Green World Trust

[Lucy Skywalker]

I haven't posted much over the last few days. Partly this is because I've been working on local tidal energy solutions here and here. I'm excited about this because it promises to be a serious topic locally, and I'm delighted that my "amateur" vision and logic capacity can, with a bit of persistence, handle it I think as well as anyone!

But partly I've been fretting about how to handle Eric. I've got to put Eric in the third person because his replies, alone, would be no use to me. I think about the challenge in the bath, here at my PC, and when I go out, taking pleasure in the pussy willows that have burst forth and the daffodils that are suddenly starting to pop up... and when I would rather read the fascinating real science that's coming up at WUWT and the nail-biting saga of CA going down... yet still do something useful to getting Climate Science back on track again.

In reminding me of the AGW stance, and occasionally in details, Eric, like his predecessor here, JP, has helped me improve my wording, and reminds me of crucial issues. But I'm finding Eric harder to cope with, not least because Eric adheres to a lot of the rules, writes well-referenced posts though they are far too long, and makes some original observations. But Eric is stuck in a POV where all the main climate skeptics like Singer, Seitz, Lindzen, Monckton, Solomon, Courtney, and now no doubt Theon and meteorologist Gray, are no use, since Tamino, Wikipedia, or other warmists have explained why; where it's "easy" to find material to back them up like quoting Solomon's own web page against him, to show he's not really green. Heck, I can answer almost every one of Eric's arguments. I've got a whole long page I did, and could post. But it's a complete time-waster because he's already made up his mind. And it misses the principles behind the specifics. Because Eric's closed-minded, he doesn't even see when others have relevant points. He only sees their imperfections calibrated by his own scale of science. Yet the rest of us know we converse perfectly well with other scientists who are not closed-minded.

I'm trying to hold up human values here, because they are essential. I'm working with the science because I know it's been derailed, because I know I can only restore integrity by practising integrity myself, and because, in order to restore the derailed science, I must speak with the expertise of a scientist, or at least with sufficient appreciation of true scientific expertise. Training can help, and can certainly refine; but the essentials of Science have to do with core attitudes that most training today does not foster. Core attitudes of going back to basics all the time; of not taking others' word for a thesis even if the whole scientific establishment believe it; one must be able to prove it for oneself. Eric reminds me a bit of a kid playing around adults, though he probably sees himself as the adults and us as the kids. Last year I went through detox from AGW where I lost the comfort of support from "Authority" and had to develop my own crude, rule-of-thumb tests, my own primitive instruments, my own simplistic-looking theses, my own naive-or-arrogant-looking standards, depending on one's POV.... and gradually check them with others who have found themselves in the same boat as myself... and thereby improve them, refine them...

One of the standards we "amateurs" know is of utmost importance is COURTESY. Yet still we fall short, and the worst is when we are picked up on our occasional lapses as proof that we are the ones who practice ad hominem.

I know that the AGW have a wretched mine of information of bad things about us, most of which I suspect are untrue. Connolley's section of Wikipedia is impossible to correct in the places that are supposedly bias-free. 15 minutes then it's reverted. We know this, having discovered it, fallen foul of it, and checked with others about it. But people like Eric keep on turning up, who do not know, perhaps do not want to know, and do not believe us. But heck, it's too much effort to try to go through that laborious process all over again, whereby I first became suspicious of Wikipedia, then confirmed my personal suspicions, then found one... and another... and another... who have had parallel or worse problems. I haven't got the patience to search out all that research, and document all my memories that I know are perfectly sound.

But this does bring up an issue. I'd really like to see an anti-Wiki resource where all Wikipedia's distortions about climate skeptics are corrected. I'd like to see the Wiki piece tabulated alongside the correct version, for Lindzen, Singer, Monckton, etc. I'd like this to be a resource that we all know about. It's in the direction of my original Climate Science wiki vision. But would it help, just to have decent biographies all together, to refute the consensus lies? Enough facts and answers to typical AGW FAQ's (like Eric's remark that most environmental groups would not applaud Solomon's statements on tar sands) to prove Solomon IS green albeit in his own way, but is NOT a fossil fuel shill... that Anthony Watts DOES do vital, important, good science and has a heart of gold, and that all FAQ's doubting this can be answered... that Steve McIntyre's refutation of the Hockey Stick stats was validated by both Wegman and North, and that this issue still is really important because the MSM conveyed the notion that Wegman and North had NOT invalidated the HS stats...

What do I say when Eric says Gray has lost his marbles and is jealous of Hansen? You and I know this is twaddle, junkie twaddle, evasive action, fingers in the ears job. Do I ban Eric from posting anywhere except a special "AGW Addicts' Detox and Rehab" thread we set up? Yet Eric is a human being like me, he sounds like a competent electrical engineer and I'd like, as a near-beginner, to ask him some technical questions in this area!

All help welcome!

[Eric]

[Mike Davis]

Lucy:
Eric you can read this also:
Having spent 37 years as a technical analyst dealing with mechanical through digital communications equiptment. A good deal of that time was spent testing real life situations and working with engineers and scientists to find real world solutioms. I was trained to be an analyst and spent time in schools each year keeping up with technology. I also worked with our training group to develope training methods and manuals for employees.
I am retired but watch the climate issue as a hobby more or less. While I was working this issue would not even have been a part of casual conversation. I remember seeing one of the super computers used for climate studies.
Geology, earth sciences, and such have all been interesting to me over the years and my sister gave me State of Fear when it first came out.
When I read it I could not believe that people could be so gulible to taken in by propaganda. Now I had experienced run ins with PETA and knew people in enviormental groups. They usually stopped discussing thier views when I pointed out how they missunderstood what it was they were talking about.
So many of these people want to tell you how to live! They want to tell you how to think.
I only ask that they show me how by example. When Eric can show proof that any group he belongs to has reduced the carbon foot print of all members of that group I will show that mine is smaller.
When Al Gore uses less energy than I do each year then I will concider listening to him. Buying carbon credits is not reducing energy usage. I currently use less energy than he uses for his boat.
So if the world leaders want the world to reduce the carbon foot print they should start and show us how.
Eric reminds me of co-workers from the past. Even upper level managers who felt that thier degrees were worth more than my experience. I outlasted them all or at least most but tired of the BS expected and retired.
Eric thinks that it is his pupose in life to harass any who deny his masters views. He will twist the truth to fit his needs. he uses some truth mixed with opinions of others. That is what has moved the AGW movement along as far as it has come.
Actually CA is a supportive site of AGW. The pielkes are supporters of AGW. These people would like to see science done properly and proof that AGW exists.
Even if there is evidence that there are problems with surface data and sea surface temperature data they seem to think it could have some meaning. This is the same with Anthony Watts. He is actually trying to find ways for NOAA to correct the historic data.
I have always had to know how an event occured. It was necessary to understand human machine interface.
With climate issues I looked at the history. I saw the cycles. I saw evidence that the cycles are still occureing. I think the clincher was seeing that CO2 follows temperature and They are not necesseraly connected. There have been times when CO2 was higher and temperature was lower and times when Temperature was higher with CO2 a little lower. There seems to be a very large misunderstanding of the carbon cycle being promoted.
Maybe I see things a little differently than some others. I agree with a lot of the geologists views.
Eric is a follower and thinks that his view is supported by the concensus. It only strengthens his view when challenged as he is right. Well history is full of people who thought they were right. History is full of concensus.
History is also full of the results when the truth was unvieled. The back lash probably will not be. Well we are supposed to be a kinder society now. Time will tell and we are seeing trickles pf people wakeing up such as you Lucy.

[ian]

Hey Lucy…

I suppose this is an inherent difficulty in running a forum. We all want to be right. I suspect you really don’t want to ban anyone (unless they are being particularly vicious) and I support this. Personally, as previously indicated, I generally only post one reply to contentious issues raised by those convinced of the CO2 hypothesis because it often ends up in a duel where one party attempts to convince the other of the validity of their source materials. As the ripostes get longer and longer they often also get more heated, and climate change is definitely a topic that requires cool heads.

Like you I had to go through AGW withdrawal, and still am to some degree. Much of my former life revolved around getting this crucial message out to the masses and crusading against those neo-liberal, conservative denialist SOB’s. It took a very painful episode and some serendipitous moments to reach that ‘ah ha’ moment. If I look back two years or so, I would have literally dismissed your site as a greenwash sham because I was absolutely convinced of the validity of my worldview and the righteousness of my cause. It required a shattering event for me to recalibrate my filters, and it has been, mostly, a wonderful and liberating experience since.

I still believe there are plenty of neo-liberal, conservative denialist SOB’s, who do so simply because it serves their agendas but I am learning that there are plenty of environmental advocates and organisations that do the same (they’re just convinced of the righteousness of their cause). Then there are people, such as yourself, who, for the most part (everyone has some level of agenda) are prepared to question the consensus and act on their convictions yet are still prepared to listen to other viewpoints. It takes an eternal vigilance not to succumb to ‘groupthink’ and a lot of people seemingly can't be bothered or are far to afraid to take the step.

Re ‘groupthink' I copied the following interesting piece from Ole Humlum’s ‘Climate 4 You’ site:

Irving Janis (1977) devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (cited from Wikepedia):

•Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
•Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
•Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
•Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
•Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of "disloyalty".
•Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
•Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
•Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

Of course, we can all fall into groupthink whether alarmist or skeptic. I believe an old Daoist saying warns us that nothing is more dangerous than certainty.

Best wishes always
Ian

[ian]

Oh...and I think it would be great if new posters first went to the Hello! link and introduced themselves (but of course that is up to you).

[Mike Davis]

Ian:
I think I said hello a while back.

[ian]

Too true Mike, I remember reading it a while ago
cheers, ian

[Eric]

[Mike Davis]

Eric:
When people rely more on computer output than on personal experience. Personal experience becomes worthless and the companies start to fold. Of course the evidence is available so I need not provide any examples.
"One thing I strongly object to is the theory that scientists are coming to conclusions based on money or politics. There is no justification in the history of climate science to confirm that hypothesis. "
Take the blinders off the recent history of science provides all the evidence required to prove my claims.

[Mike Davis]

Lucy:
I borrowed this from a person who asked me to use it. I think this is appropriate:
“Those who resist, fear, avoid or ignore questions of their science are no longer scientists, they are activists, politicians or religious demagogues who want their science to be accepted on belief and faith just because they say it’s so - they are the worst kind of high tech priest especially if their science turns out to be correct or partially correct. This is a sign to question their science even more intensely! People committed to science and science education embrace questions as questions from others are a tool and opportunity for sharpening and improving their science and a way of teaching it to the ignorant masses which at first even includes other experts in their field! Question Authority! The worst that can happen is that some or all of their science is falsified which simply makes them better scientists. Either way the scientists learn something or the ignorant have an opportunity to move from ignorance to knowledge and eliminate the enemy of knowledge and us all, belief and faith. Question Authority! Question Science, Scientists and Science Educators!” - pwl

[Eric]

[PAWB]

Lucy:

Not sure where to post this. Go to http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=864d3319-802a-23ad-46a0-15d3b819178d.

Look at the testimony of Pachauri and Field (appeal to authority and patently false statements "The objective and transparent manner in which the IPCC functions, mobilizing the best talent available across the world, should convey conviction on the strength of its findings to all rational persons, and provide the knowledge base for early action to meet this challenge.") and compare to the sense of Happer.

It's well worth the time spent reading and having a good laugh.
_________________
Phillip in Devon, England

[Eric]

[Mike Davis]

Eric:
"You may not agree with Pachuri, but you haven't supplied any reason for laughter in my opinion. Actually the basis for Pachuri's statement was supplied by the second person who testified on that day Chris Field. "

Actually you provided the reason.

The claim that IPCC AR4 provides ????

[Eric]