was done.
If, however, we make a noise about it, the die-hards will cling to the belief that we are all about to die, and will undertake all kinds of extreme political activity intended to force their beliefs on the politicians. We see this happening with Brexit in the UK as the Remainers try to force a reappraisal of the Leave vote through the courts, and in the US where we had the unedifying spectacle of crowd-funded recounts, and the strange process of blaming the Russians (Commies?) for doing ‘something technical’ (we’re not sure what) to let the Republicans in….
What a world we live in!!
Martin A doesn't mean that WUWT conspiracy theorists are about to throw in the towel:
December 30, 2016 at 3:57 am
Are Public Positions on Climate Change Changing?
Yes. The end of the Great Delusion is at hand.
Karen appears to disagree with Kip Hansen, who wants to use euphemisms, and is a big fan of wacky climate conspiracy blogs:
December 30, 2016 at 5:26 am
Hopefully these are the first signs of cracks in the facade, with many more to come. Lots of good reasons listed here for this new language; funding concerns, dooms days that never materialize, interest T-curves, etc. After following the debate for many years, and eventually aligning with the skeptics, I find this a moment of cautious celebration.
Imagine how different the picture would be today without the new media, and sites like WattsUpWithThat, IceCap, IceAgeNow, etc. They’ve started a snowball (ha) that is gaining speed. No wonder the Warmists are out to crush Free Speech.
Free Speech – cherish it, defend it!
Leo Smith might seem strange, but in WUWT's world of the weird he's what passes for normal:
December 30, 2016 at 5:40 am
My stance is simply this: None of the real movers and shakers behind the ‘useful idiots’, ever believed in climate change of the man made sort. It was and is a political and commercial marketing narrative.
By voting in Trump, a new version of what the ‘stupid ordinary man’ is thinking has emerged, in the minds of those who see it that way. AGW doesn’t have traction. So it will be binned, and the useful idiots like Monbiot, and so on who promulgated it, will be quietly dumped, or paid off in some way.
Climate change, the agenda, will never be admitted to be wrong. It will simply fade from public consciousness as the next campaign (probably some kind of ‘global social justice’/migration initiative) replaces it as The Thing Everyone Is Talking About. Climate out of vogue, social justice back in.
There's a Snopes article: http://www.snopes.com/wisconsin-department-natural-resources-removes-references-climate-website/
ReplyDeleteGov. Walker of Wisconsin, who appointed the the DNR leadership, is a college drop out (seven years at Marquette in Milwaukee) who is usually seen as a proxy for the Koch brothers. He is political career financed by them and their friends. His administration has been marked by scandals that only go away when his appointed judges stop the investigations.
ReplyDeleteIt was pretty funny when he got prank called by a couple of DJ's pretending to be the Kochs. Good times on the air, good times.
DeleteHow times change. When it was discovered that the Bush administration had some fossil fuel industry tool editing EPA reports to suit the fossil fuel industry there was a scandal and he was ejected. Now a Trump administration is going to make such 'Ministry of Truth' antics commonplace.
ReplyDeleteAnd the inmates at WUWT, pretend advocates of free speech and truthiness, approve.
For disinformers like those at WUWT and coming into government, "free speech" means the freedom to tell lies and destroy hard-won knowledge (as in calls to sack the scientists and destroy decades of data).
DeleteThey've been consistent in those goals.
@ Sou
Deletein my experience with these loons, their interpretation regarding "freedom and free speech" is very narrowly defined and can be boiled down to "agree with me or else"
Walker has been purging the dnr and others since we ended up with him. He is at best a horrible human being. This is what you get with voter suppression and gerrymandered districts. :(
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-scott-walker-dismantled-wisconsin-s-environmental-legacy/
There needs to be serious push-back against this cynical censorship of science, both from the public and from professional scientists themselves, who are in the best position to challenge the claims that the science is still being "debated".
ReplyDeleteIf this propaganda move is allowed to succeed, it will be a big step forward in the dismantling of the forward-thinking objectivism of 20th century progress, and of the ability of our societies to understand and decide on issues of great importance. Right wing radicalism is marching us to the concentration camps of ignorance, and we seem to be quietly herding ourselves on the way with only a little bleating.
Take a good hard look at the world everyone. It might soon be something that you only recognise in the rear view mirror.
"Take a good hard look at the world everyone. It might soon be something that you only recognise in the rear view mirror."
DeleteI've done field work in Arctic and subarctic regions. It sobers me to know that visible, obvious changes in glaciers, ice caps, sea ice and ground cover have taken place in just the last two decades. I've struggled though thickets of scrub alder and willow that only a few years earlier were open tundra, and have never seen an advancing glacier in my life. If after a 15-year hiatus I was to return to previous field areas in western Greenland, central Alaska, or the eastern Canadian Arctic next summer I have little doubt the changes from what I remember would shock me.
At the end of the day, this censorship is just one more obvious symptom that something is terribly wrong with US politics. Two out of the last three US presidents have put fossil fuel industry profits before the futures of billions of people.
Delete"Take a good hard look at the world everyone. It might soon be something that you only recognise in the rear view mirror."
Yeah. The world took a heavy hit under Bush. The West no longer looks to the US for leadership, and is becoming increasingly disunited. And Trump looks to be an order of magnitude worse.
From WUWT comment: "Climate change, the agenda, will never be admitted to be wrong. It will simply fade from public consciousness."
ReplyDeleteThe recent Brexit vote and US presidential election has illuminated more than ever before how much the climate change debate is really a political debate more than it is a science debate. One has to wonder what the chances humanity has in dealing with AGW and the dozen other long-term intractable problems. Clearly, if we are spending significant resources to foil each other or protest those are energies not spent at progress toward solutions. I see name calling and vilification as dangerous pretexts for unethical behavior.
If one fears censorship the best way to prevent that is by policing one's own friends and associates when and where they are in control. For example, in college campuses in the US there graduating classes with knowledge that half the population is dangerous and trying to destroy the world. But the students have been given few skills in developing humility or critical thinking or respectful and open dialogue. How human culture evolves is clearly the most alarming issue for all points of view. Rational future-thinking minds have little worry humanity has the capacity to innovate beyond fossil fuel energy and perhaps even being terrestrial bound. Geo-engineered climate controls can be seen as a likelihood by the 22nd century -- that is if humanity will evolve to respect the intelligence of those with a different order for their top 10 concerns for humanity.
It's hard to talk and dogwhistle at the same time, isn't it?
DeleteThis barely comprehensible tripe can be rendered down to:
1/ Tone-trolling:
I see name calling and vilification as dangerous pretexts for unethical behavior
2/ An attempt to silence those who speak out against fake sceptic lies:
If one fears censorship the best way to prevent that is by policing one's own friends and associates when and where they are in control
3/. Tone trolling while denigrating people who understand science and ethics and so oppose fake sceptic lies:
But the students have been given few skills in developing humility or critical thinking or respectful and open dialogue
4/ Techno deus ex machina fantasies *and* Lomborgian gambit:
Geo-engineered climate controls can be seen as a likelihood by the 22nd century -- that is if humanity will evolve to respect the intelligence of those with a different order for their top 10 concerns for humanity
Ron, do us all a favour and sling your hook. Dealing with this twisty, dishonest, turgid crap doesn't get any more fun just because it's 2017. Take it back to the denialosphere. Please.
Interesting.
ReplyDelete"If we all stay quiet, the press will slowly move over to the ‘New’ interpretation, which will be that Climate Change ‘certainly exists’, but that maybe it has been a bit ‘over-emphasised’, and no one is really to blame."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteBTW, Victor, is your avatar a LANSAT view of your house and driveway? Just a guess.
DeleteThe deleted comment doesn't comply with the updated comment policy.
DeleteVictor, reading the comment policy, I see there are no links allowed to "denier" web sites. I just wanted the reason for the deletion to be known as not to appear it was insincere or derogatory in any way. I respect your comments and particularly your views against censorship.
DeleteThis was the main reason for the deletion.
DeleteSome time ago I picked up an old Rove summary which may be written by someone else. It embodies unskeptical "skeptics" who are not dupes but intentionally cluttering up the conversation with false information. I think it's a useful shortcut:
ReplyDeleteEntangle, Demoralize, Attack, Confuse, Contain, Intimidate, Insult, Deceive, Demean
I'm aware many who have adopted these timewasting arguments are unaware that they have been conned, but that does not validate the con. Hedging and refusal to move on, are not only boring but dangerous. I think I stole this from somebody here, just about the strength of it:
The scientific community long ago moved on from 'Is it real?' to 'How bad is it going to get?'
"I admit that I find it perplexing that science deniers, who are predominately free speech advocates who dislike political correctness, prefer euphemisms like "dispute the science of climate change" to the more correct "deny the science of climate change"."
ReplyDeleteRead into a comparable mindset, the fascists'. When not in power it always cries about 'free speech'. You know instantly what they mean when they cry that in a country that has free speech. They will end it as soon as they possibly can.
Climate revisionists are thugs. Of the exact same kind. It is no wonder they tend to associate with proto-fascists, with Brexiters and Trumps and Dutertes and Putins.
Sou, SA and CRR, I don't believe there is any one formula to define those you oppose. Is it just those skeptical of a call for international restriction on fossil fuel? IMO there is one common denominator of skeptics: distrust of progressive zealot messaging, terms like "social justice" and "climate justice."
ReplyDeleteThere are concerns that amorphous long-term issues like climate can be easily bent to political messaging and scapegoating. This concern frequently roots back to your own expressed concerns about such messaging in the 1930s Axis countries.
Just because you hate wrong doers does not inoculate you from committing transgressions. On the contrary, one should always try to assume the best of others for many reasons, including your own health. I encourage you to compose something specific that can be fairly and factually addressed that you dislike.
Ron Graf.
Delete"This concern frequently roots back to your own expressed concerns about such messaging in the 1930s Axis countries"
A Godwin? Seriously?
I think this blog opposes those who misrepresent science - that's it. One cannot "assume the best of others" when the others are clearly acting in bad faith, like yourself.
Harry, I oppose those who misrepresent science too (and ISIS). We are on the same page -- maybe even on the same side.
DeleteDetermining bad faith is harder than one might think. Even ISIS thinks they are saving the world for Allah. They may lie and kill as a means to that end but I'm confident they have it perfectly justified in their own faith. I used ISIS to avoid Godwin, but one can interchange ISIS with believers of any sort.
The Godwin was just one of a number of logical fallacies crammed into Ron Graf's post.
DeleteHotWhopper could do with a comprehensive numbered list of logical fallacies so that we could play fallacy bingo... Up for the game, Sou? :-)
Sorry mate, I'm a realist. Non-negotiable.
DeleteRon Graf.
Delete"Harry, I oppose those who misrepresent science too (and ISIS)."
Mate, I have no idea what you are babbling about. I do know I am not interested in playing your game, so bye-bye.
IMO there is one common denominator of skeptics: distrust of progressive zealot messaging, terms like "social justice" and "climate justice."
DeleteTrans:
They are right-wing authoritarians with paranoid trimmings.
Ron Graf is a denier. He uses pseudo scientific circular arguments that are simply red herrings to show that he is an honest broker.
ReplyDeleteIt is a more sophisticated FUD than what the dimwits at wuwt moronically utter.
Determining bad faith is rather easy! Just Google and all is revealed.
Bert
I am simply using logic. No science involved yet. Fallacies imply false assumptions. I feel it is fair to ask that they be pointed out rather than simply declared without logic.
ReplyDeleteRon I will not engage with you in any argument or discussion scientific or otherwise. Your primitive attempts at FUD are all over the comment sections in climate sites.
DeleteYou have convicted yourself with your own utterances. The police would call it a full confession. Bert
1) I might not be the same person you are thinking of.
Delete2) How can you know if I haven't changed my view after gaining more information since the comment you saw, assuming it was me? I have been blogging and engaging, after all, to gain a sharper POV.
3) How can you hope to influence others if you don't engage in dialogue? Do you intend to impose your will and your vote based only on what other people tell you I and other's believe? Or, would you like to have the opportunity to find out firsthand?
4) If my views are contrary to your own but flawed by logical fallacy you will be rewarded by the opportunity to expose the fallacy, reinforce your POV and perhaps persuade me (if you are respectful).
5) You can disengage at any time and I would never say a word about it, not that Sou would allow impoliteness.
6) I will kick things off by asking Bert to rank the following problems from 1-10 with 1 being the most grave and immediate problem.
a) Global financial collapse due to debt overextension
b) Rise of wealth disparity from concentration of exploitation of global natural resources and human resources.
c) Erosion of democratic principles and liberty, free speech and property rights.
d) Escalation of ethnic and religious extremism leading to political instability, wars and possible use of WMD.
e) Green house gas warming of planet and ocean acidifcation.
f) Rise of machines, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, loss of human definition -- future shock.
g) Population growth and squeezing of natural habitats and ecosystems, leading to extinctions and pandemics.
h) Need for hardening against natural disasters, storms, eruptions, earthquakes, asteroid collision.
i) Lack of quality primary and secondary school education worldwide.
j) Other
A suggestion only - avoid mixing up "grave" and "urgent". When asking people to rank issues, I prefer to use two scales (at least):
Delete1. Urgency or immediacy (scale from 'not urgent' to 'must be addressed immediately')
2. Overall importance without a time scale (scale from 'not important' to 'extremely important', or in this case, 'extremely grave')
For some things it's important to address them immediately, but they are not necessarily the most important or the gravest issues we face. (With some, if they aren't addressed now, they might as well not be addressed at all, and will become irrelevant over time.) Other things are both extremely important and very urgent.
It can help when coming up with action plans to consider issues in this manner. It's only a tool, and quite simplistic. Most of the time if an issue has been identified as a problem to be addressed, it needs to be addressed. Most societies are capable of addressing multiple problems at the same time.
I can set up a poll if you like - not now, but later.
BTW - if I were to set up a poll, I'd separate some of the issues listed and rephrase them as single issues. Some of the items as posed are too complex. The different parts within some issues (as currently listed) would likely get different and maybe contradictory responses.
DeleteSou, I understand your suggestion and agree my poll was too hard to digest. Perhaps a rephrase of the poll would be to ask how fossil fuel curtailment fits within the context of the listed items:
Deletea) FF curtailment use should be done in a way that does not negatively impact the other issues on the list.
b) Curtailment should be implemented even if there is some price in exacerbation in the ability to manage other issues on the list.
c) Curtailment should be implemented regardless of the other issues on the list.
d) FF should not be curtailed but left to free market replacement by alternatives as they become feasible with reasonable market incentives.
Well, c) obviously, regardless of where one stands on a), b) and d). We've got to wean ourselves off fossil fuel if we want societies to thrive and survive.
DeleteOne difficulty with this second question is that it assumes either/or. The other, and probably more important difficulty with the way this latest question is worded is that it assumes that items on your original list are all problems that have to be addressed.
As I read it, the items you originally listed are a mix that includes some real societal problems, some what you perceive to be societal problems, some what you perceive to be causes, and some what you perceive to be solutions to what you regard as problems.
For surveys to have value, the questions must be clear, unambiguous, simple (one issue at a time) and not leading.
e.
DeleteAnd all the rest, AND SOME, follows.
The process has been exemplified in the Levant.
RG has discovered the Lomborgian fallacy. Yawn.
DeleteDoes anyone disagree that perceptions vary on which problems are underlying and which are symptomatic of a different underlying problem? Can we all agree that all the problems and unknowns need to be managed simultaneously? Do we all agree that while political debate is helpful and informative, that extremism and vilification diverts resources away from solving problems by creating new ones?
DeletecRR, what problem has been exemplified in the Levant?
Seems to me that lots of people want resources diverted away from solving problems. Look at blogs like WUWT and Judith Curry's. Look at "hate" sites like Breitbart. Look at how the American people elected vilifiers and extremists to government. Look at how vilifiers and extremists managed to get elected in Australia. Look at what you yourself posted (which I deleted - so only you and I know what you wrote).
DeleteBBD, I think Lomborg has some very reasonable thoughts. Which argument do you define as a fallacy?
DeleteA lot of unreasonable people have an occasional reasonable thought.
Deletehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#The_Lomborg_fallacy
Sou, Donald Trump was neither the first choice or the last choice of the American people. He tied for last with Hillary Clinton but applied his resources more wisely and won.
DeleteIt's true he wasn't the popular choice, however, he was the first choice of an alarming number of people. For him to get 10% of the vote would be of concern. For him to get more than 40% of the vote is alarming. For so many extremist Republicans to get elected is similarly alarming, not just for Americans but for the world as a whole.
DeleteThat alarm is justified when their first act this year is to get rid of the independent ethics watchdog.
Both Hillary and Trump became the nominees simply because they had strong cores, HRC of the establishment and Trump of the anti-establishment. The former had become perceived extreme and corrupt. Extreme anti-establishment is a response. CNN's Van Jones called it a "white lash" but whites also took to burning city streets in response to his election. Most Americans don't buy into white-black as the issue or even immigrant-native born. Its mostly law and order.
DeleteSo extreme protests to Trump are likely to exacerbate the "white lash" or the deniers or whomever is getting vilified, exactly opposite of the intended goal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"cRR, what problem has been exemplified in the Levant?"
DeleteImplosion of a society thru climate change induced drought combined with a climate revisionist govt.
Study it. Understand your own future.
"Implosion of society thru climate change induced drought."
DeleteAre you claiming that tensions in the middle-east are AGW related? That is interesting: climate change denial is the root of racism, tribalism and terrorism. What is the first paper I should look at studying this connection?
Ron, I don't understand some of what you wrote or what you're asking. However you'll find Google Scholar is quite useful if you're wanting to find scholarly articles on any subject. Eg here and here.
DeleteWhat these denier morons want is a reaction to their every utterance.
ReplyDeleteIt is pointless arguing with people who have the mental age of a two year old.
So much time has been wasted arguing with idiots.
I worked in science for over forty years and never met anyone who had not looked at all the alternatives to their pet theories in their field.
Morons should not and do not get the respect of practicing scientists.
Bert
"What these denier morons want is a reaction to their every utterance."
DeleteWould you have been offended if anyone responded besides Sou? Do you only want to hear your own POV echoed all the time? If so, that would be a shame as that tone supports censorship. This is a public blog even if privately administered.
"It is pointless arguing with people who have the mental age of a two year old."
This seems an inappropriate response in all circumstances, especially if I were mentally handicapped.
"So much time has been wasted arguing with idiots."
The only way any important progress in the world gets done is through cooperation, which requires argument and compromise. Educated people should realize that ego-centrism leads to distorted perceptions of ones reasoning and thus should be open minded to hearing other perspectives. If nothing else is accomplished in blogs hopefully this one thing should be realized.
"I worked in science for over forty years and never met anyone who had not looked at all the alternatives to their pet theories in their field."
First, this is a very unscientific anecdotal observation that defies believably. Second, there is no way for one to know that they would never learn anything new unless they made it their goal to do so.
"Morons should not and do not get the respect of practicing scientists."
Practicing science gives little moral high ground of who to respect and who not to. If you are talking about an expert in a field talking to a lay person regarding a subject in that field then the expert should be given a benefit, all other factors being equal. If the scientist has a conflict of interest of uses expertise in a related part of science to claim expertise in another for the purpose of claiming rightness by appealing to their own authority, that is about as unethical as it gets. Judith Curry brought up that topic just today.
BTW, Judith Curry is retiring from Georgia Tech.
For context, Ron, just so you don't feel that you are the only person who finds it tough commenting at HotWhopper.
DeleteMost people who comment here are used to having to deal with people whose purpose is to lie about climate, as well as people who are wilfully ignorant and have been determined to remain so for years. They are on the lookout for the sort of people who make up stuff about science and scientists, or who invoke misrepresentations of stolen emails as "proof" that scientists are corrupt (therefore climate science is a hoax), or who blame scientists rather than disinformers for any confusion in the public sphere. They are hypersensitive to the sort of people who want to play down the impact of what we are doing to our world, and do so despite all the evidence that humans are causing climate change faster than at any time in millions of years. They don't take too kindly to people who cite Judith Curry as some sort of authority, either.
The patience of HotWhopperites can be sorely tested by what can appear to be tone trolling or concern trolling.
BTW - some comments are censored here. Comments are monitored and can be deleted on my whim, or moved to the HotWhoppery. I'm considerably more lax than, say, WUWT or Jo Nova, and much more rigorously favouring science than some, though probably not as tough as others.
While this has wandered way off topic, if you want to discuss climate science feel free to start a discussion at HotWhopper Chat, which has similar guidelines to this blog.
BTW, Judith Curry is retiring from Georgia Tech..
Yeah, confirms a rumour going around a few weeks ago that she was retiring. I expect quite a few people at Georgia Tech will be relieved, if not celebrating.
"If the scientist has a conflict of interest of uses expertise in a related part of science to claim expertise in another for the purpose of claiming rightness by appealing to their own authority, that is about as unethical as it gets."
DeleteSo the guys the tobacco companies used to apply FUD tactics to medical research are all scumbags? That would apply to many of the scientists deniers rely on for 'scientific' credibility.
More tedious dogwhistling from RG, a denizen at JC's, a long-time regular at CA, at Lucia's etc.
DeleteA tone-trolling denier pretending not to be a denier for rhetorical advantage is more offensive that the direct denial style.
Off switch please.
Oh I like him. He's dismissed all the leading "contrarian" scientists as scumbags. Including, by association, JC herself.
DeleteI missed the comment about Curry on this thread and instead commented about it here. My thoughts echo Sou's though, and I link to a previous conversation where I explain why Curry probably parachuted out of a falling 'plane before it hit the ground.
Delete"A tone-trolling denier pretending not to be a denier for rhetorical advantage is more offensive that the direct denial style."
DeleteI suppose that if one encounters someone being respectful in tone to them even though they "know" the person disagrees with them on all matters this must mean that person could only be showing phony respect, which is disrespect, which deserves derogatory response or: "Off switch please" censorship. I guess BBD, I've been check-mated.
Thank you Sou for not following the several calls for censorship. This type of political mindset alarms deniers more than facing carbon tax, in case you were curious.
This type of political mindset alarms deniers more than facing carbon tax, in case you were curious.
DeleteNot curious. I'm very familiar with the double standards in the deniosphere. Have been for years.
http://www.hotwhopper.com/freespeech.php
Graf
DeleteYou are a tone-trolling denier. Please don't insult everybody's intelligence still further by pretending otherwise. You aren't anything like as clever and subtle as you imagine yourself to be.
The off switch is in your own hands - read the linked comment. Paranoid much?
"Most people who comment here are used to having to deal with people whose purpose is to lie about climate, as well as people who are wilfully ignorant and have been determined to remain so for years." -- Sou
ReplyDeleteIf you ever take a poll, count me in that group. The last vestiges of my patience with these rogues and fools wore through 4 or 5 years ago, and it's never coming back.
BBD: "Dealing with this twisty, dishonest, turgid crap doesn't get any more fun just because it's 2017."
DeleteBBD, I find your English phraseology charming. "Ron, do us all a favour and sling your hook." I get that there is no way for anyone to believe this but I am not trolling. Everyone can't help throwing things at me except for a reasonably sincere point. You are all trolling me I guess to beat me to the troll.
Magman: [quote of Sou]"Most people who comment here are used to having to deal with people whose purpose is to lie about climate, as well as people who are wilfully ignorant and have been determined to remain so for years." -- Sou
If you ever take a poll, count me in that group. The last vestiges of my patience with these rogues and fools wore through 4 or 5 years ago, and it's never coming back.
Sou, so you are saying that most people with my color skin are such and such so I should not be surprised to be treated the way people are behaving here? But I guess this is politically correct since in your minds I am a middle-aged white male. (But if I wasn't the consequences would be much worse for being a traitor to my group I suppose.)
Magma, BBD, you are saying you tried civility and now you don't need to anymore? You are too wise for that now? I suppose then the only thing to do is force your will upon the unwilling if you can't reason with them. Or, where am I mis-stepping?
Sou, so you are saying that most people with my color skin are such and such
DeleteRon, I don't know what you're referring to, or what you misread here. The only mention of skin colour, or white, or skin, or color, or colour, or male, or middle-aged is in your own comments. You won't be able to explain in this discussion thread, because I'm going to close it. Something I don't often have to do.