“I have a real problem with this statement:
‘Al Gore or not, to me, you either trust climate scientists (computer models and all) or you don’t.’
Not to put too fine a point on it, but doesn’t science occur BECAUSE OF skepticism? What’s this trust thing? When it comes to science, I trust proof better than people. Science, hard science, is supposed to be binary. And yes, I understand that some things are so complex or so theoretical and abstract, that getting a nice demonstrable 2+2=4 result is difficult. And you know what? That’s fine. That’s what academia is for.
But, when you start taking these theories based on science ‘that suggests’ this or that, regardless of whatever the poll results of scientists are, and trying to turn global economic policy over to a bunch of chin scratching transnationalists who think they know better than you or me what is best for us. THAT’S when I put a really high bar for these science to cross. A consensus does nothing for me. I want observable proof that doing X will solve Y problem.
None of the computer models to my knowledge predicted that plateauing of the temperatures the last decade and a half or the unusually harsh winters the last 3 years. There may be a rational reason for this in AGW theory. Fine. I’d like to hear it. Better yet, I’d like to see that this all knowing consensus predicted it.
Again, my problem with AGW is the political angle and THAT is why you have the back lash. You have non-intellectual simpletons asking pretty reasonable questions (I know, how dare they). How can you know that big ball of plasma in the sky is a non-factor? So, CO2 ‘poisons’ the atmostphere? Do plants agree with that? No one in their right mind would bet hard money on a 10 day weather forecast but we want to bet global prosperity on a 100 year forecast? We’ve had wide swings in CO2 that pre-dated SUVs. How exactly is this different? How can I trust weather measuring equipment that seems to have a high percentage of which placed in urban environments? So, science has advanced so much that a 100 year sample size of data of varying quality tells us all we need to know about climate history and how to predict the future? And this is not viewed as hubris? And finally, so the earth warming a few degrees is bad because…why again?
And yes, there is a consensus, but this ‘consensus’ basically agrees that we’re warming, man is partly responsible but there is a big gap in the ranges to what extent we are warming and how much we are causing it. The reason Al Gore is such a windbag is that he takes the worse case scenario from the outlier studies and uses that as fact. His movie had ‘facts’ that not even the ‘consensus’ backs up. More than a few politicians play that game.
Lastly, I work in software. Not only software, but forecasting software. I know a thing or two about the complexity involved in developing such software. And I know the complexity of it when all the variables are known. To say that this consensus knows all the variables in climate models with great certainty is a level of ‘trust’ that borders on faith. So, I am certainly a sceptic that a bunch of professors who learned Fortran as a hobby in 1985 can put together a computer model without the software discipline it takes to actually do such a thing. The FDA and the DOD have some very rigid rules around software development that can be sold to the government or in regulated industries (like say pharma). I know of no evidence that these computer models we are supposed to trust actually pass those tests. TheEast Angliaemails and code dump from the ClimateGate scandal merely reinforced my belief that some scientists are political hacks doing hack programming to build models meant to scare people into allowing centralized control of the economy.
You show me a computer model that nailed its predictions, complete with seasonal variations, across the globe over a 10-15 year period, and then I MIGHT ‘trust’ this consenus. Until then, I don’t want this ‘consensus’ within 10 light years of the political process.

So I responded as follows: I hear ya Demea – so let’s back up. Can we first agree that science absolutely works because of skepticism, among scientists? Not because you or I or Al Gore or Rick Perry, who are not scientists, are skeptical of their findings. The whole process of peer review is based on scientific skepticism (hey, here’s what I found, here’s how I did it, go poke holes in it fellow scientists, what? no holes, ok, so we might have something here, let’s go do more experiments, rinse and repeat)

I’m saying I trust the outcomes of this process and that it doesn’t have to have mathematical precision – if the weight of the evidence is so great, then it gets added to the human knowledge bucket.
To your second point. that’s not to say that there aren’t entire sections of the population who will continue to doubt scientific findings despite the weight of evidence; perhaps those findings are in conflict with a personal belief system, or perhaps, the policy reaction to those findings requires a multi-national response in order to create a mitigation strategy (which is another way of saying nations have to give up some sovereignty) which is a very tough pill to swallow without a doubt! I think that’s where you’re coming from on global warming. While the evidence is no longer debated among scientists, the practical question of “what to do about it” and who pays and how much, etc. is a much different set of issues. Maybe the answer is we don’t’ do anything at all thing about it? But the scientific community also predicts an increase in erratic and powerful weather events as global warming continues – so not doing anything will also have costs associated with it as well. I think answering these kinds of questions may prove more complicated than the science!
Finally, the science I’ve read indicate that the earth’s heat is not leveling off at all, but continues to accumulate. In fact, the most recent piece of “news” on the subject has more to do with a scientist changing his mind (i.e., Richard Muller’s Koch funded research validating what 97% of climate scientists already accept) – which means it’s a non story from a science perspective but only gets press because of who funded his research (but David Koch helps fund NOVA too – so I don’t get the rub on that one)

The second taker I had was Cleanthes, who attacks the paper itself by assuming the purpose of the study was to provide proof of causation: 

“Funny how causal factors are ignored by some who purport to apply the scientific method they so revere…people watch what they want because of what they believe, not believe what they do because of what they watch. Those of us who don’t fall for the ruse try not to subject ourselves to the lemmings who do.”

I’ll admit that I just let this one slide.  My friend is a master of the non sequitur but this particular statement seems to me to really define a certain level of close-mindedness with an interesting twist, calling those who do rely on evidence the “lemmings.”

In other words, the very idea of carrying notions of the world with you, and then only seeking out sources of information that affirm what you already believe to be true, rather than remaining open to new evidence and ways of thinking, seems to be the breeding ground of dogma.

My first taker was Demea, who pins the issue to Al Gore and bad science: He begins,

“This is largely due to the global powers that be making it a live or die political issue leading to power grab based on shoddy science. It’s called a back lash. Al Gore’s many distortions and mainstream media’s blind acceptance of his distortions played no small role. He’s the modern William Jennings Bryan.

The shoddy science I refer to is primarily the computer models and a lot politically motivated rubber stamping of some crappy work by the IPCC.

And this supposed conensus’s(sic) ignorance of statistics or cost benefit analysis.”

My response to Demea reiterated the findings in Feldman’s paper and challenged his notion that climate science is somehow bad science: I responded,

“Demea – I think this paper is illustrative of the power of one sided reporting and frankly it’s a bit astounding, given the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. Al Gore or not, to me, you either trust climate scientists (computer models and all) or you don’t.

Peer reviewed scientific evidence shows that global warming is occurring and that humans are the dominant forcing for that change. Climate scientists no longer debate this as an open issue in need of more experimentation or hypothesis testing  – the preciseness of it, the influence of it, the variability of it, of course – but there are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that I can find that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change.”

My goal was to defend the teaching of the fact of Islam.  It is no more equivalent to proselytizing the religion, than teaching children that Christianity and Judaism are the other two major Middle Eastern monotheistic religions. 

I would also like to clarify that like many in Christianity, Islam has its share of kind, fair, and moderate followers. I have friends and colleagues who are Muslim.  But moderation still exists on the scale of delusion, and the thinly held dirty secret is that there is no doubt, that at the core of the faith, there exists a concept of violent Jihad and a misogynist treatment of women which is quite obviously taken seriously by millions of its followers.

The parent’s original complaint I talked about in my piece was more about Islam getting a more thorough treatment than Christianity or Judaism, and that kids without “religious training”, whatever that might be, could be tempted to assume the rightness of Islam without question.  Clearly I depart from that reasoning. 

My problem with it is that really it should not be left to conservative parents, right-wing news networks like Fox News, extreme columnists and bloggers like Cal Thomas or Pamela Geller, or to crackpot preachers like Terry Jones, to call a spade a spade with regards to Islam. 

Their anti-Islam, inflammatory modus operandi is much more about fighting Islamic fiction with Christian or Jewish fiction and making the substitution, rather than promoting reason and human compassion over all fiction which would seem to be the most inclusive non-dogmatic and human friendly answer.

At the end of the day, I didn’t change their minds and of course, they didn’t change mind. For those neutrals out there, I’ve taken the liberty of cutting out the different types of arguments they made, categorizing them as neatly as I could in to the typical denier’s buckets, and lining up my arguments against theirs. Of course I’ll let you decide who carried the day. 

By way of background, here’s the original study that prompted my status update. Basically I stumbled upon a study called Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC published in The International Journal of Press/Politics.  The study results showed that one’s view of climate science had a statistically significant relationship with where one receives their news. Not surprisingly, Fox News viewers tend to be overwhelmingly dismissive of climate science.

Here’s my original facebook update: 

Interesting but not at all surprising academic study on the relationship between exposure to cable news channel content and acceptance of global warming as a scientific norm, as well as how political partisanship moderates these relationships.
http://climateshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FeldmanStudy.pdf

I’ll follow up this post with both their arguments and mine. Enjoy and stay tuned.

After years of trying, the pressures of an increasingly moderate Georgia and a strong pro business metro Atlanta, finally provided enough influence to push the issue over the goal line and forced the Georgia General Assembly to take another look at one of the last old  blue laws.

During one of the final days of the 2011 session, the Assembly deftly punted the issue of Sunday sales to the individual municipal jurisdictions under the guise of “supporting local control of local issues.”

From that point forward, it was left up to local jurisdictions (i.e., city and county governments) to vote via referendum on whether or not to allow local sales on Sundays.  To the surprise of virtually no one north of Intersate 20, of the 127 counties and cities who were able to coordinate a Sunday sales vote on their November 2011 ballots, 106 passed the referendum to allow sales seven days a week.

Of course, some of the more evangelical members of society are voicing their discontent in op-eds and letters to the editor. I read one such letter in the Marietta Daily Journal, written by former Georgia State House Representative, Roger Hines.  In it, Mr. Hines suggests that alcohol produces nothing but “sorrow, brokenness, death and teenagers who can’t wait, and usually don’t, for their first drink.”

I do not know if Mr. Hines’ view on the subject has been shaped by any personal tragedy associated with alcohol consumption; I sincerely hope it has not.  It is well documented that a reckless addiction to alcohol, drugs, gambling, cigarettes, etc. can leave a trail of destruction in the form of abuse, disease, poverty, and so on.

However, responsible people have and will drink responsibly seven days a week.  Irresponsible people have and will drink irresponsibly seven days a week. 

As one who enjoys beer and wine, I can say that my enjoyment of the stuff – if not two of the world’s oldest manmade beverages then certainly close to the top of the list – has not produced sorrow, brokenness, and death.  In addition, if one does not create a climate of temptation regarding alcohol, their teenaged children may very well not see alcohol as the means by which to feed their natural inclination to establish their own adulthood.

No, in fact it is smart consumption accompanied by honest and open conversation that would seem to me just the right tonic to assuage any fears that an extra day of sales might unnecessarily bring.

That said, I have little patience for stupid distractions.  The latest involves a series of blog posts and Fox News reports that range from the somewhat sensible, Christmas tree tax to promote the real thing, courtesy of the Chicago Tribune, to the absolutely ridiculous, Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax from The Heritage Network.  The latter of course quite stupidly implying that the President is taxing Christmas.

Here’s the reality:

The Christmas Tree “assessment” is essentially the same thing as all of the other USDA sponsored generic advertising campaigns financed by producers with the intent to increase demand. Promotional boards exist for big commodities such as beef, milk, cheese, pork, eggs etc but also for smaller specialty crop industries such as blueberries, mushrooms, peanuts, and watermelon, and now Christmas trees.

Now, is it possible that the assessment will be passed on to consumers? Sure. So let’s be on the look out for trees that cost $50.14 instead of $49.99.

Frankly I’m not sure how effective these generic ad campaigns are for specialty crops, but 70% of growers supported this assessment so they must see a pretty big upside.

A more reasonable debate would be around how any of the “incredible edible egg” adverts end up “needing” to be, I’ll be generous here, facilitated, by a federal agency. I’d much rather some particularly ambitious Christmas tree farmer create their own foundation for the promotion of said item, ask for donations from growers and so forth (proving via business case that for every dollar spent, expect x dollars in return sales, etc.) My main point here is that this is not, as Fox News would have us believe, an OMG Obama is taxing Christmas wharrgarbl!

There are plenty of real items to criticize our POTUS for and there is even real debate to be had within this very issue. But not the way the right wing press is trying to couch it for rating’s sake.

According to the AP:

“During the age of the dinosaurs, no mammal was bigger than a mouse, and they could do what they wanted, but under ground or at night — out of sight of the dinosaurs,” said [Sebastian Apesteguia, one of the study's author and] a researcher at Maimonides University in Buenos Aires.

“Such discoveries of remarkably complete Mesozoic fossils always represent giant steps” in mammalian paleontology, [the scientists] added in a commentary in Nature. “In fact, one reasonably preserved Mesozoic mammalian skull in a critical stratigraphic and geographic position can be more relevant to our understanding of mammalian evolution and biogeography than hundreds of isolated teeth — even if teeth are the most common (and sometimes the only) remains” paleontologists work with

I’m talking of course about Jon Huntsman, former Governor of Utah, former CEO at Huntsman Chemical, former US Ambassador to China and Singapore (among other posts for President’s as far back as Ronald Reagan).

I have some ideas. One, he’s not gimmicky. Cain’s 999 is a step in the right direction in that it addresses tax reform; but as we’ve seen it’s not grounded in practical economics and recent analyses suggest that Cain’s plan would raise taxes on 84% of Americans. Huntsman has had a major tax reform plan since day one modeled on what actually worked in Utah. He writes op-eds explaining his stances on complex issues such as financial reform and economic revitalization and in general tends to not speak in sound bites.

Two, he’s not incendiary. He’s said he wanted to win by taking the high road and will strive to keep to the issues of the day without demonizing his opponents (of either party); we’ll see if that’s possible in this media climate.

Three, he’s not controversial. His biggest press so far has been when he essentially tweeted that he supports the scientific method…and somehow that’s what became controversial!

Fourth, he scares the establishment. Romney has already received over $7M in contributions from finance, with Goldman Sachs topping his list, Perry has pulled in $1.9M so far from finance, while Huntsman has pulled in $400K. By the way, President Obama has pulled in $3.9M so far from this sector. That’s why Huntsman can criticize Dodd-Frank in the WSJ op-eds while Romney’s and Obama’s coziness suggests we should expect nothing but more recklessness should either of those two occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue come January 20, 2013 (or January 21st, since the 20th is a Sunday).

So sadly, if we flip the reasons why Huntsman isn’t gaining traction in the primary – yet – we see that the early route to get noticed is to be gimmicky, speak in sound bites, play attack politics, espouse fringe ideas, all the while promising the status quo to those financing your campaign.  Let us hope as real elections begin taking place, that cooler (and smarter) heads will prevail.

Once you’re ready, after the second helping of pumpkin pie is consumed and folks are vegging in front of some football game, drop a little feeler.  It shouldn’t be too hard with the GOP primary in full swing; perhaps you could mention that the only “sane” candidate is Jon Huntsman (for many of my climate denying friends, that alone will be enough to get the debate going); or you could launch right in to a critique of the willful scientific ignorance of one of several candidates (Perry, Bachmann, or Cain will be fine).  Lastly, you could just get straight to the point with a conversation about the extremeness of recent weather, the increasing warmth of the Earth’s surface (a particularly interesting  – if not scientifically validated – resource to use since it was funded by the Koch brothers), the melting of ice, etc.

But don’t wade lightly in to the debate.  Of course arm yourself with the appropriate, scientifically backed responses well in advance.

So here I’ll point you to some excellent resources:

“Arguing with Your Crazy Uncle About Climate Change” by David Brin.

“Simple rebuttals to denier talking points — with links to the full climate science” by Joe Romm

And of course, you can familiarize yourself with as much detail as you can stand at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and have a look at the <arguments> link.

Now enjoy the roast this Thanksgiving!